Old 16th April 2014, 20:07   #1
Derin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4
Transcoder download

Hello, Community.
I would question where I could download Transcoder 2 ?
Derin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2014, 20:25   #2
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
it's been removed and really should have been removed at the time of the SHOUTcast sale - is noted in the main sticky threads relating to it and SHOUTcast in general that sc_trans is not officially available anymore.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2014, 20:38   #3
Derin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4
So now there is no option to somehow to get ?
Derin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2014, 20:39   #4
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
not officially as under the new SHOUTcast ownership, what was provided cannot be distributed (as we do not have permission to use the encoder and decoder libraries which were used when SHOUTcast and the tools were AOL owned).
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2014, 17:15   #5
Derin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4
Ok thank you.
Derin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2014, 19:01   #6
Arsimael_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 32
Whats with people like me? I bought a licence and lost the program. Where can I redownload it? I mean, I don't want a refund or something, just the product I bought?
Arsimael_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2014, 19:04   #7
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
it's easily found via a web search for such cases. if we kept the downloads it would still be seen as implying support for it (which is not the case and that stopped when the sale happened).
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2014, 21:24   #8
Arsimael_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 32
You really should think about your customer support and business model.
If ford would get a new owner, they still have to support and give warranty for the cars they sold a year before. What licences are making problems? MP3? aac? Using the free ffmpeg codecs?
Arsimael_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2014, 22:00   #9
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
now that is not a fair comment. we've been as up front as possible that it is no longer able to be provided post-sale as all of the licensing (MP3 and AAC for both library and actual codec usage) was all against AOL and thus non-transferable to our new owner which means we cannot directly host the download anymore as it is not ours to legally provide. hence why it could not be officially downloaded from our servers not long after the sale had happened and been fully completed (and is why we were as quick as possible to provide non-AOL versions of the DNAS and Source DSP to ensure we were abiding by any applicable requirements on such matters).

so the facts are that sc_trans hadn't seen official updates in over 3 years and it was technically a free beta product. the payment of the MP3 unlock code for being able to transcoder to the MP3 content was independent of the ability to download and use sc_trans (since AOL had pre-paid the AAC aspect for you - without it then you'd be looking at double the fee i believe - which from the complaints over $5 which was not our choice at the time, that really wouldn't have been liked) as the license was against an individual / station and was something that was imposed on us due to legal issues as part of the licensing audits that were made on Winamp and SHOUTcast as a whole.

so i realise you're not happy with this state of things (and i know the issues it has caused some stations during the last few months) but we've being as open with you (and everyone else) as to why it is how it is now. if that still does not help to answer thing then i don't know what else can be said / done.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2014, 02:25   #10
Arsimael_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 32
I am angry because I had a server crash and need to redownload my stuff. Nothing works at the moment and I have to search around for a Software because some new owner decide to "not support it" anymore. Yes, maybe AOL prepaid some licence fees - which is not the point. If the transcoder would have cost 30 or 50$ - People would still buy it. - Because its the only Serverside daemon which can shuffle and stream music to a SC2 Server.
Liquidsoap does not support SC2 and I am not able to let a Winamp with a DSP run on a LINUX machine.

If you have any other suggestios about "How to stream from a Server to a Shoutcast2 Server and providing ONE Acces for the DJs to server SEVERAL streams", I would be VERY glad to hear this.

Fact is: "A short google search" is NOT giving me the transcoder2, Because all freaking Sites link to shoutcast.com!

Why don't make the sourcecode of the transcoder public?
Arsimael_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2014, 02:50   #11
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Liquidsoap does work with the 2.x DNAS, it just connects as a 1.x source to it, but it works and i know of plenty of stations which make use of it. it's only when you want to leverage the v2 protocol that it's an issue, and even most of that can be worked around with DNAS configuration changes to allow for multiple 1.x sources (where you assign extra ports per source - only downside is you lose source title update support currently on anything other than source #1).


search for sc_trans_linux_x64_10_07_2011.tar.gz and you'll find one of the many archive sites that jumped up when everything was going to be closed. as i've not had to look previously (why would i when i don't use sc_trans?) i had been advised that it was easy to find by other users but clearly it needs a bit of extra knowledge of what the download link contained to more readily find things.


so i realise and can understand why you're annoyed about the whole situation and that nothing i say or do is going to placate you, but i've been truthful with you and others and that's all i can do on the matter. what's happened has happened and there's nothing else i can really say on the matter as it's not in my hands.


