Slashdot Mirror


Streaming Audio 10 Years Old

SlimySlimy writes "This month, streaming audio turns 10. Though first introduced by Real, streaming multimedia is so commonplace today it's hard to believe that it didn't even exist 10 years ago. In line with one of their previous press releases, RealNetworks has released a mysterious website and letter from CEO Rob Glaser celebrating 10 years of Internet streaming audio, as well as announcing a yet-to-be-revealed 'revolution' in digital media. 'On April 26, we are changing the rules of the Internet again, and digital music will never be the same.' Here is their press release from 1995 (when they were still Progressive Networks) announcing the first streaming Internet multimedia."

29 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. I know what it is.... by avdp · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's some sort of two-wheeled motorized single passenger vehicle. Oh wait...

  2. In other news by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny



    Streaming video still buffering...

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  3. FP by peterpi · · Score: 4, Funny

    First Po

    [buffering 36%]

  4. 10 years of.... evolution? by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I the only one who isn't impressed with the state of streaming media these days? I think the current RealOne player is garbage. At least the original RealAudio wasn't nearly as bad, but it still consumed a lot of RAM and CPU cycles on my 68040.

    At least VoIP and video conferencing have taken off and work quite well.

    What are some of the better one-way, RealOne-like streaming formats these days?

    1. Re:10 years of.... evolution? by jschottm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the current RealOne player is garbage.

      Could you be a little more specific? I stream terabytes of data with Real without much of a problem. The client has finally been cleared out of all of the crud - if you want a step by step guide you can read mine here and the server's finally stablized to the point that they run for months without restarting the server application.

      At least the original RealAudio wasn't nearly as bad, but it still consumed a lot of RAM and CPU cycles on my 68040.

      A 225K stream in the current version of RealPlayer takes up 7-15% of my 2.0GHz Pentium-4M that I just tested it on.

      Having worked with or investigated the three common streaming mediums, I think that Real offers the best quality for things such as Powerpoint presentations or capturing writing on a document camera. For larger (640x480) movies, I've found that QuickTime with Sorenson 3 seems a little better. However, QuickTime for Windows can be tremendously unstable and generally brings Windows down with it as well. It's also much harder than Real to get working on the client end.

      Windows Media has never impressed me much - it's a variant of MPEG4 without much going for it other than the fact it's free. When Comedy Central went from Real to Windows Media, I noticed a drop in quality, even though they went up in bandwidth.

      As far as what's being done with streaming media, I use the streaming legal music services (alternate between Napster and Real Rhapsody) and am happy with them - I've got more than enough bandwidth to use them at work and they let me listen to the stuff I don't like enough to buy but want to hear every now and then. It's helping improve education - many of the students I work for enjoy being able to review the lectures after the fact. It means we can place movies online for them to watch without them having to go to the library to watch a physical copy (that someone else may have already checked out).

  5. How times of changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative


    In Win95, Real Player came as standard and had no spyware or data monitoring capabilities at all, it played ra and ram files and thats all it needed to do, tip for budding software companies in there somewhere iam sure

  6. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...does this mean "annoy-the-hell-out-of-me"-ware is now 10 years old?

    I despise RealPlayer.

    1. Re:So... by vsync64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or go get RealPlayer Enterprise. The BBC issued an ultimatum that they were going to switch away from RA unless Real offered an no-ad, no-spyware version. Cleanest multimedia player I've seen yet on Windows, and very unobtrusive.

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
  7. I'm confused by smeenz · · Score: 5, Funny

    So wait.. do we hate Real or not ?

    1. Re:I'm confused by zuvembi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, yes we do.

    2. Re:I'm confused by fm6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Gosh, I'm so tired of self-righteous Slashdotters. Sure, they make software that's full of bugs and screws up your computer. And yeah, they claim to protect IP with technology with software, but mostly do it with lawsuits. And OK, the way they con people into buying software they don't really need is a tad dishonest. And yeah, their embeded advertising is a pain in the posterior. But nobody's perfect!

  8. Solution searching for a problem? by Taladar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, isn't Streaming Audio/Video just another solution searching for a problem that isn't there? Why should I use Streaming Media and suffer from bad quality, have to disable my other uses of my connection, risk having to wait for re-buffering,... when I can just download the same content in a proper format and use fast forward and rewind it, pause it,... in any way I like while watching it full screen in good quality?

    1. Re:Solution searching for a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Seriously, isn't Streaming Audio/Video just another solution searching for a problem that isn't there? Why should I use Streaming Media and suffer from bad quality, have to disable my other uses of my connection, risk having to wait for re-buffering,... when I can just download the same content in a proper format and use fast forward and rewind it, pause it,... in any way I like while watching it full screen in good quality?

