This review is spot on. Agree on the fidelity of Sonobus being better as it can do 16 bit uncompressed PCM and agree Jamulus has less latency in my bands testing. I wish that Sonobus could do a connection to my own server like Jamulus, I think Jesse is working on that option for it. I think that is why Jamulus has better perceived timing. It would also be interesting if they allowed Jamulus to use non compress codecs because as you said, Codec compression adds to latency. Can we just throw them both in a blender and get JamuBus? Sonolus? ok....
Great overview on both Neal. Can't find anything I disagree with on Jamulus, which I have used extensively. I have run private servers off of Google Cloud and found that the minimal virtual machine works just fine with Jamulus, and the recordings can be of high quality. Of course, one has to learn a bit of linux to keep the costs down. The alternative of unchecking the "Public Server" box (as you nicely mentioned), once your posse is on board works really well. Sonobus is a slick package, optimal (in my opinion) for gatherings of 4-6. It's perfect if all you want to do is hook up with a friend and work out some ideas together. I'll probably be switch-hitting with these terrific packages for some time.
Good review. I like the personal server on Jamulus but occasionally have problems with users connecting with no audio after working fine in initial set-up tests. Jamkazam is easiest to setup but has more latency and crackling sound especially on the free version. Sonobus has a bit of delay and that sounds like an echo. Annoys players and sound quality isn't as good apparently due to their use of codecs and compression. Waiting to see which app comes out on top but Jamulus is the most popular as far as I can tell
Thanks for sharing Gerry. You can use uncompressed PCH on Sonobus which would reduce latency at the cost of increasing bandwidth use. But there are quite a few factors in play.
@@SaxStation I believe that pushing more bits “through the pipe” using uncompressed data (increased bandwidth) will increase latency, not reduce it. But I suppose if the compression/decompression steps take a lot of CPU time to perform, that could add to the latency.
That depends on what your connection can handle. If you thought about it as a freeway with more lanes, more cars (more data) can travel without slowing down. If there was only one lane (slower connection) more cars would slow down traffic. The compression/decompression will add to latency, but the uncompressed data will not necessarily.
Thanks. I don't think that would be a good use of them. There would still be latency. Would probably work better to send someone the track from Garageband or Logic and have them record with it and send their recording that you could then sync up.
@@SaxStation Jamulus works well. I too paid for a private server but canceled it. I want to do everything I can to only use Sonobus with my band cause its modern and stable.. jamkazam interface is so rough. not liking it. we setup Reaper DAW with Sonobus on it.. bass player with an amp sim, my drummer with 4 mics on the drums and me on guitar and or VST keyboards/piano all withing 20 miles
yes, a stable peer to peer connection plus the uncompressed signal should be in theory the best scenario. using a server between you like jamulus uses... i dont know how this could theoratically be better. only caviart could be the managing of the jitter latency in my eyes. This gets one program to the top
I noticed the there's no way to stream TH-cam backing tracks into jamulus can you guys do that with any other jamming software? At least I don't know if you can, cuz when Jamie looks opens up that's all you can do is work that interface I don't think I can open up any other audio sources, like pre-recorded stuff on MP3 with Windows Media Player and stream it through one channel while jamming along with it I didn't try it but I don't think I can do it
Jamulus and Sonobus focus on audio and low latency. If you need to share screens, you're probably better off using something like zoom. You could even do that and turn off the sound and use one of the programs for audio.
interesting review however fundamentally flawed from the point of view that Jamulus is "better" than Sonobus, they are just different and have inherent strengths depending on geography. Jamulus (2006 launch) is Client/Server base setup vs. Sonobus (2020 launch) which is Peer-to-Peer so, if geographically distant musicians can find a Server in the middle (geographically) they may have a better experience on Jamulus, shorter distance then if Peer-to Peer (router to router). You have to try both to know what suits your needs best. Sonobus is newer tech obviously which is more diverse and dead simple to install compared to Jamulus when it comes to integrate a DAW.