and releasing the source code is pointless (and very unlikely to happen) as so much of it needed to be re-written to change over the encoding and decoding libraries, it's just simpler to start over from fresh if someone wanted to make a comparable transcoder solution than trying to re-hash things with that code base.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2014, 18:06   #12
Arsimael_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 32
Don't get me wrong, I am not mad at you, I am mad at the situation. There is a good software and it gets down because of "licencing issues"
"Licencing" is now at the same level with "patents" - Mostly negative and not wanted.
Arsimael_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2014, 08:28   #13
neralex
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsimael_ View Post
Don't get me wrong, I am not mad at you, I am mad at the situation. There is a good software and it gets down because of "licencing issues". "Licencing" is now at the same level with "patents" - Mostly negative and not wanted.
Word! SHOUTcast needs the transcoder back, liquidsoap is not really a alternative.
neralex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2014, 06:52   #14
Bryon Stout
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 377
I feel really bad for DrO.

He goes above and beyond with assisting us and he still continues to deal with you jerks who just pop up out of no where and make all these demands and share your "opinion" on the community.

Spend a few min to do the research yourself (use the fucking search feature) instead of being a lazy dickhead by asking a question that's been answered a million times.

btw. liquid soap is probably the most superior option you have. Maybe you need to hire someone smarter than the current person you have working on your setup.
Bryon Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2014, 17:27   #15
neralex
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 576
Bryon Stout, shut up there is no reason to be insulting, that makes only you to a real jerk!

Its not against DrO - i understand him but the situation is the bad thing. If would be exist a open transcoder source, then it should not be the problem to recode it but in current situation there is now way. That is the problem and that creates the frustation for many users they are working with the transcoder since it exisits!

Many users have written their own webinterfaces based on the transcoder. There was coded many codelines in many many hours. Its not only a simple swith to liquid soap. There are so many restrictions in liquid soap and you have to recode all your own solutions. The most internet radio stations are private organzied and als private payed with a lot of open source scripts. To hire someone to build a liquid soap solution, that makes no sense and believe me no one would do it if he would get another free solutions based on other streaming solutions like icecast etc.

neralex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2014, 17:34   #16
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
people can make their own transcoder implementations without the compromised issues sc_trans had. open sourcing a dead-shell is just pointless and as i've said, re-writing it from scratch is the better option (and is pretty much what we'd need to do for large proportions of sc_trans as-was to even make it suitable for using again with everything that had to be ripped from it due to the sale).

open source is a not a magic bullet if there aren't the people interested in working for free on something like that. either way, the point is moot and it is better to focus resources for those who are interested in such things on getting solutions like liquidsoap to everything sc_trans did (other than being buggy, unstable and not cared for) than trying to cling to the past for something that was never going to be ideal.


as for the other comments, everyone stop bickering at everyone else as it's not going to help anything!


so the summary:

sc_trans is officially dead. if you must use it then you are a) on your own (i and other members of support will intentionally not answer sc_trans questions), b) it is down to you to ensure you find a safe download, c) you realise it is unsupported and that if there are bugs (as there are) there is no fix coming and d) all that can be said has been said and it's not going to change the situation any time soon.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2014, 18:58   #17
Arsimael_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 32
Liquidsoap says that it is not supporting shoutcast2 at the moment and that it maybe never will. And even if there is a possibillity to "make it run" - I need a streaming program with full compartibillity.

http://ehc.ac/p/savonet/mailman/message/31119059/

The transcoder had the option that a DJ is streaming to the transcoder and it recoded it and streamed it to the shoutcast servers. It was a nice feature because not every DJ has the bandwith to feed 4 Servers with different encodings. Then there was the playlist thing, different access for every DJ, and if no one was onair, there was a option to let a playlist stream the music.

So what other options are there?
Arsimael_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2014, 19:14   #18
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsimael_ View Post
Liquidsoap says that it is not supporting shoutcast2 at the moment and that it maybe never will. And even if there is a possibillity to "make it run" - I need a streaming program with full compartibillity.

http://ehc.ac/p/savonet/mailman/message/31119059/
well that was not helpful at all as it references something that doesn't exist on the link inside the message so i cannot see what the proof is of their claim.

[edit]
finally found it as https://sourceforge.net/p/savonet/ma...sage/28365722/ and it's referring to a different version of the ultravox protocol (which other than what Winamp / SHOUTcast were using, was dead to AOL by then) and not one that was directly used as part of the SC2 version.

so how things have been misconstrued is beyond me as we openly provided the spec (as provided on the wiki) without any restrictions. yes things with licensing of MP3 support in sc_trans was an on-going complaint (can thank legal for that) but everything else was freely provided including the SC2 specification. as that now means we're almost 4 years behind on SC2 protocol adoption due to things like that being said and everyone then taking what liquidsoap devs had said as gospel *grumbles*
[/edit]

as the SC2 protocol was provided openly a few years ago to enable implementations to be made of it. there was never any restrictions to my knowledge or patent aspects (especially as it's not even related to AOL anymore) so it seems more like just not wanting to implement things.

though as i cannot access the original message where things are stated, i have no idea what has gone on outside of my knowledge as what is being stated is at complete odds with what i know of being told to get people to update their source software to make use of the SC2 protocol.

if anything, the lack of adoption is why we've had to add support for multiple legacy ports as a starting point to allow for multiple SC1 source connections to be supported (with the caveat being title updates don't work) when no one wants to / cannot implement SC2 support (and if that's the view people have had then it's no wonder i was fighting an up hill battle when i was doing it under the AOL days).


and as has been previously stated, it still connects fine to the 2.x DNAS as a SC1 client. hence it can be used, it just doesn't provide all of the benefits of connecting as a true SC2 client.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2014, 08:45   #19
Arsimael_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 32
At the moment I have the old transcoder2 running, but since it does not get any support or updates, I need to find a solution/replacement for this. Its a Linux Machine, so I can't start a winamp with dsp on it.

I had a look into liquidsoap, and it can't really replace the transcoder. Thats why I am asking if anyone knows another solution.

DrO, is there any chance that another transcoder (or a similar program for linux) will be created? The DSP plugin for Winamp can't be the last drop of knowledge, since many streaming server are running on linux.

Are there any plans to help the Liquidsoap Team to make a compartible SC2 Streaming protocol? What does the new management saying about this? Are you still the only guy working on SC?
Arsimael_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2014, 15:48   #20
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
we have reached out to them to see if something can be worked out regarding the licensing mis-information which they've been under the incorrect belief off for the last few years.

no i'm not the only one related to the SHOUTcast project, i'm just the only one who really posts on these forums in relation to SHOUTcast.

however there has never been anything stopping someone else creating a sc_trans like product (other than incorrectly believing AOL were going to drop a legal bomb on someone which was not going to be the case), just no one either has the time or the interest to do so as it's a lot of work for generally something people are going to want to have for free.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2014, 22:52   #21
jaromanda
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Under the bridge
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
however there has never been anything stopping someone else creating a sc_trans like product (other than incorrectly believing AOL were going to drop a legal bomb on someone which was not going to be the case), just no one either has the time or the interest to do so as it's a lot of work for generally something people are going to want to have for free.
actually, the only block in my case is waiting on clarification of the ultravox 2.1 protocol

Is it just me or are shoutcast users getting dumber?
jaromanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2014, 22:53   #22
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
and i will be posting a reply tomorrow. but from some of your posts, it sounds like you've got it working anyway.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2014, 23:21   #23
jaromanda
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Under the bridge
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
and i will be posting a reply tomorrow. but from some of your posts, it sounds like you've got it working anyway.
I wanted to add intro/backup files

Is it just me or are shoutcast users getting dumber?
jaromanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2014, 23:27   #24
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
then just implement it as that handling does work - as that was one thing with sc_trans that did work.
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2014, 23:53   #25
jaromanda
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Under the bridge
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
then just implement it as that handling does work - as that was one thing with sc_trans that did work.
sorry I keep hijacking this thread ... the problem is the wiki is unclear as to

a) does the server ACK 0x1,0x051 messages
b) at what "stage" in the communications between source client and server are these files to be sent
c) if it is AFTER standby/negotiate max payload size, (not before, as I originally inferred by the fact that the description of file upload appears earlier in "Communication Stages"), are these uploads "interleaved" with normal broadcast data/metadata - and can I, for example, send 10 packets of broadcast/metadata then 1 packet of upload, repeat until upload complete. To minimise impact on upload bandwidth for situations where there is limited bandwidth available

Is it just me or are shoutcast users getting dumber?
jaromanda 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