3 ms·
Here’s my question: why is video conferencing designed such that when the video drops out or lags, so does the audio? I never (or very less often) have problems
by plaidfuji 7y ago
Here’s my question: why is video conferencing designed such that when the video drops out or lags, so does the audio? I never (or very less often) have problems with simple VOIP. Why not make a video chat client that treats the audio as a first class citizen, and then displays the video if it happens to be coming through clearly? Is re-syncing the streams too hard? This seems like a fix that would make the experience so much better without having to put more data through any network.
- plaidfuji 7y agoI basically do this already for crucial video conferences: I call in on my phone as well as laptop and keep the phone audio on standby for the inevitable dropouts
- ejcho623 7y agoI think Skype already might be doing something like this. The audio passes through ok when the screen feed freezes due to network congestion
- lordCarbonFiber 7y agoProbably because crappy audio is received better than audio out of synch from the video. Having the "bad international languge dub" effect on conferencing is distracting as hell. For what it's worth voice over IP is essentially solved; tools like Mumble can have 1000s of people with top tier quality. I'm not sold at all on why you'd even want video, 90% of most business meetings (in my experience) are screen shares that could be communicated by just sending a link anyway. For personal calls use direct connect peer'd connection; in my experience all of the problems of video calling is going through the enabling server.