similar to: AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90"

2005 Sep 07
1
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
OK, I've organized this. It's not possible to average 32kb/s stereo with Vorbis using VBR. Quality -2 stereo proeduces roughly 32 to 38kb/s which is too high for many modems. I would have to use ABR, but last I tried that, it utilized too much CPU for my 950Mhz PC, and oddcast doesn't appear to support that option anymore. I've tried AACPlus 32kb/s mono and there is very
2005 Sep 06
5
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
I'm am currently using autuvb4 at q-2 mono 44100. This produces roughly 28 to 34kb/s. It's ok but I've heard AACPlus at 32kb/s stereo and it's definately better, unfortunately. Regards, Ross. >> I'm hoping that Monty and others can improve Vorbis to start >> competing >> with AAC+ at low bitrates. Monty said he had some ideas but I wonder >> if
2005 Sep 05
3
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
> hmmm.. very interesting.. any info on how they've done the licensing ? No idea how the licensing works. If it's free for the streamer then that may destroy Vorbis's inroads into streaming. I'm hoping that Monty and others can improve Vorbis to start competing with AAC+ at low bitrates. Monty said he had some ideas but I wonder if anything is being worked on presently.
2005 Sep 07
2
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
If you have access to a Windows box, Winamp v5.1 can rip CD's to AAC+. I can't imagine why you would want to do that normally, but it would be useful for comparisons. Ross. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Heyes" <karl@xiph.org> To: "Ross Levis" <ross@stationplaylist.com> Cc: "icecast" <icecast@xiph.org> Sent: Thursday, September
2005 Sep 07
2
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
I should have provided a link to my low bitrate vorbis stream. It's a mostly easy listening world music format: http://soulfm.stationplaylist.com/listen.m3u Regards, Ross.
2005 Sep 05
0
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
hmmm.. very interesting.. any info on how they've done the licensing ? I always have a hard time keeping track of the license details, but correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no "broadcasting" license, only an "encoder" license fee required with AAC and if AOL is giving it away free, there has to be some payment being done somewhere... This DSP does in fact work
2005 Sep 07
2
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:56:06PM -0500, Jay Krivanek wrote: > Yea, don't get me wrong, ogg is definitely an awesome format but aacplus v2 > is currently the leader in high fidelity quality at low bitrates. 24kbps > aacplus even kicks ass in my view. Is that 24kbps AACPLUS a full 44.1kHz stereo signal with frequencies preserved up to at least 15kHz? (Just curious, not
2005 Sep 06
0
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
Yea, don't get me wrong, ogg is definitely an awesome format but aacplus v2 is currently the leader in high fidelity quality at low bitrates. 24kbps aacplus even kicks ass in my view. I hope that this only stimulates even more competitive codecs at dialup speeds. Jay -----Original Message----- From: icecast-bounces@xiph.org [mailto:icecast-bounces@xiph.org] On Behalf Of Ross Levis Sent:
2005 Sep 07
0
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
Yes it is 44.1kHz. However SBR is not the original, everything higher then 22.05kHz is recreated. Also Parametric Stereo recreates the Stereo experience. The actual audio data is simply a 24kbps AAC stream at 22050 mono. Also it is by no means perfect. The highs do have an artificial feel to them and a little echo. For what it is though most people don't really get annoyed by it and are
2005 Sep 07
2
AACPlus Shoutcast v1.90
Windows 98 is totally obsolete and useless. WindowsXP is a completely different architecture for just about everything except the name Windows. You owe it to yourself to check out WindowsXP, even though it is subsidized by the "eveil empire." :) -g. At 16:00 2005-09-07, Karl Heyes wrote: >On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 23:33, Ross Levis wrote: > > If you have access to a Windows box,
2006 May 30
4
Winamp v5.22 / oddcast / aac+
I believe that Oddsock is using a Content Type of aacp. Using a .aac extension with this Content Type may present a conflict. This might actually be by design. I will do some further testing with Winamp and report here tomorrow. I will also double-check with the developer of Winamp for complete clarification. FYI, Orban Opticodec-PC allows the use of either Content Type of aac or aacp. aac is
2006 May 31
1
ICES with MP3Pro?
