Jump to content

Talk:Shoutcast/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

SHOUTcast TV

I'm looking for info on SHOUTcast TV. The article don't mention it anywhere, or how it works. Is winamp the only software that supports — Preceding unsigned comment added by The stuart (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You can find supportet Software by clicking this link : [1] but I have no idea about the other supported software. Anyone tried watching TV with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.173.205 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about SHOUTcast TV, its just about SHOUTcast software in general.Yes, I built a media center pc with wirless internet. It hooks right up to my TV. Now all I watch is SHOUTcast TV. --The_stuart 13:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but this site is the official source about the SHOUTcast TV format, commonly known as NSV: [2]. And here's some info on the various NSV players: [3]. And this English grad says they can spell it any way they please. It's a trademark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.162.5.135 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IS Inception dates correct?

I know one of the developers of Winamp, and I'm relatively sure that shoutcast was around in the mid-90s.. Maybe this was when AOL bought up Winamp.. Or maybe I'm just thinking of Winamp.. In 1996 I had a program called "speak freely" that I used to broadcast audio over my Pentium 166 over a T3 line.. 97.123.16.177 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you the inception date is fairly accurate. Winamp didn't come out until 1997 and SHOUTcast was a product addition for Winamp 2.x— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.219.242 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Copied from WP:RM:

SHOUTcast → Shoutcast — According to the Manual of Style, this should be at the latter. See this section. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 21:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's how they spell their name, and in my opinion they should get to decide how it is capitalized. Unless SAT is moved to Sat, AARP is moved to Aarp, and USAA moved to Usaa, I am going to ignore that manual of style guideline for lowercasing trademarks that are perennially written as uppercase. (Each of these used to be an acronym, but in each case the elaboration of that acronym has been abandoned.) Dragons flight 22:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This more or less falls under the CamelCase clause of the trademark section of the Manual of Style, and this capitalization is the one favored by SHOUTcast. —Lowellian (talk) 04:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. In general I am opposed to hijacking standard English for marketing purposes, especially using excessive capitalization. It is fine for companies to use unusual decorative elements and so on, but it is unnecessary to reproduce them when writing about them. I agree with Dragons flight about acronyms that no longer stand for anything (MCI, too), but they are still letters and not words: "AARP" is pronounced "ay-ay-ahr-pee" and not "ahhhhrp", and so on. Pronounceable words like "Dell" and "Time" appear at their lowercase equivalents, regardless of how the name is used by the company. I disagree that this falls under the CamelCase clause; I would not be opposed to "ShoutCast" or something similar, but feel that "SHOUTcast" is excessive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 21:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussions

It's how they spell their name, and in my opinion they should get to decide how it is capitalized. Unless SAT is moved to Sat, AARP is moved to Aarp, and USAA moved to Usaa, I am going to ignore that manual of style guideline for lowercasing trademarks that are perennially written as uppercase. (Each of these used to be an acronym, but in each case the elaboration of that acronym has been abandoned.) Dragons flight 22:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    • After discussion at the manual of style page, the language was tweaked to avoid conflicts over things like SAT. The standard now says that capitalization and formatting should follow the standard English formatting for the thing being named. In my opinion, this leaves SHOUTcast ambiguous since one can certainly argue over whether or not "SHOUTcast" is the standard English format for this name. However, for the moment, I still prefer the write it the way they do. Dragons flight 15:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

