is there any way to...

l qeda · 30th July 2003, 21:33

decrease the lag(?) time that my listeners hear from what i hear. ...

they hear a song start after like 1:17 seconds that the one on my playlist does. is there any way to make it shorter? i would like it to be more direct, if you know what im saying/ thanks

DJHotIce · 30th July 2003, 23:52

Ok....
Check out the results from a SHOUTcast forum search on 'delay', or 'buffer', or 'lag', or 'latency', or 'real time', or...

The answer to all is:
The buffer allows QoS (quality of service) to the listener.
If you want real time, then SHOUTcast is not the solution.

Phunction · 31st July 2003, 13:12

What kind of caster is than suitable for almost lagfree (or atleast all listeners having the same amount of delay, so they listen in sync) broadcasting of sound ?

Using ShoutCast gives a different timeframe per user, so all listeners have a different point in the sound they are listening to. The idea is to have all users listen to the same stream, all at the same timeframe the others are listening too. Is it possible ? Thanx in advance.

DJHotIce · 31st July 2003, 13:41

actually, all stations will contain buffer. And at that, if you want a lag free station your bitrate would haveta be something like 1168kbps for a lag free station, that would be one heck of a station qualtiy. Large station download file actually. SO my point is, your not gonna get real time with shoutcast, even if you have a reliable bandwith server it still is gonna delay

Phunction · 31st July 2003, 13:50

Well, assume that I'm planning on using this stuff on a LAN which has 1Gbit connection from me to all the switches. It doesn't have to be realtime, just the timedifference per user should be the same. I'm planning on shoutcasting sound from movies, so people can listen to it through their Winamp. I can cope with the buffering involved, but I can't cope with the additional buffering/lag/whatever that makes each listener listening to another point in time than the other user is listening (so for someone it's in sync, but for mostly all the others it is desynched)

DJHotIce · 31st July 2003, 13:56

no no no.... The internal buffer is QoS as well as mainly constant overall, shouldn't lag diferent

Phunction · 31st July 2003, 14:36

That's what I thought, until I tested it yesterday with 2 listeners and music. They both had a different timeframe in the song. It differentiated whenever the stream was opened. I disabled prebuffering and set buffering for both on 2KB, but still they weren't in sync.

DJHotIce · 31st July 2003, 14:45

oh I C, use the current version of the shoutcast server, if you use the old server your up for security issues as well as other misc things, but the buffer with the old server is slightly real time.

Phunction · 31st July 2003, 15:09

I allready have the latest version:
DNAS event log = <07/31/03@17:18:48> [SHOUTcast] DNAS/win32 v1.9.2 (Nov 25 2002) starting up...

ShoutCast Download Site = SHOUTcast WIN32 Console/GUI server v1.9.2

PS: I measured the difference between the audio and the stream and it's about 4,5 seconds. But the time difference between the listeners and the stream is unknown to me at this time.

FesterHead · 31st July 2003, 15:51

The buffer is client side and will not be consistent.

Since this is going to be a lan only broadcast, try either the 1.7.1 version of the DNAS (see below) or send your signal to a cheap FM transmitter and have folks tune in that way.

***********************

Check out the Sticky post titled:
SHOUTcast: Important Info & Answers to FAQs. READ ME!

Scroll down a bit and look for the section titled:
General SHOUTcast Information -> Where can I download the old version of SHOUTcast DSP?

Yes, I know it says DSP. It also has older DNASs.

Alternatively, check out Sawg Stuff.

Phunction · 31st July 2003, 16:48

Thank you, I'll try the v1.7.1 as soon as I can ! Results will follow.

Phunction · 11th August 2003, 14:17

Yesterday I tested the v1.7.1 of DNAS. It didn't work how we need it to. It skips every 2-3 seconds, due to the missing buffering. Althought I thought this would be a more stable connection, it even couldn't handle one connection on a 100Mbit 3com -> 100Mbit switch -> 100Mbit 3com setup.

