Dear reader,
as has been announced here 2 days ago by Marc Groenewegen, the next Linux
Audio Conference (LAC#8) will take place at the HKM in Utrecht, Netherlands,
from May 1st - 4th, 2010 (see http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010).
We have now opened the Website that accepts paper submissions. Please
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 16:53 +0100, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:53:02AM +, Bob Ham wrote:
>
> > local sessions are a subset of the functionality provided by network
> > sessions
>
> If you want to have network transparency inside the audio framework,
> this perspective mig
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 02:17:18PM +0100, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> I've been in several studios with tons of expensive equipment, however,
> all this stuff was packed in a single room, usually around a decent
> mixing console or a computer with multichannel audio I/O (ProTools,
> Tascam, RME, whateve
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:46:44PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> Agreed. What I consider central is the idea of set of event sources,
> and event loop and handlers for events that are injected into the
> loop. There is no common framework for this on Unix, there never has
> been and as long design po
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:24 PM, wrote:
>> The problem I pointed out exists when the 'real' loop (in
>> the C, C++ sense), in other words the while() thing above,
>> is completely absorbed into a GUI toolkit.
>
> you can view it that way aroun
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:46:02 +0100 (CET)
k...@aspodata.se (Karl Hammar) wrote:
> Adrian Knoth:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
> > > So ich habe mal was zusammengedichtet
> > > > > The rationale in brief:
> > > > > No proprietry hardware soundcard needed.
> >
Wow! A lot been said since I opened my mouth :o
First an apology!
When I started this thread I CC'd LAU hoping to just bring interested
people over. I didn't expect the cross-post deluge that followed -
Sorry. I won't do it again :(
For those in doubt the original discussion started over on LAU
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:24 PM, wrote:
> An event loop (as I use the term) is just something of the
> form
>
> while (running)
> {
> E = wait_for_events();
> process_event(E);
> }
Sure.
> In process_event() the first selection would be on event
> origin. Messages from you other threads fo
Adrian Knoth:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:46:02PM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
> > Well, you have to start somewhere. I'm not in this to compete with
> > Behringer ADA8000, I'm in this to fiddle around with soldering.
> WTF? Soldering is what it takes to make the product. If soldering is the
> motiv
Florian Faber:
> Karl Hammar wrote:
> > [..ethernet transports..]
> > And we are missing an open protocol for this.
> What is wrong with netjack? It's made for point-to-point and very
> simple. You just have to solve the clock issue unless you want to lose
> bit transparency.
Ohh, sorry, I got the
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:55:39PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my initial interpretation of
> this suggests a goal that is a little absurd to me. The design of the
> event loop is where the design of a GUI toolkit starts, because the
> event loop needs to be ab
Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
>> Yes, there is an overview over protocols here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_over_Ethernet
> Seems like the latter reference is quite far ahead of the IEEE
> thoughts.
And how many of them are open standards?
Flo
--
Machines can do the work, so people have tim
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM, wrote:
> 1. Almost all GUI toolkits mix up a few things that should
> remain well separated:
>
> - Getting X11 events,
> - Handling X11 events,
> - Creating a framework for messaging (events + data)
> between threads, and if you are lucky a RT-safe A
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:04:59 -0500, Paul Davis
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Adrian Knoth
>
>> All we need is a decent plugin API, and LV2 seems to be the choice.
>
> It is looking increasingly like that, but there are still issues that
> are not solved. You still will not be able t
On Tuesday 24 November 2009, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:46:02PM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
>> Well, you have to start somewhere. I'm not in this to compete with
>> Behringer ADA8000, I'm in this to fiddle around with soldering.
>
>WTF? Soldering is what it takes to make the prod
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:12:59AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> This just isn't true on "bare" unix systems, where the insistence on
> choice and flexibility and "developer driven" approaches to almost
> everything have ruled out such a common core.
There are at least to separate aspects to this pr
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:46:02PM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
> Well, you have to start somewhere. I'm not in this to compete with
> Behringer ADA8000, I'm in this to fiddle around with soldering.
WTF? Soldering is what it takes to make the product. If soldering is the
motivation for the project,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Adrian Knoth
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why Linux Audio always reinvents the wheel. Just look at the
>> Win32 side: VST-Instruments, then put your favourite EQ on the outputs
>> and your mastering compressor somew
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Adrian Knoth
wrote:
> I wonder why Linux Audio always reinvents the wheel. Just look at the
> Win32 side: VST-Instruments, then put your favourite EQ on the outputs
> and your mastering compressor somewhere else. Still modular, but
> provides total recall.
In th
On Tuesday 24 November 2009, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
>> So ich habe mal was zusammengedichtet
>>
>> > > The rationale in brief:
>> > > No proprietry hardware soundcard needed.
>> > > Almost all modern computers have reasonably fast Ethe
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:53:02AM +, Bob Ham wrote:
> local sessions are a subset of the functionality provided by network
> sessions
If you want to have network transparency inside the audio framework,
this perspective might be true.
But you could also ignore network on the audio level and
Karl Hammar wrote:
>> [RockNet, Roland Digital Snake, Ethersound]
>>> That tells us that it should be doable. But of cause we want an open
>>> protocol. Do you know the capacity limits of those systems?
>> Approximately what you could expect from a 100MBit/s link. At least 32
>> channels, rocknet
Adrian Knoth:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
> > So ich habe mal was zusammengedichtet
> > > > The rationale in brief:
> > > > No proprietry hardware soundcard needed.
> > > > Almost all modern computers have reasonably fast Ethernet connections.
> > > Don't kno
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
> So ich habe mal was zusammengedichtet
> > > The rationale in brief:
> > > No proprietry hardware soundcard needed.
> > > Almost all modern computers have reasonably fast Ethernet connections.
> > Don't know how much you already did
Hmm..this is definitely interesting. When specs and schematics are up, if
the hardware is within my budget, I'll most certainly be testing the idea.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/
Fons!
>> In the broadcast/studio segment, transport over ethernet is already in
>> use by some manufacturers.
> In the segment of large fixed audio installations (airports,
> train stations, cruise ships, etc.) things like Cobranet have
> been in use for many years - the savings in wiring costs a
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:26:04AM +0100, Florian Faber wrote:
> > I wonder why no company took up this idea already, it seems so sleek and
> > logical. (Almost) every computer has ethernet and the ethernet standard
> > is (in my experience) problem free...
>
> A lot of companies are working on
Florian Faber wrote:
> Atte André Jensen wrote:
>
>
>> I wonder why no company took up this idea already, it seems so sleek and
>> logical. (Almost) every computer has ethernet and the ethernet standard
>> is (in my experience) problem free...
>>
>
> A lot of companies are working on this
Atte André Jensen wrote:
> I wonder why no company took up this idea already, it seems so sleek and
> logical. (Almost) every computer has ethernet and the ethernet standard
> is (in my experience) problem free...
A lot of companies are working on this, but for anything but a simple
audio in/au
Nick Copeland:
> Adrian Knoth:
> > I'm also somewhat interested in the network part, I feel IPv6 could help
> > a lot. It supports autoconfiguration and it has decent multicast
> > support, so it would be possible to broadcast/multicast the streams on
> > the net (LAN). This could be useful if you
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:17 +1100, Loki Davison wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Adrian Knoth
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:26:06PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
> >
> >> I have never understood why D-Bus was even considered for a network-wide
> >> audio session system.
> >
> > Just cu
Adrian Knoth:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:28:03PM +, Folderol wrote:
>
> > The rationale in brief:
> > No proprietry hardware soundcard needed.
> > Almost all modern computers have reasonably fast Ethernet connections.
>
> Don't know how much you already did for the hardware layout. If
> pos
32 matches
Mail list logo
