Had Enough

Read 10916 times
I've had enough and leaving CentovaCast for these reasons:
1.) Lack of reply on forum, this is one of the worst forums I belong to you ask a question and don't get an answer. I try to help but the help I offer goes unanswered by the poster
2.) Closed source files which makes it impossible to make simple changes to things like volume control. People want to turn the music up and if the volume it at 100% how can you turn it up?
3.) Documents are confusing and not very helpful. I wanted to check on how to set up a static IP so I can run another service on a second IP but there isn't any info that I can find. The documents need a real update and CentovaCast doesn't seem to care.
4.) 4 days and I'm still waiting for a reply to my Support request

as much as I like CC I can no longer support the company  8)
Tommy TBones
Owner
440MUSIC.COM
Broadcasting Indie Music since March 1999
Hi. I'm thinking about the same... Which of its alternatives has convinced you the most?
+1
Hi. I'm thinking about the same... Which of its alternatives has convinced you the most?

azuracast or mediacp
1.) Lack of reply on forum, this is one of the worst forums I belong to you ask a question and don't get an answer. I try to help but the help I offer goes unanswered by the poster

Did you read that this is a community only forum?

2.) Closed source files which makes it impossible to make simple changes to things like volume control. People want to turn the music up and if the volume it at 100% how can you turn it up?

Maybe you have activated the option "replay gain". Deactivate it and you have your full volume.

3.) Documents are confusing and not very helpful. I wanted to check on how to set up a static IP so I can run another service on a second IP but there isn't any info that I can find. The documents need a real update and CentovaCast doesn't seem to care.

Documents / FAQ are really really good. Setup a static IP for other reason seems to be your own business. Centova Support maybe can help. I personally would extra charge those requests that has nothing to do with centova itself :p

---

Im also not happy with the actual situation. But Centova is still one of the most stable solutions on market!
Unfortunately we're in the same boat but I do have a question If one were to change to AzuraCast / MediaCP or EverestCast even is there anyway to keep the stream link up so the app doesn't need to be deleted and then reuploaded?

Same IP / Port / Username and Password basically or is that not a thing yet.
305 Stream, Inc.
Miami, FL USA
Professional Streaming Services www.305streamhd.com
I do agree that Centova Cast is the better choice over the other options and we all know the names so I don't write them out and respects Centova. My intention with this post was to generate more conversations amongst my fellow members.
The other systems I tested all required a dedicated server. One uses Docker and I don't see anything good about Docker, the only dock I want is sitting by the dock of the bay. There is an OS Provisioning tool that claims to provide iceCasat and shoutCast but getting them to run on multiple sub-domains I wasn't able to get working, OK not completely true I was able to get 1 of the 13 station to play but adding a second sub-domain with IC and SC they both failed, not just failed were completely unavailable.
I'm 65% sure I'm going to re-install Centova and if I do I'm going to find away to adjust the volume down to 60%
Tommy TBones
Owner
440MUSIC.COM
Broadcasting Indie Music since March 1999
One uses Docker and I don't see anything good about Docker, the only dock I want is sitting by the dock of the bay.

Just to let you (and everybody else) know, AzuraCast offers 'ansible' installation method that doesn't involve using Docker. Installation using this method takes up as much time as Centova Cast installation does and (again, just like in case of CC!) it requires some experience and knowledge in case something stops working correctly.

As much as I loved Centova Cast, I left it for AzuraCast in 2021 for many reasons, including the support for Opus format (which has been removed from CC somewhere in 2021), lack of responsive interface (and no, installing special apps on your smartphone just to manage your CC server is not a solution), and the fact that CC isn't translated into my language whereas AzuraCast is not only translated to multiple languages including mine but you can also help translating it via Crowdin.
3.) Documents are confusing and not very helpful. I wanted to check on how to set up a static IP so I can run another service on a second IP but there isn't any info that I can find. The documents need a real update and CentovaCast doesn't seem to care.
On that particular point, you may be trying to solve the wrong problem. Why do you need a second IP address for a second stream?  Differentiation is normally done with port numbers, not IP addresses.
I've solved the issue with multiple IPs on one server with CCast on 1 IP and OGP on a second IP
I also found configuration details about running Plesk or CPanel on the same server which helped me get Open Game Panel working
Today I'm updating my entire service to DCD offered by 1and1/Ionos which allows for much better control over my servers and adding load balancing, dedicated database server and failover.
Now I can set up 8 servers for less than it was paying for 3 dedicated servers with 6T(18T total on 3 servers)
Tommy TBones
Owner
440MUSIC.COM
Broadcasting Indie Music since March 1999
Unfortunately we're in the same boat but I do have a question If one were to change to AzuraCast / MediaCP or EverestCast even is there anyway to keep the stream link up so the app doesn't need to be deleted and then reuploaded?

Same IP / Port / Username and Password basically or is that not a thing yet.

Yes.  It's tricky, though.  Azuracast will absolutely not step on port numbers that are currently in use, so you have to shut down Centovacast AND its Icecast or Shoutcast streams to configure it properly. There is also the question of how to inject proper SSL certificates into its docker container, which you'll need to do by creating a docker-compose.override.yml file.  Here's mine. It's just an example. I bought a key, then mapped it into the Docker container so that the certs Azura needs to be able to give you an SSL certified stream (an essential feature these days) are there each time you spin up a new container.

version: "2.2"

services:
  web:
    volumes:
      - /home/krypton/ssl/azuracast/certificate.crt:/var/azuracast/acme/ssl.crt:ro
      - /home/krypton/ssl/azuracast/private.key:/var/azuracast/acme/ssl.key:ro

The transition can make you tear your hear out, but it's worth it.  Azuracast is free (as in beer) and open source (Centova is not) and features a modern interface and sophisticated report generation which Centova lacks, and is an area in which Centova is years and years behind.

Unfortunately we're in the same boat but I do have a question If one were to change to AzuraCast / MediaCP or EverestCast even is there anyway to keep the stream link up so the app doesn't need to be deleted and then reuploaded?

Same IP / Port / Username and Password basically or is that not a thing yet.

I can answer that one. 

The answer is a qualified "yes". You can configure Azuracast to use the same connection credentials and passwords as Centovacast, but:
1. Azuracast won't let you configure for ports that are already doing something else, so you'll have to configure for whatever ports are available, then shut down Centova, then reconfigure Azuracast to match whatever your old port configurations were.
2. With Centovacast, you could hand edit the Icecast serv.conf file to set your IP addresses for your station to anything you want.  You won't be able to do that with Azuracast, as it expects to be managing all those settings itself.
3. Where adding additional streams with differing stream rates was tricky and unreliable in Centova, in Azuracast it just works.
4. Azuracast does not support streams unprotected by SSL.  This is actually fine, because if you link to an unprotected stream from a web site, your whole site gets marked as a security risk anyway.
5. Centovacast requires that a scheduled playlist play at a certain time for any number of days you select.  Azuracast lets you arbitrarily specify any time and date you like.
6. On Centova, DJ logins tends not to work, forcing everybody to use the same 'source' login name.  The "now playing" metadata on Centova shows not only what your DJ is playing, but what your auto DJ thinks it is playing as well.  This is very confusing for your listeners, and though DJ logins purportedly fix ths problem, a) the fact that it requires a workaround even after all these years of it being a known problem is ridonkululous, and b) the fact that DJ logins usually don't work means a workaround is impossible.  Azuracast handles this correctly.
7. Recording a DJ's show for later broadcast was a touch and go situation with Centova.  You could write an external script that would record the show all right, but a) it counted as an extra listener, distorting your audience statistics, and b) there was no way to start and stop the recording process automatically when a DJ connected to broadcast.  Azuracast handles show recording seamlessly (though you still have to write a little Python to get it to take that recording and schedule it for later playback for encore performances).
8. Centova has no facility for playing tracks directly in the interface. Azuracast does.
9. Centova cannot generate monthly play reports that include the album data for each song as required by SoundExchange and Re:Sound and many other performance rights organizations, requiring stations that use it to pay for blanket licenses.  Azuracast does this correctly out of the box.
10. Centovacast can only normalize volume levels from track to track if gain information is included in the MP3 files, and suggests that the responsibility for doing that should rest with the DJ's.  Azuracast offers a selection of various times of stream conditioning, track mixing and buffering.
11. Centovacast offers no system for automatic backups of your station install.  Azuracast has this built in, and you can set it to run at any time of your choosing and even tell it how many versions back you want to keep on a revolving basis.

And, best of all, with Centova if there is some billing issue with Centova or the license server goes down for a week with no warning (which has happened) you are mostly just stuck. It takes the developer days or up to a week to respond to a ticket.  With Azuracast, not only is there no license server (because you don't need a license), trouble ticket response is generally within 24-48 hours. 

And to answer your next question, yes, Azuracast is free, as in beer, and is every bit as capable as Centovacast is and then some.