In general I am opposed to hijacking standard English for marketing purposes, especially using excessive capitalization. It is fine for companies to use unusual decorative elements and so on, but it is unnecessary to reproduce them when writing about them. I agree with Dragons flight about acronyms that no longer stand for anything (MCI, too), but they are still letters and not words: "AARP" is pronounced "ay-ay-ahr-pee" and not "ahhhhrp", and so on. Pronounceable words like "Dell" and "Time" appear at their lowercase equivalents, regardless of how the name is used by the company. I disagree that this falls under the CamelCase clause; I would not be opposed to "ShoutCast" or something similar, but feel that "SHOUTcast" is excessive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Dragons flight, as Knowledge Seeker stated, "SHOUTcast" is not an acronym like AARP and ASAA. I don't see what you mean. And Lowellian, this falls under the part of the section that prefers "Realtor" over "REALTOR®," not the camelcase section. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • ...And I forgot to mention that the Manual of Style is the reason the Sirius Satellite Radio page isn't at SIRIUS Satellite Radio. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • AARP is not an acronym, either. The American Association of Retired People officially changed their name to just the meaningless string of letters: AARP. However, as above, the language of the guideline was changed to deal with cases like that. I do not believe that the change makes any real difference with the present discussion, however. Despite that, I would point out that the style guidelines are guidelines meaning that a consensus of people are free to bend or break them if they wish. In a borderline case like this, where the capitalization is meant to seperate two conjoined words, in the same sense that a CamelCase expression like "ShoutCast" would, then I think that we should defer to the preferred capitalization and stick with SHOUTcast. Hence, I more or less agree with Lowellian that since the intent of the capitalization is the same as the intent of CamelCase notation, that it should be tolerated even if the form is somewhat different. Dragons flight 21:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Agree with Dragons flight. —Lowellian (talk) 20:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • This is not camelcase. ShoutCast would be, though. In camelcase, the capitalized letters typically begin a new syllable, as with GlaxoSmithKline or Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen. In this case, the capital letters in "SHOUTcast" are meaningless, and it also violates the Manual of Style. This shouldn't need a discussion over whether to move or not for that reason. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 22:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • As I said, I agree it is not CamelCase, but the intention is the same, i.e. to indicate the seperation between two conjoined words. Hence, one can reasonably argue that it should be treated the same and left as a matter of editor's discretion. Oh, and who said that one ever needs a reason in order to have a discussion?  :-) The point of the WP:RM process is to resolve disputed moves. This one obviously is disputed so let's just let the process take its time and see how it is resolved. Dragons flight 23:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • Nullsoft spells "shoutcast" as "SHOUTcast", it should be taken exactly as it's written by them, reguardless of what your opinion on "proper" ways to spell things are. It IS spelled properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.110.65 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SHOUTcast spelling

The SHOUT in SHOUTcast is capitalized because that is how SHOUTING is represented in text base chats via the internet. It is both representative of "net lingo" and an actual expresion of "shouting the word SHOUT". However, a search via a search engine shows that it is spelled several different ways. All of the methods of capitalization recognize them as "shoutcast" links. I would say the "branding" of the name in this case is more important than the dictates of style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.50.12 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of data

Data is arguably a mass noun. (see Data#Usage_in_English). It can be used with singular verbs. - CobaltBlueTony 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SC Panel

