Defuddling JamKazam Vol. 2: Don't believe everything you read

I feel that one of the most important things to get out of the way are the truths of many, many claims and misnomers that are floating around on social media - no doubt a common issue with very rapid adoption of a complex tool.  We'll do this Snopes.com style.  Here are some, in no particular order:

Claim: "You Can't Use WiFi with JamKazam"
Status: Partly true
Explanation:
Well, you CAN use WiFi.  But it's better if you use an ethernet cable.  For starters, the nature of WiFi is that it tends to deliver packets via different physical transmission paths, which causes them to arrive in the wrong order.  On the other side, these packets have to be queuing them into a buffer (temporary holding tank for data), and reassembled into a contiguous stream.  Then they are released for you to hear. Ethernet cables require less of this action to be required, so JamKazam uses a smaller buffer, and therefore you end up with lower latency.  Now consider that most people have total shit WiFi setups at their homes, and using WiFi becomes an even worse choice.  Bottom line is, use an ethernet cable.

Claim: "You need the best internet plan available"
Status: Very unlikely
Explanation:
JamKazam is, contrary to what seems to be a rampant believe, not very bandwidth intensive.  It is the equivalent of a video conference call.  If someone is using solid audio gear, and having problems with latency or "choppiness" (which is a very vague description), it is most likely their computer or networking gear that is at fault.  It is very likely that the computer or router is on the edge of what it can handle in terms of load.

Claim: (Windows user) "You need to download ASIO4ALL"
Status: Very unlikely
Explanation:
Your audio interface hopefully has a native ASIO driver available from the manufacturer's website. This is what you should use.  If they don't, you can try ASIO4ALL, which is a third-party, lower latency wrapper for Windows' standard (high latency) WDM drivers. In some cases it works, but in most cases it doesn't seem to work very well.  It is definitely a second choice.

Claim: "A Chromebook is a viable cheap laptop option"
Status: False
Explanation:
While a Chromebook is, in fact, a laptop, Even if the processor power was enough, it does not run Windows or MacOS, which as of this writing are the only supported operating systems.  Chromebooks run ChromeOS, so, no go. If you are looking for the cheapest machine you can buy new that still has enough power, it's probably going to be a mini desktop computer, like the Intel NUC (bring your own monitor/keyboard/mouse).

Claim: "You need USB 3 (aka USB 3.1) ports"
Status: False
Explanation:
USB 2.0 max throughput = 480 Mbps
Even if you run 192KHz @ 24 bits < 10 Mbps
The latency of USB 3 is not improved over USB 2.0.
Even if you are using a 100 Mbps USB Network Adapter, JamKazam will not come close to saturating your connection.

Claim: "You need a (quad-core Intel Core i7 or other crazy CPU) if you want JamKazam to work as well as it can."
Status: False
Explanation:
You do need a real bit of processor power.  Practically speaking, I'd say, minimum dual core Core i3. Preferably a quad core Core i5 or better.  But to be fair, the amount of peak processor power you actually need for JK varies with how you are using it.  I've actually tested it with a Core 2 Duo from 2011, and it was "enough processor power to have a jam session".  Just barely.  As you add musicians, and use features like the video stream or Jam Tracks, that is when you will exceed your processor power, and when that happens, the result is NOT pretty.  Basically it's a sea of loud sparks and crackles in yours and everyone else's headphones.

Claim: "Turn off your video, it adds latency"
Status: Partially True
Explanation:
The video can have no impact, or a lot of impact, depending on a lot of factors.  The specific claim that it adds latency seems to be a little bit of a generalization, as though latency is the only evil one experiences on JK.  In fact, what it really does is add a ton more data that JamKazam has to coordinate which, if you or anyone in the session is on the edge, will very definitely result in a variety of problems - latency being only one.  Playing with the video on is more fun, but it's best to assume it is going to be a luxury and not a guarantee.  If everyone is getting good results, then congrats and enjoy - but it seems to vary with each session and the participants.

More parts coming soon!

