When it doesn't fit anywhere else
 #141783  by ebick
 
Wouldn't it be fun, and educational to be able to jam some Dead tunes with RU Kind folks, even if you are not near each other geographically?

I came across this company called JamKazam. They claim that if you have a fast enough upload speed, you can have a jam session that won't be hampered by latency issues, over the internet. I do NOT have fast enough upload speed, currently, but they are in the process of laying fiber down in my neighborhood and once that gets up and running, I will. I think it would be awesome to be able to play with folks that are part of this community. What say you?

http://www.jamkazam.com/
 #141785  by schmidtz
 
As awesome as that sounds, I'm not sure I buy it. At my job I was tasked with implementing the lowest latency internet data transfer that is currently possible. I'm talking about basic JSON strings. The best I could get was in the neighborhood of 100 ms. My client then wanted low latency video as well. The lowest latency, working off WiFi transferring over a distance measured in feet, was roughly 400 milliseconds. That's almost half a second, in one direction. I cannot imagine the technology they are using (guaranteed to be websocket derived) that would allow latencies that would be unnoticed by discerning musicians. The thought makes me want a job with them, though.
 #141786  by schmidtz
 
If video is not broadcasted, (I didn't look at the site) it's possible that they are getting latencies near the open source program called "mumble" which claims latency around 40ms. This would probably be unnoticed...
 #141787  by ebick
 
Well, here's the really good news....at least right now....it's free, so there's no risk.

Here's their video on latency.




and here's some comments from the CEO when I asked him a question about the service.
Ed Bick wrote:So if it’s truly about the upload speed, and I can see where it it probably is, what makes this different than Skype, for example? (I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, I really want to know). A buddy of mine and I tried to jam on line using Skype and I’m sure you know how that went. If all parties had the upload speed, why use this instead of Skype? I am aware of the ability to enter public jams....that would certainly be one example, but because I don’t have the fiber yet, I’ve not been able to see how well that really works.
JamKazam wrote:I’m glad to hear that your home Internet service is going to improve. You’re right. Not everyone can use JamKazam today. But the majority of musicians in the US can because most folks have either cable or fiber broadband. Satellite won’t work, and DSL is a real stretch, but these are in the minority today, and will continue to trend that direction.

Re: Skype, there are a bunch of differences. Our app is lower latency because we’ve done things to drive latency lower. Skype doesn’t worry about latency as much because voice conferencing is not as demanding on latency. Also Skype uses a voice codec so audio doesn’t sound as good. We use an audio codec that is much better for music. There are a bunch of other things that differentiate our service, but those are a couple of biggies.
 #141790  by Dozin
 
With several inputs I can't see it being seamless. the algorithm between the inputs would never match up. Maybe on the same network. I don't know, way too many variables.

A cool concept though
 #142664  by Mr.Burns
 
We are currently in a unique state In regards to technology. Our ability to churn out newer and smaller tech has surpassed our ability to understand its implications. Time was, what drove our hunger for such things was necessity, but now it's just a greedy trend. Pair that with the fact that every good new idea gets denounced immediately for a laundry list of reasons and you've got a shoo-in in my book. In my opinion, we will cyberjam when our brains catch up to our desire for newer and smaller.
 #142685  by ebick
 
Mr.Burns wrote:We are currently in a unique state In regards to technology. Our ability to churn out newer and smaller tech has surpassed our ability to understand its implications. Time was, what drove our hunger for such things was necessity, but now it's just a greedy trend. Pair that with the fact that every good new idea gets denounced immediately for a laundry list of reasons and you've got a shoo-in in my book. In my opinion, we will cyberjam when our brains catch up to our desire for newer and smaller.
I gotta tell ya....I have been thinking about this post for a bit and I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

To me, if this app works as advertised it means a couple of things. 1, my buddy, who lives half a country away, and I can jam together on a regular basis. 2, nights when I'm hanging out at home, I can find someone to jam with and potentially learn something new.
 #142696  by Mr.Burns
 