I don't know Wikipedia too well, but I know SCPanel is a commerical product and they're advertising it here. Can something be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.241.214 (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone is clearly trying to promote their product, the same person re-adds this link very often and to other articles. It doesn't seem all that necessary as there is a free alternative AND Shoutcast panels are not a necessity and not even in common use. Please defend yourself anonymous adder instead of random accusation of defacement! --AndrewMrse 21:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead of explaining his/herself, the editor resorted to blanking this section [4]. Consider the link to be on my blacklist until (if) the editor decides to engage in discussion here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have already made my points clear through the notes along with my edits. I have been a user of SCPanel and Cast-Control for several months now and strongly believe that the recent release of these control panels is an absolutely vital part of the SHOUTcast article. It does not logically follow that just because a certain piece of software is of a commercial nature that it should be removed from all mention. If this were the case then the Wikipedia editors should get busy removing any mention of Microsoft, Oracle, McAffee or any other commercial product. SCPanel was the first ever publicly released control panel for SHOUTcast hosting and has shifted the SHOUTcast hosting industry in a whole new direction. The great effect that SCPanel and Cast-Control have had on the industry should NOT go without mention. --24.22.155.78 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging us in discussion here. Edit summaries are helpful for explaining your edits, but talk pages are the best place to take edit conflicts like we have here.
Regarding whether or not the link should appear here, Please see point #4 under links to normally avoid in Wikipedia's external links guidelines -- links to sites that exist primarily to sell products or services should generally be avoided.
If this were an article about the SCPanel itself, or if SCPanel were deemed important enough to be mentioned in the text of this article itself, then a link to SCPanel's site might be appropriate. However since this article is about SHOUTcast itself, the link has no place here --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're using that point to remove SCPanel from the article, then it should logically follow that Cast-Control should be removed as well. Both control panels are of equal importance, although Cast-Control is in far less usage. Perhaps a link from this article to an article on SCPanel would be in order? AndrewMrse, please cool your jets until the issue is resolved here, thanks :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.155.78 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You misread his point, your website has only commercial value. It is a wikipedia policy not to have sites of sole commercial content unless they are highly relevant (e.g. an article about CPanel). Absolutdan has already stated that this CPanel link has no place here, please stop reverting unless someone says otherwise. You have been messaged regarding this (check "my talk" by AbsoluteDan and it has been made clear that you should stop adding this link. Your subversive attempts to make me appear the "bad guy" don't apear to be working. --AndrewMrse 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the SCPanel article, I'm not sure if it is necessary, you should read Wikipedia's policies regarding the creation of articles solely for commercial purposes --AndrewMrse 10:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon may have a point. I propose we eliminate all links except for the official sites, and replace with an appropriate DMOZ (or similar) directory link. WP is not an instruction manual, afterall. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be more beneficial to Wikipedia users to be able to see all the links and others with content related to Shoutcast. However, it seems that AndrewMrse is very intent on having only Cast-Control displayed, and that he will edit the page at all cost to have only Cast-Control displayed. I would definitely agree with having all the links removed, however you'll need to take care of AndrewMrse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.155.78 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon: Please, stop editing until the discussion has reached an end. Also, stop changing the valid cast control link to an invalid one, I beleive this constitues vandalism. I would disagree with removing all links, whilst this isn't a manual I think that the links help people and I know I personally use Wikipedia to look up related links for products. However, if this is a Wikipedia policy then go right ahead! --AndrewMrse 08:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
AndrewMrse, you need to STOP editing the article until the discussion has ended. As you can see from the history of this article, the SCPanel and Cast-Control external links were long standing in place until you took it upon yourself to remove one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.155.78 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon, you need to stop putting your link back in, read your messages (top right link) and read this discussion. Dan clearly states that the link shouldn't be there. Just because you managed to keep your link in there for a long time does not validate its presence. I will repeat: Links soley for commercial purposes that aren't highly relevant to an article (e.g. a link to the product an article is about) should not be on Wikipedia. That was settled in the first comment by AbsolutDan, what is at debate now is whether to remove the links entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrewMrse (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have removed all the non-official links and replaced it with a DMOZ link. If there is a more appropriate DMOZ entry, feel free to replace mine with it, but please do not add any additional (especially commercial) links without discussing them here first. Hopefully this will end the recent edit warring here over SCPanel. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I am a longtime user of SCPanel (as are all of my online radio colleagues) and you promptly removed my link add of SCPanel and outlandishly threatened to BLOCK me from Wikipedia if I continue to spam. How about you drop the intimidation tactics and actually discuss the issue. Isn't that in the spirit of the democratic/collaborative authorship that Wikipedia is meant to embody? SCPanel is a highly relevant and exceedingly important piece of software in the online radio industry that certainly deserves mention. I'm assuming you've never worked in the online radio industry because you would have known otherwise. Personally, I believe that it deserves mention in the article itself, however I am most certain that such edits would be promptly removed by you.--64.72.118.100 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'll pay closer attention to the above discussion, and the history of the article, you'll see that I am not the only one who feels this link has no place here. So far only IPs and new users have been adding the link, which makes it look suspiciously like spamming. If a consensus of regular editors can agree here that the link should be added, then it can be. Otherwise, re-adding it will only be considered spamming and lead to further warnings/blocks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The arguments for including the link so far is that the software is "vital", "highly relevant", "exceedingly important", has "shifted the SHOUTcast hosting industry in a whole new direction", and was "the first publicly released [thing of its type]". That's a lie, two opinions, and two irrelevant, unsubstantiated claims. All of it sounds like hype and has no place in an encyclopedia.
Even if you could point to independent, reliable sources that published material to back up your claims, it's highly unlikely you'd get to keep a link here. This is an article where researchers are informed about SHOUTcast and nothing else. All of the links in the article today are things that directly contribute to an academic study of the topic. It's not a dumping ground of links to all things in some way associated with it. Wikipedia policies are on our side; you'll have to promote that tangential software elsewhere. —mjb 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

reference to shoutcast from list of internet stations

The subject "shoutcast" is (also) referred to from the "List of Internet Stations > Entertainment > Music > web-only. According to me it does not belong here, in the list of internet stations, as it is not a station, but a medium (as from where it is referred to correctly). Ricky385 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

External links, help and advice

Webcasteru is practically dead, after a few takeovers. Sometimes someone still comes in to ask a question in the forums, but help and advice is not to be found there, imo. Most of the people formerly active on the forums there are now active at Webcasters united: http://webcastersunited.com/

Maybe an idea to link to that site instead.

