Radio archive for August?
Radio archive for August?
Is it going to be posted?
-Brody
-Brody
Re: Radio archive for August?
Brody,
Until they are, I do my own recordings every afternoon that are available ~15 minutes after the show:
http://theos.org/media/category/134/
Jarrod
Until they are, I do my own recordings every afternoon that are available ~15 minutes after the show:
http://theos.org/media/category/134/
Jarrod
Re: Radio archive for August?
Jarrod.....I LOVE YOU MAN!
Thanks!
Thanks!
- backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: Radio archive for August?
Jarrod,jarrod wrote:http://theos.org/media/category/134/
Any chance you'd consider going back to 16kbps? 128kbps makes 56MB files, which are big enough to be inconvenient even for many on broadband, and way beyond impossible on dialup. There's no need, or even advantage, for 128kbps for speech -- all it does is make the files big enough to be difficult or impossible for some to download. I don't know if Steve pays for bandwidth use, but if so, of course it also increases his hosting costs.
Re: Radio archive for August?
Good suggestion. I decreased it to 48k and I will try to work my way down. When I was using the 16k bitrate sometimes I couldn't even hear steve speaking when I was driving down the highway with my phone and radio volume cranked to 100%. When I first went to 128k I could hear *everything* so I just left it that way since I don't care about the space / bandwidth, but I didn't think about the file sizes being too large for others. I tried yesterday @ 48k and it cut the file size in half and I could still hear it well on my drive home so I'll try to take it down another notch.
backwoodsman wrote:Jarrod,jarrod wrote:http://theos.org/media/category/134/
Any chance you'd consider going back to 16kbps? 128kbps makes 56MB files, which are big enough to be inconvenient even for many on broadband, and way beyond impossible on dialup. There's no need, or even advantage, for 128kbps for speech -- all it does is make the files big enough to be difficult or impossible for some to download. I don't know if Steve pays for bandwidth use, but if so, of course it also increases his hosting costs.
- backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: Radio archive for August?
Thanks.
Bitrate and volume are not related, so the low volume wasn't because of the 16k bitrate. Check the volume setting in whatever software you're using to record.
Bitrate and volume are not related, so the low volume wasn't because of the 16k bitrate. Check the volume setting in whatever software you're using to record.
Re: Radio archive for August?
I am using ffmpeg, but I'll try 16k again and listen to it on the way home. Thanks!
backwoodsman wrote:Thanks.
Bitrate and volume are not related, so the low volume wasn't because of the 16k bitrate. Check the volume setting in whatever software you're using to record.
Re: Radio archive for August?
backwoodsmen, I just remembered this post.jarrod wrote:I am using ffmpeg, but I'll try 16k again and listen to it on the way home. Thanks!
The lower bitrate has 0 effect on the volume (it sounds great) and the smaller file sizes are a bit easier for streaming
Thanks for your help, Jarrod