So are there any other solutions for broadcasting sound simultaniously at the same timeline for about more than 20 users ?

Jay · 11th August 2003, 14:21

just fyi do not make 1.7.1 public it does have exploits.

Phunction · 11th August 2003, 17:17

Ok, I won't. Wasn't going to anyway

FesterHead · 11th August 2003, 17:33

Try an FM transmitter.

Phunction · 11th August 2003, 18:34

What would be the quality on those ?
And that would be harder, everybody would then need an FM receiver.

FesterHead · 12th August 2003, 01:22

I source my FM Transmitter from Winamp instance connected to a 256kbps DNAS (sourced with 256kbps mp3s).

It's the only way I listen to my stream at home.
Quality is awesome.

FM receivers (aka radios) are cheap.

Phunction · 12th August 2003, 08:23

Hmm, quite expensive solution and then we have to deal with the fact that by long not a lot of gamers have an FM-tuner on their PC.

This practically has to be done software-wise. Maybe someone knows of a TeamSpeak-like software, but then for decent quality (above 96Kbit/s) ?

FesterHead · 12th August 2003, 15:59

A $40 model is available.

Phunction · 12th August 2003, 20:16

The problem is not buying the transmitter, but that of the 120 people (or more) maybe 10 have a device (cell phone, FM-tuner-card, FM capable headphones,...) that can receive FM signals. And we can't force all those people to buy FM-receiver cards.

FesterHead · 12th August 2003, 20:32

Should be able to pick up a regular, non-pc-interfaced stereo FM receiver for a couple bucks at the local discount store.

I'm surprised the 1.7.1 DNAS gave you problems.

Phunction · 12th August 2003, 23:20

Well, it skipped every 2-3 seconds. 192Kbit encoding that is. Maybe if I lower it to 128Kbit, it should work ? But can I serve for 100 people than ?

Phunction · 18th August 2003, 09:22

Kick

drzoid · 18th August 2003, 10:54

How many people were on when it rebuffered at 192 kbps? However I doubt lowering to 128 kbps would help, as it would require an upstream of 12,5 mbps to support 100 listeners.

Phunction · 18th August 2003, 11:00

Only one was on and it was skipping/buffering already.

drzoid · 18th August 2003, 11:15

Am I right if I assume you are broadcasting within your LAN (as you mentioned above)? Having a 192 kbps stream rebuffering over a 100 mbps connection is quite weird. What is the average load in your network?

Phunction · 19th August 2003, 01:23

It was a 20-player LAN divided over a switch and a switching hub (both 10/100Mbit). There were no problems transfering data with P2P at 10MB/sec or gaming. The average load is something I don't know.

On the LAN I'm supposed to have this up and running, we've got several 3com 24-port 10/100Mbit switches with Gbit uplink hooked to a good Gbit 8 port switch. This is for max 120 users.

Phunction · 30th August 2003, 10:04

Anyone ?

Phunction · 2nd September 2003, 22:08

Come on, someone's got to know what went wrong

NightAire · 18th September 2003, 03:45

Not sure about the buffering, but can't you shut off the buffer on the receiver's end?

Phunction · 26th September 2003, 17:49

Well, I tried that, it didn't work

And even if it would work, 120 people would have to change their winamp settings, which is a rather extensive task.

I altered some settings and I'm going to test it out on Sunday. Although I don't have internet at the moment, I'll try to get the results on this page.

Phunction · 29th September 2003, 09:36

I tried it with 1,7,1 and with some other settings disabled (no metadata, etc.) and still it caused a variable lag. If the lag is consistent for every user, there is no problem. But it's even inconsistent per user. But I noticed Winamp automatically buffers , although 1,7,1 doesn't have the option. It also buffers atleast 16KB. I need a solution

NightAire · 29th September 2003, 13:58

Unless you could somehow embed some sort of "cue track" within the stream (which would require programming way beyond my knowledge) that would start playing back buffered data at a particular time.... and then you have to have everyone's clocks synchonized... I don't think there's a way to do what you want to do.