Also, maybe it'd be good to link to the SHOUTcast part on the Winamp forums: http://forums.winamp.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=140 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.15.85 (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Shoutcast?

Why is there a drop in the usage, both listeners and servers, in mid 2005? TundraGreen (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone document the history? Why is there sudden increase in the max # of listeners possible per station?

Why is there a sudden burst of Korean stations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.242.64 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Because AOL/Nullsoft picks streams it likes to relay, AOL has a version of shoucast called UltraVox. It's shoutcast that runs on a switch. Each port can stream so you get a nice switch with a bunch of peers and do relays on the hardware. Kind of a cheap multicast with out the mutlicast.)
(because those asians get way to much bandwidth to play with) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.186.36 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And a related request: I'd love to see a graph of user growth over the years Jeffhoy 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I finally got around to creating some charts of user and server growth over the years. They didn't seem to fit in the existing topics, so I created a new "Popularity" section. Feel free to update if I added too much or too little detail, or let me know and I'll fix it up. Jeffhoy (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

SHOUTcast logo?

I was wondering, would it be alright to add the SHOUTcast logo, low res maybe, I don't know how to do that, but if its possible, can someone do that. It'd really improve the look of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MMuzammils (talk • contribs) 6:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Added complete infobox with logo. CraigF 11:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

24.82.94.235

The changes by this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SHOUTcast&diff=66606969&oldid=66567497 appear to be self promotion. I have reverted them from this article alone since the linked technology is neither SHOUTcast or MP3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf (talk • contribs) 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How-to

It appears that this article is beginning to turn into a how-to manual. I think some parts need to be re-written with more general info and less instructional material --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted the offending content on Oct 6, so I removed the howto template ref today. I don't object to the deletion of the content; this is not the place to tell people how to implement the protocol. —mjb 06:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Synchronization

Using different Shoutcast clients makes it almost impossible to synchronize playback, even on a Lan. The statement showing how Shoutcast can be used for synchronization should be backed up with a Howto link on how to do it, since it seems too unbelievable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.92.105.144 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the exact same thing. I have a lot of experience with SHOUTcast, icecast, and streaming media, and I have never gotten SHOUTcast (or any of them, for that matter) to synchronize with any sort of reliability. Since there is no synchronization support of any kind built into the protocol, it's actually impossible. And furthermore, searching the web doesn't even turn up any anecdotal evidence that it can be done. That being said, I'm commenting it out of the the article, since this page is the only place on the Internet that claims it can be done. Mystic Pixel 14:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (Further comments by Mystic Pixel: See http://www.usenix.org/events//usenix05/tech/freenix/full_papers/turner/turner_html/index.html for an idea of what kind of information must be added to the protocol to synchronize clients.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mystic Pixel (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the commented out section completely. There's no need to keep it, as if someone wants to dispute its removal they can always grab it from the history. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbian platform

Maybe something could be mentioned about the availability of clients for Symbian operating systems (nokia's s60 and s80 platforms)? http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/s60internetradio/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.56.94 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

shoutq.com

For a while now, there has been consensus that the SHOUTcast article should not contain external links that don't directly inform the reader about SHOUTcast. As demonstrated in the SCPanel discussion above, and in the edit history, links to stations are unwelcome, as are links to Web sites for software and services for SHOUTcast-using broadcasters. Wikipedia's external links policy supports keeping links confined to those that have informational research value.

