Welcome Notice

Register Log in

working from home...

J

Joerg

Guest
On 2020-07-31 14:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:12:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-07-30 23:50, Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 30.07.20 23:39, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-07-30 22:16, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-07-29 21:40, Joe Chisolm wrote:
[...]

ITU says 150ms one way, so called \"mouth to ear\". Cisco says that
can be pushed to a 200ms budget. Also > 30ms packet jitter can be
a problem. If you examine the video you normally see very little
movement with a conference. Some static power point slide while
people talk. Even video of people talking the back ground is very
static. Frame to frame compression can be very high, thus video
can be good but audio is poor.


Problem is, even with only 150msec it can take up to a 1/3rd of a
second (rount trip) to realize that the other guy must have started
talking at the same time. Then we both stop, both start again, stop
again, the usual. A 1/3rd of a second is a long time for audio.

Agreed! 150ms delay in a conversation is far too much. It
completely breaks the flow. I hate digital phones. I can\'t
stand video conferencing. How can people possibly tolerate
this?

Jeroen Belleman

They tolerate it, because they are unable to shrink the earth,
and/or built computers/networks which are 1000 times faster.

You have evidently never used an old analog phone. No perceptible
latency, no drop-outs, no weird distortions. But that era is well
behind us.

Jeroen Belleman

Latency? You had to call the operator to set up a long-distance call.
She\'d call back when they were ready.

The quality could be really bad.
The longest latency was near a campground in the boonies, Southern Utah
or Northern Arizona. A young German couple wanted to make a phone call
to Europe. The campground manager said to follow the singing wires until
there is a phone on a pole, to take LOTS of quarters and to watch for
rattlesnakes. Half hour walk or so. They came back sad. I asked what
happened. \"We can\'t understand the operator at all, he sounds like
having a hot potato in his mouth\". So I went with them, talked to the
operator, then once the call was connected handed over the receiver. On
the way back I asked them what their professions were. He was an English
teacher (!).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 2020-07-31 17:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:12:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-07-30 23:50, Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 30.07.20 23:39, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-07-30 22:16, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-07-29 21:40, Joe Chisolm wrote:
[...]

ITU says 150ms one way, so called \"mouth to ear\". Cisco says that
can be pushed to a 200ms budget. Also > 30ms packet jitter can be
a problem. If you examine the video you normally see very little
movement with a conference. Some static power point slide while
people talk. Even video of people talking the back ground is very
static. Frame to frame compression can be very high, thus video
can be good but audio is poor.


Problem is, even with only 150msec it can take up to a 1/3rd of a
second (rount trip) to realize that the other guy must have started
talking at the same time. Then we both stop, both start again, stop
again, the usual. A 1/3rd of a second is a long time for audio.

Agreed! 150ms delay in a conversation is far too much. It
completely breaks the flow. I hate digital phones. I can\'t
stand video conferencing. How can people possibly tolerate
this?

Jeroen Belleman

They tolerate it, because they are unable to shrink the earth,
and/or built computers/networks which are 1000 times faster.

You have evidently never used an old analog phone. No perceptible
latency, no drop-outs, no weird distortions. But that era is well
behind us.

Jeroen Belleman

Latency? You had to call the operator to set up a long-distance call.
She\'d call back when they were ready.

The quality could be really bad.
I remember doing that in the central post office in Rome back in 1978.
Took hours.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 7/31/2020 7:14 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Lotta typing. Do you have time to design any electronics?

Sure! Lots!

Fun. Show us some.
That\'s the goal of my next offsite: to demonstrate SYNCHRONIZED
audio -- within a few microseconds -- (and later, video) that
automagically follows you around the house as you move from room
to room; processors that come on-line as other processors (are
deliberately!) fault(ed); computational loads that physically
\"move\" from processor to processor so surplus computing capacity
can be powered down; processors that come online as computational
(or I/O) requirements increase; support for a heterogeneous mix
of processors across nodes; devices that can withstand direct
physical assaults -- as well as communication assaults; etc.

And all on dirt cheap commodity hardware (consumer market)!

You know, run-of-the-mill systems design...
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:30:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 31/07/2020 07:20, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/07/2020 06:31, Ricketty C wrote:

Joe talked about 25 Mbps being ok. I have 7 Mbps max and often only see 2 or 3 Mbps.

It video gets pretty iffy when you get down to 2 or 3Mbps.

My connection is 6Mbps on a good dry summers day and degrades with rain
to about 3Mbps. Anything better than about 3.5M will support HD video
with the occassional buffering lag or sync loss in the video stream but
the audio pretty much continuously OK. On a really bad wet and windy day
it can\'t even stream high quality audio reliably.

All bets are off if there is a hard error on my local line which causes
a 1s glitch whilst lost packets are retransmitted and if they also fail
it enters exponential backoff. I get about 5 of those an hour even with
interleaving error correction enabled. My modem uptime before there is a
completely unrecoverable line error is 2-3 weeks. It gets stuck in a
state where it claims in sync but error seconds increase in realtime.

The odd one according to Murphy\'s Law lands where it can do most damage.

You might want to look at your line statistics attenuation and SNR to
see what proportion of hard and soft errors the modem is encountering.

What would I then do with that information?

You would at least know that you should be asking your ISP to check the
phone line for faults and remake any failing joints.
Really??? You think my phone line is the problem with someone else\'s transmissions that everyone on the call sees as getting corrupted? Have you been reading this thread or did you just show up and reply to this one post?


It happens to me
every couple of years when either rodents chew through insulation, trees
wear it off or corrosion leads to rectification of the ADSL signal.
My problem used to be in the central office, but no longer. I gave up my phone line. That\'s the other reason the phone line is not at fault, I use a WISP for my Internet service provider.


Of course you could choose to remain ignorant of your line quality and
suffer in silence or mutter on about it ineffectually here.

What you measure gets controlled.
Or you can remain ignorant of the details of this issue and continue to make pointless posts. I suggest your reread the thread from the beginning... at least the discussion about my use of Zoom. Right now you seem to be talking about your assumptions rather than my issue.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
G

Gerhard Hoffmann

Guest
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:

That depends on how you (artificially) limit the number of tests.  If
you change the testing policy (or criteria) in such a way that it
avoids uncovering infected individuals, then those 20M tests could
(improbably!) show ZERO infections.
Even worse. The patient 0 here in Germany shows 0 antibodies
after half a year. Nothing left.
That does not provide much hope for vaccination.

Gerhard
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 8/1/2020 2:03 AM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:

That depends on how you (artificially) limit the number of tests. If
you change the testing policy (or criteria) in such a way that it
avoids uncovering infected individuals, then those 20M tests could
(improbably!) show ZERO infections.
Even worse. The patient 0 here in Germany shows 0 antibodies
after half a year. Nothing left.
That does not provide much hope for vaccination.
Yes, lots still unknown. What\'s disturbing is even the
\"scientists\" are talking like politicians -- lots of
(carefully worded!) \"happy talk\" instead of an acknowledgement
of the LIKELY issues to come.

Does exposure grant immunity?
If so, how long?
How likely is the virus to mutate over (longer periods of) time?
How much protection against variants of the virus?
How likely for an initial vaccine to be tweeked for (annual?) variants?
What is the severity of the disease in a reinfected survivor?
How symptomatic will reinfections be? (i.e., if you escape the
severity of the disease due to earlier infection, are you
more/less likely to become a silent carrier thereafter?)
What long-term health consequences do survivors likely face?
How do these consequences vary with severity of initial infection?

There\'s going to be a frenzy of publications in the future that
try to (or accidentally!) uncover all of the yet-to-be-knowns
about this virus. I wouldn\'t be surprised if we start seeing
certain \"recommended testing\" for folks who have been (or MAY
have been) exposed to the virus, in the past.

E.g., it is now suggested that ALL \"baby boomers\" be tested for
Hepatitis C -- even those not known to be at risk for the disease.
Some bean counter undoubtedly noticed an increased frequency of
undiagnosed hep-c in that population and hence the recommendation.

<https://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20120816/cdc-all-baby-boomers-get-tested-hep-c>

Fun times -- not!
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 5:03:43 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:

That depends on how you (artificially) limit the number of tests.  If
you change the testing policy (or criteria) in such a way that it
avoids uncovering infected individuals, then those 20M tests could
(improbably!) show ZERO infections.
Even worse. The patient 0 here in Germany shows 0 antibodies
after half a year. Nothing left.
That does not provide much hope for vaccination.
Not necessarily the same thing. Vaccination works on different sites and may well produce a lasting result. We will only find out if and when the tests are completed.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top