You're talking about doing almost the exact opposite of what the internet was designed to do. The 'net was set up to make sure data got from point a to point b, no matter what path it had to take. You're wanting to make sure that data gets to points b, c, d, and e all at the same time... it wasn't wired up to worry about timing, just success in getting through.

...why not stream an audio / video combo? I know Shoutcast won't do it, but Real does, Quicktime does, Windows Media player does, and I bet there are others. Heck, then you could make the movie on demand if you wanted!

I don't believe there is any other solution.

Phunction · 17th October 2003, 10:53

Having the movie downloadable sorta nullifies the purpose of making the movie on demand available. We want to project a movie on a big screen and give gamers the option of listening to the sound through their headphones. Thus streaming the sound to them.

jackherer · 17th October 2003, 16:11

Give it up, showing a movie on a big screen then trying to use streaming to sync audio on numerous clients is never going to work with shoutcast or i doubt any other technology. Streaming just isn't designed to work this way.

Quote:

Originally posted by NightAire

...why not stream an audio / video combo? I know Shoutcast won't do it, but Real does, Quicktime does, Windows Media player does,

Oh yes it does check the Nullsoft Streaming Video forum for more details

goatus · 18th October 2003, 12:50

icecast works much like shoutcast and provides a delay free stream (well.. if there is one its only about 5 seconds). The quality of service doesnt drop so i dont see why shoutcast couldnt pull this off.

Phunction · 18th October 2003, 13:49

Hmm, I'll try the Streamin Video thingie this week. Will post the results !

Phunction · 31st October 2003, 14:43

No results, couldn't get it to work

I think it's best this topic is let alone, because it won't work with ShoutCast.

Thanx for all the help you guys !!

30th July 2003, 21:33	#1
l qeda Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: whoville? Posts: 1	is there any way to... decrease the lag(?) time that my listeners hear from what i hear. ... they hear a song start after like 1:17 seconds that the one on my playlist does. is there any way to make it shorter? i would like it to be more direct, if you know what im saying/ thanks

30th July 2003, 23:52	#2
DJHotIce Forum Loser (Forum King) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: That place I can't remember the name. Posts: 4,617	Ok.... Check out the results from a SHOUTcast forum search on 'delay', or 'buffer', or 'lag', or 'latency', or 'real time', or... The answer to all is: The buffer allows QoS (quality of service) to the listener. If you want real time, then SHOUTcast is not the solution. -DJHotIce Bounce Multimedia - Professional Web Design

31st July 2003, 13:41	#4
DJHotIce Forum Loser (Forum King) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: That place I can't remember the name. Posts: 4,617	actually, all stations will contain buffer. And at that, if you want a lag free station your bitrate would haveta be something like 1168kbps for a lag free station, that would be one heck of a station qualtiy. Large station download file actually. SO my point is, your not gonna get real time with shoutcast, even if you have a reliable bandwith server it still is gonna delay -DJHotIce Bounce Multimedia - Professional Web Design

31st July 2003, 13:56	#6
DJHotIce Forum Loser (Forum King) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: That place I can't remember the name. Posts: 4,617	no no no.... The internal buffer is QoS as well as mainly constant overall, shouldn't lag diferent -DJHotIce Bounce Multimedia - Professional Web Design

31st July 2003, 14:45	#8
DJHotIce Forum Loser (Forum King) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: That place I can't remember the name. Posts: 4,617	oh I C, use the current version of the shoutcast server, if you use the old server your up for security issues as well as other misc things, but the buffer with the old server is slightly real time. -DJHotIce Bounce Multimedia - Professional Web Design

31st July 2003, 13:12	#3
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	What kind of caster is than suitable for almost lagfree (or atleast all listeners having the same amount of delay, so they listen in sync) broadcasting of sound ? Using ShoutCast gives a different timeframe per user, so all listeners have a different point in the sound they are listening to. The idea is to have all users listen to the same stream, all at the same timeframe the others are listening too. Is it possible ? Thanx in advance.