This will happen, it's just a matter of time. Put technology in perspective: there hasn't been a new discovery since the days of Henry, Faraday and Hertz, yet the current variations on the ideas put forth by those 19th century men would astound and bewilder the men themselves. Some of those early pioneers of electrical theory didn't, at the time, understand the impact their own discoveries would ultimately have on the rest of the world, which backs up the theory that we currently don't fully understand the implications of existing technology, and the gap may never close. Modern technology isn't some new and separate school of thought, it's our societal, collective intelligence catching up to, and fleshing out, the killer ideas of the brightest folks that lived ages ago, with a little help from things like chemistry and incredibly strict manufacturing standards and tolerances. Example: cellular telephone technology; which is really just a sophisticated radio, has been around for over half a century, but it took decades of newer and smaller iterations, as well as getting the required infrastructure in place, to make it's widespread use practical. Same with TV, but replace newer and smaller with thinner and more Highly Defined. The Cathode Ray Tube, the likes of which some of us are still harboring in darkened corners of our homes, is a 19th century invention. Savvy?
History is rife with folks who told early electrical pioneers their ideas weren't plausible or real-world application wasn't feasible. Tom Edison himself (a naysayer in this example) was on the losing side of the AC/DC battle (He was right about DC being utilized in consumer electronics, dead wrong about how that DC would reach said consumers). If someone rains on your desire-for-technology parade, it will probably happen sooner or later. Likely sooner.
 #142697  by schmidtz
 
Mr.Burns wrote:there hasn't been a new discovery since the days of Henry, Faraday and Hertz
:lol: :lol: :lol: :?
 #142700  by Mr.Burns
 
schmidtz wrote:
Mr.Burns wrote:there hasn't been a new discovery since the days of Henry, Faraday and Hertz
:lol: :lol: :lol: :?
You disagree? Please, go on...
 #142710  by schmidtz
 
Werner Heisenberg, Alan Turing, Claude Shannon, hell even Einstein came after those three you mentioned. It would probably not be possible to even enumerate all of the technological advances that have taken place since the days of Hertz, Henry, and Maxwell.

Your statement was that technology has not advanced since the late 1800's. Technology has advanced monumentally in my lifetime alone, and I'm in my early twenties.

Before responding to me, realize that your text will be broken down in to binary, sent via a wire at the speed of light through a global network of routers, then reconstructed in to ASCII encoding before being rendered to your liquid crystal display, and that all of the processing will take place using literally billions of transistors that are not visible to the naked eye.
 #142721  by Mr.Burns
 
schmidtz wrote:Werner Heisenberg, Alan Turing, Claude Shannon, hell even Einstein came after those three you mentioned. It would probably not be possible to even enumerate all of the technological advances that have taken place since the days of Hertz, Henry, and Maxwell.

Your statement was that technology has not advanced since the late 1800's. Technology has advanced monumentally in my lifetime alone, and I'm in my early twenties.

Before responding to me, realize that your text will be broken down in to binary, sent via a wire at the speed of light through a global network of routers, then reconstructed in to ASCII encoding before being rendered to your liquid crystal display, and that all of the processing will take place using literally billions of transistors that are not visible to the naked eye.
My statement was nothing of the sort. I said we're a good 50 years behind the full potential of our current tech. C'mon Man! You're reading comprehension skills are lacking, brah. And you really shouldn't paraphrase someone with such blatant disregard for the integrity of the statement you are misquoting; even if your intention is to argue your point. I mean, shit, the "Quote" button is right there. If I wanted to be a dick I would tell you to Google the words "discovery" and "advancement", but I'll take the high ground and just say they are most certainly not the same. I fully realize how telecommunications work, and even though my display is plasma, liquid crystal is yet another 19TH CENTURY DISCOVERY. You almost proved my point for me here. Of all the significant works put forth by the men of science you mentioned, (all truly great scientists, by the way. Even if they are all either mathematicians or physicists. The guys I'm talking about defined electrical engineer before the term existed) the most recent were in the early fifties. That's only further proving my point. Sure they advanced technology, but again, that's not what I said. The term "advanced" in the context you used suggests springboarding or riding on the backs of those who came before. This is where the discovery part I was talking about becomes important. Because those 19th century, and also some early 20th century men, made the real breakthroughs. The men you mentioned theorized, proved, disproved, or invented all sorts of new and useful ideas and "advances" to existing technology, but there's not a discovery in the bunch.
 #142808  by ebick
 
OK....so I got my fiber install now and my upload speed satisfies the apps requirement. The app is now reporting that I can get at least Fair connections (which it says is totally workable) with folks. Anyone game for trying this with me?