[BC] HD Radio Article

[Robert Orban]

At 12:16 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
>Subject: RE: [BC] HD Radio Article
>To: "'Broadcasters' Mailing List'" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <000901c63b10$c20634e0$45f46044 at demozone>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
>The reality is simple...bandwidth costs.  We are currently streaming both of
>our FM's at 64 kbps Windows Media.  We feel this is the best balance of
>sound quality / compatibility with listener's players / cost.
>
>My pick for sound quality at lower streaming rates would be AAC.  A 32 kbps
>AAC stream sounds better than a 64 kbps WMA stream in my opinion.  A 64 kbps
>or higher AAC stream is truly amazing.  But any listener with a core Windows
>system (even XP) cannot listen to this stream.  They have to download and
>install one of the latest players like Winamp.
>
>As long as we stick to WMA or Real, the quality is going to be mediocre.

Real Player 10 (or higher) will play aacPlusV2 streams. There really is 
little reason not to use aacPlusV2 for streaming, given that both Real and 
Winamp will play it. and that there is a substantial cost savings to the 
broadcaster because, compared to WMA, one can get better quality at lower 
bit rates  (32 kbps aacPlusV2 is good enough for a majority of the consumer 
space; 48 kbps will satisfy anyone but hard core audiophiles.)

Both players are both free downloads.

Bob Orban