|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 15, 2017 0:27:17 GMT
So help me understand these things. If I buy two Barix boxes will that eliminate the need to use a streaming service like Shoutcast, fmcaster, etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 15, 2017 3:04:35 GMT
I think that's correct.. but personally, I've never really understood what the big advantage for using Barix boxes was. They still require an internet connection to transfer the audio, so are subject to the same possibilities of dropouts. So to me, it seems you could get the same functionality by simply using an old computer or internet radio or Roku to feed each transmitter - I noticed you mentioned that your CCrane radio requires a reboot to restore a dropped stream, and that surprised me, I would think they were more capable than that... I know a Roku is self heaing with a dropped shoutcast stream so I assumed a quality internet radio like CCrane would also be self healing.
Anyway, my point is, from my view using Barix boxes would be a very expensive method of achieving the same thing via other methods for a mere fraction of the price.
You would need one Barix Exstreamer and then a Barks Instreamer for each transmitter location. Back when I looked into this option years ago the price for the pair totaled out at about $800, which to me was just to much to pay to enable sending an audio signal over the internet to another location.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2017 16:36:59 GMT
We discussed this briefly at The ALPB meeting last night. I've been using a Barix Instreamer/Extreamer pair for several years with our AM TIS and now our LPFM also.
The decided advantage is stability. These things run 24/7 and never a hic-up. I've never heard a dropout. Of course I can't listen non-stop but still have never heard a glitch.
I use TeamSpeak as an STL for live remotes. Yes, there is an occasional glitch where the audio may drop for 200 milli seconds and of course if the computer locks up or decides to do an OS update you're out of luck.
Also, there is very little latency using the Barix. Perhaps half a second on a hardwire connection. TeamSpeak is also not bad unless I'm using a cellular wireless connection. Then it might be up to a second or two.
So like they say, you get what you pay for (usually.) The Barix system cost a bit but then again you don't need a computer on each end for it to work and they just keep on going....
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 16, 2017 18:38:39 GMT
I agree Barix are probably the best option if money is no object. On the other hand, you can buy used Rokus for about $15 or new for about $45 and you don't need a computer at each location either. They produce quality audio output, require almost no power, run 24//7 (they don't even have an on/off switch) are only about 4 or 5 inch square, they rarely drop out and are self healing if they do, they are completely self contained, plus you can gain access to them with a smartphone or tablet if you want, and set up specific streams to automatically load after a reboot (seldom neccessary). I still think for the budget minded hobbyist that a Roku box (I still use the old LT and HD models) is an effective and satisfactory way to go.. Yes, there will be several seconds latency, but what difference will that make if you can't synchronize your multiple transmitters anyway?
We're talking about up to an $800 difference in investment here! Is Barix really worth the cost to a part15 hobbyist?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 16, 2017 21:38:49 GMT
I do own 2 Rokus, only one of which I currently use. So how would that work? On my end, audio from Zara comes out the single audio output to my Procaster. If I put a Roku at the township building how does it get the output from the first transmitter and feed it to the second? I do have VB-cable installed but not sure how to make use of it to get it to fmcaster. I agree Barix are probably the best option if money is no object. On the other hand, you can buy used Rokus for about $15 or new for about $45 and you don't need a computer at each location either. They produce quality audio output, require almost no power, run 24//7 (they don't even have an on/off switch) are only about 4 or 5 inch square, they rarely drop out and are self healing if they do, they are completely self contained, plus you can gain access to them with a smartphone or tablet if you want, and set up specific streams to automatically load after a reboot (seldom neccessary). I still think for the budget minded hobbyist that a Roku box (I still use the old LT and HD models) is an effective and satisfactory way to go.. Yes, there will be several seconds latency, but what difference will that make if you can't synchronize your multiple transmitters anyway? We're talking about up to an $800 difference in investment here! Is Barix really worth the cost to a part15 hobbyist? |
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jul 17, 2017 13:15:59 GMT
So help me understand these things. If I buy two Barix boxes will that eliminate the need to use a streaming service like Shoutcast, fmcaster, etc? That is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jul 17, 2017 13:17:36 GMT
I agree Barix are probably the best option if money is no object. On the other hand, you can buy used Rokus for about $15 or new for about $45 and you don't need a computer at each location either. They produce quality audio output, require almost no power, run 24//7 (they don't even have an on/off switch) are only about 4 or 5 inch square, they rarely drop out and are self healing if they do, they are completely self contained, plus you can gain access to them with a smartphone or tablet if you want, and set up specific streams to automatically load after a reboot (seldom neccessary). I still think for the budget minded hobbyist that a Roku box (I still use the old LT and HD models) is an effective and satisfactory way to go.. Yes, there will be several seconds latency, but what difference will that make if you can't synchronize your multiple transmitters anyway? We're talking about up to an $800 difference in investment here! Is Barix really worth the cost to a part15 hobbyist? The difference is BARIX will auto-reconnect. We use them for our LPFM. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 17, 2017 18:16:52 GMT
Auto-reconnect - that's what I meant when I said the Roku's rarely drop out and are self-healing if they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 17, 2017 18:33:27 GMT
Jim, the way I did it was via a Shoutcast stream using the internet, but it can also be done without any internet connection if you have a means of having both your computer with Zara and the Roku on the same local network. With either method you are essentially doing the same thing; which is streaming your audio to the Roku(s), which in turn feeds the audio to your transmitter(s)
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 17, 2017 18:45:08 GMT
I try to go at Part-15 in a budget-minded way myself, not just budget as applies only to money, but looking at my broadcast empire as a whole. I can claim to be a Micro-Emporer anyway..  I take my station as a philosophy, trying to keep the resources in balance with each other. Having a fraction of the power of commercial stations, I work to keep the studio in line with the reach of the station, using simple equipment line-ups to match. That can help along the way for cleaner sound, less to go wrong and lower power consumption. I think, and radio people and friends have pumped me up with the idea, that my sound is better than other stations. That's on a budget shoe string, with some equipment from the trash. I do look at better or specialized gear, to experiment and learn from it. That's just me, it all depends on what the goals for your broadcasting are. It might be good to read reviews of the Roku and Barix units and see what people were able to do with them. Boomer |
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 17, 2017 21:40:24 GMT
So I can configure the ROKU to receive from the IP address on my server? Or my public IP address? BTW I often have to power cycle my ROKU. Jim, the way I did it was via a Shoutcast stream using the internet, but it can also be done without any internet connection if you have a means of having both your computer with Zara and the Roku on the same local network. With either method you are essentially doing the same thing; which is streaming your audio to the Roku(s), which in turn feeds the audio to your transmitter(s) |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 17, 2017 23:37:29 GMT
Jim there are several Roku channels/apps which can do this without actually being connected to the internet.. The one that immediately comes to mind is PLEX as I've used it many times (with no internet connection) to stream audio and video from my computer thru the Roku and then to the TV. This would be no different to send to the transmitter.
