_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
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 Sonusâ
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 âhmm, couldnt streaming
copyrighted music using this app constitute a violation of
rightsholders' intellectual property?â, 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:
Thatâs 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
âpackagingâ 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 computerâ . 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 headphonesâ¡)
actually kind of funny -- other solutions to this exist on ios but
they are in fact paid apps. same goes for various bits of
âpackagingâ 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
â ive janked together things like an icecast instance -> mobile
safari before, but good lord the latency is ass
â¡ 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 âprogramâ 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