31st July 2003, 13:50	#5
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Well, assume that I'm planning on using this stuff on a LAN which has 1Gbit connection from me to all the switches. It doesn't have to be realtime, just the timedifference per user should be the same. I'm planning on shoutcasting sound from movies, so people can listen to it through their Winamp. I can cope with the buffering involved, but I can't cope with the additional buffering/lag/whatever that makes each listener listening to another point in time than the other user is listening (so for someone it's in sync, but for mostly all the others it is desynched)

31st July 2003, 14:36	#7
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	That's what I thought, until I tested it yesterday with 2 listeners and music. They both had a different timeframe in the song. It differentiated whenever the stream was opened. I disabled prebuffering and set buffering for both on 2KB, but still they weren't in sync.

31st July 2003, 15:09	#9
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	I allready have the latest version: DNAS event log = <07/31/03@17:18:48> [SHOUTcast] DNAS/win32 v1.9.2 (Nov 25 2002) starting up... ShoutCast Download Site = SHOUTcast WIN32 Console/GUI server v1.9.2 PS: I measured the difference between the audio and the stream and it's about 4,5 seconds. But the time difference between the listeners and the stream is unknown to me at this time.

31st July 2003, 15:51	#10
FesterHead Alumni Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Maui, Hawaii Posts: 14,108	The buffer is client side and will not be consistent. Since this is going to be a lan only broadcast, try either the 1.7.1 version of the DNAS (see below) or send your signal to a cheap FM transmitter and have folks tune in that way. ********************* Check out the Sticky post titled: SHOUTcast: Important Info & Answers to FAQs. READ ME! Scroll down a bit and look for the section titled: General SHOUTcast Information -> Where can I download the old version of SHOUTcast DSP? Yes, I know it says DSP**. It also has older DNASs. Alternatively, check out Sawg Stuff.

31st July 2003, 16:48	#11
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Thank you, I'll try the v1.7.1 as soon as I can ! Results will follow.

11th August 2003, 14:17	#12
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Yesterday I tested the v1.7.1 of DNAS. It didn't work how we need it to. It skips every 2-3 seconds, due to the missing buffering. Althought I thought this would be a more stable connection, it even couldn't handle one connection on a 100Mbit 3com -> 100Mbit switch -> 100Mbit 3com setup. So are there any other solutions for broadcasting sound simultaniously at the same timeline for about more than 20 users ?

11th August 2003, 14:21	#13
Jay Moderator Alumni Join Date: May 2000 Location: Next Door Posts: 8,942	just fyi do not make 1.7.1 public it does have exploits. -Jay \| Radio Toolbox.com

11th August 2003, 17:17	#14
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Ok, I won't. Wasn't going to anyway

11th August 2003, 17:33	#15
FesterHead Alumni Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Maui, Hawaii Posts: 14,108	Try an FM transmitter.

11th August 2003, 18:34	#16
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	What would be the quality on those ? And that would be harder, everybody would then need an FM receiver.

12th August 2003, 01:22	#17
FesterHead Alumni Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Maui, Hawaii Posts: 14,108	I source my FM Transmitter from Winamp instance connected to a 256kbps DNAS (sourced with 256kbps mp3s). It's the only way I listen to my stream at home. Quality is awesome. FM receivers (aka radios) are cheap.

12th August 2003, 08:23	#18
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Hmm, quite expensive solution and then we have to deal with the fact that by long not a lot of gamers have an FM-tuner on their PC. This practically has to be done software-wise. Maybe someone knows of a TeamSpeak-like software, but then for decent quality (above 96Kbit/s) ?

12th August 2003, 15:59	#19
FesterHead Alumni Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Maui, Hawaii Posts: 14,108	A $40 model is available.