      Live broadcasts

    2. Re:Solution searching for a problem? by tommertron · · Score: 3, Insightful
      when I can just download the same content in a proper format and use fast forward and rewind it, pause it,... in any way I like while watching it full screen in good quality?

      Sounds great, unless you're listening to a live broadcast. Or something that content providers want you to listen to, but not own.

      --
      Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
  9. The wonders of streaming audio.... by WMD_88 · · Score: 3, Funny
  10. 10 years old? by Thuktun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't MBONE count as streaming multimedia? It predates that by three years.

  11. Streaming is still not there... by RabidChicken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I do understand that there is enormous amounts of research and new technology poured into streaming media, but I still think to end-users (and myself), streaming is still a disappointing technology. Right now, with windows media and real, it often times is a crap shoot if the media will be there when you're watching it, leading to pauses and the infamous buffering problems. Real and Windows Media are sketchy programs that seem more interested in an attractive interface than ensuring the media looks good. Sure, we can go back and forth about if more people had broadband why it would be better, but right now the crappy resolution, encoding artifacts, and sub-par audio on many streams is unacceptable/unusable.
    The best streaming I have seen is simple net-radio MPEG streams (or ogg), or apple quicktime. Apple trailers, though they take longer to buffer being such large files, tend to "guess" when to play it more accurately and are encoded like a professional video should look.
    What I simply do not understand is why more websites, if they're pushing the same amount of bits either way, don't offer the complete file for download. I know that sometimes it is streamed to prevent copying, but more often than not, streamed media is not stuff that one would not want copied (being public an all). It may even reduce strain on the server with re-viewings done locally. I think users would be much happier to wait a minute longer if they get a high-quality video/audio file and they know won't stop half way.
    It's a cool idea, but even after 10 years, its got a way to go.

    1. Re:Streaming is still not there... by howareyougentlemen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What I simply do not understand is why more websites, if they're pushing the same amount of bits either way, don't offer the complete file for download.

      One reason is bandwidth conservation. Most people do NOT view/listen to the entire content file. With downloads, you have to dump the whole thing on them (or at least a LOT more than if you streamed).

      Not to mention having to wait for the download to complete. For -really- brief clips, sure, there is no difference. If you are having problems with streaming, the first thing to do is be sure you have set your player to TCP protocol. There are -many- factors that can screw up UDP delivery, and almost all of these will impact your perceived quality.

  12. Only 10 years old? by bytesmythe · · Score: 3, Informative

    How exactly are they defining "streaming audio"? Cuseeme was developed back in '93. I would consider that streaming media, and it's 12 years old.

    I still remember playing with cuseeme in the computer lab at school. The connection was painfully slow, but it was really cool to see the humble origins of this technology.

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
  13. The "true" streaming pioneers (circa 1994) by gashalot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be truthful, the first stream wasn't in 1996. It was way back in 1994, when WXYC started streaming using CuSeeMe. WREK (Georgia Tech's student radio) also started streaming with their own in-house software the same day WXYC went live, but it was not officially advertised until a later date.

    More information at: http://wxyc.org/about/first/ and http://www.wrek.org/wreknet-first.html.

    --
    -R
    1. Re:The "true" streaming pioneers (circa 1994) by zakezuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      To be truthful, the first stream wasn't in 1996. It was way back in 1994, when WXYC started streaming using CuSeeMe. WREK (Georgia Tech's student radio) also started streaming with their own in-house software the same day WXYC went live, but it was not officially advertised until a later date.

      Note, the following is neither a troll nor a flame, but rather an accurate account my first experience with CuSeeMe circa 1994 or so.

      I remember CuSeeMe very well. I remember my brother and my self showing our mother this. The future of communication... real time video conferencing around the world for free. On an 68030 based mac we found a reflector site with a number of participants. After a few moments the first guy shows up... shirtless but no big deal. Then the second guy shows up, also shirtless. But as it turns out they were not just shirtless, they were all nakid. The 5th man showed up as just a penis and everyone said, "hi Ralf" or some such.

      We wanted to show our mother the future in communications, and there it was, the future was a bunch of nakid men.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  14. my DSL must suck, then ... by Heisenbug · · Score: 5, Informative

    They introduced it, they were doing it over 28kbps modems (which is probably where all the buffering lines come from ...

    No. I have DSL. If I go try to watch, say, the Daily Show on Real or WMP, I expect that about half the time I'll have pauses or drops in quality or whatever because of connection issues. If I go to watch, say, a movie trailer in Quicktime, it downloads as fast as possible, shows me how much is downloaded, lets me start when I think I'll be able to see the whole thing, and lets me pause and jump around within everything already loaded without lag if I want to see something again or wait until the rest is loaded.

