Old 3rd December 2001, 17:46   #1
w-sky
Member
 
w-sky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 55
Why not MP3pro for Shoutcast?

I really like shoutcast radio, but I don't really like the sound quality of 128 kbit/s MP3. Now I've learned that MP3pro gives a significantly better sound quality at low bitrates - which are in a way obligatory for internet radio.

It is said that 64 kbit/s MP3pro sounds as good as 128 kbit/s MP3 and 128 kbit/s MP3pro truly reaches CD quality (MP3 does not, everyone who believes that 128 kbit/s MP3 sounds as good as CD should clean his or her ears).

Considering that, I think MP3pro for Shoutcast should be strongly supported. Or are there any sights which I don't see?

Yours, Gregor
w-sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2001, 18:13   #2
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,941
You have to pay for that kind of encoding.

Not too many people are looking for solutions like that. SHOUTcast just implemented LAME, so if LAME ends up doing MP3 Pro then I am sure we will all have that capability. Otherwise the SHOUTcast folks would have to buy the license for ya.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2001, 19:04   #3
w-sky
Member
 
w-sky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 55
Well, I understand.

And as I see, Nero (which is bundled with most CD-writers) is one of just a very few programs with built-in MP3pro support, and one can use it only 30 times to encode MP3pro files for free.

If anyone would ask me, I'd vote for using MP3pro, as soon as the "financial problem" is solved. Especially for Shoutcast, and especially because playback with old MP3 decoders will still be possible. That's differnt with MPEGplus (.mp+/.mpc), which gives a strongly improved quality at higher bitrates (about 160 kbit/s and more) but can't be played with standard MP3 players, AFAIK.
w-sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2001, 00:52   #4
xiradio
Senior Member
 
xiradio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 170
It's just radio. If you want to listen to a CD, put one in your CDROM.

Chris
xiradio.com
xiradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2001, 13:40   #5
analogue
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 37
Send a message via ICQ to analogue
go for ogg vorbis !
http://www.vorbis.com/ =)
analogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2001, 21:10   #6
w-sky
Member
 
w-sky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally posted by analogue
go for ogg vorbis !
http://www.vorbis.com/ =)
You are right!

I found out about Vorbis when I was diving deeper into the topic, after I wrote the first message here. Vorbis is convincing. I installed the plugin and it sounds good! Well, when will all Shoutcast stations be OGG?

PS: I didn't find the OGG stream of Radio FG! Where is it?
w-sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2001, 21:22   #7
w-sky
Member
 
w-sky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally posted by xiradio
It's just radio. If you want to listen to a CD, put one in your CDROM.

Chris
xiradio.com
Nice idea, but where am I supposed to get all the CDs from?? If I want to hear new music just and only of my favourite genre, Shoutcast and other Internet radio is unbeatable. Just the poor sound quality of all MP3 streams below 128 kbps, well 128 kbps too, is not so very nice.

Read you, Gregor
w-sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2001, 00:36   #8
analogue
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 37
Send a message via ICQ to analogue
Quote:
Originally posted by w-sky

PS: I didn't find the OGG stream of Radio FG! Where is it?
I needed to shut it down because I have 1 server less than before.
But the goal was to betatest ogg streaming and it's working clientside (users listen to it)
Icecast2 is the actual only server to stream ogg and it's not stable enough yet. When will shoutcast be able to stream ogg tom ? =)
analogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 08:19   #9
Tonee
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1
? "not to many people are looking for solutions like that" ?

doesnt it make the most obvious common sense that either mp3pro or wma would be used in shoutcast, since 96 KBPs sounds just like a 160 mp3? who the hell wants to waste bandwidth and reduce the number of listeners they can have. its quite unfortunate that mp3pro needs a $licence$ and quite retarded that shoutcast doesnt use VBR WMA 9.1, as one can easily sound like a 128 mp3 with 64 or a 160 with 96. waste a band width. its stupid. to not have shoutcast using WMA is just retarded beyond belief.

go to threads where people ask how to use WMA with shoutcast, you get 10 useless and broken links and a bunch of confusion.
Tonee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 08:29   #10
drewbar
Sawg 2.0
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,916
96 KBPs sounds just like a 160 mp3

Now that's a load of marketing bull if I ever jheard it. Mp3Pro is still a dead format (and never too much of an improvement), and Microsoft doesn't like to play well with others. If you want a lower bandwidth format, try AACPlus, which SHOUTcast does support.