DeFuddling JamKazam Vol 1: What you really need

Intro

This is the first installment of a series on demystifying JamKazam for newcomers.  As previously mentioned, there are video tutorials and a pretty good forum that can help you get through the setup step-by-step. You can start with those.  There is also a Facebook Group, Subreddit, etc. where people are chatting about their JamKazam experiences.  I would stay away from those for a little while - there is some helpful info, but also a lot of misinformation. Once you are up and running, you can explore those in-depth discussions, and weigh what you read with your own experience.

Another word of warning: Unless you have a working home studio already, you are very likely going to have to spend some "real" money to get this running.  It could be $50 for a few odds and ends, or it could be around $1,000 if you just have a guitar and an internet connection.  It really depends.   If you want to jam online, listen to my advice and the things I tell you not waste time with, and forge onward my friend!

To that end,  I am here to give my perspective on some of the concepts that people seem to be missing, which help a lot.  I have been using JamKazam for many weeks now.  I have tested it on various equipment and I have assisted many musicians with getting their JK setups tweaked.  At this point pretty much every session I get into has very tolerable latency and basically no dropouts.  There are a lot of seat-of-the-pants "experts" out there who think they know what you need to have in order to make it work.  Here are some of the conclusions I have reached about what is required.

Equipment

Computer

The first thing you are going to need is a decent laptop or desktop computer running Windows or MacOS. Sorry folks - this is not going to run on your iPad, iPhone, Android, or even a netbook.  Dual core Intel Core i3 minimum.  It doesn't have to be new, but a good rule of thumb would be something made in the last 5 years.  

Ethernet Cable to Your Router/Modem

Believe it or not, this seems to be the deal breaker for a lot of JK tire kickers (I guess its a sign of how dependent we have become on WiFi). There are real reasons why using an ethernet cable will result in lower latency, and a good JK experience depends on the lowest latency possible.  Even if you are jamming fairly distant from your router, you can buy really long ethernet cables - I saw a 200' one on Amazon for around $20.  Anyway, again, we'll get into this more later, but just know that if you have to use WiFi, you may not have a good experience and end up deciding that JamKazam is not worth using.

Audio Interface

No, you can't use your computer's built-in sound for JamKazam.  An audio interface is like an advanced sound card that converts sound to/from bits that your computer can manipulate.  Even though your computer has some built-in capability already, it is not designed for the performance you need for JamKazam.  Currently, the best interface for JamKazam is the 3rd gen Focusrite Scarlett.  The "Solo" (one mic input, one instrument input) is $109 - that is, if you can get one (but of course right now they are all on backorder because everyone is buying them for online jamming).  There are certainly other audio interfaces that will work, but YMMV. We'll get into that later.

Headphones

You will want to have a good set of over-the-ear headphones.  If you are looking for a recommendation, the Audio Technica ATH-M50x is a favorite of mine. You can get by with earbuds, but if you do, I feel sorry for you. A good set of headphones can make you forget you are not in the same room together with other musicians.

Microphone

No, you can't use your computer's built-in microphone for JamKazam.  Even if you could get this to run through your proper interface (you can't), it's going to pick up all kinds of sound from your computer.  And for two, come on, that mic is going to be garbage.  A good dynamic microphone like the stalwart Shure SM-58 is probably the best option here.  In a pinch you can communicate your USB chat mic/headset, but it's going to make you sound like garbage when you are talking or singing.

Instrument DI or Microphone(s)

If you are playing guitar or bass, keys, etc., you will ideally want to use a pedal or DI box.  Having  a lot of room sound is not conducive to a good mix for you or anyone else in the session (honestly, this is the case even if you are jamming in the same room, but don't bother telling the guitarist who brings his Marshall half stack to rehearsal).   You will plug this into one of the the inputs on your audio interface. 

If you are a drummer, a popular option is to use an electronic kit.  Obviously that is not going to work for everyone.  On a real drum kit, you can use an entry level mic kit like the Samson 7-kit. These typically run about $300-$400.  You can also get by with a couple of SM-57s (see the Glyn Johns configuration). Run these into a mixer and then plug the mixer into your audio interface.

Effects (Optional)

You may wish to have some effects on your vocals or instrument(s). The best and simplest way to do this is to run an outboard effects unit before the audio interface.  Examples of this include your effect pedal chain or a rack mount processor of some sort.  Other methods, such as running effects on your computer, are technically possible but at best complicated, and at worst, induce too much additional latency and/or stealing too much CPU from JamKazam.

If you have all of the above needs met, you can move on to getting setup. In the next installment, we will discuss the concepts that make all of these specifications important.

Next Post in Series: Don't Believe Everything You Read

JamKazam: Online Jamming for Quarantined Musicians

This is month 2 of Armageddon for musicians.  If you are one, or know someone who is, you are aware that they are climbing the walls because all of their shows, rehearsals, and even jam sessions have been taken off the table since March.  Playing together online using Zoom or Meet sounds like a great idea, until you try it and find out no one can line up the rhythm due to the inherent delays.

Enter JamKazam - the service for jamming online.  Musicians sign up, login, and can jam with each other for free. And it uses a different method of delivering audio to each other, so it actually works! Sounds great, right?  Well this service has been running since 2015, and the world is just finding out about it now.  What gives?

The barrier to entry is fairly high.  Make no mistake about it, achieving success with JamKazam sessions is not for the faint of heart.  If you are expecting to download an app to your phone, set it on the table, and magically play along with your buds from all over the world, move along.  That is not even close to what is going to happen here.  You need the right gear, the right settings, a lot of patience, and ability to adapt.  But if you can get through the process, real-time jamming is waiting for you on the other side.  My guess is that there has not been a critical mass of tech-savvy musicians who were motivated to stick with it.  But as my friends and I have joked, "wow, who knew all it would take to stimulate the online jamming economy is a global pandemic?"

There are copious tutorials available on how to set up and get the best performance from JamKazam, and a great forum that has been really active in the last couple of months, so I am not going to duplicating those effort here.  Over the next few posts, I will attempt to demystify some of the aspects of JamKazam that tend to befuddle newcomers. 

Next post in series: What you really need

New technology could prevent neighbor-spoofed robocalls if implemented

As an update to my previous post, there is apparently some movement afoot to implement a method of secure verification of caller ID info.  It is similar to how e-mail and websites are encrypted and authenticated, using certificates.

STIR/SHAKEN is a technology standard that incorporates an authentication service, a verification service, and a certificate repository.  When a call is made, the authentication certificate issued by the caller's provider is looked up by the recipient's provider, and the call info is verified as being authentic or not.

The standard appears to be designed to be implemented at the service provider level.   As I stated previously, carriers will be slow to adopt anything that will cost them money, due to the amount of power they wield, and this case is no exception.  The call for them to adopt such a standard was put out by the FCC in 2014.  Nonetheless, 5 years later some providers, including Verizon, are going public with announcements that they intend to implement this standard, which would conceivably have a major impact on the type of robocalling - and by extension, the entire robocall industry.  By preventing the misuse/abuse of caller ID information, customers can then, in turn, effectively utilize tools such as spam filters to recognize and block calls from spammy sources.

As for when this all happens, Verizon says that in March, 2019 they begin offering their anti-spam service for free for their wire-line customers, which they say supports the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication.  Even if you are not a Verizon customer, it is a good thing for it to be adopted by any of the big providers.  At worst, it will reduce the cost effectiveness of these robocalls, and the volume will begin to drop, which will affect everyone.

Let's all hope this happens without a hitch, and our telephone infrastructure can become sane again.

Robocalls are Changing The Way We Use Telephones

If you are over the age of 30, you probably remember, at least at one time, answering the phone with "Hello?" Not as in "Hello (friend's name)", but as in "Hello, who is this?"  Well, thanks to caller ID, those days are a distant memory, and thanks to Robocalls, there may soon come a day when you won't even get a phone call from someone you don't know.

