11 ms·

Shameless plug: I have one of these too :) https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/fsk https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/fsk (fsk demo) https://quiet.github.io/quiet-

Shameless plug: I have one of these too :) https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/fsk https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/fsk (fsk demo) https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js (standard modem demo)

zokier 6y ago
As you happen to be here, I noticed that the "audible-fsk" profiles in https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/lab.html https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/lab.html seem to be broken, at least on my machine. I get this error: > Sorry, it looks like there was a problem with this profile. Revert to your last working settings or load a preset, and then try again. and in console > error: fskmod_create(), samples/symbol must be in [2^_m, 2048]
- brian-armstrong 6y ago
  Ah, sorry about that. I haven't updated the lab in some time and it's likely not tracking changes that went in to enable FSK mode. I'll make a note to come back to this later. The lab could use a lot of love in general.
ggerganov 6y ago
Hi Brian, good to see a FSK version of quiet-js. Will definitely give it a try later. Edit: fix typo
- brian-armstrong 6y ago
  The demo I linked uses a slowed down profile with lots of error correction applied in an attempt to get longer ranges working. I've tried to expose all the knobs for this on the profile system to make it configurable though. Looks like yours is quite a bit faster. Have you done much testing with long range and non line-of-sight transmission? The acoustic echoes present some interesting challenges. edit: Oh also it'd be nice to compare notes about mobile devices sometimes. At least for Quiet I've found the transmission quality is very dependent on specifically how the mic/speakers are set up and it can be tricky to avoid hidden resamplers and noise cancelation.
  - ggerganov 6y ago
    > Have you done much testing with long range and non line-of-sight transmission? Not much. I tested this today at home and ggwave does not perform too bad. Even without direct line-of-sight it is still able to pick up the data. Hard to give quantitative description of the performance - it's good enough to make me satisfied :) > Oh also it'd be nice to compare notes about mobile devices sometimes. At least for Quiet I've found the transmission quality is very dependent on specifically how the mic/speakers are set up and it can be tricky to avoid hidden resamplers and noise cancelation. True. I am still not sure if noise cancellation helps or not. I guess it also depends on the noise cancellation implementation. When running in a browser, I usually disable it.

zokier 6y ago

As you happen to be here, I noticed that the "audible-fsk" profiles in https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/lab.html https://quiet.github.io/quiet-js/lab.html seem to be broken, at least on my machine. I get this error: > Sorry, it looks like there was a problem with this profile. Revert to your last working settings or load a preset, and then try again. and in console > error: fskmod_create(), samples/symbol must be in [2^_m, 2048]

brian-armstrong 6y ago
Ah, sorry about that. I haven't updated the lab in some time and it's likely not tracking changes that went in to enable FSK mode. I'll make a note to come back to this later. The lab could use a lot of love in general.

ggerganov 6y ago

Hi Brian, good to see a FSK version of quiet-js. Will definitely give it a try later. Edit: fix typo

brian-armstrong 6y ago
The demo I linked uses a slowed down profile with lots of error correction applied in an attempt to get longer ranges working. I've tried to expose all the knobs for this on the profile system to make it configurable though. Looks like yours is quite a bit faster. Have you done much testing with long range and non line-of-sight transmission? The acoustic echoes present some interesting challenges. edit: Oh also it'd be nice to compare notes about mobile devices sometimes. At least for Quiet I've found the transmission quality is very dependent on specifically how the mic/speakers are set up and it can be tricky to avoid hidden resamplers and noise cancelation.
- ggerganov 6y ago
  > Have you done much testing with long range and non line-of-sight transmission? Not much. I tested this today at home and ggwave does not perform too bad. Even without direct line-of-sight it is still able to pick up the data. Hard to give quantitative description of the performance - it's good enough to make me satisfied :) > Oh also it'd be nice to compare notes about mobile devices sometimes. At least for Quiet I've found the transmission quality is very dependent on specifically how the mic/speakers are set up and it can be tricky to avoid hidden resamplers and noise cancelation. True. I am still not sure if noise cancellation helps or not. I guess it also depends on the noise cancellation implementation. When running in a browser, I usually disable it.