• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
StarLink with JamKazam
#1
Hi,

Does anyone has StarLink as an Internet provider and uses JamKazam with it?  According to JamKazam, fiber optic and cable are the best for the latency. I can't get both of them to my place so I was wondering if someone could tell his or her experience with StarLink?

Thank you.

Lucas
  Reply
#2
(02-11-2021, 02:41 PM)Hi, I\m about to get a fibre link next week and will have it running alongside a Wireless Broadband link which gets a radio broadband hop (not satellite, so not exactly what you Wrote: Hi,

Does anyone has StarLink as an Internet provider and uses JamKazam with it?  According to JamKazam, fiber optic and cable are the best for the latency. I can't get both of them to my place so I was wondering if someone could tell his or her experience with StarLink?

Thank you.

Lucas
  Reply
#3
In general terms, a wireless service has more latency than a wired service.

I know Starlink is intended to be superior to conventional satellite service, but the signal still has to travel from the ground to the Starlink mesh then back down again, and each time it has to be "translated" to/from wired links, so I would not expect it to work as well as wired internet service like cable or fiber
  Reply
#4
(02-11-2021, 02:41 PM)lucasvilla Wrote: Hi,

Does anyone has StarLink as an Internet provider and uses JamKazam with it?  According to JamKazam, fiber optic and cable are the best for the latency. I can't get both of them to my place so I was wondering if someone could tell his or her experience with StarLink?

Thank you.

Lucas
Starlink has been showing fairly low latencies across the current beta test so far (25-30msecs) so in that respect it might be a viable option for JK except that it won't work with UPNP or port forwarding due to the lack of a public IP provided to the Starlink router. They  are using a carrier-grade NAT. The only way around this is with a VPN or using the ARS server method in JK (which is currently disabled I believe). Most VPN providers will actually increase your latency because they won't have a server close enough to your other players.
  Reply
#5
As promised, now I have been able to do an A-B comparison between fibre and wireless broadband, here are the results. Subjectively the all-wired 3-way session today was without any noticeable lag problems which had not been the case, which seems to be borne out by the metric
.pdf   JamKazam Fibre & WIreless Comparison 20210221.pdf (Size: 317.46 KB / Downloads: 4) s.
  Reply
#6
(02-11-2021, 02:41 PM)lucasvilla Wrote: Hi,

Does anyone has StarLink as an Internet provider and uses JamKazam with it?  According to JamKazam, fiber optic and cable are the best for the latency. I can't get both of them to my place so I was wondering if someone could tell his or her experience with StarLink?

Thank you.

Lucas

>>>
According to Musk (I guess he would know), current bandwidth expectations are to be between 50 and 150Mbit. Current delay (latency 20-40ms)

"This year" bandwidth is supposed to double, so 300Mbit and the delay is expected to get sub 20ms. Considering the distance and tech involved this is an achievement of course but for online/realtime audio (& gaming) not good enough.
Keep in mind that the delay in both peers LAN eqpt / audio interfaces & CPU processing time are still to be added to this.

Now if the "targeted & predicted" sub 10ms would be achieved it's an whole other story.
The issues Stuart brought up are of course still in play at any speed/delay.
Plus you're still looking at a wireless connection of which the packet handling is comparable to WiFi, not as consistent and is more susceptible to interference.

There's a lot of techno babble regarding this subject to be found online. There are 'mile deep' technological explanations for the differences en poss/mins of one compared to the other. (wireless vs wired) Where we stand at this point in time I would hesitate to invest in anything wireless for online realtime audio/video/gaming. But things evolve pretty fast, who knows?
  Reply
#7
Although they may go hand in hand, average latency value seems to me to be less crucial to good JamKazam performance than low Jitter (the changeability of latency value). given that JamKazam needs to sample frequently and take a view of what it's correcting for until the next sample, high Jitter means it's being wrong-footed in terms of applying its magic - which gives all points the impression that a number of intrinsically non-synchronised inputs are actually in synch. I don't know what the limits of pull-in are, for instance could JamKazam pull in sources with 30ms latency providing Jitter was very low? Maybe this scenario never occurs though. But 20ms with smooth (low) Jitter will result in far better synchronisation appearing at all points than 20ms with jagged (high) Jitter. And high Jitter occurs when a radio link is involved. Also to a lesser extent using broadband-over-the mains between rooms in a house.

