3K, 60fps, 130ms: achieving it with Rust

Any suggestions on a group video conferencing tool for use on a local network (Ethernet) that's effective? Either self-hosted or online, just for personal usage to talk with others?

Cisco "telepresence" solved this 15 years ago. Standardized rooms on both sides with high quality cameras and low latencies. Polycom had a similar but worse setup at the time. The Cisco experience was very close to being in a shared meeting with the other people. It made meetings across continents work very well and was an actual competitor to flying everywhere. Between the hardware being too expensive and the link requirements being very high I only ever saw it implemented in multinational telecoms for whom it was an actual work tool but also something to impress their clients with.

Either Cisco needed to bring down the cost massively to expand access or someone needed to build it in major cities and bill by the hour to compete against flying. None of those happened so it stayed a niche. Compared to those experiences more than a decade ago the common VC is still very slowly catching up. Part of it is setup, like installing VC rooms with 2 smaller TVs side by side instead of one large one so you can see the document and the other people at decent sizes. But part of it is still the technology. Those "telepresences" were almost surely on a dedicated link running on the telecom core network that guaranteed quality instead of routing through the internet and randomly failing. I suspect getting really low latency will require that kind of telecom level QoS otherwise you'll be increasing buffer sizes to avoid freezes.

Their blog post suggests they wrote something from scratch, but gives no clue as to what, whether they considered building on a more modern protocol specification than RTP (which is a couple decades old at this point), what they've taken from other more modern protocol specs if they didn't use one directly, or anything aside from that they wrote some code really.

I disagree, I do not own trash equipment. Every time I install Linux, i switch Pulseaudio settings from 16-bit to 24-bit; the difference is immediate, although subtle. Everyone I know who tried to do this, noted that listening fatigue is a lot lower with the new settings.

> 16-bit sounds really harsh to my ears, and 24-bits is the only widely used standard, better than 16-bit.

That really doesn't make any sense. The bit depth provides for a dynamic range, meaning the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds which can be encoded. 16 bits is enough to go from "mosquito in the room" to "jackhammer right in your ear". Congratulation, 24 bits let you go up to "head in the output nozzle of a rocket taking off" with room to spare, that's… not very useful?

Now what might make sense — aside from plain placebo — is a difference in mastering. For instance lots of SACD comparisons at the time were really comparing differences in mastering, with the SACD converted to regular CDDA turning out way superior to the CD version because the mastering of the CD was so much worse.

The "Loudness Wars" is an especially bad period of horrible mastering, and it went from the mid 90s to the early-mid 2010s (which doesn't mean that regular-CD has gone back to "super awesome", just that you're unlikely to have clipping throughout a piece these days).