adi at drcomp.erfurt.thur.de
Mon Nov 23 13:17:18 UTC 2009
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:26:06PM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
> I have never understood why D-Bus was even considered for a network-wide
> audio session system.
Just curious: I wonder who's using network audio. Much of Linux Audio
is related to this "network" stuff, but I've never seen it anywhere
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, whatever).
On the digital side, all these sites had total recall, that is, they've
opened the mixing session in ProTools and all the plugins had their
settings right. That's the reason why you usually don't want analog
outboard equipment, but if need be, even that sometimes provided total
recall (SSL consoles, some newer FX gear, preamps and some on).
Nobody ever used a plugin on a remote system. Nobody ever used a remote
I agree that in some larger broadcasting studio, routing between several
rooms might be an issue, but this is a rather large investment, probably
millions of Euros.
I've been in the studio where they'd recorded Sarah Connor. I've been in
the studio of Germany's children TV (Kika). Though they had serveral
rooms, they just exchanged sessions via file servers. So what's the
point of all this network audio?
mail: adi at thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver
More information about the Linux-audio-dev