itunes 4.0.1

[Darkshadow]

Shhh, Scott, don't go giving out hacker secrets, now.

Actually, though, that wouldn't work. The router would forward it to you, but the incoming address isn't changed at all, just passed on, so iTunes wouldn't accept it as being local.

You could change your local machine's address (as long as the router doesn't require a specific address range to communcate to) and trick iTunes into thinking that it's on the local subnet, but that would be a big pain to do...you'd have to manually change it & update the address with the router for whoever wanted to listen. Plus whoever wanted to listen would have to tell you first.

 

[evildan]

Streaming was obviously mistakenly left in huh?

I think I'll upgrade, internet mp3 streaming was never that good. It was choppy at best when I tried it a few times.

 

[wyvern]

That's because you never tried a good host. It works great when the host can support the bandwidth.

 

[ScottW]

Actually,

Your home internet routers won't support it, but if you are running IPTABLES on a Linux or Mac and running it as a router, you could easily NAT it out the internal interface creating the local IP for the network.

In fact, I bet you could modify your firewall rules on your Mac to do a local translation and fool iTunes.

Sorry, it's the Network Engineer inside me coming out. Since I don't have TWO macs, I can't really test it out.

Scott

 

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by wyvern
That's because you never tried a good host. It works great when the host can support the bandwidth.

i like to have at least 160 - 192 on hte mp3 quality. and not even with covad i have managed to listen to them without rebuffering. instead some internet radios broadcasting in 160 are seamless even without it, in a less powerful connection...

 

[wyvern]

It's not your bandwidth that's the limitation, it's the server's. Net radio stations have *massive* bandwidth in general.

 

[Giaguara]

the radios i listen to (4 of them) have a fluent streaming on 160. none of my friends itunes archive was that. being not fluent, or of low quality didn't satisfy me a lot.

 

[scruffy]

Well, it's worth it for me - I use a web proxy, so iTunes sharing didn't work at all (this was a known bug in 4.0). Now it works to share with my wife's computer, and that's an improvement for me...

 

[Ugg]

I tried to listen to about 4 others' lists but it was very choppy even with DSL. With a faster connection I would have been more likely to use it. I can live without it for now.

One of the shoutcast stations I listen to is in Graz Austria and run by some students at a tech school. They play the most amazing variety of music! It is never boring but sometimes a little weird to hear an X-mas jingle and then the newest by Daniel Bedingfield.

Streaming in whatever form is probably the future of music. Why listen to Clear Channel's choices when you have the world at your fingertips? Streaming will be back in some form or another in iTunes....

 

[gwynarion]

I've never given out my streaming address to anyone, nor do I plan to. It is great for me, though, to be able to sit at work and listen to my music being streamed from home. This is why I haven't upgraded. I'm no Unix guru or network engineer, so I'm afraid I'll just have to wait to upgrade until someone comes out with an easy fix for future versions.