12 Jan
2015
12 Jan
'15
9:10 p.m.
I have a resident position at a local live venue haunt doing live sound. Nothing super
fancy but we get a great variety of quality acts thru there.
I need some more returns to the stage. Probably 2 for live monitors and maybe a cpl for I
ear mixes. Rather than going for wired solutions, could u get the latency low enough on
netjack to not be a nuisance over wireless? I could also run a single cat 5e or 6 and gig
ports too I suppose. Easier than running 4 + shielded pair in this particular instance.
Have several older laptops laying about.
Is anyone doing something similar to success?
Thnx!
~ Russell
12 Jan
12 Jan
9:19 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:10:09PM -0800, Russell Hanaghan wrote:
I have a resident position at a local live venue haunt
doing live sound. Nothing super fancy but we get a great variety of quality acts thru
there.
I need some more returns to the stage. Probably 2 for live monitors and maybe a cpl for I
ear mixes. Rather than going for wired solutions, could u get the latency low enough on
netjack to not be a nuisance over wireless? I could also run a single cat 5e or 6 and gig
ports too I suppose. Easier than running 4 + shielded pair in this particular instance.
Have several older laptops laying about.
Is anyone doing something similar to success?
At work I've been using zita-njbridge with the default 10 ms buffering
over a wireless LAN. I don't think this can be repeated easily (I'm
working at Huawei Research so networks can be assumed to be performing
well). OTOH using a Cat6 cable and decent NICs this should just work.
Latency may still be too high for in-ear monitoring.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
9:34 p.m.
~ Russell
On Jan 12, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
Thanks Fons,
I understand. I'm not too worried about the network side of stuff. I've a variety
of gear and have a long background associated to network infrastructure. Is < 10ms
possible in a stable fashion using the netjack and your zita bridge? Even half that might
be ok. It's a small stAge and room is mostly brick (from 1886!!) with wood floor n
ceiling. Some xtra minor 'slap back' might be tolerable given difficulty hearing
on stage next to a bloody drum kit & guitar amps!
Thnx,
Russell
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:10:09PM -0800, Russell
Hanaghan wrote:
I have a resident position at a local live venue haunt doing live sound. Nothing super
fancy but we get a great variety of quality acts thru there.
I need some more returns to the stage. Probably 2 for live monitors and maybe a cpl for I
ear mixes. Rather than going for wired solutions, could u get the latency low enough on
netjack to not be a nuisance over wireless? I could also run a single cat 5e or 6 and gig
ports too I suppose. Easier than running 4 + shielded pair in this particular instance.
Have several older laptops laying about.
Is anyone doing something similar to success?
At work I've been using zita-njbridge with the default 10 ms buffering
over a wireless LAN. I don't think this can be repeated easily (I'm
working at Huawei Research so networks can be assumed to be performing
well). OTOH using a Cat6 cable and decent NICs this should just work.
Latency may still be too high for in-ear monitoring.
11:57 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Russell Hanaghan wrote:
I would suggest zita bridge would be better for these reasons:
- jackd with a -net backend will crash/exit if the network connection
fails even temporarily. zita bridge keeps reconnecting at both ends and jackd
keeps running anyway.
- you need the audio interface at both ends anyway and would need to run
either alsa-in/out or zita-a2j/j2a at one end at least. Using
zita-netbraidge already includes that.
Netjack if compiled with opus, might handle wireless a bit better if audio
quality can suffer somewhat. Opus minimum latency is 5ms.
Latency... by the time I get 30 feet away from the band, my notes sound
slow to me. 30 feet away means from my amp as well, so effectively 60
feet. Having my amp right beside me might make my playing sound better to
me, but worse to the rest of the band :) The average pipe organ has
longer distances and the player can deal with that... even most stages are
wider. SO try and see. The general rule seems to be audio IF latency times
three for the network. So USB IFs might be too slow (actually I find
Intel HDA is often worse).
I think it would be a great test though. Try the wireless first. There may
be some dropouts and other oddness, but so long as there are not loud pops
that hurt the ear, it may be ok for monitoring. Opus hides dropouts as
best it can.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
At work
I've been using zita-njbridge with the default 10 ms buffering
over a wireless LAN. I don't think this can be repeated easily (I'm
working at Huawei Research so networks can be assumed to be performing
well). OTOH using a Cat6 cable and decent NICs this should just work.
