[BC] Religious radio & Tech quality

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/28/2005 10:22:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
scott at lagrange-com.com writes:

> An excellent positive example of an evangelist is Billy Graham.  A&E
>  recently aired a Biography about him and it was very informative.  I swear,
>  watching his crusades on TV when I was younger, I thought I was looking 
into
>  the face of God!

Thank you, Scott, for using this example. Mr Graham has, for all of these 
years, been a fine example of what a *Genuine*, Bible-Believing Christian is 
like, and how we are to live. He has, indeed, been a good example in more ways 
than one. If only *all* Christian Broadcasters (myself included) could have and 
continue to measure-up to that level of quality, excellence, and dedication to 
the Truth of the Message.

>  >>There is no excuse, with the resources and talent that are available, to
>  offer programming that is anything other than excellent.
>  
>  One thing that has helped is the cost of the technology to produce 
programs.
>  I remember receiving programming sent to the radio station on cheap 
cassette
>  tapes that was recorded on cheap cassette recorders.  These people were
>  operating on a very limited budget.

Oh, I've been through those trenches, too. <g> Gradually, we have been 
weaning our programmers away from cassettes and toward CD or Internet delivery. 
Suffice it to say...

This ain't your Gramma's Religious Radio no mo'

Years ago, we had a few of those "turn up the mic to 11, and bellow at the 
top of your lungs" screamers on the air. We got rid of them all, long ago... and 
listenership improved. We maintain very high standards for technical quality 
and also for content.

>  connection.  For $400, I can set up an RE-20 feeding a mid-level computer
>  that has shareware audio editing software loaded on it.  And the acoustics
>  in his office will allow it to be done in there without setting aside an
>  extra room in the church building.  He can record a week's worth of

There you go. How can you possibly beat that?

>  programming at a time, then email the recorded WAV file to the radio
>  station.  The programmers insert the WAV file into their automation.  It

WAV files are absolutely *huge*. If you save to MP3 in 128K mono, the audio 
quality will be very good. The key is to use mono, not stereo, so that all 128K 
bits/sec are dedicated to that one channel. If it must be stereo, you don't 
want to go less than 160Kbps. That is the best compromise between file size & 
audio quality.

>  will sound like he's doing it live at the radio station with no tape hiss 
or
>  dropouts.  That is where you are seeing the quality improve.

Yes, exactly. 90% of our programming comes to us through digital satellite. 
The rest is either retrieved (by us) from the organizations' WEB or FTP sites, 
e-mailed to us as an attachment, or delivered on CD. Only 4 locals remain on 
good-to-decent quality cassettes, and one is almost ready to go all-digital. 
The others should be soon-to-follow.

Willie...