_______               __                   _______
       |   |   |.---.-..----.|  |--..-----..----. |    |  |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
       |       ||  _  ||  __||    < |  -__||   _| |       ||  -__||  |  |  ||__ --|
       |___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__|   |__|____||_____||________||_____|
                                                             on Gopher (inofficial)
   URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
       
       
       COMMENT PAGE FOR:
   URI   SonoBus: High-quality, low-latency peer-to-peer audio
   DIR   text version
       
       
        imtringued wrote 2 days ago:
        I think it is insulting that Bluetooth basically gave up on this. It is
        faster to send an audio signal around the planet once than to send it
        from your phone to your ear with the worst Bluetooth profile.
       
        amluto wrote 2 days ago:
        Can this interoperate with AVB?  Are there plans for that? Gadgets like
        this look promising:
        
   URI  [1]: https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio-interface/spk-4p-po...
       
          loxias wrote 2 days ago:
          Technically, yes, it can interop with AVB.  Might require budget
          though.
       
        NHQ wrote 3 days ago:
        I recently made a P2P audio broadcast app, also HD quality, and low
        latency, and it runs in all major browsers, including mobile, no app
        download.  It also supports listener call-ins, and music/file streaming
        in the mix.  What should I do with this technology?
       
          loxias wrote 2 days ago:
          Open source it, so I can see if it's a good home for some of MY ideas
          in a lowest-possible-latency audio over lossy network R&D/code I've
          been half-ass building for a decade now.  ;-)
          
          Though perhaps not, as I'm guessing making it browser based and cross
          platform removes the ability to do lots of the things that drive down
          latency.
       
            imtringued wrote 2 days ago:
            WebRTC is already pretty good.
       
            NHQ wrote 2 days ago:
            My stock assumption is that most people will have perfectly
            adequate network bandwidth for good quality audio streaming.  Most
            of connected world already does.  My mobile to mobile tests have
            been as good I as could want.
       
              loxias wrote 2 days ago:
              Then I look forward to our future friendly rivalry, and topping
              all quantitative benchmarks.  ;-)
              
              (I'm not going after exactly your space, though maybe a superset
              of it)
       
          jimkleiber wrote 3 days ago:
          Selfishly let me use it to run the live call-in podcast that I have
          wanted to run for a long time :-)
       
            NHQ wrote 2 days ago:
            I'm not prepared for testing and debugging at real-world breadth!
       
        Eduard wrote 3 days ago:
        Previous discussion:
        
   URI  [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148527
       
        sowbug wrote 3 days ago:
        The Features/Tips/User Guide/Download header is slightly broken. The
        Features anchor appends a fragment to the current URL, which produces
        .../linux.html#features on the Linux download page.
       
        erwinkle wrote 3 days ago:
        Wouldn't this name be a copyright infringement given it's for high
        quality audio streaming?
       
          loeg wrote 3 days ago:
          I'm guessing you mean trademark, not copyright -- copyright does not
          make sense in the context used -- but I'm not sure why you think it
          would be trademark infringement.
       
            penneyd wrote 3 days ago:
            I was about to write a comment about how I'm not supporting a
            company that ruined by Google Home speaker group functionality so
            yeah I think Sonos would have a pretty good trademark infringement
            case here.
       
            dsmmcken wrote 3 days ago:
            My guess is they are referring to the similarity between the name
            Sonos and SonoBus.
       
              kkielhofner wrote 3 days ago:
              Absolutely. Almost certainly problematic as one of Sonus’
              leading value props is exactly this function - audio sync across
              their ecosystem.
       
                raggi wrote 2 days ago:
                if they want to keep it, they should come up with a viable long
                term business model, because obsoleting hardware isn't it.
                otherwise their threat hopefully will vaporize eventually,
                along with their non-ip stranglehold.
       
            0x69420 wrote 3 days ago:
            perhaps they meant something like “hmm, couldnt streaming
            copyrighted music using this app constitute a violation of
            rightsholders' intellectual property?”, which, on the one hand:
            haha; on the other hand: lmao
       
        seba_dos1 wrote 3 days ago:
        How does it compare to Jamulus for remote jam session use case?
       
          krnlpnc wrote 3 days ago:
          Both are highly sensitive to latency
          
          Ninjam/jamtaba on the other hand is not
       
            spacechild1 wrote 2 days ago:
            Ninjam is a neat idea, but it's not really a realtime audio
            streaming solution (audio is delayed by a whole bar, iirc)
       
          0x69420 wrote 3 days ago:
          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
       
          lazyjeff wrote 3 days ago:
          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.
       
            nemetroid wrote 3 days ago:
            That’s what Jamulus does, too.
       
        speps wrote 3 days ago:
        Not taking anything away from the free product, it looks like a nice UI
        (using JUCE) on top of AoO [1] (Audio over OSC, the peer-to-peer audio
        part).
        
