[LAU] open hw soundcard
folderol at ukfsn.org
Sat Nov 14 17:31:00 EST 2009
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:16:16 +0100
fons at kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 04:36:30PM +0000, Folderol wrote:
> > With this lack of standardisation is there any point in going for OSC
> > with it's quite significant overhead? Netjack also seems to have quite
> > a high overhead, and no specific mechanism for RT syncing audio.
> > It seems that the UDP protocol is already the preferred protocol for a
> > number of streaming media apps (1) for the same reasons as I mooted
> > earlier. Low packet overhead, virtually any packet size, chuck it out
> > as fast as the transport layer can cope with.
> If you are comparing OSC to UDP you are comparing apples
> to oranges. UDP is a transport protocol. OSC is a way to
> encode events and associated data in a binary format. And
> indeed there are no standards that define the meaning of
> any OSC message. That again is at a different level.
I'm quite aware of that. I don't know what makes you think I was trying
to make a direct comparison. In fact, I think I actually compared UDP
to TCP in an earlier post.
> And where do you get the 'quite significant overhead' ?
> It just depends on how you use it.
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but looking through the info I could find I got
the impression there was a lot of identification stuff going on before
you got anywhere near actual data.
Will J Godfrey
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
More information about the Linux-audio-user