11–20 of 211 posts
Nitpick: “audiophile-quality sound” it seems, is becoming the new “military-grade encryption.” I don’t have many other comments to make other than I am surprised rust-analyzer was only mentioned in passing.
The issue with 'military-grade' is that anyone in the military will attest it translates to: Cheapest possible thing that gets the job done. Audiophile grade at least has roots in high fidelity.
Are they still using WebRTC, just their own implementation? Or have they switched to something else on the wire?
If this actually works, I am desperately keen to get my hands on it. If you have the capacity for high bandwidth, why not use it? Zoom’s model must work on whatever crappy broadband people have in their home office. If you have gigabit, it doesn’t seem to make use of that extra capacity to improve video quality. As for sound, I don’t think audiophile quality is necessary...
Given you'll need about 10Mbps upstream for 60fps 3K video it seems a little unreasonable not to add on a 320Kpbs (or more) audio stream.
It could make this useful for things like streaming music concerts.
Aside from the Rust aspect (which is cool!), I can't believe we've come this far and still don't have low-latency video conferencing. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but people talking over each other and the lack of conversational flow drives me crazy with things like hangouts.
The thing is that when we talk in a room, sound will take See also this interesting comment about the feeling of "closeness" from phone copper wires:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22931809
Landlines were so fast and so "direct" in their latency (where distance correlates very directly with time, due to a lack of "hops") that local phone calls were faster than the speed of sound across a table, and for a bit after they came out--before people generally got used to seemingly random latency--local calls felt "intimate", like as if you were talking to someone in bed with their head right next to you; I also have heard stories of negotiators who had gotten really tuned to analyzing people's wait times while thinking that long distance calls were confusing and threw them off their game.
Nitpick: “audiophile-quality sound” it seems, is becoming the new “military-grade encryption.” I don’t have many other comments to make other than I am surprised rust-analyzer was only mentioned in passing.
The issue with 'military-grade' is that anyone in the military will attest it translates to: Cheapest possible thing that gets the job done. Audiophile grade at least has roots in high fidelity.
Does it though? Audiophiles generally seem to eschew fidelity in favour of something that sounds subjectively nice, including the psychoacoustic effects of spending a lot of money.
Eg. they seem very fond of "warmth". If you asked me to make something sound "warm", I'd be applying some soft clipping and dampening the top end, not eliminating sources of distortion.
Edit: If you actually wanted high fidelity, you'd use studio headphones / monitors, which are designed to be "unflattering", so you can be confident you'll hear any issues when mixing / mastering. People don't normally listen for pleasure with those, because they become fatiguing after a few hours.
Choosing equipment because you like the sound is a very reasonable thing to do, but it's not the same as pursuing fidelity.
Nitpick: “audiophile-quality sound” it seems, is becoming the new “military-grade encryption.” I don’t have many other comments to make other than I am surprised rust-analyzer was only mentioned in passing.
yeah audiophile can be so may things. To me it means 24bits or more.
Nitpick: “audiophile-quality sound” it seems, is becoming the new “military-grade encryption.” I don’t have many other comments to make other than I am surprised rust-analyzer was only mentioned in passing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with 'military-grade' is that anyone in the military will attest it translates to: Cheapest possible thing that gets the job done. Audiophile grade at least has roots in high fidelity.
> Audiophile grade at least has roots in high fidelity. Does it though? Audiophiles generally seem to eschew fidelity in favour of something that sounds subjectively nice , including the psychoacoustic effects of spending a lot of money. Eg. they seem very fond of "warmth". If you asked me to make something sound "warm", I'd be applying some soft clipping and dampening the top end, not eliminating sources of distorti…
Aside from the Rust aspect (which is cool!), I can't believe we've come this far and still don't have low-latency video conferencing. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but people talking over each other and the lack of conversational flow drives me crazy with things like hangouts.
There are hard limits at play. No matter what you do, you can't go from New York to London in less than ~20ms; add video/audio encoding, packet switching, decoding, etc. and it's easy to see why any latency under the 100ms mark at that spatial scale in a scalable, mainstream product would be close to a miracle. The thing is that when we talk in a room, sound will take See also this interesting comment about the feeli…
It seems normal phones are able to do it, though. At least it seems normal phones suffer less latency problem.
In a way, simplicity in technology often means better performance.
If this actually works, I am desperately keen to get my hands on it. If you have the capacity for high bandwidth, why not use it? Zoom’s model must work on whatever crappy broadband people have in their home office. If you have gigabit, it doesn’t seem to make use of that extra capacity to improve video quality. As for sound, I don’t think audiophile quality is necessary...
As for sound, I don’t think audiophile quality is necessary... Given you'll need about 10Mbps upstream for 60fps 3K video it seems a little unreasonable not to add on a 320Kpbs (or more) audio stream. It could make this useful for things like streaming music concerts.