06-21-2020, 02:31 PM
(06-21-2020, 01:36 PM)Hans Peter Augustesen Wrote: Ok - thank you. That is Peter Walker, then.Thanks Hans. It appears there is a server but as David stated music data moves peer to peer. This implies that each member of a session could have a different latency condition with each of the other session
What about the link to the diagram? Can - and will - you provide it?
Here, of course - it should not be needed to send a note to whatever. Simply put it here ...
"First of all, the audio is routed peer-to-peer between musicians in a session. The audio does not run through JamKazam servers. So the location of our servers is not actually relevant to your latency at all"
[...]
"Best,
David"
David Wilson is CEO of JamKazam
from >http://forum.cakewalk.com/Anything-like-Jamkazam-out-there-m3289696.aspx
Search result for peer-to-peer:
https://forum.jamkazam.com/search.php?ac...order=desc
Packet Rate Control And Related Systems For Interactive Music Systems
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0256473.html
"Inventors:
Walker, Peter A. (Cedar Park, TX, US)
Wilson, David J. (Austin, TX, US)
Comer, Robert Scott (Austin, TX, US)
Call, Michael Seth (Austin, TX, US)"
What is "501 C3 nonprofit"?
I could figure it out for myself, maybe.
But, of course, I do not want to spend that time - it is your job to explain. For all people here ... even the zulues, the chinese, the danes and so on
Session members general quality of service is highly dependent on the quality of multiple internet routing hops (unique to a session connection and not fixed by location) and individual access quality to the internet
Each session even with the same members will have conditions ( good and bad) not under the control of Jamkazam and they can not improve in the architecture