+- JamKazam Forums (https://forum.jamkazam.com)
+-- Forum: Jamkazam Forums (https://forum.jamkazam.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Rehearsals with Choirs or Large Groups (https://forum.jamkazam.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Jamkazam over a LAN (/showthread.php?tid=802)
Jamkazam over a LAN - GDJ - 05-12-2020
Can JK be configured to work over a LAN?
In a separate post I had a question about the paring feature and was told it pertained to the JamBlaster. I see the pairing option is now removed. Some of the initial testing I did weeks ago, I discovered I could pair 2 clients by IP to the same session from two separate Macs and JK accounts inside my LAN. Bypassing the internet.
You may be asking, what would be the purpose. For some rehearsals at the same locations, social distancing needs to be respected. Everyone cannot be in the same room therefore the players are in different areas/rooms. And, there is no easy mixer solution to run long cable runs to a mixing board which we would normally do if we’re in the same room. The location is wired for Ethernet. I'm thinking it would be good if we could use JK, everyone could join the session over the LAN. Latency should be ideal since it's handled via the router.
There is another app i have explored (Jamulus), which allows you to run your own servers and specifically internal LAN IPs.
Thoughts?
GDJ
RE: Jamkazam over a LAN - Zlartibartfast - 05-20-2020
so in your IntraLAN setup, what was the server?
BTW If I were setting up a LAN for music, I would probably go with AVB compatible hardware, where QoS prioritizes the audio stream, and every node is a peer. Latency would be in the single digits all the time.
RE: Jamkazam over a LAN - GDJ - 05-21-2020
(05-20-2020, 07:22 PM)Zlartibartfast Wrote: so in your IntraLAN setup, what was the server?
BTW If I were setting up a LAN for music, I would probably go with AVB compatible hardware, where QoS prioritizes the audio stream, and every node is a peer. Latency would be in the single digits all the time.
I cannot answer the question just yet. There is no option to setup a JK Server. My understanding is JK is peer to peer. However I realize the App needs internet access to call home and negotiate everything and everybody for the session. And there is no GUI setting to specify a server or other client, as I saw in the previous version (back in March), there was the option to Pair. There is another App, Jamulus, that allows me to run my own server and specify either the WAN or LAN which has been an interesting experiment to hear the latency with your own network, when you are hitting your own WAN. When using the loopback address any latency is inaudible.
The Audio Video Bridge you mention is good input. Normally, for my in person jam sessions everyone is connected to a Mixer. It will be interesting to see the performance over LAN with the current router hardware with port forwarding to prioritize the request; and I agree with the thinking the latency would be minimal and tolerable. It's only for 3 musicians.
I hope to learn more this weekend when I setup testing over the LAN.
Thanks for your reply and input.
RE: Jamkazam over a LAN - GDJ - 05-22-2020
I wrapped up my LAN testing, for now. I’m not going to layout numbers but just general observations. I compared JamKazam with Jamulus because Jamulus has a sever app allowing me to dedicate a PC as a server to connect to from all the local clients. JamKazam does not.
Since JK does not allow you to point directly to other clients over LAN, you accept the outcome. I have two Macs and Interfaces and two JK accounts. Internet is required since JK won’t connect without one. It requires a valid IP. With both Macs wired to the router there as very minor latency and I considered it tolerable for playing. Switching one Mac to WiFi, with the router only a few feet away the latency was unacceptable. JK is obviously routing the session through the WAN instead of keeping everything INTRANET. At this point I would look for other options.
Jamulus on the other hand can be configured to keep everything INTRANET by specifying one of the client machines as the server. There was less latency but the Noise level was high. It was not something I could note control. I did not experience it with JK