Icecast or Shoutcast, which suits you

Both do the same thing: they take your audio and pass it to your listeners. The difference is flexibility and compatibility. Here is what it comes down to in practice.

Choose Icecast if

• You want multiple mounts, for example one channel at 128 Kbps and one at 320 Kbps from the same source
• You want to offer OGG, Opus or FLAC alongside MP3 and AAC
• You want a fallback: if your encoder drops, Icecast switches to a backup stream automatically
• You work with modern software like Mixxx, BUTT or Liquidsoap

Choose Shoutcast if

• Your listeners use older radio apps that only recognise Shoutcast
• You want to appear in the classic Shoutcast directory for discovery
• You have worked with Shoutcast software for years and want to change nothing

In short

Not sure? Take Icecast. It is open source, has no listener limit in the software itself, supports more formats and works with almost everything. For most new stations that is the safest choice.

The differences side by side

What this means in practice

Want to offer a lean 64 Kbps stream next to your main channel for listeners on a poor connection? With Icecast you run it from the same source on a second mount. With Shoutcast you need a second server for that.

Is your audience mainly on older car radio apps or in classic radio listings? Then the wider recognition of Shoutcast weighs heavier than the flexibility of Icecast.