Several Jamulus musicians in one place, benefit multichannel audio interface for Jamulus ... so far together only under one Jamulus participant then the mix online available... we need for each audio interface participant an own Jamulus participant

[dh1sa]

ENGLISH:
Hello,

we use Jamulus to make music together with our band online.
4 band members are in one room and play together there. For this we use a multichannel audio interface.
With Jamulus, all 4 band members always come under one Jamulus participant. This is bad, because the others then can not mix them.
Is there no possibility to connect several channels of an audio interface to several Jamulus participants.
On the MAC or PC, the audio interface logs in with 16 input channels.
Perfect would be if the 4 of them are then each 4 Jamulus participants, so that these can then be mixed by the others.

4 PCs and 4 audio interface would work, 4 Internet accesses, but is not a solution. Too complex, too complicated.
And about the 16 channel audio interface runs namely also the local monitoring. Jamulus gets an input here so that all 4 also hear the Jamulus Internet signal. Since we have little latency, the 4 hear each other directly, so not from the Jamulus server.

GERMAN:
Hallo,

wir nutzen Jamulus um mit unserer Band online zusammen Musik zu machen.
4 Bandmitglieder sind in einem Raum und spielen dort zusammen. Dazu nutzen wir ein Mehrkanal Audio Interface.
Bei Jamulus kommen damit immer alle 4 Bandmitglieder unter einem Jamulus Teilnehmer. Das ist schlecht, da die anderen online diese dann nicht mehr Mischen können.
Gibt es denn keine Möglichkeit mehrere Kanäle eines Audiointerfaces auf mehrere Jamulus Teilnehmer zu verbinden.
Am MAC oder PC meldet sich das Audio - Interface mit 16 Eingangskanäle an.
Perfekt wäre wenn die 4 davon dann jeweils 4 Jamulus Teilnehmer sind, so dass diese dann von den anderen gemischt werden können.

4 PCs und 4 Audiointerface würden funktionieren, 4 Internet Zugänge, ist aber keine Lösung. Zu aufwendig, zu kompliziert.
Und über das 16 Kanal Audio Interface läuft nämlich auch das lokale Monitoring. Jamulus bekommt hier einen Eingang so dass alle 4 auch das Jamulus Internetsignal hören. Da wir wenig Latenz haben, hören die drei sich direkt, also nicht vom Jamulus Server.

[gilgongo]

Jamulus lets you run multiple clients on the same machine. So, using a single PC, would you be able to have separate clients connected to separate outputs from your audio interface? Each output would be connected to an input from a different musician in the room.

the 4 hear each other directly, so not from the Jamulus server.

That might cause you problems keeping in time with other players on the server. Better to have everyone listening to the sound that comes back from server (so, using headphones).

[dh1sa]

Hello, thanks for the answers!

I downloaded the linked document and used it.
I use extra as in the instructions a MAC. MAC OS is Monterey.

Have duplicated in the Finder Jamulus. Gave each duplicate a different name. I can open these and change the setting on each. This works great!!! I can use several parallel Jamulus clients on different sound cards - USB - ports.

Now to my problem that I can't get solved. I am in despair, already put a lot of time into it.
If I end the individual Jamulus applications, as I understand it in all Jamulus applications the last settings of the Jamulus application is taken over, where the settings were changed.
Again better explained: All applications have then at the next start exactly the same settings - parameters. I must then always adjust by hand. Costs a lot of time and nerves with four clients.
You write there from the call with "--inifile". Exactly this Inifile I do not find also do not get the call.

Still to the other remarks:
We use our own Jamulus server. It is a Linux server, located at the same site and runs on separate hardware.
We all play with headphones, use as monitor "Ultranet" of the mixer. Ultranet gives all input channels of the mixer digitally to the monitors, which are exclusively headphones for us. The whole thing works great. The mixer is a MIDAS MR 18. I can only recommend for Jamulus, he has 16 USB sound card - channels. So 16 digital inputs and 16 digital outputs.
We are a Christian pop band and use Jamulus for band rehearsals for a long time. Band members live far geographically scattered. Since electric bass, electric guitar and keyboard as well as vocals come from the rehearsal room, we need 4 Jamulus single chairs so that others can mix. You know that, the drummer wants much louder the electric bass... etc.
Many greetings Axel and maybe someone can help me with the problem.

[chrisrimple]

I have some instructions here for how to run multiple Jamulus clients. But you will definitely need each person to wear headphones.

[dcorson-ticino-com]

I fail to see how your change has anything to do with the OP's comment.
Count me out.

[pgScorpio]

I fail to see how your change has anything to do with the OP's comment.

I can understand your confusion, since it is only partly related to the original post. (Since on 2 channel interfaces you can't run two instances, each using one input. as suggested). unfortunately my remark started a whole new discussion that, as I mentioned multiple times, should not have been discussed in this topic.... Also my bad, since I probably should have opened new topic instead... Sorry for that.

EDIT: For those who want to discuss this futher: I opened an issue for it.

[hoffie]

Heh, ok, that explains why what I said didn't match what you meant at all. Sorry, I've misread that as well as I was still primed with OP's post. :)
So, yeah, these are two different things:

1. Support for multiple channels (with their own faders/names/mute status etc.) within a single client (that's what OP wanted, as I understand, and what my reply was targeted at) vs.
2. Support for channel selection.

The latter might be a totally different story. I don't know any historical reasons for (not) having the latter, but if it's really that simple, doesn't break any other existing usage and would help people with such setups, than I guess it would be a welcome addition.

cc @softins @pljones

[henkdegroot]

And it works. Even with mono input devices. I don't think there is any other impact on the GUI, but that has to be further checked/tested.

Same (alike) changes also have to be done for Mac/Linux/Android sound.cpp/sound.h

I don't think changes are need for other OS's, they do not have the same selection option as used on Windows. To my knowledge the input/output selection is only available in the dialog when using a Windows OS. Sounds like an issue needs to be created to get this improvement implemented.

[pgScorpio]

I don't think changes are need for other OS's

AFAIK you do have input selection on macOS too, but I agree the input/output selection problem is mainly a windows (ASIO) problem.
Nevertheless the mono input restriction applies to all OS'es.
And, in my opinion, the restrictions should not have been coded in the Sound module(s), since they are NOT sound module restrictions at all.
EDIT: Correction on macOS the input/output selection is done via "Device", even stranger compared to the other OS'es. In my opinion this should be done via input/output selection here too.