24 Jan
2017
24 Jan
'17
8:38 a.m.
On Tue, January 24, 2017 16:27, Thomas Brand wrote:
On Tue, January 24, 2017 09:22, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Even if the interfaces are synchronized with S/PDIF, there will be some
cycles (hopefully a static number) needed to shove data forth and back.
This needs to be considered to effectively get synchronous behaviour for
input or output to both interfaces.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:41:50 +0000, j(a)jrigg.co.uk
wrote:
yes i think that works pretty good (drawing from earlier experiments).
Using S/PDIF just for sync is a cheap alternative to a "real" wordclock.
One of both interfaces will be slaved to the other and then both should
run the same cycle at the same time (so theoretically no phasing issues).
You just have to manage to shove forth and back the sample data from/to
interface at good enough rate which isn't a particular problem on localhost
using UDP like zita does. If there is no resampling involved, this can
work for many many channels without hitting the CPU too much.
Greetings
Thomas
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:35:57PM +0000, Fons
Adriaensen wrote:
Could this be used without word clock, by using a digital interface to
sync, e.g. S/PDIF? If so, assuming two identical cards would be used,
would sync be hat good, that each combination of IOs, e.g. a channel
from one card for the left and of the other card for the right channel
of a stereo signal, wouldn't cause phasing issues?
With the official zita-ajbridge you can disable
resampling.
Good to know.