|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to make my story any longer, but - too late:
Greg Utas wrote: dealing with one of those wonderful Canadian ISPs.
Exactly. I had DSL through Bell Canada, and the phone line (landline) coming into the house has been severed a number of times over the last +2 years as there's some serious housing development going on around my area. The wires in the ground are supposed to be clearly marked, but the backhoe driver keeps saying Bell never shows up to mark them.
So I had to call them to replace the cable as it got severed by said backhoe in September 2022. The guy who replaced it insisted burying it was not his job, and he couldn't be bothered to schedule the follow-up. So I had to call them again. I called every two weeks (if not more often) between September to December, trying to get them to come over before the ground froze over. Nobody ever showed up. Then in December, I was told "not until May, because the ground's frozen". Had to explain to them that was exactly why I had been calling them repeatedly multiple times a month for the previous 3 months. Meanwhile, my cable was running across my neighbor's gravel driveway. Every time someone drove over it, it was getting ever so slightly more damaged; it was just a matter of time it got severed. Not only that, but my neighbor would eventually have hit it with his snowblower. I had to get really angry at them, and go three levels up, before someone with common sense sent someone from "another group" - the guy was here the next morning.
Last Fall another backhoe showed up to replace a culvert. Same scenario and I finally got the cable buried after a few more calls. Then over the Christmas holidays, after some heavy rainfall, I started getting static on the line, to the point where I couldn't hear the dialtone anymore, and completely lost the DSL connection. I spent the Christmas week with no landline service whatsoever. And once more, the cable is running across the neighbor's gravel driveway right now, just like before...and Bell won't bury it until some time in Spring.
Their take on it is that as this area is under development, we're supposed to eventually be upgraded to fiber optic, so they won't invest in doing a proper job until that's done. Great, but that can take years. And:
a) what does that do for me in the meantime and
b) is a fiber optic cable going to magically keep working even if it gets severed?
To add insult to injury, every time I call them, they have no idea what's going on and I have to re-explain the whole saga. They insist they don't have a call history. "Must be a bug in the system". Well, helpdesk software that doesn't keep track of a customer's history is a showstopping bug in my book. They either play dumb or they think I'm dumb. They can't provide me with a ticket number or work order or anything like that. Which is complete BS.
So I'm now with Rogers, with residential 5G. Rogers isn't without their horror stories, but with no cable whatsoever coming to the house...I'm no longer at the mercy of a cable getting severed.
Have I mentioned I work from home, so no internet means I can't work?
I've been testing this for nearly a week now, and I'm just about ready to call Bell, and my ISP (which is not Bell, but the service is coming through Bell's infrastructure just the same) to cancel both my DSL connection, and the landline. Heck my parents have had this phone number for over 55 years. How badly do you have to drop the ball to push lifetime customers away like this?
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that fiber does not get run to a house. Might not even be all that close. So it would never fix what you are describing.
dandy72 wrote: I had DSL through Bell Canada
Where I live utilities are beholden to a 'utilities commission'. Looks like most of Canada is also. That is where you should file grievances. Also perhaps find an individual on it and start contacting them directly.
A Guide to All Provincial Utility Commissions in Canada – EnergyRates.ca[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