Count with us!
Jan 1st, 12AM (PST, GMT -8) 2010 - 282,246
drewbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 11:38   #11
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Shoutcast/Winamp already supports way better.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 12:10   #12
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,457
Quote:
Originally posted by Tonee
and quite retarded that shoutcast doesnt use VBR WMA 9.1, as one can easily sound like a 128 mp3 with 64 or a 160 with 96. waste a band width. its stupid. to not have shoutcast using WMA is just retarded beyond belief.
I see you're a streaming expert, otherwise you wouldn't have recommended VBR.

Since I assume you're also an expert in audio compression I'm sure you can point us to independent double-blind tests showing that WMA is indeed as good as you say, for some inexplicable reason I was only able to find ones that seem to indicate the opposite, in fact this one says 96kbps WMA is clearly worse than 96kbps mp3, crazy huh?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 14:38   #13
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Haha, nice catch gaekwad, i didnt see the VBR comment. Thats quite amusing.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 19:23   #14
w-sky
Member
 
w-sky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 55
Please don't count peas. I think most people (even me who started this topic) are now convinced that mp3pro is not the best choice after all, but using the bandwith for a better sound quality can't be a bad idea.

Imagine WMA becomes some sort of de-facto standard because nobody agreed to strongly support either OGG or AAC+! Don't let it come this far!

I think they are equal in quality and both free.(?)
w-sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 19:29   #15
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,865
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
AAC+ kicks mp3PRO's ass and since there is now support for AAC+ streams in Windows Media Player (with the Orban plug-in) it's going to take off alot better than mp3PRO ever did. There was never enough support for it and Thompson (who owns the rights for it) effectively killed it before it ever got a start.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 19:39   #16
NJK
FRISIAN
 
NJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a house
Posts: 16,468
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Thompson (who owns the rights for it) effectively killed it before it ever got a start.
doesn't Thompson do this to everything they make??

i recall that Thompson cable modems ( if it's the same Thompson we are talking about) are absolute crap.

and yes AAC+ kicks ass.
anybody who claims mp3pro or wma should be standards in the music world needs to be banned to the southpole.
NJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2006, 20:45   #17
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,941
holy cobwebs batman. This thread is old and my response was taken out of context by 5 years. Nice.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2006, 13:33   #18
john@ROCKNTV1
Registered User
 
john@ROCKNTV1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: i have broken not a single rule and you deleted my sig craigF.. OK MY TURN CRAIGF and smelter thank for bumping bulks flame post
Posts: 641
sappinin

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
AAC+ kicks mp3PRO's ass and since there is now support for AAC+ streams in Windows Media Player (with the Orban plug-in) it's going to take off alot better than mp3PRO ever did. There was never enough support for it and Thompson (who owns the rights for it) effectively killed it before it ever got a start.
megarock:
I have been using aac+ since the dll s became availible,
because it, far and away sounds better then mp3@any bitrate.
Most of the traffic on my station/s, I belive came from the
media list , at only a little over a year old, and no real
backing , I was pleased with the numbers of listeners i was getting. Now that users have to upgrade /or not ,my listenership is 1/100 of what it was,daily, I have been
considering moving back to vp3/mp3 to try and recover the mac users........any takes on this..........john
john@ROCKNTV1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2006, 02:38   #19
MP3Artists
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NY,NY
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally posted by drewbar
96 KBPs sounds just like a 160 mp3

Now that's a load of marketing bull if I ever jheard it. Mp3Pro is still a dead format (and never too much of an improvement), and Microsoft doesn't like to play well with others. If you want a lower bandwidth format, try AACPlus, which SHOUTcast does support.

on the contrary MP3Pro is the primary mp3 format used in commercial broadcasting software and by real radio stations.
It sounds great @ 128 or 192kbps 44.1khz, when the songs are ripped direct from redbook or wav formats


peace
mp3
MP3Artists is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2006, 02:40   #20
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,457
Are you sure? I thought all real pros used ADPCM?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2006, 02:54   #21
MP3Artists
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NY,NY
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Are you sure? I thought all real pros used ADPCM?
every place i've worked at uses mp3pro, most professional production software i've used use it default.

i think it sounds great and analog compresses nicely.

do you have a link for that ?

thanks much
MP3Artists is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2006, 03:03   #22
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,457
I'm sorry, but it appears like I was mistaken there.

Real pros use Lzip for all their compression needs (including audio).
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2006, 00:12   #23
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Hahaha. You do know what MP3Pro actually is on a technical level right? Its not the kind of thing I expect any professional to use.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Shoutcast > Shoutcast Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump