21 May
2010
21 May
'10
11:57 p.m.
Is there a way to digitally send all audio output from one computer to
another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
playback? Maybe jack? Could the two computers be connected via some
type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
- Grant
22 May
22 May
1:49 a.m.
There's a few ways, but AFAIK they depend on a local network being
available. Pulseaudio makes it quite simple, there's also icecast (don't
think that's for all audio though, just for individual players).
net-jack does the job as well, whether that or pulse is better for you
depends on your requirements.
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 16:57 -0700, Grant wrote:
Is there a way to digitally send all audio output from
one computer to
another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
playback? Maybe jack? Could the two computers be connected via some
type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
- Grant
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:29 p.m.
On Friday 21 May 2010 21:49:37 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
There's a few ways, but AFAIK they depend on a
local network being
available.
Well, you could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over that
while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network.
Pulseaudio makes it quite simple, there's also
icecast (don't
think that's for all audio though, just for individual players).
net-jack does the job as well, whether that or pulse is better for you
depends on your requirements.
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 16:57 -0700, Grant wrote:
> Is there a way to digitally send all audio output from one computer to
> another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
> playback? Maybe jack? Could the two computers be connected via some
> type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
>
> - Grant
all the best,
drew
8:39 p.m.
There's a
few ways, but AFAIK they depend on a local network being
available.
Well, you could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over that
while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network. Pulseaudio
makes it quite simple, there's also icecast (don't
think that's for all audio though, just for individual players).
net-jack does the job as well, whether that or pulse is better for you
depends on your requirements.
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 16:57 -0700, Grant wrote:
> Is there a way to digitally send all audio output from one computer to
> another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
> playback? Maybe jack? Could the two computers be connected via some
> type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
>
> - Grant
all the best,
drew 
8:50 p.m.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Grant <emailgrant(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That would require setting one of the systems up as a router right?
If so, that's what I'll do, but I want to be sure there isn't a
simpler way.
If you don't want to use networking, you can have an inexpensive card
like M-Audio 2496 send SPDIF to the other machine for playback. Evn
some cheaper builtin sound cards now come with SPDIF output... I have
a HP machine I bought for cheap on eBay and it has a built-in SPDIF
output, and I send that to my Linux box which has the good soundcard
(RME) and big monitors.
-- Brett
------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden;
If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
There's a few ways, but AFAIK they depend on a
local network being
available.
Well, you could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over that
while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network. 
9:01 p.m.
Brett McCoy wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Grant
<emailgrant(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That would require
setting one of the systems up as a router right?
If so, that's what I'll do, but I want to be sure there isn't a
simpler way.
If you don't want to use networking, you can have an inexpensive card
like M-Audio 2496 send SPDIF to the other machine for playback. Evn
some cheaper builtin sound cards now come with SPDIF output... I have
a HP machine I bought for cheap on eBay and it has a built-in SPDIF
output, and I send that to my Linux box which has the good soundcard
(RME) and big monitors.
My Behringer UCA202 USB soundcard has SPDIF output. The card cost about $20.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
There's a few ways, but AFAIK they depend on a
local network being
available.
Well, you could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over
that
while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network. 
9:20 p.m.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 01:39:55PM -0700, Grant wrote:
No, you just have to configure the interfaces, and add a route
to make the netjacks use them instead of following the default
route via the existing interface.
There's no traffic being routed between the two interfaces on
each machine, so they are not routers. The audio connection is
just an isolated network.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Well, you
could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over that
while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network.
That would require setting one of the systems up as a router right? 
9:31 p.m.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
No, you just have to configure the interfaces, and add a route
to make the netjacks use them instead of following the default
route via the existing interface.
but ... if the situation from the 90's is still true, you need a crossover
cable, not a regularly wired rj45 cable. is this still true?
9:35 p.m.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
Yes, you'll still need a hub unless you use a crossover
-- Brett
------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden;
If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
No, you just have to configure the interfaces, and add a route
to make the netjacks use them instead of following the default
route via the existing interface.
but ... if the situation from the 90's is still true, you need a crossover
cable, not a regularly wired rj45 cable. is this still true?
