2 ms·
Agreed. I think the Mumble project is awesome for what it is, but it's always never had the same design goals and simply doesn't have the ease of use (whether t
by ridgewell 8y ago
Agreed. I think the Mumble project is awesome for what it is, but it's always never had the same design goals and simply doesn't have the ease of use (whether through lack of capacity/will or through it's server-based structure versus Discord's centralized server platform) of Discord.
Where I think Mumble particularly shined was being one of the first to broadly introduce the Opus codec which really set low latency communications into play. Mumble was really a champion in this space.
I find it hard to believe that Discord, in its design, didn't evaluate its competitors at one point and decide to follow Mumble in implementing Opus.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y agoDoesn't Skype also use Opus under the hood?
- kjetijor 8y agoIt might. Using Opus does not equate to low audio latency. (I don't actually know Opus, but I have passing familiarity with it's predecessor speex). Assuming Opus has the same design goals as speex, Opus gives you the tools necessary to implement a low-latency audio application. As in - the audio codec piece is "solved", now you need to do the engineering work around client/server/framing/network etc. to actually get to your latency goals.
- amaranth 8y agoI'd hope so, considering they were a part of the group standardizing it. Opus, in broad strokes, is Skype's SILK codec for low bitrates, Xiph's CELT for high bitrates, and a mode that is a blend of both codecs for the middle.