• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Jamulus?

Axtman

Supporting Member
Mar 3, 2008
2,572
4,708
Seattle, WA
I am considering signing up for an online small jazz combo class. The group uses Jamulus. I know nothing about this software. I have used Zoom and FaceTime for lessons and was not satisfied. The problem is the microphone on my Ipad is designed for speech and cuts off the bass frequencies. Also there tends to be a lag time and interference.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enzodm
Jamulus works fine if the server is nearby (internet-wise). I don't have any experience using it on an iPad - in fact, I'm not sure it will work on the iPad at all. You'd be better off using a computer (Mac/Window/Linux) and a proper interface. It's free, so if you already have the hardware, there's no cost to you.

Jamulus: configuration, usage and running a server | AudioGeek11
 
I am considering signing up for an online small jazz combo class. The group uses Jamulus. I know nothing about this software. I have used Zoom and FaceTime for lessons and was not satisfied. The problem is the microphone on my Ipad is designed for speech and cuts off the bass frequencies. Also there tends to be a lag time and interference.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Jamulus does not appear to have an iOS client, so you're out of luck if you want to use an iPad with those guys.

Jamulus does have Windows, macOS and Linux clients so you're looking at PC/Mac for hardware. Additionally, a two-input audio interface would be helpful (one for a mic so you can communicate, the other to run your bass direct to the Jamulus server).

Finally, it's very helpful to be on a wired (Ethernet) connection between your computer and your router. Using Wifi introduces unwanted instability to the comms links. Wifi does not automatically add latency, but the quality of the signal can degraded with dropped packets, etc that can affect latency.

And even with all of that......Jamulus is subject to network latencies that can make things unusable. My BL set up Jamulus server on a dedicated Linux box, both of us on wired connections, both of us on high speed internet (me on gigabit fiber, him on cable internet). Even with just the two of us, we were getting 60-80-100ms latency. Unusable for us. We live about 30km apart. If we lived closer, we might have better luck.

We stopped trying to connect synchronously like that but have since recently revived our efforts using Jack and JackTrip P2P solutions on Linux machines (using Ubuntu Studio) to negate going through a central server somewhere and not needing Jamulus in the middle. We'll see how that works out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Ross and enzodm
The problem is the microphone on my Ipad is designed for speech and cuts off the bass frequencies.

That's not a iPad mic problem - Especially if it's a new iPad. IOS has been full range for a long time.

It's the software you're using.
Bring up Garageband and record from the mic. The bass will be there.

It'd be best if you buy a USB interface to plug into the iPad or PC. It's just easier with an interface. And leave the mic just for banter between songs as you get use to the situation.
 
That's not a iPad mic problem - Especially if it's a new iPad. IOS has been full range for a long time.

It's the software you're using.
Bring up Garageband and record from the mic. The bass will be there.

It'd be best if you buy a USB interface to plug into the iPad or PC. It's just easier with an interface. And leave the mic just for banter between songs as you get use to the situation.

Still can't connect with Jamulus. No go for iOS.
 
There is work ongoing on Android and IOs but it's not yet the time.
I am regularly playing with Jamulus since April. If latency is steady, you become used, and if the server is well located, it could be also sufficiently low to be comparable to a large stage (10ms = 3 meters). In any case, latency will be much less than with videoconferencing systems, where it may reach hundreds of milliseconds.
If you have a computer, you may ask to try their server before signing up. Or try some public server in the list you find in the connection setting, just to have an idea (because the system was created for jamming, so there are a lot of public servers around the world, although now it is mostly used for private rehearsals). Here some instructions to get started: Getting Started – Jamulus Wiki

By the way, there is another thread on Jamulus: on line jamming technology
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Ross
Jamulus does not appear to have an iOS client, so you're out of luck if you want to use an iPad with those guys.

Jamulus does have Windows, macOS and Linux clients so you're looking at PC/Mac for hardware. Additionally, a two-input audio interface would be helpful (one for a mic so you can communicate, the other to run your bass direct to the Jamulus server).

Finally, it's very helpful to be on a wired (Ethernet) connection between your computer and your router. Using Wifi introduces unwanted instability to the comms links. Wifi does not automatically add latency, but the quality of the signal can degraded with dropped packets, etc that can affect latency.

And even with all of that......Jamulus is subject to network latencies that can make things unusable. My BL set up Jamulus server on a dedicated Linux box, both of us on wired connections, both of us on high speed internet (me on gigabit fiber, him on cable internet). Even with just the two of us, we were getting 60-80-100ms latency. Unusable for us. We live about 30km apart. If we lived closer, we might have better luck.

We stopped trying to connect synchronously like that but have since recently revived our efforts using Jack and JackTrip P2P solutions on Linux machines (using Ubuntu Studio) to negate going through a central server somewhere and not needing Jamulus in the middle. We'll see how that works out.

Quoting myself here to report on our recent efforts. Last night, we connected to each other and experienced acceptable latency ~20ms or less. This setup was truly peer-to-peer, no Jamulus or JamKazam or whatever server involved. Our previous efforts using these tools gave us 60-80-100ms latency so I’d say this new method is a significant improvement!

The setup used Jack and Jacktrip in UDP mode and port forwarding on both ends to enable the peer to peer connection. We were both running Ubuntu Studio configurations on both ends. Earlier experiments with macOS on one end were not successful for whatever reason. I used my SSL2+ interface and my guitarist was using a small Focusrite unit. We had our computers connected to our respective routers using Ethernet, not WiFi.

