Stu Peters Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 The audio stream quality (like most things at the station) is a decision taken well above my head, so I don't know what the logic is - maybe it's that there are still LOTS of people who rely on dial-up? Freggy - I'M not representing your country, although I'd consider it an honour to do so if anyone ever asked. Pongo - most of our specialist and speech-based programmes are available in the 'Listen Again' section of the MR website. And if the ONLY benefit of getting a certificate from New York is that the people who make programmes like this feel valued, and it brings a smile to the Manx people who own the radio station, it's been worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Web quality isn't good anywhere, you must be deaf GD4ELI The audio stream quality (like most things at the station) is a decision taken well above my head, so I don't know what the logic is - maybe it's that there are still LOTS of people who rely on dial-up? Yeah, that's no problem, you keep the same stream and add a 192kbps one for those of us not using two bean cans and a piece of string. I really dont get why this isn't done, it's an easy way to digitial, and potentially more listners for very little cost. It's not like a few years ago when bandwidth cost a bomb, and I'm sure you could pair up with a provider like C&W and MT for some cross promotion? So annoying to be listening to radio all over the world via the interweb, but not my local. most of our specialist and speech-based programmes are available in the 'Listen Again' section of the MR website. All in ear-destroying 20kbps mono! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 The audio stream quality (like most things at the station) is a decision taken well above my head, so I don't know what the logic is - maybe it's that there are still LOTS of people who rely on dial-up? I guess it's a financial decision based on the bandwidth cost. It would be interesting to know how many listen via the internet outside of TT week - based on Dan's 'Spot The Intro' competition there's quite a few of us - maybe you could ask someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Pongo - most of our specialist and speech-based programmes are available in the 'Listen Again' section of the MR website. No simple way to download them is there (for the car, bus, train etc) ? I would add Countryside, Shaight Laa, Perspective and History Mann to my subscriptions? If you rolled them all together as a single download and added an RSS feed then you could be on iTunes. No? Cost to the taxpayer = zero. I'm sure somebody would provide the bandwidth in return for sponsorship. It's odd that it hasn't been done already. It's an under exploitation of monetizable content. EDIT: also - it is not really about how many people already listen on the internet - it's also about building an audience which does not necessarily even exist yet. There are millions of people in the world with links to the IOM - some of them would end up listening if the content was interesting and well done. Thats a niche worth discovering. And following through on this - there is a good argument for making a programme from the IOM which is specifically aimed at the outside world via the internet (using already existing content). I think that part of the problem is that analogue radio people often mistakenly see internet distribution as some side issue and still basically still think in terms of pre programmed channels and streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I must admit that the current audio stream sounds quite reasonable to me too, on the occasion that I want to listen back to something at home (usually to hear how ghastly my ghastly errors actually are). Like I said earlier (and apart from uploading news content) the web is no[urlthing to do with me, but I know it's taken very seriously by the management team. Pongo and Droid seem to make good points - so why not email the MD (anthonypugh@manxradio.com) with any suggestions, as I'm sure some unsolicited listener feedback would be most welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I must admit that the current audio stream sounds quite reasonable to me too, on the occasion that I want to listen back to something at home (usually to hear how ghastly my ghastly errors actually are). You can't hear that metallic echoing sound thats an artifact of really low bitrates? I'm amazed, especially given what you do! Just seems bizzare when there's fuss about DAB and whatnot that you're ignoring internet. There's loads of broadband around now, and people are increasingly buying internet radio's, they're cheap and work really well, but to switch from something like a 128k stereo BBC or XFM Manchester to a 28k mono stream from MR really grates. It's barely ok for audio, it's useless for music. Even the wife, who doesn't know the details will only tune our net radio to MR for the weather, then immediately turn it off when the weathers done because it sounds so bad. Like I said earlier (and apart from uploading news content) the web is no[urlthing to do with me, but I know it's taken very seriously by the management team. Pongo and Droid seem to make good points - so why not email the MD (anthonypugh@manxradio.com) with any suggestions, as I'm sure some unsolicited listener feedback would be most welcome. I've mailed him before, here's what I got: "I've passed your comments on to our engineers and, as with all these things, if the increased cost is not too prohibitive we could increase our streaming rate." Sounds like the online is really taken seriously... The stations web policy is misguided, in my mind, all the local stations are and I think there's a real danger of missing the boat online. MR+ is a waste of space, where's the podcasts for example? A piss easy thing to set up (it's listen again combined with RSS). What about using flash based media players like everyone else is these days? But most importantly, sort the audio quality, it's bloody dire! Pogo's right too. Everyones walking round with Ipods, add rss/xml to those listen agains and up the quality a bit and MR could be on those. Not interested? You're missing out on a generation of listeners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I must admit that the current audio stream sounds quite reasonable to me too, on the occasion that I want to listen back to something at home (usually to hear how ghastly my ghastly errors actually are). Like I said earlier (and apart from uploading news content) the web is no[urlthing to do with me, but I know it's taken very seriously by the management team. Pongo and Droid seem to make good points - so why not email the MD (anthonypugh@manxradio.com) with any suggestions, as I'm sure some unsolicited listener feedback would be most welcome. Or you could pass on the suggestion ... If I worked at MR I'd be in on my own time enthusiastically making this kind of stuff happen - and then making sure it worked. And I'd work on getting sponsorship for the bandwidth and building an audience for it too. I would start small. I would concentrate on putting out one programme every week - getting the production workflow up and running etc. Once you switch to time shifted listening you quickly realize how much sense it makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So let me just check this compulsive suggestion pongo - I go to work in my own time, flaunt my complete lack of interweb technical or creative skills and piss off the people charged with the www, then go off like a loose cannon in a munitions factory and piss the sales, programming and business teams off by treading on their toes too. Sheesh, doing it your way I'll be skint and have no friends...actually, hang on...I AM skint and have no friends! Droid - yes I can hear the compression artefacts, but assume that's a reasonable compromise for the economical bandwidth. If people think it's killing the job, I'll suggest we reconsider it. Chances are we'll get howls of complaint from people on dial-up. And yes, after years of listening to Pink Floyd and Queen with the volume at 11, my hearing is hardly 20-20 thse days! If any of you experts would consider putting down in a PM to me how we should RSS our XML, cast our pods and aggregate the dilithium crystals to make this mother sing and dance, I'll gladly pass it on to the boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So let me just check this compulsive suggestion pongo - I go to work in my own time, flaunt my complete lack of interweb technical or creative skills and piss off the people charged with the www, then go off like a loose cannon in a munitions factory and piss the sales, programming and business teams off by treading on their toes too. Or maybe you just find out how to do it ... and you do it. If you're into what you do, you'll already be compulsive about this sort of thing - in a more or less all or nothing kind of way. You won't be able to stop yourself wanting to make it great. If any of you experts would consider putting down in a PM to me how we should RSS our XML, cast our pods and aggregate the dilithium crystals to make this mother sing and dance, I'll gladly pass it on to the boss. Ahem - on your website it says that we do web design. Making a Podcast rss podcast how EDIT: you'll already know most of what you need to know - recording, compression etc. If it was me at Manx Radio - I'd start by putting together an mp3 best of the week type programme. And I'd start approaching some telecoms companies to see if they potentially wanted to sponsor the bandwidth. Typically these sort of programmes begin with a pre roll announcement something like: "Bandwidth for INSERT PROGRAMME NAME is sponsored by INSERT COMPANY NAME - INSERT BRIEF PLUG FOR COMPANY". And then at several points through the programme without making it intrusive. The rest of the show would be stripped of advertising unless companies specifically sign up to support the podcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Manx Radio offend me on a regular basis - updates on the English rugby, football and cricket teams delivered in genuine or mock English accents as important breaking news for our nation's station is irritating - particularly as it is billed as 'international sports news'. The technical failings re podcasts is truly pathetic, and the junket trip to New York deserves ridicule. Despite all this I have to tip my hat to Stu for attempting a defence - that in itself shows he cares about more than his pay packet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Droid - yes I can hear the compression artefacts, but assume that's a reasonable compromise for the economical bandwidth. If people think it's killing the job, I'll suggest we reconsider it. Chances are we'll get howls of complaint from people on dial-up. It's a compromise you don't get with thousands of other radio feeds, most of them non commercial. It could be a storage space issue on the sampling, given listen again is the same dire bitrate? As for complaints on dial up people, are there any? Things like podcasts aren't live streaming, so the bandwidth becomes less important too, it doesn't have download in real time. And as was said, you don't need to replace the existing stream, just add a higher bitrate option. If any of you experts would consider putting down in a PM to me how we should RSS our XML, cast our pods and aggregate the dilithium crystals to make this mother sing and dance, I'll gladly pass it on to the boss. The MR site already has RSS for news stories, podcasts are pretty similar, there's really nothing to it. Really needs those clips to be a higher bitrate though. Oh, and if i can add a positive slant, the other local stations dont have higher quality streaming either, and I couldn't give a damn because I don't want to listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Thanks guys - I'll pass this stuff on (although I expect our people will roll their eyes and tell me why it's all a bad idea and I should keep my 'kin nose out!). Pongo - I'm not the web guy - I have no professional interest or input into it, although I'll admit that as a freelancer in the 90's I did create some simple sites for myself and others when a basic grounding in HTML and a copy of Frontpage was enough to impress the client. Once it went to CSS and Flash I'd long since realised my limitations. And MR isn't my personal plaything, so I couldn't just roll my sleeves up and dive in even if I wanted to. Freggyragh - I don't really understand your complaint. As (I assume) a proud Manxman you'd be the first to complain about UK sports news being covered within the (twice as long) local feature. But it's daft (with so many sports fans who want to know what's happening to their favourite teams outside the Island) not to reflect that - same with the couple of short international news bits I run in Mandate...we'd be doing people a disservice by excluding them. And I don't believe we DO say that cricket or rugby scores are 'important breaking news'. Or that I'll be going to New York on expenses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Thanks guys - I'll pass this stuff on (although I expect our people will roll their eyes and tell me why it's all a bad idea and I should keep my 'kin nose out!). Seems like they would be missing a fantastic opportunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 And yes, after years of listening to Pink Floyd and Queen with the volume at 11, my hearing is hardly 20-20 thse days! If you actually choose to listen to Pink Floyd and Queen, I'd suggest there was something wrong with your hearing to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Ahh Declan - how I've missed you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.