does anyone got a link of team talk info and can anyone tell me why
its so big out here.
BlindTech of BlindTechs.Net
Visit our website where we offer free email, shell accoiunts, shoutcast radio service, online games and more!
Powered by Unix not Microsoft
On Mar 25, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Chris Skarstad wrote:
hi. I agree. I know we've got a few super hard core teamtalk fans out there, and yes, it sounds beautiful. But for straight voice chat conversations, high quality is really not needed unless you're actually broadcasting it, or unless you're an audio snob who just has to have it at a certain bitrate and sampling rate. I'm a snob when it comes to my music, I like to have it just the way *i* like it.
But for these BCT chats, I think it is definitely a good idea to use the BCT chatroom set up by Robert for 2 reasons. Firstly, Robert went out of his way to set it up with talking communities. He didn't have to do that. Secondly, teamtalk, while being a pretty cool program, *does* require some initial setup and configuration.
On a list this size, and with people having differing abilities with computers, there are people out there who, believe it or not, don't want to have to spend time entering server info, setting up a nickname, etc. All they want to do is click a link, enter a name and if the software is installed, start chatting. What a novel idea!
Now I'm not saying Teamtalk is bad, please don't misunderstand me. if you like it, then that's certainly fine. But as Nick said, it should be up to the moderator of said chat which program or service they use. If they want to use Teamtalk, they will. If they want to use the BCT chatroom, they will.
At 02:38 PM 3/25/2006, you wrote:
I don't think this has to be a competition. No one is being forced to use
either server. Robert should be commended for setting up and paying for this
chat client. If people don't wish to use it, that's a personal choice.
However, some of us are very appreciative of Robert's efforts.
-----Original Message----- From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nick G Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 2:24 PM To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bct] Re: Sunday Evening Hollistic voice chat
What i'm seeing is a struggle between two forces who just want to be used.
The people who support the BCT chat room want them to use it, and the people
who support TT are wanting them to use it. Granted, I like TeamTalk, but
it's the chat's mottorator who decides which service he will use, and...he
seems to have decided.
TeamTalk doesn't allow a mottorator to show web pages on the screen at his
own pace. It's like using a blackboard in IVocalise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "farhan khan" <farhan@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Kai" <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 2:52 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: Sunday Evening Hollistic voice chat
> Hi, actually teamtalk, if you have forward threw server enabled only uses
> 5.71 kbps of bandwith
> ON 3/25/2006 at 13:51 Kai said
> Greetings List.
> I have to object at this statement.
> How much "quality" do you really need in these chats anyway? I mean,
> it's really only a vocal stream. In this situation, a 22KHZ sampling
> rate is probably more than sufficient. No one's going to be broadcasting
> high quality music or any other kind of audio feed.
> While it might be nice for the techies to have these cool numbers
> designating higher "quality", I still think that it's more often than
> not overkill. That also means a waste of bandwidth. Why spend 50% of
> your bandwidth just for a little bit higher quality which most won't
> even notice or care about, when you can do the same conference using
> just 20%?
> Quality is nice when it comes to sound seeing tours and other
> audio-sensitive recordings. For everything else, I don't think technical
> specs matter as much as the material being discussed, and the people
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of derek Lane
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:37 PM
> To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bct] Re: Sunday Evening Hollistic voice chat
> If possible, you should use teamtalk.
> It sounds much better, especially if everyone has the quality set at
> 100% and the sampling rate at 32k
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mary Emerson <mailto:maryemerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:22 PM
> Subject: [bct] Sunday Evening Hollistic voice chat
> Hi list,
> I would like to start a very casual hollistic voice chat on Sunday
> evening, starting at 8 Eastern, 5 Pacific; I realize it's very late for
> people in other parts of the world, but I can record it and podcast it.
> This will be very casual and people can share spontaneously what has
> worked for them. I'd like to leave it open to discussion of everything
> from herbs to vitamins to whatever supplements or techniques work for
> you; you can come and listen if you'd rather not participate. I have no
> licenses or degrees in nutrition, just some experience and enthusiasm
> for the subject.
> To participate, just go to http://www.blindcooltech.com and press enter
> on the chat link; if you've used the chat room before, you can enter any
> user name you like, and press enter on login. If you haven't used the
> chat room before, a small bit of software will download to your PC
> before you can login. You may have to go into the control panel's sounds
> and audio devices sections to adjust your microphone.
> I've never been a moderator, so don't know if I can control individual
> voice volume on the chat. But I look forward to talking to some of you
> on Sunday evening at 8 Eastern, 5 Pacific.
> Mary Emerson
> E-mail: maryemerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Skype name: mkemerson
> Podcast web site: http://www.emerson.libsyn.com
> Podcast feed: emerson.libsyn.com/rss
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 3/24/2006