Hi All:

First time poster here.  I did try to search the forum first, but my lack of skills here may have found me at a loss in finding the answer to this question despite its presence here.  I'm sorry if that is the case.

Given the way JamKazam is designed with respect to attempts at eliminating as much latency as possible, I completely understand the recommended use of a wired cable connections to the internet versus WiFi when using JamKazam.

The problem for me is that PC laptop manufacturers, in their effort to make designs thinner, seem to be doing away with providing an ethernet (i.e. RJ45) port standard.

Accordingly, I was wondering if anyone could speak to their ability to use, for example, USB adapters that provide an RJ45 female plug and the potential for latency that such, I've read, slower hard wired connections provide.

It's my understanding that even USB 3.0 ports not only don't compare to ethernet speeds, but that there is more that needs to go on within the machine to translate signals using USB than with an ethernet port, on top of what I've read about how USB ports within a PC compete with each other for a processor's "attention"  ...certainly a relevant concern given that we run JamKazam microphones through USB ports as well.

Any guidance/success stories--other techniques that people have used to deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated, and what type of USB port (e.g. USB, USB 2, USB 3) was involved.  This BTW is not a Mac based question where things like Thunderbolt ports come into play.

Thanks.

All avatar profile pics have all turned into little blue boxes with ? inside them since my Mac Air did its most recent update, any suggestions?

The problems we're getting with my 3-person local (within 10km) sessions seem to be more intense since 2 weeks ago - we would never complain about the level of lag (latency) or jitter (sound quality errors) until then.
Looking at the performance dashboards with this lower general performance, it seems clear that my broadband leg (which arrives via microwave to my chimney) is causing bad results on my sending legs to the two others and on the receiving legs from them both. This may have been the relative qualities of links previously but the effect on the session was able to be ignored previously.

Anyone out there have a similar problem apparently caused by microwave broadband, or know any theoretical reason for problems, or anyone else who gets this? All three of us have great kit and broadband downlink and uplink speeds, and always use wired connections direct from the router RJ45 connector.

Hi

Hope you can help me understand how can following can happen :

I was in a session yesterday  with 5 other users who are in Germany (i am in France) and i wasn't able to lower/increase/mute the volume of 2 of them under Personal Mix

Also could you please explain the difference in a session of latency in personal mix versus latency in audio inputs

Thanks in advance !
Didier

Question:
Can a Tascam DP-32SD mixer/recorder be used as an audio interface on JamKazam?

One of our jamming partners is using Win 7.    Others on the forum use Win 7, apparently successfully.  But the recommended windows OS is Win 10.  Is that just a suggestion for most people, to have fewest problems?
I know Win 7 is a security risk, as does our partner, but that's another matter.

I've been using JamKazam successfully for 8 months.  Today it seems totally broken (not sure if its the new sw load that was pushed out).

As soon as I start a session in JamKazam (even a private session) my audio becomes severely distorted - as if overdriving the channel.

Equipment:
Alessis multi mix 4 USB mixer and a microphone.
Wired ethernet to router.
Fiber interent service.

Tried various JamKazam mix levels and can't make it go away (without reducing audio to zero).

Any ideas?

Allan

Hello Jammers. Has anyone upgraded to the latest Mac OS - Big Sur? Any Jamkazam issues noted?

Thanks,
Norman

When I run the DSL reports speed test I get a grade of D for buffer bloat ( centurylink DSL  40 up, 5 down ).  The buffer bloat is only on upload and if I configure the speed test to limit things to 3 mbps the bloat goes away.
Since we have a few ways to limit/throttle bandwidth etc in the Jamkazam app, should I even worry about buffer bloat being caused by Jamkazam  outgoing/transmitted data?

In my case I usually have exclusive use of our internet connection during JK sessions.  Hard wired of course.   Our jams are probably 75-80% successful with everybody within 75 miles of eachother.  I seem to get good latency and reasonable jitter, but want to do all I can with the gear I have.

Was even considering a smart/managed gaming switch so I could rate limit ( throttle ) my JK connection, keeping it below any buffer bloat territory.

"aopt_violation": 1, 
I'm having an issue with one user which was good recently. He has a new BEHRINGER which I have connected with several times. Something has changed.

I can not successfully connect in a group with this user;
In the log file, I noticed this which was different than any other in the small group. What does this data point refer?