Greg, Yes, I have noticed that new codec.. AACPlus. Its really impressive in it's abilities, and it's sound quality. I tried to open it up with Windows Media Player and my Flash Player.. didn't seem to like it very much. While It's really kewl as a codec, and it has great support with a couple players, and limited support for the rest, I'll stick with the mainstream for now,
2006 May 30
2
Winamp v5.22 / oddcast / aac+
I'm not sure if this is an icecast issue or oddcast issue or both, but the latest Winamp (v5.22) is not now playing AAC+ streams encoded with Oddcast. Winamp v5.21 and earlier versions work fine. This may be some attempt by Winamp developers to force people to use Shoutcast, or to prevent oddcast from using their enc_aacplus.dll. Right, just took some time to set up the Shoutcast DSP to
2005 Feb 25
9
AACplus
Sorry for the crosspost but it's relevant to Vorbis and Icecast I believe. I'm seeing more and more streaming stations using AACplus, with many listeners being amazed at the sound quality. Most say that a 48kb/s sounds better than a 128kb/s MP3, which would put Ogg Vorbis at around 96kb/s IMO. That means only half the bitrate is required in AACplus compared to Ogg Vorbis for the same
2005 Feb 25
9
AACplus
Sorry for the crosspost but it's relevant to Vorbis and Icecast I believe. I'm seeing more and more streaming stations using AACplus, with many listeners being amazed at the sound quality. Most say that a 48kb/s sounds better than a 128kb/s MP3, which would put Ogg Vorbis at around 96kb/s IMO. That means only half the bitrate is required in AACplus compared to Ogg Vorbis for the same
2006 May 03
1
FREE AAC/aacPlus Plugin for WMP Supports Icecast2
Ok, I read the Read Me. So icyx://boa.mediacast1.com:9292/stream.aac works. I don't understand why the http syntax cannot be made to work. This works fine for Ogg Vorbis streams using the Illumination DirectShow filter. Ross. ====================================== StationPlaylist.com http://www.stationplaylist.com Low-cost music scheduling, live assist & automation software for radio
2006 May 03
2
FREE AAC/aacPlus Plugin for WMP Supports Icecast2
A FREE AAC/aacPlus Plugin for Microsoft Windows Media Player that fully supports the Icecast2 Server is available for download here: http://www.orban.com/plugin FYI: This plugin supports .asx for Windows Media Player NOT .pls or .m3u. Also streams can be opened directly by using newly created UIL redirectors, e.g., icyx:// instead of http:// and rtpx:// instead of rtsp://. This is all covered
2004 Sep 19
2
Icecast2 Server - AAC/HE-AAC/aacPlus Support
Hello- You guys have done an excellent job with the Icecast2 server. I probably don't need to tell you that, but I did anyway. We are Coding Technologies licensees and have recently developed a streaming audio encoder supporting AAC/HE-AAC/aacPlus using RTSP/RTP, SHOUTcast HTTP/ICY, and Icecast2 HTTP/ICY, Orban Opticodec-PC. More information here:
2008 Aug 25
2
patch for native iphone support
Here is a patch for icecast 2.3.2 that adds support for listening to mp3 and aac+ streams on the iphone. A quick background on the technical aspects of the patch and why it is needed : With the advent of 3g on the iphone, lots of people have been jumping on the bandwagon of providing internet radio streams that work on the iPhone. The biggest problem is that (without having to install an
2006 Jun 19
1
dir.xiph.org only listing Ogg streams
Anyone wanting their AAC/HE-AAC/aacPlus stream(s) listed on Tuner2, please send request(s) with relevant information to me directly. This is free and does not require an Orban Opticodec-PC Encoder. This will also help lighten the load for Xiph. -greg. ORBAN. At 01:45 2006-06-19, Michael Smith wrote: >On 6/19/06, paranoid <paranoid@dds.nl> wrote: > >>To me, that would not be