Latency may still be too high for in-ear monitoring.
I understand. I'm not too worried about the network side of stuff. I've
a variety of gear and have a long background associated to network
infrastructure. Is < 10ms possible in a stable fashion using the netjack
and your zita bridge? Even half that might be ok. It's a small stAge and
room is mostly brick (from 1886!!) with wood floor n ceiling. Some xtra
minor 'slap back' might be tolerable given difficulty hearing on stage
next to a bloody drum kit & guitar amps! 
13 Jan
13 Jan
12:26 a.m.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:10:09 -0800 Russell Hanaghan
<hanaghan.osaudio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have a resident position at a local live venue haunt
doing live
sound. Nothing super fancy but we get a great variety of quality acts
thru there.
I need some more returns to the stage. Probably 2 for live monitors
and maybe a cpl for I ear mixes. Rather than going for wired
solutions, could u get the latency low enough on netjack to not be a
nuisance over wireless? I could also run a single cat 5e or 6 and gig
ports too I suppose. Easier than running 4 + shielded pair in this
particular instance. Have several older laptops laying about.
Isn't cat 5e "just" 4 shielded pairs? Might be worth a try to do a RJ45
to XLR stagebox ;-)
Other than that I wouldn't go the wireless route, shared medium is
always asking for extra trouble. Especially when you have an audience
of mobiles searching for the next wireless to connect to.
- Arnold
12:59 a.m.
~ Russell
On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Arnold Krille
<arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:10:09 -0800 Russell Hanaghan
<hanaghan.osaudio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed. If I did go wireless it would be with a dedicated router of my own. Hidden ssid,
etc.
I have a resident position at a local live venue
haunt doing live
sound. Nothing super fancy but we get a great variety of quality acts
thru there.
I need some more returns to the stage. Probably 2 for live monitors
and maybe a cpl for I ear mixes. Rather than going for wired
solutions, could u get the latency low enough on netjack to not be a
nuisance over wireless? I could also run a single cat 5e or 6 and gig
ports too I suppose. Easier than running 4 + shielded pair in this
particular instance. Have several older laptops laying about.
Isn't cat 5e "just" 4 shielded pairs? Might be worth a try to do a RJ45
to XLR stagebox ;-)
Other than that I wouldn't go the wireless route, shared medium is
always asking for extra trouble. Especially when you have an audience
of mobiles searching for the next wireless to connect to.
- Arnold
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11:09 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:59:03 -0800 Russell Hanaghan
<hanaghan.osaudio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hiding the SSID or using a dedicated router doesn't help, its still a
shared medium. And each mobile actively searching for its home APs is a
source for unwanted latency on your wireless network. Now put 100-200
mobiles searching on possibly all channels for their home networks and
you can feel the latency problems from across the pond...
- Arnold
On Jan 12,
2015, at 3:25 PM, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
wrote:
Other than that I wouldn't go the wireless route, shared medium is
always asking for extra trouble. Especially when you have an
audience of mobiles searching for the next wireless to connect to.
Agreed. If I
did go wireless it would be with a dedicated router of
my own. Hidden ssid, etc.
14 Jan
14 Jan
12:32 a.m.
~ Russell
On Jan 13, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Arnold Krille
<arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:59:03 -0800 Russell Hanaghan
<hanaghan.osaudio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hiding the SSID or using a dedicated router doesn't help, its still a
shared medium. And each mobile actively searching for its home APs is a
source for unwanted latency on your wireless network. Now put 100-200
mobiles searching on possibly all channels for their home networks and
you can feel the latency problems from across the pond...
- Arnold
Aye! Point well taken! :)
On Jan
12, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
wrote:
Other than that I wouldn't go the wireless route, shared medium is
always asking for extra trouble. Especially when you have an
audience of mobiles searching for the next wireless to connect to.
Agreed. If I
did go wireless it would be with a dedicated router of
my own. Hidden ssid, etc. _______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4014
days inactive
4015
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Arnold Krille -
Fons Adriaensen -
Len Ovens -
Russell Hanaghan