The upside was low latency, albeit with a compromise on audio quality, a function of UDP not bothering to recover dropped packets. As such, voices sometimes sounded a bit robotic but our timing never suffered due to latency issues. We both run high speed internet (gigabit FTTH in my case, cable in my guitarists case). As we rehearse and record, I’ll capture high quality bass tracks on this end. If we have something we like, I’ll send the bass tracks to my guitarist after the fact for him to work on. We’re also doing video - we’ll capture video real-time locally on each side and send files around after the fact. We are not attempting real-time streaming video. Although we might start a zoom call separately so we can each monitor each other visually. It with the latency on those systems that just might throw things off too much.

The downside is that there’s a learning curve to set up the modem and the software environment. Hardly plug and play. Jacktrip is command line only so that might scare less “computery” people off. Also have to enable port forwarding for Jacktrip to be able communicate peer to peer so anyone trying this needs to know how to configure their modem to do this.

Most of the easier to use GUI based solutions seem NOT to be peer to peer and don’t use UDP or port forwarding. While this makes it easier to install and launch these solutions, this is part of the latency equation.

In our refined setup, theoretically we are only experiencing the minimum of network latency plus the hardware latency. Network latency seems to be about 10ms, hardware latency about the same for a total of 20ms latency. That’s perfectly fine even with the audio quality compromise.

Not being a network engineer. I’m coming to realize that there’s a trade off between audio quality and latency. If you want low latency, expect lower quality audio. If you want high quality audio, expect more latency.

Expectations for high quality, real-time musical collaboration certainly challenges this reality.
 
Last edited:
If you were able to run a dedicated line between the 2 end points, you probably could have both low latency AND high quality, but the InnerNet is full of potholes and traffic lights, so we deal with it.

BTW you can set up Peer-to-Peer navigation in JamKazam (new feature) and dedicating UDP ports to a specific client is very much the smart way to go.

In the future, routers might all support Time Sensitive Networking, which would be a huge improvement in the technology....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DirtDog
If you were able to run a dedicated line between the 2 end points, you probably could have both low latency AND high quality, but the InnerNet is full of potholes and traffic lights, so we deal with it.

BTW you can set up Peer-to-Peer navigation in JamKazam (new feature) and dedicating UDP ports to a specific client is very much the smart way to go.

In the future, routers might all support Time Sensitive Networking, which would be a huge improvement in the technology....

For sure - out potholes were that *sometimes* the first syllable of a few words of each sentence sounded robotic. But you could make out the words and there was no lag. It's be interested to hear how drums and guitar sound...will be trying that over the next day or two.

I haven't download a copy of JamKazam since the spring. I'll go check out the new functionality.

There seems to be a few developers here building nice wrappers over top of the Jack/Jacktrip core - one by a guy in my town actually (IBM/Shopify developer type). However, he wants full pop to subscribe to his solution - no free trial/freemium to test and compare. But for someone who doesn't want to mess with the underlying tech, if it works, it works.
 
Most of the easier to use GUI based solutions seem NOT to be peer to peer and don’t use UDP or port forwarding. While this makes it easier to install and launch these solutions, this is part of the latency equation.
All use UDP, but having a server in the middle, do not need to open ports locally. The latency of a p2p system is by definition lower (actually, it should be half on the network side, the same on the hardware, no more than this). However there is a limit in the maximum number of players, because the network bandwidth is proportional to the number of players on each client, while server-based systems are virtually unlimited.
If you like the p2p variant, try Sonobus, which seems not too difficult to use (I tried it but I still prefer Jamulus, also because I do not have sufficient bandwidth for 7 players...).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DirtDog
All use UDP, but having a server in the middle, do not need to open ports locally. The latency of a p2p system is by definition lower (actually, it should be half on the network side, the same on the hardware, no more than this). However there is a limit in the maximum number of players, because the network bandwidth is proportional to the number of players on each client, while server-based systems are virtually unlimited.
If you like the p2p variant, try Sonobus, which seems not too difficult to use (I tried it but I still prefer Jamulus, also because I do not have sufficient bandwidth for 7 players...).

thanks for the additional info. Learning more as I go along.

I looked at Sonobus and have it installed. Just fired it up now that you reminded me of it.

Right now, listening to a jam of relatively local players (Ontario Canada). Mildly horrific in terms of synchronization. Various players seem to be between 40 and 150ms latency, according to the interface. Sound quality is pretty good, though. Reminds me of a Sunday afternoon jam at a local pub.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tosh
All use UDP, but having a server in the middle, do not need to open ports locally. The latency of a p2p system is by definition lower (actually, it should be half on the network side, the same on the hardware, no more than this). However there is a limit in the maximum number of players, because the network bandwidth is proportional to the number of players on each client, while server-based systems are virtually unlimited.
If you like the p2p variant, try Sonobus, which seems not too difficult to use (I tried it but I still prefer Jamulus, also because I do not have sufficient bandwidth for 7 players...).

As far as the p2p aspects of Jack and Jacktrip, the performance of what you describe is what we experienced - about 10ms network and 10ms on the hardware...20ms total. We only plan to have two sites connected (drums and guitars/vox on one end, me on the other) so more connections are not necessary for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enzodm
We only plan to have two sites connected (drums and guitars/vox on one end, me on the other) so more connections are not necessary for us.
this use case is perfect for p2p, no need for a server-based system. Regarding Sonobus, when I tried I too had the impression that the quality was better than the latency shown, perhaps there is some issue in visualization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DirtDog