   URI  [1]: https://github.com/essej/aoo
       
          spacechild1 wrote 3 days ago:
          Hey, original author of AoO here. Don't underestimate the value of
          good UI design! Also, Sonobus offers a few additional goodies, such
          as mixing/routing, FX, recording to disk, etc. IMO, jesse does a
          fantastic job.
       
            em3rgent0rdr wrote 2 days ago:
            Definately.  It seems like I've only been able to get friends with
            engineering degrees to operate something like JackTrip.  But
            SonoBus I can get regular musicians to use.
       
          0x69420 wrote 3 days ago:
          "Part of the myth is thinking that packaging is technology. [...]
          Microsoft Windows is packaging and conventions. The Macintosh is
          packaging and conventions. The World Wide Web is packaging and
          conventions. Underneath these wrappers are the real technologies:
          TCP/IP, DNS, graphical displays, [...] compression, payment
          mechanisms, encryption, and so on, but the wrapper is what people
          see." -Ted Nelson [1] that being said, this is one bit of
          “packaging” im particularly grateful for -- by complete
          coincidence, i found it a few days ago, and the fact that the app is
          free* and available everywhere means i can finally use my phone as an
          audio receiver for any computer†. now i can listen to talks with
          slides on a big screen while i cook or clean at antisocial hours, and
          let the rest of the house sleep without having to buy a bluetooth DAC
          (or a pair of wireless headphones‡)
          
          actually kind of funny -- other solutions to this exist on ios but
          they are in fact paid apps. same goes for various bits of
          “packaging” that solve similarly trivial problems, which was a
          part of growing up with apple stuff that was always deeply insulting
          to me. i recently came across someone singing the praises of a safari
          extension for user styles. it is two dollars and ninety nine cents on
          the mac app store. christ. i hope the grift goes well for the author,
          we've all got to get by somehow, but good fucking lord
          
          * actually free, as in no strings attached, open source, not freemium
          adware, not sending 24kbps opus of everything that goes through it to
          some adtech firm's speech recognition neural net
          
          † ive janked together things like an icecast instance -> mobile
          safari before, but good lord the latency is ass
          
          ‡ headphones are such amazing consumer tech. they do not go bad by
          default. cans from the 80s sound just as good in 2022. wireless
          headphones throw this out the window and slap an expiration date on.
          i categorically object on principle
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdnGPQaICjk
       
            dwohnitmok wrote 3 days ago:
            I'll the contrarian stance. Through a certain lens, packaging is
            technology, technology is packaging. The two are indistinguishable.
            
            TCP/IP is merely a given package of conventions around how bytes
            should be ordered. Compression even more so! Encryption is likewise
            just a set of conventions and packaging around how to transmit
            bytes. So on and so forth.
            
            In the physical domain this holds true as well. Any given piece of
            physical equipment is merely a packaging and rearrangement of other
            physical components together.
            
            Okay so what's the upshot of all this besides word games? By
            thinking of technology as simply packaging, we can reuse a lot of
            the prior work that people use to create packaging in how we think
            about technology as well as explain a lot of technological trends
            by analogy with how packaging works. We also should realize the
            opposite direction as well: a lot of packaging concerns are
            fundamentally the same as technological concerns and many similar
            trade-offs are made.
       
              0x69420 wrote 3 days ago:
              i am in full agreement that, for instance, a shell script
              consisting of grep piped into sed is as deserving of being called
              a “program” as grep and sed themselves are
              
              it does come down to where you draw the line, though -- is a PaaS
              subscription plan technology? not the infra behind PaaS firm's
              epic load balancer that lets them provision leanly and fatten
              their margins. not the javascript minifier that does its damned
              best to cut down time from link clicked to prices and features in
              browser viewport with animated gradients in background. not even
              the spreadsheet from the accountant who drafted up expected
              returns across a range of pricing schemes. but the subscription
              plan itself. that thing, which we conveniently refer to as a
              package pretty often. is it also technology?
       
                dwohnitmok wrote 2 days ago:
                > is it also technology?
                
                In a very meaningful way yes! Business plans are a form of
                incentive bundling, which is itself an example of a social
                technology and social technologies are a thing and they follow
                much the same lifecycle and trade-offs as any other non-social
                technology. Indeed we can derive a lot of useful insights by
                using insights derived from looking at social technologies to
                examine non-social technologies and vice versa.
       
                ilrwbwrkhv wrote 3 days ago:
                turtles all the way down?
       
       
   DIR <- back to front page