Latency, feedback, mediation, etc.

 

Home Forums Supraconductor Latency, feedback, mediation, etc.

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  kyougn 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #321

    nanofortran
    Participant

    Some thoughts . . .

    The major ‘glitch’, if you can call it that, in most telematic performance is latency.  It is the issue which typically receives the most concern (either in an attempt to lower latency to negligible levels, to create a shared c0-presence, or the other side of the coin, which applies here, exacerbating latency to create emergent material.)

    A second glitch is feedback, which can be both of an aural and visual nature.  But typically, it is acoustical feedback (consider the pumping feedback Skype  provides at the signal moves back and forth between the two nodes . . . well, until the auto-ducking kicks in . . . then you turn the volume up and down and the problem just gets exacerbated).

    What is nice about latency and feedback is that they both relate the physical nature of the network.    The further apart the nodes (say they are distributed across Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc.) the greater the latency, and consequently every new arrangement of the nodes will create a new configuration, resulting in a new acoustic, a new architecture.  So, change the network, change the glitch.

    And as the communication signal moves through differing media (from phone to UDP high-end streaming, to compression, to ShoutcCast server TCP, etc.) it is continually being remediated, transformed, transduced, etc.  Typically, we are striving for stability in our networks.  But, we could establish a a network of ever-evolving complexity that we feed some source material, and just let it feedback on itself.  As the sausage moves through the tubes, it could get quite interesting.

    So, a proposal:  let’s build this network.  We could allow people to call into the network, via skype, and just keep adding material (also we could pick up a few skype numbers so people can call in from a phone.)  And the thing just keeps chugging along.  The glitch is in the interconnects, in the low-fi, failed mediation of digital material as it moves from iphone-call to skype to jackserver to shoutcast to etc. etc. etc.

    Certainly this proposal can be extrapolated to all types of media, I just tend to look at audio as it is my concentration, but I am sure we could do something similar with video and other type of near-real-time communications (twitter, IRC, and whatnot).

    Ok, my 2 cents.

    nf

    • This topic was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by  nanofortran.
    #367

    kyougn
    Moderator

    “The glitch is in the interconnects

    Yes. Further to this, what is perceived is not the glitch itself, but the symptom of the glitch… I wonder, does this distinction matter and/or is this an accurate distinction?

    “As the sausage moves through the tubes, it could get quite interesting.”

    These physical metaphors we use to think of “The Network” as a Tangible Thing i find interesting. and a linguistic glitch phenomenon itself of sorts.

    “Typically, we are striving for stability in our networks.  But, we could establish a a network of ever-evolving complexity that we feed some source material, and just let it feedback on itself.  As the sausage moves through the tubes, it could get quite interesting.”

    What is actually meant by stability? Other than verisimilitude. If say there is a network where latency is not perceived, but still exists (as is often the case on the phone/skype unless you have a secondary connection marker with which one can gauge relative response time).

    I’d also add accretion to latency and feedback. Not that it is a manifestation of a glitch the way latency and feedback are identifiable glitchy properties of the supraconductor, but rather that increases in connections (audio+video+conferencing+streaming a YouTube video+spikes in internet activity across on a Sunday evening+etc. and so forth) increases likelihood and frequency of the manifestation of glitches. Like latency and feedback, a something with which to play.

    “A second glitch is feedback, which can be both of an aural and visual nature.  But typically, it is acoustical feedback (consider the pumping feedback Skype  provides at the signal moves back and forth between the two nodes . . . well, until the auto-ducking kicks in . . . then you turn the volume up and down and the problem just gets exacerbated).”

    YES. Have actually been experimenting with this over the past year. In February, for a GLTI.CH Karaoke session in my studio, took a bunch of whatever was around (4 laptops, one projector, one iPad, 2 cell phones, computer speakers, a few mics) put them in the same room, connected them through the same Tinychat connection, and just saw what happened. which was a lot of interesting something. The audio feedback, played with by people in the room with the volume knobs, was indeed interesting. But so too was the visual feedback and how the overloading of connections within the same room altered one’s spatial sense within the room as well. Maybe this’ll finally get me to finish a long overdue write-up on this session and put it on the GLTI.CH site as I documented some of that evening and probably better to see a bit of that than rely on my description. In the meantime, in this post is a description and test of a very simple pre-session test where I used the latency to effect a round of Row Row Row Your Boat. You can hear at the beginning of the track some of the feedback, which of course increased/decreased according to the distance between computer and iPad.

    “So, a proposal:  let’s build this network.  We could allow people to call into the network, via skype, and just keep adding material (also we could pick up a few skype numbers so people can call in from a phone.)  And the thing just keeps chugging along.

    That’s the plan for tomorrow and other bits. I know it’s last minute, but tomorrow, if you can join in at http://tinychat.com/supraconductor in Chicago 9am-11pm=Boston 10am-12pm=London 3-5pm, it’d be sweet.

    #403
    rosa_menkman
    rosa_menkman
    Key Master

    There were some more major artifacts, that could have been the result of latency/feedback.. But often it was also for instance dropped info (thinking about the blocking video artifacts, etc).

    In any case, I agree that accretion, latency and feedback relate are major generative qualities.

    But with regards to the physical nature of the network, I want to stress that doesnt mean the physical distance between 2 people skipping ie. the global distance; its the distance the signal traverses from node to node, server to server and hub to hub (which is often not Chicago (beginning) ->  New York (end) but Chicago, China, Africa, Europe, New York. (seems unlikeable but its an option?!)

    http://www.goospoos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Submarine_Cable_Map.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

    #410

    kyougn
    Moderator

    “There were some more major artifacts, that could have been the result of latency/feedback.. But often it was also for instance dropped info (thinking about the blocking video artifacts, etc).”

    dropped info. indeed. as well as added info. meaning, as digital processing and synthesis works, it’s an affair of information loss then reconstituted algorithmically with “missing” bits filled in (clearly, i do not come to this with formal programming background…), not only through the digital machine but our own visual and neural processing/synthesis. this can certainly be pushed, even if the events are temporally unpredictable. today, for instance, the simple act of increasing or decreasing the volume on one’s computer or putting on earmuffs. pushing sounds of varying frequency sounds through the connection (whistling versus bass notes).

    was trying to play with the light sensor on my webcam during today’s session, but not to very interesting effect. maybe need a stronger and more directed light source. as well as a large screen/projector. something for next time.

    “In any case, I agree that accretion, latency and feedback relate are major generative qualities.”

    do others come to mind?

    “But with regards to the physical nature of the network, I want to stress that doesnt mean the physical distance between 2 people skipping ie. the global distance; its the distance the signal traverses from node to node, server to server and hub to hub (which is often not Chicago (beginning) ->  New York (end) but Chicago, China, Africa, Europe, New York. (seems unlikeable but its an option?!)”

    YES. makes one rethink geography/routes/distribution/distance/spatiality. and to extend this, the density of internet connectivity in cities relative to that less densely-populated areas or areas that are not centers of finance, etc. as well as areas known to restrict internet activity (for political or other reasons), and this coupled with rates of activity (which brings us back to accretion), as well as who/what/when/where dictates hardware/network upgrades, compounded with levels and rates of use (which goes back to accretion).

    btw, sweet image. would also love to see something like that 3 dimensionally. the topography of telepresence from under the sea to outerspace.

    also: http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/InternetMap

     

     

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.