11 Sep
2014
11 Sep
'14
3:58 p.m.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:44 AM,
<karl(a)aspodata.se> wrote:
Why don't you prototype it with netcat:
as powerful as some unix prototyping tools can be, just stop for a second.
although i'd be the first person to suspect stupid financial motivations
behind the proliferation of audio-over-(ethernet|IP) solutions, do you
really think that if delivery low latency audio streams was even remotely
achievable with a tool like netcat that we would have seen the emergence of
special network interfaces and completely new ethernet-level protocols?
audio-via-cat5 cable isn't a new problem, waiting for the right solution. it
is an old problem with at least a half dozen solutions each with different
pros and cons.
Not new at all. There are a lot of solutions. Many of them closed. AES3
and AES10 are open standards. AES3 suffers from low channel count and
aes10 suffers from expecive HW... and the need for an interface a laptop
may not have. Laptops have become a desktop replacement for many people.
(in a few years a smartphone may become a desktop replacement for some
people too)
I think netcat is not needed for this project, It is still higher level
than what would be the best use of ethernet. Raw ethernet at level2 (the
MAC level) is the lowest standard level. But it is easy to use for
prototyping. The main drawback for using a higher level (ease of use being
the main plus), is that it assumes collisions and other delays and that it
will work on a LAN where it will have to deal with other traffic. So it is
easy, yes, but making it reliable is hard. It can be very reliable in a
point to point configuration, but then the sw config tends to be less
automated and not so easy for the end user. The other problem with high
level network is the use of CPU and bandwidth for overhead. Netjack works
well for me, I can set it up to be very good, but it does use much more
CPU than a PCI or USB audio IF would use. I don't think there should be
any reason for that in a point to point setup.
To rephrase, it will work on any LAN including one hooked up to the wire.
Therefore it will get used that way and has to be able to deal with going
through a switch that is dealing with downloading a movie in the living
room and feeding a wireless AP. There will be complaints about it not
working in those situations. Making it strickly P2P, level2 avoids all of
that.
Latency is additive. This net transport is only a small part of the path
and making it much lower than what is needed means that all the other
things that add latency are still ok. So when I talk about link latency, I
am talking about raw ethernet send to raw ethernet receive only at this
point.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net