It may be worth mentioning that if you're prepared to pay extra, near-zero-latency for zero-lag audio isn't a problem. $fting up an order of magnitude, the Dante system for music collaboration worldwide is an established standard. Also my wireless broadband provider can offer [near] zero latency for ten times the subscription amount. Of course, although another unlikely scenario. this would need to be accompanied by low Jitter to effectively support JamKazam.
  Reply
#8
(02-23-2021, 09:47 AM)mheeley.gm@gmail.com Wrote: Although they may go hand in hand, average latency value seems to me to be less crucial to good JamKazam performance than low Jitter (the changeability of latency value). given that JamKazam needs to sample frequently and take a view of what it's correcting for until the next sample, high Jitter means it's being wrong-footed in terms of applying its magic - which gives all points the impression that a number of intrinsically non-synchronised inputs are actually in synch. I don't know what the limits of pull-in are, for instance could JamKazam pull in sources with 30ms latency providing Jitter was very low? Maybe this scenario never occurs though. But 20ms with smooth (low) Jitter will result in far better synchronisation appearing at all points than 20ms with jagged (high) Jitter. And high Jitter occurs when a radio link is involved. Also to a lesser extent using broadband-over-the mains between rooms in a house.

It may be worth mentioning that if you're prepared to pay extra, near-zero-latency for zero-lag audio isn't a problem. $fting up an order of magnitude, the Dante system for music collaboration worldwide is an established standard. Also my wireless broadband provider can offer [near] zero latency for ten times the subscription amount. Of course, although another unlikely scenario. this would need to be accompanied by low Jitter to effectively support JamKazam.
Don't know about "zero latency" with Dante. A look at their specs shows up to 20 msecs each way (40 msecs round trip) which is pretty far from ideal and not at all good with JK. But it's all moot, the cost of that is prohibitive to say the least.

(02-23-2021, 08:46 AM)Dimitri Muskens Wrote:
(02-11-2021, 02:41 PM)lucasvilla Wrote: Hi,

Does anyone has StarLink as an Internet provider and uses JamKazam with it?  According to JamKazam, fiber optic and cable are the best for the latency. I can't get both of them to my place so I was wondering if someone could tell his or her experience with StarLink?

Thank you.

Lucas

>>>
According to Musk (I guess he would know), current bandwidth expectations are to be between 50 and 150Mbit. Current delay (latency 20-40ms)

"This year" bandwidth is supposed to double, so 300Mbit and the delay is expected to get sub 20ms. Considering the distance and tech involved this is an achievement of course but for online/realtime audio (& gaming) not good enough.
Keep in mind that the delay in both peers LAN eqpt / audio interfaces & CPU processing time are still to be added to this.

Now if the "targeted & predicted" sub 10ms would be achieved it's an whole other story.
The issues Stuart brought up are of course still in play at any speed/delay.
Plus you're still looking at a wireless connection of which the packet handling is comparable to WiFi, not as consistent and is more susceptible to interference.

There's a lot of techno babble regarding this subject to be found online. There are 'mile deep' technological explanations for the differences en poss/mins of one compared to the other. (wireless vs wired) Where we stand at this point in time I would hesitate to invest in anything wireless for online realtime audio/video/gaming. But things evolve pretty fast, who knows?
My experience so far here in the US is that your session partners better all be using the same ISP in order to guarantee low latency between everyone. My band are all within 12 miles of each other but use several different ISPs resulting in latencies from 35 msecs up. JKs new ARS feature doesn't currently have enough servers (around 100) to make that a viable option for those not in metro locations. So we're stuck.
  Reply
#9
Thanks StuartR - I have to admit my thoughts about Dante were from an impression and not experience (mine or others') - I'm the wiser following your comments!
  Reply
#10
Though the Dante protocol is routable (unlike AVB/TSN), every router on the path must be Dante capable. I don't see that happening anytime in the near future. Maybe in the next episode of Star Trek....

If only all ISP's in the world would decide that musicians' priorities are paramount....
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)