But it has to be on the same local network - which usually means it has to be nearby, so if the transmitter is 3 miles away it seems to me that using the internet would be a simpler than extending your local network with antenna and whatnot.. but maybe not, I'm just making that assumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 18, 2017 1:14:49 GMT
Well let me provide a better description of my setup. I have Zara running on a HP PC whose sound card has one output. That output feeds the studio interface of my Procaster. The proposed second location at our township building which is 3 miles away as the crow flies. While I do have wireless equipment that would do a point to point link between the locations I can't see surrendering a couple hundred dollars of wireless gear when both sites have Internet access. Whatever solution I choose it seems like it must take a single output from my server and distribute it to at least 2 outputs, one for the main Procaster and one to go to my router and on the Internet. I'm still not sure how the ROKU fits into this solution. Jim there are several Roku channels/apps which can do this without actually being connected to the internet.. The one that immediately comes to mind is PLEX as I've used it many times (with no internet connection) to stream audio and video from my computer thru the Roku and then to the TV. This would be no different to send to the transmitter. But it has to be on the same local network - which usually means it has to be nearby, so if the transmitter is 3 miles away it seems to me that using the internet would be a simpler than extending your local network with antenna and whatnot.. but maybe not, I'm just making that assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 18, 2017 2:07:23 GMT
The Roku (or the Barix) simply fit into the solution as the receiving unit of your stream.. it receives your audio stream which you are sending from your home location and then outputs it to your remote transmitter.
You keep mentioning your "single output" of your computer soundcard.. that is not a problem, you can simultaneously stream and send audio to your local transmitter. I have very little experience with streaming so I can't spell you out a tutorial, but it is common practice. You might have to employ some virtual audio cables (VAC), of which there are free versions available, I've utilized them before and it's not a complicated process... I really think someone else who operates situations such as yours on a daily basis would be better suited to explain the specifics. There's also several YouTube videos and online tutorials which can help you get underway with remote broadcast and streaming with only a standard computer set up.
I'm not much of an engineer but I've have experimented with streaming and sending directly to my transmitter at the same time with much older computers than yours and the soundcard having single audio output. I'll try to find some old post or tutorials to point you to later when I feel like searching them out, but I'm sure there are others here who could describe their own setups for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 18, 2017 4:11:02 GMT
Right, you don't even need a sound card to stream, just virtual device in/outs and virtual cables. "Virtual Audio Cables" or VAC is a company name for one type, and there are no cost cables too. It's pretty easy to do it all on one PC, and if you have Core Duo or higher processor, it will loaf along. You could have a player, like Zara, output to a processor software, I think a decent ALC/leveler would be good to keep levels sane over different sources. Output from that can go to the input of a streamer program, which takes the digital audio and makes it IP, sends it through localhost to a streamer software that faces the net on a port like 8000, open as a triggered port on your router. The streamer software sets the bit-rate of the steam, and format, for example 128k mono mp3 would be good sound and real easy to encode, then the server sends that 128k to your remote device, like a Roku or Barix, or a PC player, which makes it into analog sound to feed the remote transmitter in one or several locations. At the remotes, you just need to be able to set the stream receiver, whatever you use, to your home server computer's IP address and port, like 123.456.78.9:8000/ to pick up the stream. The origin computer can also, through virtual cables, send audio to recording software, such as Audacity or Audition so you can record shows if you'd want to, as well as to the analog audio outputs on the sound card. With multi-function outputs on a the PC, you could even have several separate analog outs, for example a mono and equalized sound going to your own transmitter, and stereo audio so you can listen to speakers on a direct feed in stereo. It's all possible to do one one computer without maxing out. There are other things to consider, like dynamic IPs, but let's keep things simple to start.. I think if you set up a one-computer podcasting setup, on a standard computer as End80 indicated, with your transmitter(s) picking up the stream, you're on the right track of how to do it. It's a well known situation with some solid software available for free, and lots of reference material and folks doing it. Boomer |
|
