Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Radio Listening Declining w/ Digital On Its Way Up

Posted by Zonk on from the mp3s-on-the-radio dept.

Redlands CRC writes "According to C|Net and The NPD Group, the number of listeners to radio media has declined by 4% against the previous year, and the number of people listening to music on their computer has risen 22%. The study has also shown that online radio station listeners have increased to 53.5 million this March, up from 45.3 million a year ago. Music streaming also saw an greater uptake in listeners this year, with an increase of 37% compared to the previous year."

5 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Link streaming stations to buying in iTunes... by weave · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't buy too much new music basically because of limited options I have in playing it. I listen to streaming stations more often (like this article says) but have to sit there and manually type in the songs into itunes to find them to buy them.

    I don't understand why RIAA wants streaming stations to pay them for what amounts to advertising for their members. Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not.

    What I'd like to see is an itunes enhancement that either apple or other stations streams music and while a song is playing, there's a "buy" button so I can just download it if I like it. That would drive my purchases up through the roof. I get to hear if I like a song (more than 30 seconds worth) and the impulse factor is right there. (I've sent that suggestion in already). The streaming stations could get revenue that way too. A referal fee for following a link from a station to buy should help offset the stupid ASCAP/BMI fees to online stations.

    The few times I listen to traditional radio, it annoys the piss out of me to hear something good and then not have the artist or song announced after it and have no clue how to find out to buy it. Screw em, let them all play conservative talk radio hosts 24 hours a day.

    1. Re:Link streaming stations to buying in iTunes... by muszek · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not.
      Actually yes, they do. At least in Poland. We have one big organization (ZAiKS) representing authors and music companies (I'm sorry, I forgot a proper English term... those companies that finance recordings and then market and sell CDs) plus several smaller ones that represent authors that don't like ZAiKS' monopoly. Radio stations pay. TV stations pay. Restaurants, pubs, etc. pay for having a tv, radio, cd player or anything else that's capable of playing music. Separately for each piece (which is kinda stupid - you can't play regular radio and music from CD at the same time, right?). My father owns several jukeboxes that are placed in pubs here. He has to pay them, too. But the funniest part is here: I have few friend who organize a lot of concerts. Very niche bands - not many people, inexpensive tickets and usually very cool music. Every time they do something, ZAiKS agent shows up demanding money. Artists get money for tickets and they have to pay ZAiKS to get some of it back (such monsters eat a lot). As you can see, at least here you have to pay for playing any kind of music, whatever media you use. In such case, I don't see a reason why it should be different for i-stations.
  2. Here in Canada... by N1KO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Something like 40% of the content played by radios has to be Canadian. So the music played is filtered once through the top 10/40/100 lists and a second time by the Canadian governments regulations.

    Since many car stereos play mp3s now, people can carry more variety in a cd than what is available through the radio. Hopefully in a couple of years high speed connections will be common in cars.

  3. Re:I listen to online streams sometimes but... by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, its not really like astrology, but here is my explanation. As long winded and postereor drawn as it sounds, it's true.

    When I was a little tyke, I had massive clustiotoma and mastoiditis in one ear. Destroyed all the bones, eardrum, and my mastoid. (almost cochlea) After all is said and done, I have an implant that serves as a transfer medium between my new eardrum (made from a vein I think) and my cochlea.

    Damaged ear, 37 decibel loss. good ear, 4 decibel loss (loud music and looong flights). But it seems the good ear has a slightly higher frequency range (not much, but enough that I can hear something high pitched and quiet while everyone else gives me wierd looks). A side effect of that implant is it seems to amplify the vibrations of other sounds above normal range. I don't hear it in that ear, it's more of a feeling - but I percieve it almost like hearing. Hard to explain. All this crap happened before I was 5, so my brain was still capable of some rewiring I guess (really no clue. any insights?)

    My ear just seems to be trained to pick out quality flaws in sound. Even if I have never heard the song before I can tell if the recording was damaged slightly, or compressed a little too low quality, ect. It's annoying. Half the audio players out there (and my laptop's audio system) output strange noises that sound like bus access. Noone else seems to notice, but it hits my like a Louisville Slugger.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  4. Re:I listen to online streams sometimes but... by Kyojin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Firstly you will get absolutely no increase in audio quality by 'upsampling' any digial media you have. CD's are recorded at 44100 samples per second, 16 bits per sample, 2 channels. 'Upsampling' to 48kHz will do nothing. The analogue signal has already been sampled at 44.1kHz when recording the CD, you cannot get it back by resampling at 48kHz.

    Secondly although to be able to gain some semblance of a correct sampling at a certain frequency one must sample at double that frequency (Nyquist, as referred to previously), benefits can still arise from higher sampling rates:

    Consider the case with a sinusoidal signal of 22kHz. If we sample at 44kHz, it is posible that each sample lands on a zero. We record no sound at 22kHz. If we are slightly off, we get some improvement, but insufficient amplitude to hear.

    For a frequency close to 22kHz, we could end up with a very low frequency sound being detected as the samples effectively move along the wave, getting successively louder and quiter as the phase changes.

    This is why if we ignore any hiss and pops from a record (you know, those old black circular things that melt if you leave them in the back of your car in the sun), a record actually sounds better than a CD. High frequency sounds are clearer and sharper than anything a CD is capable of.

    Yes a CD is more convenient and doesn't have pops and hiss, but the trade off is muddy high frequency notes.

    48kHz or even up tp 192kHz audio is usually used when recording instruments, and the final mix is then downsampled to 44.1kHz for CDs. Similarly the audio is recorded at 24 bits per sample, or even 48 bits, to minimise rounding errors when combining the recorded instruments. Again, the audio is downsampled to 16 bits per sample for CD use.

    Hope that clarifies matters.