|
Where? I will hunt that exclamation down like a dog
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The button for submitting a solution to a Q/A question. Go git 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
Done. And the magic of Git allows me to cast a dirty look in the appropriate direction (even though it's been starting me in the face for 10 years now, so I do have to share the blame)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
One small step for a man...
|
|
|
|
|
I want the ability to change the volume for specific people. not mute them per se. but to change their volume coming thru.
I just had a meeting where one person had a very high voice that was quite loud and another person had a low voice that was quite soft. I really wanted to turn ones volume down and ones up.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
You need the "Reach out and slap someone" feature!
"Ten men in the country could buy the world and ten million can’t buy enough to eat." Will Rogers
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
I installed the local version of Teams a couple of months ago and so far, haven't figure out how to get to do anything other than advise me that I must run the web version.
The individual volume control thing sounds like a good idea. I can mute mine, why can't I mute theirs?
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, it is easy to understand why you can't: You receive a single, mixed sound stream. For you to adjust the volume of each individual speaker, you would have to receive each speaker an individual sound stream, and mix them in your PC.
I have been in web meetings with way above a hundred participants, almost all of them passively listening/watching, but they could all unmute themselves. Meetings with 30-50 participants is quite common. These systems are not designed for distributing 30-50, or 100+, sound channels to every participant. It would probably be resource consuming: If 100 participants should receive the sound from the 99 others as individual channels, the central switch would have to manage 9,900 sound channels.
An alternative implementation: You receive a single sound channel, but it is adapted to your preferences. You can send commands to the central switch for it to reduce the volume of a single participant in the mix you receive. That would require the central switch to manage 100 mixers of 100 inputs each (for a 100 participant meeting). I guess that would be even more resource demanding on the central switch.
So I doubt very much that your request will be honored in the next software update.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible for the client side software to demultiplex the incoming sound based on loudness, pitch, tone, frequency, etc., and attenuate/enhance the loudness of the one selected by user?
Looks like it will then need a new UI showing the list of demultiplexed sounds, as it will not perhaps be able to correlate speaker A video with speaker A audio.
|
|
|
|
|
But that assumes mixing at the recipient end. Somewhere in the middle is where the mixing of all audio "senders" occurs. Why not allow unique, by recipient IP say, mixing. That would then only require sending unique audio, already mixed as per each recipient's needs, which really is what's happening anyways but of course currently without the custom mixing by the middle layer.)
|
|
|
|
|
That is the option where, for a 100-participant meeting, the central switch must maintain one hundred 100-input mixers. I do not think that is technically viable.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
So how / where are all the audio streams mixed together now?
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting analysis.
I have been in meetings where the speaker had a very low volume and everyone noticed it. Presumably the same causes might impact it being too loud. Usual attempted solution for them at that point is to disconnect and reconnect.
Perhaps then rather than an adjustment on the receivers end add an adjustment on the senders end.
|
|
|
|
|
but if they do will they pay me?
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly what I was thinking of...each participant gets a single sound stream combining all audio from all participants; if each participant was sending his own audio to everybody else separately, that would get very expensive, resource-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
I want to be able to have voices be changed to whatever celebrity voice I choose. Further, I want the speech idioms to be updated to match a character from a movie.
My next Zoom call will be full Pulp Fiction.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I would use Toy Story. because they are more real than the people I work with.
Just kidding mostly
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
I think you just found the AI killer app killer app for AI.
Had to correct that. I kept hearing it in an Austrian accent.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
You need to add compression, like my hearing aids:
Quote: Wide dynamic range compression will squish or “compress” this range so that the quietest sounds can be heard louder and that the loudest sounds will not be overly loud. In this way, it improves the wearer’s dynamic range and they would be able to hear sounds they weren’t hearing before. It also leads to a more comfortable listening experience since it will keep all the sounds in a range that is easy to listen to and not too soft and not too loud.
>64
There is never enough time to do it right, but there is enough time to do it over.
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: I just had a meeting where one person had a very high voice
I had that same problem but it was at a restaurant with someone sitting at another table. Would the feature work there also?
|
|
|
|
|
that is when you need the reach out and slap someone button. or shhhhssssh
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Or the other way around: Many years ago, I read a story in Reader's Digest. Inbetween the main stories, they have columns with jokes, brief notes from university life, from family life etc. I usually read RD in Norwegian, and right now I do no not remember the English title of the 'family life' column, where I read a story that I remember something like this:
When our family goes out for a meal, we use to make guesses about the professions of the other guests - 'He looks like a carpenter', or 'She must be a hairdresser'. Most places are quite noisy, and we speak softly so noone can hear our guesses. Usually, we come to some agreement, but once we had wildly differing opinions about one guy at the opposite side of the room: I thought he might be a carpet seller, while my son thought he looked like a radio engineer. When the guy rose to leave, he made his way past our table, making a brief stop to tell us: 'What I am really doing is to teach deaf kids lip reading'.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: I just had a meeting where one person had a very high voice
Tell him to lay off the helium.
|
|
|
|
|
I know enough about networking--clearly enough to be dangerous--but not enough to resolve all problems. My network configuration started simple, but grew in complexity over time (years in the making). Trying to reconfigure everything all at once just proved to be too much.
I recently switched ISPs (there's a long and sad story that goes with that, which I won't get into), and I had to put the KISS principal into practice.
The theory was that I'd only have to disconnect the wire from my DSL modem (which went into my router) and hook it up to the new provider's router.
A full day later, I:
a) removed 2 routers, both providing wi-fi
b) had the new provider's router bypassing the router and going directly into a switch
c) removed a pair of Ethernet-over-powerline adapters altogether
d) replaced one of the routers with a second switch
e) ran a cable between both switches
f) got Pi-hole out of the equation
This means the ISP's router is now doing all the heavy lifting (whereas it used to be my own router's responsibility), including wifi, which means I'm now more at the mercy of that one router than I've ever been. But the rest of it is comparatively soooo simple...
The complete saga is just way too long to get into in detail. Suffice it to say that having multiple routers on the same network is just going to end up badly, with each router trying to assert itself as being in charge of everything, and it's a fight to the death. Do that over wireless on both ends, and that's just a recipe for disaster.
At the very least I want to eventually re-introduce Pi-hole, as I've now been reminded just how bad some pages are without some serious ad-blocking. But I've been seriously burnt this weekend, and I want to take it a step at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
You got a 👍 because I didn't know whether to give you a 🤣 or a 🏆. Or even a 🌹, given that you were dealing with one of those wonderful Canadian ISPs.
|
|
|
|