search

jamulussoftware / jamulus

Jamulus enables musicians to perform real-time jam sessions over the internet.
https://jamulus.io
Other
997 stars 222 forks source link

Audio send only mode #842

Closed JoschiCiubotaru closed 3 years ago

JoschiCiubotaru commented 3 years ago

Feature request: Client switch to "Send Audio only" Due to the limitation in Jamulus to send just 2 channels, I'm using two instances of the Client. 2 channels for my instrument (keybaords) with mic mixed in. In addition a Click-Track/Backing Track will be sent with the 2nd client. BUT: With the 2nd client I also recieve the mix from the server a second time (that doesn't make any sense). To reduce traffic (from the server and to the client) I would love to see a switch (start parameter or in the GUI - I don't care) to have Jamulus Client in a "send only" mode. The Client just need to send the audio from the input. Somehow the server must be aware of this mode. As long as the 2 channel limition per instance exists it would improve network trafic for people who need more then 2 channels to send. Does this request make any sense? To take the "listener mode" in account I can imagine somthing like this: Mode: Normal (send and receive) Mode: Listen (Receive only) Mode: Cast (Send only)

ann0see commented 3 years ago

I think implementing something like this is quite difficult. You could also mute all channels which should result in almost no data being sent to your PC. You could also set the new client level to 0 and reset all channels to the new client level.

nefarius2001 commented 3 years ago

I think implementing something like this is quite difficult. You could also mute all channels which should result in almost no data being sent to your PC. You could also set the new client level to 0 and reset all channels to the new client level.

Muting should redruce calculation in the Server, but not the Traffic. Ihmo

vdellamea commented 3 years ago

I also think that muting in general does not influence traffic (even the mute yourself button - I think it zeroes data, but still sends).

Since this was discussed on the forum, I personally think it makes sense, although normally what is asked is the listener version (for the public). Not having read the code, I cannot tell how hard it is to implement, however clients could have a property like "donotsend" that is checked when sending out the mix. However, if in a band just one or two receive double data, I do not think is an issue from the point of view of bandwidth (server-side, although it may make the difference for a home-run server).

corrados commented 3 years ago

We already had this discussion, see https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/issues/160.

JoschiCiubotaru commented 3 years ago

Thanks for all the comments. Setting Volume to zero or mute a channel has no impact on data transfer. That's easy to see. As soon as a client connects the server start the stream to the client. @corrados the discusseion in #160 is the oposite way. My main point is about a second instance of Jamulus on the client that makes no sense to get the stream (because this comes already with the first instance). We are 5 members in the band running with 6 instances and could reduce traffic near to 20% if the second instance of the client would just send and not receive any data.

gilgongo commented 3 years ago

Hi @JoschiCiubotaru I think the consensus is that the problem you describe does't warrant the potential size of the changes that would be needed to solve it. At least, lack of bandwidth when using Jamulus doesn't seem to a problem that's reported generally as most domestic broadband connections have more than enough unless unusually congested by other things.

JoschiCiubotaru commented 3 years ago

Maybe then it's easier to allow more than two channels to be sent. These can still be sent stereo or mono to the server if that is an issue. Just let the user decide which channel to map to left, right or mono (and left+right to map a mono signal to both outputs). If 4 channels were possible, a 2nd instance wouldn't be needed either and the problem would be solved as well.

hoffie commented 3 years ago

Maybe some hope for an alternative solution: I'm planning to start a fresh discussion topic regarding usage of VBR in the coming weeks. When muting all audio in the mix and using VBR the required bandwidth for receiving should be vastly reduced.

Maybe then it's easier to allow more than two channels to be sent. These can still be sent stereo or mono to the server if that is an issue. Just let the user decide which channel to map to left, right or mono (and left+right to map a mono signal to both outputs). If 4 channels were possible, a 2nd instance wouldn't be needed either and the problem would be solved as well.

Might be worth opening a discussion about that? :)

npostavs commented 3 years ago

Maybe then it's easier to allow more than two channels to be sent. These can still be sent stereo or mono to the server if that is an issue.

This is implemented (at least on some platforms) if and only if your sound device has exactly 4 input channels.

https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/blob/r3_6_2/windows/sound.cpp#L226-L227

gilgongo commented 3 years ago

@JoschiCiubotaru Are you OK with the resolution on this issue? Aspects have been discussed here https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/issues/160 and there may be a forthcoming discussion on VBR.

If so please close, thanks

JoschiCiubotaru commented 3 years ago

Maybe then it's easier to allow more than two channels to be sent. These can still be sent stereo or mono to the server if that is an issue.

This is implemented (at least on some platforms) if and only if your sound device has exactly 4 input channels.

https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/blob/r3_6_2/windows/sound.cpp#L226-L227

Thanks for your hint. I tried that with my MOTU M4. It has 4 physical inputs but 2 loopback adapters as well. Therefore this implementation does not work for me. Why is limited to exactly 4 input channels?

JoschiCiubotaru commented 3 years ago

@JoschiCiubotaru Are you OK with the resolution on this issue? Aspects have been discussed here #160 and there may be a forthcoming discussion on VBR.

If so please close, thanks

I reviewed the issue #160 and already mentioned that my topic is the the different. It's not about listening (not sending anything) but send only when a second instance is running.

I overthought the the implementation of @npostavs and this is not the solution that will help. The reason here is, that even if I'm able to mix more then 2 channels then there is still just one fader for the other members to the control volume.

I send my talkback mic and the keys sound with 2 channels (and a dedicated fader) and the Click-Track/Backing Track with the 2nd Instance of the Jamulus Client. The 2nd Client will again get the mix from the server - wich doesn't make sense because the first client did get it already.

I'm very sorry that I can't explain it in a better way. I'm not sure if the VBR topic will cover my request. So maybe a little more details on that would be fine before I close this issue. Is that ok for all?

gilgongo commented 3 years ago

@JoschiCiubotaru In the interests of having the issues contain actionable specs for work, I'll move this to discussion until we can firm this up.