Ohhh yes them well i joined up with them like many months ago since i was testing out ways of streaming.
What a nasty bunch they are. Ads all over the place and just very very poor and i wouldn't even call it streaming.
Go get out windows media encoder and do it for free.
Live365 have always been bad so i have heard.

whats Live365?

Live365 have been around since just after the time that shoutcast was launched. In fact, they used to use SHOUTcast servers before switching to there own home brewed solution. What Live365 does ( streaming audio ) burns through a substantial amount of bandwidth ( trust me, I've done and do what they do ) thus they need to somehow recoup there loses. They only recently, well not to long ago anyways, started charging for there service, before that they were running off of banner ads & Millions ( I believe it was somewhere around the $30 000 000 ) of investment capital.

Tho you are somewhat right about broadcasting from home, not all of us are lucky to have the bandwidth that is required to run such a stream. Windows media is a great tool, but SHOUTcast.com has been gaining popularity amongst broadcasters, and does remain to be quite a popular ( and free ) solution. To each his own!

Live 365 hand out a very generous listener cap. @ 365 listners, a normal cable modem @ 128 / 128 Kbps, could handle at most only 2 listners @ 56 Kbps. The majority of the internet are not using broadband ( last I looked at the figures ) so this does proove to be quite a problem for most of us. <rant>Especially those of us that are BROADCASTING ENTHUSIASTS and are liveing in Australian with these STUPID BANDWIDTH LIMITS!!!!
:uzi: TELSTRA
</rant>

How many people have a 128/128 Cable modem :confused: Everyone I've seen with cable has 1 Mbit +...

- James

Doh!

Nevermind that last post...

I forgot... Cable is Asynchronous.

- James

Originally posted by zRedDice
Doh!

Nevermind that last post...

I forgot... Cable is Asynchronous.

- James

Not by technical drawbacks, of course.

I'm lucky that I get 384k upstream.

Shoutcasts rubbish though, hardly any have the player and there servers rubbish for home computers.

I get up to 2.4 Mb downstream and not much under that up although that's the best i get and it's usualy the advertised speed of 1Mbits down and again not much less speed up.

Originally posted by ned patter
Shoutcasts rubbish though, hardly any have the player and there servers rubbish for home computers.

:confused: Hardly anyone has winamp or realplayer? I believe windows media also pics up shoutcast.

How is the shoutcast server rubish for home computers?

I used to have Real installed... but the ads and the non-intuitive interface drove me nuts. I used WinAmp, but I don't use my PC for music or audio (I use it for programming. I have a stereo for music), so I got rid of that. I don't know of many people that use Real... but Winamp is very popular.

Personaly, I found the Shoutcast server very hard to set up on a desktop PC when I downloaded it a few months ago to play with it. It was confusing. Win2kAS has an excelent rendition of the WM server. That had a very nice graphical interface, but was sluggish and took tons of memory (like everything else Microsoft makes, it looks good, works lousy :D).

No hardly anyone has winamp the player and it's true.
Shoutcast is just horrible, it looks ugly and it performs ugly.

Originally posted by zRedDice
I used to have Real installed... but the ads and the non-intuitive interface drove me nuts. I used WinAmp, but I don't use my PC for music or audio (I use it for programming. I have a stereo for music), so I got rid of that. I don't know of many people that use Real... but Winamp is very popular.

Personaly, I found the Shoutcast server very hard to set up on a desktop PC when I downloaded it a few months ago to play with it. It was confusing. Win2kAS has an excelent rendition of the WM server. That had a very nice graphical interface, but was sluggish and took tons of memory (like everything else Microsoft makes, it looks good, works lousy :D).
To stream mp3's with shoutcast is pretty easy but to stream live is a piece of nonsense considering all you have to do with windows encoder is a few clicks and that's you on air as you say.

Originally posted by ned patter

To stream mp3's with shoutcast is pretty easy but to stream live is a piece of nonsense considering all you have to do with windows encoder is a few clicks and that's you on air as you say.

I fail to see how that is any different from shoutcast.. a few clicks and your live. I know, because I was a "station manger" for a while and I used to dj live for rantradio.com

Then you should know about these things Haze.

Originally posted by ned patter
No hardly anyone has winamp the player and it's true.
Shoutcast is just horrible, it looks ugly and it performs ugly.

I don't know where you get your numbers from, but just because it doesn't come standard with an operation system, doesn't mean a lot of people don't have or use it. Its a very popular little program.

Well maybe loads of people do use it but i only hope they don't.
But still many more have windows player.

Originally posted by zRedDice
Personaly, I found the Shoutcast server very hard to set up on a desktop PC when I downloaded it a few months ago to play with it. It was confusing.

I'm confused. Your a programmer and you had trouble setting up shoutcast on your computer? I was a novice computer user when I first started using it and I found the documentation to be fairly straight forward. I still set up servers for clients and nothing much has changed, except for more features of course.

Originally posted by ned patter
Well maybe loads of people do use it but i only hope they don't.

Explain.

I hope not many people use Winamp because it is rubbish.

For what reason(s) is it rubbish?

Your starting to ask the same questions now and your not taking in and accepting what i am telling you Haze.
People have windows media player and there is no need for the winamp rubbish and i'm am fed up of seeing these stupid winamp playlists on peoples sites.

You were not answering my question, that is why I kept on asking. Now that I see the value of your responce, I don't even know why I bothered. You should really do your homework before you badmouth a program you obviously know nothing about mate.

I wanted your input origonally, as I stated I provide services that utilise both SHOUTcast & WinAMP thus I wanted more info.

I won't bother asking anymore questions, as I realise the value of your input.

Well if you had asked me original questions then i would have answered them but i was getting asked the same question every time.
I hope people have took this conversation in and have learnt from my experience which was a nasty one.

Haze --

I didn't say I had trouble. I said it was confusing compared to WM Server/WM Encoder.

- James

I use winamp over media player etc.. purely because of its generous plugin availability. I dont even need realplayer now, winamp plays all my real files. No need for loads of players, winamp does the lot! :)

Winamp is THE BEST media player on ANY platform. TEll me 1 thing that any other player can do better then winamp, then ill call you a retard.

Simple, install winamp from winamp.com then go to shoutcast.com and click on a stream.

i would also like to note that winamp SOUNDS better then the rest, and it rusn FASTER. i can prove that, i have benchmarks. winamp is SWEEET!

WinAmp can't rip CD's.

Yep it can't copy cd's and the equalizers which try to make the music sound better is rubbish and you don't get info of the cd your playing.
Stinks really, useless junk.

Originally posted by ned patter
Yep it can't copy cd's and the equalizers which try to make the music sound better is rubbish and you don't get info of the cd your playing.
Stinks really, useless junk.

Its an audio player, not an audio ripper. Perhaps if you knew how to properly utilise an equalizer, you would have better luck with it. And it does pick up cd info, I don't know where your getting that from?

Then there is a downside. Who needs an audio player only when you have windows media player that has many more features.

I give up! Your stuck in your own little world Ned. I don't see that changing any time soon. No doubt you will have the final word as well.

Well it's been nice chatting to you about the downside of winamp.
Incase you haven't got windows player already in you can get it here: http://www.windowsmedia.com ..

WM Player is also found on your Windows 98/ME/2000/XP CD. :D

Ewww, WM player is dirty, it's really slow for me, you can't create skins for it...(AFAIK)

Winamp will blow WM player out of the water anyday...

I rest my case...:D

i wouldn't say that. shoutcast, live365, spinner, and others have their place.

live365 is just a place for hobbyists to tinker with web audio and see if they can do it.

Media player doesnt have more features, Winamp can be setup with plugins etc.. to do soooooooo much more than any other player out there!