05-22-2020, 08:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2020, 11:33 PM by Hans Peter Augustesen.)
Hi, Jams
I also don't think the original poster is referring to Jamtracks.
It is also evident in the content and form
But a central part of the case is about wireless.
And when wireless is on the agenda both in general and in particular, there is no need to omit the information about the important exception for wireless and JamTracks.
At least I can see no reason.
It only takes a single line.
And as I wrote:
It is never mentioned by anyone when wireless is on the agenda.
So now I'm doing this in the gap.
Of course, it's a big coincidence that I'm writing right here about it - by the way
HPA
This phrase should be the first bid for wireless:
"Wireless (in any form) is not suited for low-latency online jamming. However, wireless can be used when using JamTracks only".
---
Less can not do it, normally ...
Furthermore, that phrase is almost identical in content and form to what was in the now lost document.
I also don't think the original poster is referring to Jamtracks.
It is also evident in the content and form
But a central part of the case is about wireless.
And when wireless is on the agenda both in general and in particular, there is no need to omit the information about the important exception for wireless and JamTracks.
At least I can see no reason.
It only takes a single line.
And as I wrote:
It is never mentioned by anyone when wireless is on the agenda.
So now I'm doing this in the gap.
Of course, it's a big coincidence that I'm writing right here about it - by the way
HPA
This phrase should be the first bid for wireless:
"Wireless (in any form) is not suited for low-latency online jamming. However, wireless can be used when using JamTracks only".
---
Less can not do it, normally ...
Furthermore, that phrase is almost identical in content and form to what was in the now lost document.