SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio

Re:SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio by seba_dos1 on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @01:23PM (#31507587)

How does it compare to Jamulus for remote jam session use case?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio by lazyjeff on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @01:47PM (#31507968)

I'm not the developer, but he (Jesse) spoke in my class over a year ago. So hopefully I'm conveying this correctly -- my impression is he felt it was pretty close for live jamming but depends on a lot of conditions (ping latency, ethernet vs wifi, how many people are in the session). But what I can say for sure is it makes conversations feel a lot more intimate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio by nemetroid on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @02:02PM (#31508195)

That’s what Jamulus does, too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio by 0x69420 on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @02:08PM (#31508279)

jamulus is positioned as a 21st century take on the conference call jam session; it has a vaguely skeuomorphic mixer like you'd see in a DAW and so on. sonobus on the other hand is a lot more application-agnostic in its presentation

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio by krnlpnc on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @02:34PM (#31508636)

Both are highly sensitive to latency

Ninjam/jamtaba on the other hand is not

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio by spacechild1 on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @05:18PM (#31510697)

Ninjam is a neat idea, but it's not really a realtime audio streaming solution (audio is delayed by a whole bar, iirc)

[ Parent | on HN ]