In any case I've only tried jamulus and the sound quality is many multiples better than a live jam session oh, so I guess I would take the low latency of jamulus over the high-quality sounds of other Jam programs with crap loads of latency which would make it useless. I'll take jamulus because you get the gun and the ammunition. The other program sounds like you got one or the other oh, and I don't know what I'm going to do with ammunition on its own and I don't know what I'm going to do with a rifle on its own
I haven't tried doing that. How many people are you trying to play with? And you're using a microphone or line in for the guitar? I would check settings and then audio/network setup. Might need two computers.
That depends on quite a few factors. In general, I would say it's noticeably higher than Jamulus or Sonobus. The program wasn't designed with music in mind. But it does seem to work better for music than it did before.
My experience with zoom was about a 1.5-2 count delay. Meaning just enough to make it impossible to jam with. Which is too bad because sound quality and video is excellent. Was trying jamkazam, but there were always sound issues, crackling, distortion, could hear others, but my own audio sounded terrible. Not always, but so hit an miss that I gave up on it.
This review is spot on. Agree on the fidelity of Sonobus being better as it can do 16 bit uncompressed PCM and agree Jamulus has less latency in my bands testing. I wish that Sonobus could do a connection to my own server like Jamulus, I think Jesse is working on that option for it. I think that is why Jamulus has better perceived timing. It would also be interesting if they allowed Jamulus to use non compress codecs because as you said, Codec compression adds to latency. Can we just throw them both in a blender and get JamuBus? Sonolus? ok....
Thanks John. I imagine they'll keep improving both programs.
Excellent review. Thank you for posting it
Glad it was helpful!
Great overview on both Neal. Can't find anything I disagree with on Jamulus, which I have used extensively. I have run private servers off of Google Cloud and found that the minimal virtual machine works just fine with Jamulus, and the recordings can be of high quality. Of course, one has to learn a bit of linux to keep the costs down. The alternative of unchecking the "Public Server" box (as you nicely mentioned), once your posse is on board works really well. Sonobus is a slick package, optimal (in my opinion) for gatherings of 4-6. It's perfect if all you want to do is hook up with a friend and work out some ideas together. I'll probably be switch-hitting with these terrific packages for some time.
Great thanks for your help
Good review. I like the personal server on Jamulus but occasionally have problems with users connecting with no audio after working fine in initial set-up tests. Jamkazam is easiest to setup but has more latency and crackling sound especially on the free version. Sonobus has a bit of delay and that sounds like an echo. Annoys players and sound quality isn't as good apparently due to their use of codecs and compression. Waiting to see which app comes out on top but Jamulus is the most popular as far as I can tell
Thanks for sharing Gerry. You can use uncompressed PCH on Sonobus which would reduce latency at the cost of increasing bandwidth use. But there are quite a few factors in play.
@@SaxStation I believe that pushing more bits “through the pipe” using uncompressed data (increased bandwidth) will increase latency, not reduce it. But I suppose if the compression/decompression steps take a lot of CPU time to perform, that could add to the latency.
That depends on what your connection can handle. If you thought about it as a freeway with more lanes, more cars (more data) can travel without slowing down. If there was only one lane (slower connection) more cars would slow down traffic. The compression/decompression will add to latency, but the uncompressed data will not necessarily.
Thank you. Very well thought out and clear. My Q: Can these apps be used to have a remote player dub a track onto a GarageBand or Logic song?
Thanks. I don't think that would be a good use of them. There would still be latency.
Would probably work better to send someone the track from Garageband or Logic and have them record with it and send their recording that you could then sync up.
Jamtaba is great aswell! With video and even vst’s
Thanks, I haven't tried that one yet.
Jamtaba doesn't work in real-time. Because every musician has to start playing in different bars
I can't use Sonobus if my audio interface busy with DAW...
Thanks, hadn’t tried that.
Sonobus comes as a VST plugin. Try it on your DAW.
Good stuff friend! I head jamulus has more latency because it goes to a server instead of Pear to pear like sonobus
That hasn't been my experience so far. But there are probably some cases where it would because of that. Which programs have you tried?
@@SaxStation Jamulus works well. I too paid for a private server but canceled it. I want to do everything I can to only use Sonobus with my band cause its modern and stable.. jamkazam interface is so rough. not liking it. we setup Reaper DAW with Sonobus on it.. bass player with an amp sim, my drummer with 4 mics on the drums and me on guitar and or VST keyboards/piano all withing 20 miles
Thanks for sharing Patrick.
🍐 2 🍐
yes, a stable peer to peer connection plus the uncompressed signal should be in theory the best scenario. using a server between you like jamulus uses... i dont know how this could theoratically be better. only caviart could be the managing of the jitter latency in my eyes. This gets one program to the top
I noticed the there's no way to stream TH-cam backing tracks into jamulus can you guys do that with any other jamming software? At least I don't know if you can, cuz when Jamie looks opens up that's all you can do is work that interface I don't think I can open up any other audio sources, like pre-recorded stuff on MP3 with Windows Media Player and stream it through one channel while jamming along with it I didn't try it but I don't think I can do it
Which program allows for screen and sound sharing?
Jamulus and Sonobus focus on audio and low latency. If you need to share screens, you're probably better off using something like zoom. You could even do that and turn off the sound and use one of the programs for audio.
Which do you think is best for teaching private lessons online and playing with your student in real time?
Sonobus is probably easier to set up. Neither one has video built in. Did you have a question about something I said in the video?
Anyone else remember ResRocket from the late '90s?
I don't think I ever tried that back then. Similar sort of idea I think. How did it go for you with ResRocket?
interesting review however fundamentally flawed from the point of view that Jamulus is "better" than Sonobus, they are just different and have inherent strengths depending on geography. Jamulus (2006 launch) is Client/Server base setup vs. Sonobus (2020 launch) which is Peer-to-Peer so, if geographically distant musicians can find a Server in the middle (geographically) they may have a better experience on Jamulus, shorter distance then if Peer-to Peer (router to router). You have to try both to know what suits your needs best. Sonobus is newer tech obviously which is more diverse and dead simple to install compared to Jamulus when it comes to integrate a DAW.
Thanks for sharing. Basically, it seemed like that was the question I saw/was asked. People have different situations.
In any case I've only tried jamulus and the sound quality is many multiples better than a live jam session oh, so I guess I would take the low latency of jamulus over the high-quality sounds of other Jam programs with crap loads of latency which would make it useless. I'll take jamulus because you get the gun and the ammunition. The other program sounds like you got one or the other oh, and I don't know what I'm going to do with ammunition on its own and I don't know what I'm going to do with a rifle on its own
Thanks Jim
@@SaxStation would I be able to stream TH-cam backing tracks while doing vocals and playing guitar through jamulus?
I haven't tried doing that. How many people are you trying to play with?
And you're using a microphone or line in for the guitar?
I would check settings and then audio/network setup.
Might need two computers.
Could you also try hpsjam ?
Possibly. What do you think of it compared to other programs?
@@SaxStation It supports MIDI routing, lyrics and HD audio compared to the other solutions :-)
What audio quality does it have that you think the other programs don't have?
Mumble at high bit rate has very low latency
Thanks
My e drums distort on Jamulus
Thanks for sharing
@@SaxStation I’ve tried everything- low drums and bass drum distort and crackle- wish I could fix it.
Ah, that’s not something I have tried. Good luck!
you have not even jammed with a drummer on this? That's the biggest part of the equation. Both programs are useless if you are a drummer.
@@SaxStation
What is the latency with zoom?
That depends on quite a few factors. In general, I would say it's noticeably higher than Jamulus or Sonobus. The program wasn't designed with music in mind. But it does seem to work better for music than it did before.
@@SaxStation Thank you for sharing that information. I appreciate your time. I will definitely check out these other apps. I teach drums online.
My experience with zoom was about a 1.5-2 count delay. Meaning just enough to make it impossible to jam with. Which is too bad because sound quality and video is excellent.
Was trying jamkazam, but there were always sound issues, crackling, distortion, could hear others, but my own audio sounded terrible. Not always, but so hit an miss that I gave up on it.
Solocontutti
?
I’m not sure what that means
@@SaxStation Android app, still trying to get it goin. UK server I think
PCM