12th August 2003, 20:16	#20
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	The problem is not buying the transmitter, but that of the 120 people (or more) maybe 10 have a device (cell phone, FM-tuner-card, FM capable headphones,...) that can receive FM signals. And we can't force all those people to buy FM-receiver cards.

12th August 2003, 20:32	#21
FesterHead Alumni Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Maui, Hawaii Posts: 14,108	Should be able to pick up a regular, non-pc-interfaced stereo FM receiver for a couple bucks at the local discount store. I'm surprised the 1.7.1 DNAS gave you problems.

12th August 2003, 23:20	#22
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Well, it skipped every 2-3 seconds. 192Kbit encoding that is. Maybe if I lower it to 128Kbit, it should work ? But can I serve for 100 people than ?

18th August 2003, 09:22	#23
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Kick

18th August 2003, 10:54	#24
drzoid Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 393	How many people were on when it rebuffered at 192 kbps? However I doubt lowering to 128 kbps would help, as it would require an upstream of 12,5 mbps to support 100 listeners.

18th August 2003, 11:00	#25
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Only one was on and it was skipping/buffering already.

18th August 2003, 11:15	#26
drzoid Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 393	Am I right if I assume you are broadcasting within your LAN (as you mentioned above)? Having a 192 kbps stream rebuffering over a 100 mbps connection is quite weird. What is the average load in your network?

19th August 2003, 01:23	#27
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	It was a 20-player LAN divided over a switch and a switching hub (both 10/100Mbit). There were no problems transfering data with P2P at 10MB/sec or gaming. The average load is something I don't know. On the LAN I'm supposed to have this up and running, we've got several 3com 24-port 10/100Mbit switches with Gbit uplink hooked to a good Gbit 8 port switch. This is for max 120 users.

30th August 2003, 10:04	#28
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Anyone ?

2nd September 2003, 22:08	#29
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Come on, someone's got to know what went wrong

18th September 2003, 03:45	#30
NightAire Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owasso, Oklahoma USA Posts: 20	Not sure about the buffering, but can't you shut off the buffer on the receiver's end?

26th September 2003, 17:49	#31
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Well, I tried that, it didn't work And even if it would work, 120 people would have to change their winamp settings, which is a rather extensive task. I altered some settings and I'm going to test it out on Sunday. Although I don't have internet at the moment, I'll try to get the results on this page.

29th September 2003, 09:36	#32
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	I tried it with 1,7,1 and with some other settings disabled (no metadata, etc.) and still it caused a variable lag. If the lag is consistent for every user, there is no problem. But it's even inconsistent per user. But I noticed Winamp automatically buffers , although 1,7,1 doesn't have the option. It also buffers atleast 16KB. I need a solution

29th September 2003, 13:58	#33
NightAire Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owasso, Oklahoma USA Posts: 20	Unless you could somehow embed some sort of "cue track" within the stream (which would require programming way beyond my knowledge) that would start playing back buffered data at a particular time.... and then you have to have everyone's clocks synchonized... I don't think there's a way to do what you want to do. You're talking about doing almost the exact opposite of what the internet was designed to do. The 'net was set up to make sure data got from point a to point b, no matter what path it had to take. You're wanting to make sure that data gets to points b, c, d, and e all at the same time... it wasn't wired up to worry about timing, just success in getting through. ...why not stream an audio / video combo? I know Shoutcast won't do it, but Real does, Quicktime does, Windows Media player does, and I bet there are others. Heck, then you could make the movie on demand if you wanted! I don't believe there is any other solution.

17th October 2003, 10:53	#34
Phunction Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 31	Having the movie downloadable sorta nullifies the purpose of making the movie on demand available. We want to project a movie on a big screen and give gamers the option of listening to the sound through their headphones. Thus streaming the sound to them.

18th October 2003, 12:50	#36
goatus Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 11	icecast works much like shoutcast and provides a delay free stream (well.. if there is one its only about 5 seconds). The quality of service doesnt drop so i dont see why shoutcast couldnt pull this off.