Since August 2, 2007, here, and on de:SHOUTcast, someone has been trying to permanently establish a link to the shoutq.com Web site, hosted in Germany at IP address 87.106.89.177. The adder of the link has been connecting from numerous German dynamic IP addresses, including 87.174.1.192, 87.174.2.223, 87.174.23.64, 87.174.48.154, 80.152.198.244, 87.174.45.59, 87.174.20.101, and 217.91.13.129. These are all t-ipconnect.de hosts. Each time the link is added, it is usually removed by myself or Boffob. Boffob in particular is good about leaving a linkspam warning message on the user's talk page and a mention of WP:EL in the edit summary. However, since the perpetrator either willfully ignores the warnings and WP:EL policy, or fails to notice because they connect from a different address nearly every time.

As far as I can tell, shoutq.com has absolutely no informational research value; it is just a commercial service for SHOUTcast users. It does not meet the criteria for external links in general, nor does it have consensus for inclusion among the regular curators of this article. It also does not belong on any other Wikipedias, including the German edition. It is up to proponents of such sites to argue for their inclusion; simply adding it every day doesn't constitute good-faith discussion. —mjb 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How does SHOUTcast make money?

How does SHOUTcase make money? I heard it charges broadcasters when they have beyond 100 listeners. Is this true? I couldn't find the answer on their website. --Zybez (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes money because it's owned by AOL, and I think the web site has ads on it. And no, Shoutcast is free no matter how many listeners you have. --Anthonysenn (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See IceCast, it's a protocol, the shoutcast site is merely a list of the servers.. They couldn't make money on it if they wanted.. Note, Nullsoft are the same guys who released the sources to what became "Gnutella".. I know one of the guys and they are mostly "underground" coders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.16.177 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoutcast does not use HTTP, it's using ICY which is similar to HTTP but is not the same.

The relevant difference being the ICY 200 OK response headers that some proxies (e.g. Squid) will detect as HTTP 0.9 (HTTP without response headers) and pass the ICY response header on to the client as part of the stream data inside a valid HTTP response. Clients then try to play the embedded metadata as audio resulting in repeated noise because they never saw the real response headers that announce embedded metadata.

solutions:

  • avoid proxies (which you can't sometimes)
  • dump the ICY protocol in favor of valid HTTP to avoid that confusion and related issues

References:

ICanYell.com

Mention that ICanYell.com redirects now to SHOUTcast.com. --201.223.82.54 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Legality??

I came here looking for information on the legality of Shoutcast (I seem to remember something about internet radio and copyright law and broadcasting happening in the US 5 years ago). I don't know if there is a seperate wikipedia article about the legality of internet streaming...but perhaps it could be linked here.....

Sorry, I forgot to sign. matt 94.189.141.125 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I too would like some information about this. As far as my knowledge of copyright and Internet radio goes, Shoutcast users would have to pay royalties to stream the stations. However, my understanding of Shoutcast is that anyone can set up their computer to stream over the Internet. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or more, channels listed when I open Shoutcast under Exaile. Many of them broadcast music. I wonder how many, if any, have to pay for the ability to do so. --Andorin Kato (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this topic is peripheral to the article, though. SHOUTcast is a means of streaming audio, and a brand for a website & directory, so that's what the article is mainly about. What laws apply to people who stream, regardless of whether they use SHOUTcast to do it, depends on what they're streaming and where they and their station are located. That's not something specific to SHOUTcast, so it doesn't belong here. —mjb (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree as its a wiki page on SHOUTcast ... 1/2 the battle is making sure you use this program legally. the only place i know where this is legam is loudcity as they pay the royalties in the price ... but then there is a very strict adhearance to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.237.133 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoutcast RSS Feed and HTML5?

Shoutcast provide an xml feed for station listings which includes name and bit rate as well as current track and number of listeners. This feed is used by a number of app providers for shoutcast players on mobile devices and tablets. One company I have seen use this feed and combine it with a HTML5 player. As the HTML5 Audio API has yet to be finalised at the time of writing compatibility across all browsers still seems a bit patchy. The beta version is at this site http://www.digisender.tv/radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digisender (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed these all over the page (near the top of Software Design for example) and I was wondering, are these meant to be there? They were added quite recently. Near the end of the software Design section I removed one which was blatantly an ad ("We give you Shoutcast Hosing with quilty sound and html5 Player.", how is that not an ad?), but I am not sure about the others. Marksomnian (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

-This was very much blatant advertising. I removed all references to the site. 50.82.161.37 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shoutcast/Archive_1&oldid=1092145596"