    All of the cracks about Real come because the model of only giving you the data *right* when you need it is simply inferior to the model of giving you all the data at once. It's another example of rights holders crippling their own damn product in a hopeless attempt to prevent you from downloading it and showing it to your friends.

    If web sites are using realtime streaming to show live content, then fair enough -- I don't blame Real if the connection gets slow. If they're using realtime streaming to show short pre-recorded clips that could easily fit in a RAM buffer, then they deserve ridicule for doing it, and Real deserves ridicule for encouraging it.

    1. Re:my DSL must suck, then ... by GarfBond · · Score: 4, Informative
      Then you haven't used a modern version of RealPlayer recently. RealPlayer 10 does exactly just what you describe: precache the file if your connection can handle it while it's playing. I've even noticed WMP10 doing this not too long ago, so this feature is not unique to QT.

      At least on Windows, here's how you enable it:

      • Tools>Preferences
      • General|Playback Settings
      • Cache on-demand streams for faster seeking and smoother playback
      Next time you're playing a file, you should notice a little green bar scrolling across the progress bar, indicating how far ahead you've cached the file. I don't know if this requires the special Helix server to do this, but I don't think so since it does it on basically every file I've played. The windows media-equivalent might require the server use the WM Server though, since this isn't something I've seen happen too often. If you want to eliminate the "buffering" syndrome, you might want to turn on TurboPlay too, which is in the same panel as the cache setting. I have no idea if either of these are turned on by default (but they probably should be).
  15. Timing -- iTMS is 2 years old on the 28th by oboylet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sure, this the 10-year aniversary of RealPlayer doing streaming or whatever, but it was 2 years ago (4.28.03 I think) that Apple opened the iTMS for business.

    I see a Press Release flame war ensuing, touting the million or so subscribers that Real claims to have vs whatever million number of songs iTMS has served up.

    Also, Real might be launching some new digital music service to take the steam out of Jobs's crowing over his pet project.

    Just a thought.

  16. 1993 is more than 10 years ago... by argent · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Back in June 1993 when HTML was more common in alphabet soup and the MBone, or the Multicast Backbone, was another technical novelty, STD was the first band to perform live on the Internet."

  17. Re:10 years of streaming at WXYC by cianduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry to piss on the parade here, but XFM, then Alices Resturant, were streaming on the web in 1992

    13 years ago.

    http://www.xfmdublin.com/

    Now, who the hell *listened* to them, I dunno; as I was unable to get a decent net connection in this city till 2004..

    I also doubt they were the first, but it proves WXYC *weren't* the first.

  18. I reversed-engineered this by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the time that this was released, I was working on a project for streaming audio and video over fibre networks for a Imperial College in London (which is Britains top tech university). I downloaded the real player client and reverse engineered the protocol. To test it, I also downloaded a REM track off the net in .mp2 format. Yes, mp2 not mp3. This probably made me one of the first illegal music downloaders on the net. I wrote streaming software for DEC Alpha unix boxes and got thoroughly sick of hearing "Losing my religion" over and over and over again.

  19. Here's my bet on what it is... by GarfBond · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You'll notice that Rhapsody (a very very nice subscription music service, albeit somewhat ugly) and RealPlayer music store are two completely separate programs, and that a subscription in one does not indicate a purchase in the other. I bet this is what their announcement is going to indicate.

    Back in 2004 there was this little noticed press release on their website: REALNETWORKS MERGES REALPLAYER AND MUSIC SERVICES TEAMS INTO SINGLE BUSINESS UNIT. I bet what they're announcing tomorrow is the fruits of their labor, a single program that combines the single-track buy idea with the subscription music idea, into one program and hopefully does it well. Napster does it now, but their subscription program has so many different restrictions on it it's really annoying (eg "buy track only" or "buy album only" and such).

    Obviously the "digital music revolution" thing is a lot of hype, but a combined program would be far more effective than what they've got now, so long as it works well and isn't bloated to hell. Also, it'd be nice if they took this opportunity to upgrade the audio quality on the Rhapsody stream files to something like 160 or 192 AAC/RA10 instead of the 128WMA they use right now (the actual pay per track music store uses 192 AAC)

  20. That's strange. by bratmobile · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used streaming audio over IP in 1992. But 2005 - 1992 > 10. What's wrong here??

    Streaming audio has been around a LOT, LOT longer than ten years. Commercial streaming audio, maybe. But the idea -- and mature, working implementations -- have been around for far longer.

    Anyone else here use Speak Freely on NeXStep? I still fondly remember being the weirdo in the lab who was "talking to his computer" -- actually, talking to a guy in a different city over voice over IP. That was in 1994, and it even had support for encryption. Not to mention all of the work on MBONE.

    Other streaming audio apps existed long before that, too.