24 Nov
2009
24 Nov
'09
1:07 p.m.
On Tuesday 24 November 2009, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:46:02PM +0100, Karl Hammar
wrote:
Yes, but without those of us to whom a hot soldering iron is just as valuable
a tool as the ubitiquous dual channel 100 mhz triggered, computerized scope
is (I have both, and know well how to use them), all your ideas are just
that, an abstraction that will wait for that hot soldering iron to bring it
to life. Only then will you know what it will take and can write the
software.
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, I couldn't care less. ;) OTOH, as Gene has pointed out, a completely open source
protocol
replacing ADAT is a valid motivation, so the HQ guys could still jump
the band waggon once the protocol has settled.
(given that it will ever make its way)
That is why the enthusiasm on my part. Barring under influence by the Apples
and Microsofts extant, a truly royalty free, available from off the shelf
parts, interface really should replace the rest of these wanna be bus's as
soon as the old stuff's limitations begin to be an artistic limit. That of
course depends on the state of the individual studio, with some input from
the tax and amortization schedules extant in that locale.
Given a level playing field, something we all know the Apples and M$'s of the
world abhor with all their considerable bank accounts and lawyers, this could
be a working reality in 5 years, and dominant in 10. And the state of audio
production would be considerably better off.
Of course I'm preaching to the choir, but one has to start someplace. The
more members the choir has, the louder they can sing. :)
> One question tough. If you have ADAT, why go the
longer way over an
> ADAT-to-ethernet box than straight into your adat card in your computer?
> What would one gain?
Don't have the ADAT, so I cannot begin to answer that in a sensible way.
I could then place multiple ADAT converters on the net,
combine their
capacity without using MADI (64 channels over one cable), copy the
signal at the FOH (front-of-house, mixing desk), feed every musician
with his personal monitoring stream and record it.
At what cost in ADAT capable boxes?
Today, RockNet does this, all audio distribution
networks do this, but
they are expensive. My impression was you want to provide this kind of
functionality for less money.
Eggzactly. Lowest common denominator.
If I could save the MADI card and just plug the network
cable into my
el-cheapo network card, I would have a gain.
Thanks for pointing that out.
uint48_t ethernet_addr;
uint32_t ip_addr = 192 << 24 | 168 << 16 | ethernet_addr & 0xffff;
I'd probably slap you when come up with code like this. ;) This is
lacking abstraction.
For those who haven't heard, yet: An IP address isn't an uint32_t. This
is the road to hell, leads to unportable code. But since I'm working for the networking chair at
Jena University, let
me tell you that the right structure for an IP address is
struct sockaddr_storage
Nothing else. Don't even dare to shift bits in an uint32_t. Things like
this might have been right in the 90ties, but we had RFC 3493 in
February 2003 (and RFC 2553 in 1999). ;) (things might be different when
we're talking kernel level)
As mentioned in the original posting: if I could provide some input, I'd
happily do this. It's probably a good idea to decide on the goals,
first, but I might have missed that part of the discussion.
I think this might be the beginnings of _that_ discussion.
Cheerio
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The NRA is offering FREE Associate memberships to anyone who wants them.
<https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp>
I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better
take one along that worked.
-- Raymond Chandler