Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.tonari.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 211 posts

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

#61

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

Joeboy wrote: post #31
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never listened to audiophile equipment have you? If apply "some soft clipping" it will sound bad, I guarantee you, no audiophile would like it.

> You've never listened to audiophile equipment have you? You're saying that I ought to judge the merits of audiophile equipment by the subjective measure of whether I like the sound of it. Which is the metric I said audiophiles would favour. > If apply "some soft clipping" it will sound bad Soft clipping often sounds nice, which is why it's very commonly applied to music. You're saying that eg. the sound of a classi…

Because what you are describing is a simplistic picture, describing whole class of people as stupid simpletons who cannot tell low THD and low IMD audio from "soft clipping which sounds nice". If you are referring to vacuum tube amps, soft clipping is only partially the reason why they sound the way they do; in fact most of the time amps are not clipping and are outputting close to 1% of their their total power. Reasons why tube equipment sounds better/different from the solid state amps are a lot more complex than the "common wisdom" of soft clipping.

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

#62

Post by Drew_ »

Joeboy wrote: post #38
Drew_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The audiophile definition of a "warm" sound signature has nothing to do with distortion and audiophile's do not "eschew fidelity" for different sound signatures.

> The audiophile definition of a "warm" sound signature I don't really know what, if anything, that means. But if we're talking about fidelity, surely the ideal would be no sound signature? If a particular "sound signature" makes it sound "warm", surely it's decreasing the fidelity?

You're lack of knowledge of this matter is very evident and you're skepticism and confusion would be very easily cleared if you made an actual honest exploration into hi-fi audio

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

#64

Post by ponker »

pedrocr wrote: post #53
ccostes wrote: post #7

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.

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 r…

Cisco and HP Halo were incredible but the biggest problem they had was 1) the requirement to build out an actual room for it and 2) the shitty software setup experience. The big corporates that could afford to build out real estate for VCs also bogged the shit down in "enterpriseyness" that made the shit impossible to use.

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

#65

Post by ClumsyPilot »

nerdbaggy wrote: post #36

If anybody is looking for a low latency high bandwidth P2P video streaming solution there is https://github.com/CESNET/UltraGrid/wiki It can do less than 80ms of latency

This is cool, thanks for the link. Is this Nvidia GPU only? Mighr give it a try at some point

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

#67

Post by renewiltord »

GuiA wrote: post #34

Very cool from a tech standpoint. From a product point of view, I find it interesting that the illustrations/concept videos for these things always show people interacting very closely to the wall - e.g. playing chess, sitting around a table, etc. https://tonari.no/static/media/family.48218197.svg But in practice, people tend to keep their distance from it. E.g. the pictures of this setup tend to show people clustere…

I'd sit closer but the picture then distorts and I am distorted for my conversation partner.

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

#68

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

masklinn wrote: post #59
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right, however 16-bit sounds really harsh to my ears, and 24-bits is the only widely used standard, better than 16-bit.

> 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…

What I said actually does make sense. First of all, if you are digitally lowering loudness of audio (say 4 times), you actually are losing precision, and if you later amplify again - you will never return these bits back. This is what is called headroom. So your typical multiply-by-a-floating-point volume control actually kills dynamic range of the sound. I for example never run my OS volume control and players volume knob at 100% (which would preserve the range), because the gain of my amp is simply to high, and even slightest movement of the amp knob will cause dramatic change in loudness. Therefore, I keep the digital volume controls at 25% (losing 2 bits on the way, but the audio is recorded at 16-bit - losing nothing), and then amplify with my amp. Voila - nothing lost in the process. Secondly, empirically, every time I switch sound cards to 24 bits it sounds better. I have noticeably less fatigue. Of course, someone may want to gaslight me (not deliberately, of course), attempting to force me to think it is a placebo, but I tried with many people, and all of them noted the difference.

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

#69

Post by monocasa »

vlovich123 wrote: post #47
bob1029 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem is that of the video codecs which ultimately boils down to using interframe compression. This technique requires that a certain # of video frames be received and buffered before a final image can be produced. This requirement imposes a baseline amount of latency that can never be overcome by any means. It is a hard trade-off in information theory. Something to consider is that there are alternativ…

You can also just configure your video encoder to not use B-frames. Then if you make all consecutive frames P frames then the size is very maintainable. It gets trickier if your transport is lossy since a dropped P frame is a problem but it's not an unsolvable problem if you use LTR frames intelligently. All the benefits of efficient codecs, more manageable handling of the latency downsides. The challenges you'll run…

Almost every hardware codec I've seen supports JPEG. MJPEG is certainly more rare than the more traditional video algorithms, but it certainly gets used.

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

#70

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

ruuda wrote: post #56
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right, however 16-bit sounds really harsh to my ears, and 24-bits is the only widely used standard, better than 16-bit.

Do you mean “the expression ‘16-bit’ sounds harsh to my ears”, or do you mean that you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits per sample? The effect of bit depth has little to do with how you perceive the sound; what adding more bits does is allowing for more dynamic range, i.e. more difference between the loudest possible and the quietest possible sound. More bits brings down the noise floor. This means that…

Is there any difference between those two expressions. Overall - yes you are right, 24 do sound better. Loss of details and replacement of them with digital (aggressive, non-random, correlated) noise indeed sounds harsh.
Post reply on HN