[BC] Streaming quality

[Gary Blau]

I haven't run into that.  The costs for the CDN's are the data transfer
you'll be eating up, (which is driven by bit rate and number of
listeners), and any server licenses they have to buy.
In that regard, aacPlus should arguably be cheaper for them, as
Shoutcast, Icecast and Darwin Streaming Server are all free (unlike
Windows Media Server, which requires a minimum Server 2003 license).

If you are talking to a CDN that gives you a line about it being more
expensive, either argue the facts with them or go somewhere else.

For equal bit rates below 64kbps, aacPlus v2 will clobber everything
else out there for quality.

g

Bill Spry wrote:


> 
>  ...From what I've seen in investigating streaming company's they are
> actually charging MORE to stream AAC+ that WMA or MP3.  But the
> quality of AAC+ blew me away.  Sounds incredible for a compressed format.