Robocalls are massive amounts of unsolicited phone calls, using the help of computer autodialers.  For the poor souls who pick them up (usually the most vulnerable demographic, such as the elderly), a sales call for life insurance, extended car warranties, vacation package, or a fraudulent business proposal awaits them.  Many calls even use recorders in order to commit identity theft.

The concept of these calls are nothing new, but the sheer volume of them, and growth rate are staggering.  Many Americans complain of getting dozens of calls a day, such as the ones in this Reddit Thread. 

The "Do Not Call List" Does Not

Years ago, congress was roused to deal with this growing problem, so they came up with something called the "Do Not Call Registry".  The idea was that every American who didn't want to get unsolicited phone calls from businesses would put their info on this list, and then THE TELEMARKETERS would, before calling you, CHECK TO SEE IF YOU WERE ON THE LIST, and not call you if so.  Wow congress, perhaps you should just ask them to send a handwritten note of apology as well.  Anyway, that system works about as well as you can guess.  In fact, the List, in a sick twist of irony, probably acts as a damned fine source of telephone numbers that have an high likelihood of being answered.

Spoof Your Neighbor

Another thing that has gotten worse, and promises to drive this ship into the ground, is the use of "Neighbor spoofing".  This is when the caller changes their caller ID info to be random number, usually one in your state, which theoretically increases the chances that you will pick up.  If the caller ID information was consistent, it would be quite trivial to develop a list of calls that have been reported negatively, and compare incoming calls to it. However, the randomization of "Neighbor Spoofing" makes it impossible to detect robocalls with any degree of accuracy, when using the caller ID info alone.

Where is the FCC?

At least outwardly, this is an important issue to the FCC.  The FCC says,

"Unwanted calls – including illegal and spoofed robocalls - are the FCC's top consumer complaint and our top consumer protection priority" - From Consumer Guide on FCC.gov

They go on to say that it is "prohibited to present misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongly obtain anything of value", and is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 per violation. They say telemarketers should "Display a telephone number you can call during regular business hours to ask to no longer be called"

However, it's pretty obvious that it's gotten out of hand.  As best as I can tell, things start to break down around the following issues:

• The FCC seems to believe that most people NEED to present alternate caller ID info in order to conduct legitimate business over the phone, and that this needs to be protected.  Their statement on third party services and apps that attempt to surmount the impossible problem of robocall attacks suggests that they are almost more concerned for the businesses that call people.
• This term "telemarketers" is a quaint term with a narrow, and probably easily circumvented, definition. 
• It is impossible to track, let alone follow up on, all of the violations of these rules. There is a complaint form on the FCC page, but ironically, in order to fill it out, you have to provide info about the caller, which means you need to have answered the call. 

A Backwards View

The bottom line is that the whole system seems to rely too much on self-policing.  Caller ID spoofing legality (or lack thereof) seems to have very little impact, due to lack of enforcement.  The government wants to protect callers, seemingly more than they want to protect the recipients.  To me that is completely backwards.  The recipients are the ones who have the most to lose.  As usual, the government is bought and paid for by businesses, and they want to be able to call people and make sales.  

The solution is: Eliminate (or demote calls with) spoofed caller ID.  Caller ID info sent by callers must be verified and consistent.  This is similar to how email works.  Servers identify themselves to each other, and if they are not verified, no one pays attention to them.  The spam is still out there, but it can be classified.

Doing this would require some help from Congress.  We need legislation that stops protecting caller ID spoofing, and starts exposing it.  Telephone companies needs to require authentic and consistent caller ID info, and provide this info to their customers when calls come to them.  It will affect their bottom line, and you can bet they won't do it without a literal act of congress.

But even if you don't have a stomach for my rather socialist point of view, maybe this will speak to you: 

If you don't preserve the integrity of the telephone service, people will abandon it.  

