Jamulus
Master Fader with level #1062
Replies: 48 comments
-
|
Why should I have a master fader in the Jamulus software? You should have a volume control (either hardware or via software) in your sound card interface to set the volume you are hearing in your headphone or speaker. The same applies to the input signal. These things should be controlled from outside of Jamulus. We already have a lot of faders if the server is crowded. I would not like to fill up the space with unnecessary additional faders. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes I can set on windows the output volume at 100% but it's not high enought to ear while singing, and because I have read in the forum that other people have the same problem I had think about a master slider with the feature of increase the volume output (+12db, -35db)... Also i have notice that changing the buffer delay change the volume, strange... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What you hear is what others hear. It means your input is not loud enough. Perhaps you need a better mic input with the appropriate hardware level controls? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Regarding the level change for different buffer sizes, I created a separate Issue for that: #106 Since I do not like the idea of a master fader, is it ok for you that I reject and close this feature request? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I see Volker's point about doing it elsewhere, but I too am interested in a master volume fader. There are some sound devices that don't have software or hardware volume control (think virtual sound cards). A Jamulus master fader would be very helpful in those cases. How is Jamulus supposed to relate to DAW software? Is Jamulus supposed to be able to do the job of the DAW, which usually includes having a master fader and more feature-ful channel strips? Or is Jamulus supposed to move the burden of the levels, reverb, panning, and eq features into the DAW instead of having to depend on Jamulus' to provide those features. If that's the direction to go, then a master fader makes no sense. I would love to be able to get the individual channels of audio out from Jamulus and into DAW software for final processing and recording. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm not sure about other operating systems, but this is possible to accomplish on Windows with Voicemeeter. It acts as a virtual mixing console for the sound devices in the computer. I currently use Voicemeeter to output both my instrument (connected to my external sound interface) and my computer microphone (connected directly into the computer's mic input) on the same channel, so that I can communicate with the people I'm jamming with. This enables me to fine tune volumes for each channel (intrument or microphone) and it's possible to boost one channel up to +12dB.
Linux should also have no problem with this, since (if I'm not mistaken) it natively supports boosting a signal beyond 100% (0dB). Given the plethora of choices to control the volume outside Jamulus, I don't think a master fader would be a necessary feature, as it would only complicate things.
For now, this is only possible to accomplish on the server, with the --recording option enabled. It creates a track for each channel and a Reaper Project file with all the information needed for the DAW to put the individual tracks in the right timing. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Voicemeeter is unreliable for me (problems with dropouts while direct to
sound card works fine) and adds too much latency... Also doesn't give me
the flexibility that Jack+Carla do on Linux now.
I need to be able to do eq, compression etc. live on individual tracks.
Something as simple as the option to send all channels back to the clients
unmixed for output via Jack/ASIO/etc would be nice. I bet opus has
multichannel compression that can keep the bandwidth down for this.
…On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 06:57 Snayler ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm not sure about other operating systems, but this is possible to
accomplish on Windows with Voicemeeter. It acts as a virtual mixing console
for the sound devices in the computer.
I currently use Voicemeeter to output both my instrument (connected to my
external sound interface) and my computer microphone (connected directly
into the computer's mic input) on the same channel, so that I can
communicate with the people I'm jamming with. This enables me to fine tune
volumes for each channel (intrument or microphone) and it's possible to
boost one channel up to +12dB.
[image: Screenshot_41]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/11491485/79856841-cd55c380-83c4-11ea-9990-b9c5ee0a8659.png>
*Screenshot of my Voicemeeter setup*
Linux should also have no problem with this, since (if I'm not mistaken)
it natively supports boosting a signal beyond 100% (0dB).
Given the plethora of choices to control the volume outside Jamulus, I
don't think a master fader would be a necessary feature, as it would only
complicate things.
I would love to be able to get the individual channels of audio out from
Jamulus and into DAW software for final processing and recording.
For now, this is only possible to accomplish on the server, with the
--recording option enabled. It creates a track for each channel and a
Reaper Project file with all the information needed for the DAW to put the
individual tracks in the right timing.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#97 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJNWQFCFGLSKHXW5CJOI4NTRNV33FANCNFSM4MLPYOJA>
.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@elliotclee Yes, I see what you mean, I can use my sound card directly at 64 frame buffer without any problems at all, but the same setting on Voicemeeter is producing some weird sound artifacts. I'm going to try JackRouter on windows, see if I can set it up like voicemeeter. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reaper on Windows with ReaRoute works well. Audio in to Reaper via your hardware ASIO drivers; ReaRoute out to Jamulus, ReaRoute back to Reaper; Reaper audio out via ASIO. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Although this works well with one audio interface, I can't seem to figure out how to go about using multiple audio interfaces. In my case, I'm trying to use one audio interface to capture the instrument sound and another to capture the microphone from my computer's sound card. ASIO4ALL is not an option as it seems to introduce some delay on my ASIO interface, even after setting it at 64 samples. I'm having no luck with JackRouter since once I register the 64bit JackRouter.dll, Jamulus won't launch. No error message even after launching it from windows terminal, so I don't have any information about why this happens. 32bit version of JackRouter just won't appear on the devices list, so no luck there either. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is a known issue: #93 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You can do the same ReaRoute trick with two instances of Reaper, I would imagine - one for your main ASIO driver, the other with its main audio being WASAPI from your sound card for the mic. Then use ReaRoute from the mic Reaper to the main Reaper. (Having set up the relevant tracks, of course.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks for the pointer, will try that.
I've tried the trick with two instances of Reaper, but for some reason, ReaRoute only works on one of them, it looks like it gets disabled in the second instance. I've tried two different approaches, by having two instances of Reaper 64bit and by installing Reaper 32bit and running it as a second instance along with Reaper 64bit. I made sure ReaRoute was installed on both setups, but it still didn't work. Maybe I'm missing something, not sure. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"Portable install" might be required on one or both Reapers, to avoid profile contention. I've not tried it, to be clear, but if it works it would be a very powerful tool. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Adding my two centrs on this thread and some perspective as a both a music producer and a musician consumer of music apps in general. Most audio apps do have the ability to change the final output volume that is sent to the volume card: Think Skype, Zoom, Youtube in a browser, Facebook video, etc. All have a volume control that allows us to control the amount that goes to the soundcard. I also use Reaper for routing sound in/out of jamulus and often the incoming volume is clipping in reaper and I can do nothing to reduce the gain from jamulus into reaper. Obviously I can change the volume in reaper but I would prefer it not to be clipping and making the channel hit the peak meter constantly and I would rather not reduce all faders on channels in jamulus as I have a mix that I like. I would prefer to have an overal volume fader to control the output of sound in this case. However, I do see Volkers point on window clutter and such, but I do think the window in jamulus is so small, an additional fader isn't going to use too much real estate. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If each client is for a separate performer, that's the same as multiple clients connecting to the server from multiple locations -- "life's like that". If you want everyone on the server to have separate control, as if each performer were a separate client, that's probably the way to do it. This way, each performer has their own performer profile and everything else that goes with running their own client. If, though, you don't really want everyone else on the server to receive separate control over each performer, then mixing down before a single client is probably the better option, or mixing down inside the client before transmitting - if Volker makes this change. The transmitted channel's "performer" for the profile, here, is the person controlling the mix. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In our case we use an instrument and our voice and we want to be able to set the instrument or the voice at different levels, also sometimes someone use their pc audio, in this case he use a third jamulus to be able to send his piano (1° jamulus stereo), his voice (2° jamulus mono), his pc audio (3° jamulus stereo)... but in our case 3 jamulus is still one performer, all of us are in our home! We need this granularity because we need to set the correct volume for our streaming. if someone use one channel and put pc base, piano and his voice... i can't make minor adjustment... the problem is not only in the streaming but also in our practise. It's one of the first thing that we see when we try out jamulus. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If you're using a PC, it's trivial to use it to mix a setup to stereo before feeding it to Jamulus. It can mix down input from as many sources as you like to a balanced stereo mix. You get to do this locally offline before connecting - and it's a setup you can use offline, too. Similarly, any multi-input sound card should have separate level controls for the inputs - again, you set this up correctly, locally, before connecting to Jamulus. Ideally, you'd feed this to software that can do a decent mix between the two channels first. But it's not a restriction of Jamulus that's preventing you do this now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I changed my mind. I will not re-use the server mixer panel on the main window but create a separate window for the sound card mix. Here is the current state: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Since we now have input levels available, the Pan control on the main window is not necessary anymore. So I consider to replace this fader by a Master fader. Regarding a boost: I could introduce a "15 dB boost switch" in the input and output section of the new Sound Card Audio Channel Mixer dialog. This would enable you to boost inputs which only have low levels (which may be hardware related that no more level is possible due to hardware restrictions). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm generally fairly set against amplifying late in the signal chain - you end up amplifying the noise level along with the signal. The earlier the level can be raised the better. I don't think it's down to Jamulus to "fix" things like this - but not my call... The other point is you already get people pumping audio through that's distorting because it's so loud, having another point where it can be boosted seems to be asking for trouble to me. If there was also a hard limiter that prevented loudness levels (after taking the effects of distortion into account) exceeding something reasonable, it might be okay. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, I agree. That is the reason I wrote "I could" ;-). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This looks cool. And trying to clarify for myself (and maybe others). As it is only possible to have up to 2 channels up/down with Jamulus: A configuration is either; 1) Mono (1up/down), 2) Mono-in/Stereo-out (1up, 2down), 3) Stereo (2up/down), and missing 4) Stereo-in/Mono-out (2up/1down). I assume then that the 'Audio Channels' drop-down will be redundant/removed with these changes? Thanks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
No, the drop box still makes sense. When you switch to mono, the OPUS packets are actually mono packets and therefore the network traffic is much lower. The "mono-in/stereo-out" mode may be redundant. I may remove that mode in the future. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The sound card audio channel mixer makes sense if you have a multichannel sound card such as the focusrite. If you have a simpler sound card with stereo RCA pair input, pan (should be "balance" in stereo though right?) makes more sense. The focusrite types seem popular, so I understand the change. But I'd miss panning my instrument out of the middle, from the input section. I'll probably switch to doing it with my hardware mixer. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Interesting discussion. It started with a request for a master volume with some gain. It is now addressing greater flexibility in the input mixdown sent to the server, and some pan/bal of the return signal from the server, possibly including some gain. In my opinion there are 2 issues here: (1) gain and (2) pre/post mixing. I would welcome the option of some software gain. Some members of my group are not good engineers, or have poor equipment, and deliver weak signals. This could be easily added to the existing mixer sliders, or in the new proposed mixers. I would personally welcome a pre/post mixer in the software, but I understand the concern about complexity. The alternative is to tell users to simply buy a cheap hardware mixer, to mix their inputs and outputs as they desire. This adds complexity too though. I prefer the software option personally (with sensible default values). It reduces the cost 'barrier to entry' for less wealthy users. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi all. A master fader is the standard way to adjust the overall mix when it's too hot. Sometimes the mix is right, but everyone is playing too loud. Maybe individual channels are not clipping, but the sum of them are, so that's why you will see a master fader in every mixer hardware or software at least 50 years back (maybe more). Sometimes the opposite happens, everyone is too low, so raising your external mixer volume just increases the overall noise. I think Jamulus works pretty good, but big servers sound very distorted when everyone is playing at the same time and this happens often. You can try to avoid the obvious, too many faders, but the solution relies on UI design, not on suppressing important tools that everyone know how to use. Just my $2. Jamulus is a nice concept and it really works. Thanks for the great work. cheers! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree that a master fader is essential. In the digital world, a "bus" is really just a summation of channels. There's a real risk of running out of bits if all channel levels are high, so the summation typically uses double the number of bits used by a channel. Additional precision is of value even when floating point math is used to avoid round-off noise. Another "trick" is to apply the master fader level to each channel before the summation. The master fader can then bring the summation circuitry out of clipping. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Each Jamulus user creates his own mix. You can set your New Client Level to, e.g., 80% and press Ctrl+L to apply this level to all clients to avoid clipping. But I usually have my faders on max and even if the server is filled with users playing a song, I've almost never had noticable clipping. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi all - in an effort to keep the Issues to actionable backlog items, I'm moving this to a discussion if that's OK. See also this which may be related? #1030 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
In the right, off the mixer section a master fader with the led (left and right channel) .
Could be usefull for many user to have a fader from +12db to -35db (then -infinity) so we can change the volume and also boost a little if it's too weak...
Also a rappresentation would be fine to have as a master headphone...
(I'm starting to view the code to help a little)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions