• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"enough bandwidth to send you a degraded, but sufficient, audio stream."
Thinking about the issues we've encountered with JamKazam, I would appreciate your ideas about the appropriate use of this product.

Looking at the JK website and the material they publish, they focus first on rehearsals and education; live broadcasts show up further down the list. In my experience the product does work for rehearsals, but when we push it to produce something to share we run into challenges or have to augment it with other tools.

Should we differentiate two classes of JK users: those needing a low latency solution to provide a reasonable rehearsal environment, and those trying to produce recording for public performance? If that's the case, can we define different sets of requirements for these different classes of users?
=> Public performance environments require very low latency, high bandwidth (100+ Mbps) and high quality audio equipment (audio adapters, quality mics, etc.)
=> Rehearsal environments and amateur users can get by with slightly greater latency, moderate bandwidth (~20 Mbps) and simpler audio equipment such as USB mics and no audio adapter.
Would this be a better way to explain to users what the requirements for JK really are?

Messages In This Thread
RE: "enough bandwidth to send you a degraded, but sufficient, audio stream." - by ellis@hillinger.org - 04-05-2021, 06:44 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)