What does the Ghost-of-Telephone-Future show us?  The net effect will be the same.  A world where all calls will be subject to white-listing or screening.  That means that, the days in which a person or company, with lawful intent, may call someone and speak to them on the first try, are effectively over.  We are moving to a system where callers must present some piece of authenticity before the call will be routed.  And eventually the robocallers will spoof that too.  The telephone system will eventually disintegrate, in favor of chat messaging apps and VOIP services that are not bound by the antiquated limitations and freedoms of the old telephone service.  If you think they won't do it, go talk to a 25 year old person. Ask them how often they intentionally use their phone to speak (voice) to another person.

Ironically, this is exactly the scenario the FCC is trying to prevent.  

A Guide to Craigslist Etiquette

In a world where the amount of trash we generate and the cost of living keep going up, while wages and employment opportunities don't, Craigslist is a God send. 

One of the perks of living in Vermont is that we have a healthy Craigslist market, with a relatively low scam rate.  Sure, I get stood up occasionally, but almost all of the time, if I can actually meet up with someone to make a deal, everything is on the up-and-up.  I think this comes from a long tradition of bartering in a state where the climate is rough, and most of it is remote.

In the interest of keeping this market healthy, I thought I would provide a few of my rules and expectations when it comes to buying and selling on Craigslist.

Always

• Deals are cash, and in person
• At an agreed upon meeting location. Must be in a public place unless both parties are comfortable with a house meeting.

As a buyer

• Only talk to local sellers. 
• Expect to pay with cash, unless the deal is a barter/trade.
• Expect to do most of the driving, if not all of it.  If the seller offers to meet you somewhere closer, they are doing you a favor.
• Be honest about how serious you are, and when you can make an appearance.  Don't call at the last minute and cancel/try to reschedule.
• Call/text the seller again when you are leaving to meet them.
• Don't ever assume items will be held for you (but you can ask)
• If the item is sold before you can schedule a meeting, fair's fair.
• Know the market value of what you are trying to buy.  If the asking price is significantly below this value, it is at least unbecoming, and at worst, rude, to attempt to negotiate the price even lower.

As a seller

• Only talk to local buyers.
• Be honest about the condition of an item.  If you don't know something, say that.
• Ask a fair price.  Set an appointment with a potential buyer, and don't sell it to someone else before the meeting.
• Answer contacts in the order they came - first come, first serve. 
• Clearly communicate your expectations about how a deal will commence.
• Stay open and transparent with all buyers. Lying or hiding something will only lead to a sour deal.

It is okay to tell someone "well, someone's coming to look at it tonight at 7pm... if it's still available after that, I'll let you know."  If you do, keep track, and follow up.  It's NOT okay to do this: "someone is coming to look at it tonight at 7pm, but if you get here first, I'll sell it to you."

If in doubt, always stay true to your word.  

If you get into a jam, contact all the involved parties and tell them what is happening.

The bottom line is, don't piss off your buyer or seller.  There are of course situations where people are crazy and it's unavoidable, but... do unto others.  If we all work to keep the market fair, it will stay healthy.  

EVs and the Coming Oil Glut?

The other day I read this article. The author, Ross Tessien seems to have created something of a stir.  His basic premise is that the demand for EVs has already quietly started a rapid journey to 100% adoption by 2026, we have not correctly interpreted the signs yet, and all of this will amount to a historically significant oil glut as early as 2023 (when everyone realizes oil is being massively overproduced).

Here's a great, very friendly video explanation by the guys from "Now You Know". Be forewarned that all of their content seems to be heavily Tesla-centered and slightly fanatical, so they are likely to be more bullish on this hypothesis.

Despite the fact that I more-or-less believe that this is the ultimate outcome, I think there are some factors that Tessien has not considered:

1. "Gas Grab" - A subset of people who just want cheap transportation will be happy to buy and own their gas-powered cars when gas prices drop, causing a hesitation in the rapid adoption rate of EVs.
2. "Grid Crisis" - The demand for EVs will be tempered by a spike in the cost of electricity production during a window where demand exceeds supply.  It will take quite a while to ramp up our infrastructure to the extent necessary to handle an EV in every American garage, and I think that is not fully realized.

Still, even if he is off by a few years, this is still a significant prediction.