9:45 p.m.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 05:35:00PM -0400, Brett McCoy wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
Some NICs autodetect the wiring and adapt to it.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
Yes, you'll still need a hub unless you use a crossover
No, you just have to configure the interfaces, and add a route
to make the netjacks use them instead of following the default
route via the existing interface.
but ... if the situation from the 90's is still true, you need a crossover
cable, not a regularly wired rj45 cable. is this still true? 
10:21 p.m.
On 05/22/2010 11:40 PM, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 05:35:00PM -0400, Brett McCoy
wrote:
all gbit NICs have to, by standard. many recent 100mbit/s NICs do it as
well, but you can't really count on it.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
Some NICs autodetect the wiring and adapt to it.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
Yes, you'll still need a hub unless you use a crossover
No, you just have to configure the interfaces, and add a route
to make the netjacks use them instead of following the default
route via the existing interface.
but ... if the situation from the 90's is still true, you need a crossover
cable, not a regularly wired rj45 cable. is this still true? 
24 May
24 May
2:40 a.m.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:15:35PM +0200, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 01:39:55PM -0700, Grant
wrote:
No, you just have to configure the interfaces, and add a route
to make the netjacks use them instead of following the default
route via the existing interface.
There's no traffic being routed between the two interfaces on
each machine, so they are not routers. The audio connection is
just an isolated network.
Actually, if you have two interfaces on a local, private network, there's no need to
configure the routing at all.
i.e.
Machine 1: 192.168.77.1
Machine 2: 192.167.77.2
You don't have to set up any special route in order to ping machine 1 from machine 2,
or vice versa. So audio-only won't require a route.
If the regular internet address of machine 1, is, say, 192.168.1.100, and its default
route is 192.168.1.1, all internet traffic will still work perfectly. This of course
assumes you're using Class C addresses as above.
However, you'd require setting up a route if either of the machines doesn't have
an internet connection of its own, also turningon ip_forward, setting up
/etc/resolve.conf, etc etc.,.
-ken
Well, you
could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over that
while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network.
That would require setting one of the systems up as a router right?
12:02 p.m.
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
You don't have to set up any special route in
order to ping machine 1 from machine 2, or vice versa. So audio-only won't require a
route.
Suppose you have:
Machine A
eth0 192.168.1.100 general IP
eth1 192.168.99.1 audio
Machine B
eth0 192.168.1.101 general IP
eth1 192.168.99.2 audio
Both machines would have a default gateway reachable from
eth0 (e.g. 192.168.1.1) , and a route for 192.168.1.0/24
to eth0.
Then wouldn't you need
route add -net 192.168.99.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 eth1
to ensure that audio traffic goes to eth1 and not to the
default gateway ?
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
12:09 p.m.
Fons,
On 24 May 2010 09:33, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
Machine A
eth0 192.168.1.100 general IP
eth1 192.168.99.1 audio
Machine B
eth0 192.168.1.101 general IP
eth1 192.168.99.2 audio
As long as you have a netmask of 255.255.255.0 on the network cards,
you don't have to set up a route. They're on the same network and will
chat to each other w/o going throuh the default route. A routing is
required when you want to chat machines outside your local network as
defined by your netmask bits.
--
Hakan (m1fcj) - http://www.hititgunesi.org
7:11 p.m.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:09:22PM +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
Fons,
On 24 May 2010 09:33, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
I think what might not be obvious is that a route is automatically created whenever a new
interface comes up-- a route to its own local network.
i.e. right now my routing table is:
$ route -n
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
0.0.0.0 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
If I bring up a local network, say:
$ sudo ifconfig eth0 192.168.42.177 up
The route to that 42 network is added to the routing table:
$ route -n
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
192.168.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
Again, assuming we're keeping it simple and dealing with non-overlapping netmasks, a
local route doesn't have to be added explicitly. Maybe that's what caused the
confusion.
-ken
Machine A
??eth0 ?? 192.168.1.100 ?? general IP
??eth1 ?? 192.168.99.1 ?? ??audio
Machine B
??eth0 ?? 192.168.1.101 ?? general IP
??eth1 ?? 192.168.99.2 ?? ??audio
As long as you have a netmask of 255.255.255.0 on the network cards,
you don't have to set up a route. They're on the same network and will
chat to each other w/o going throuh the default route. A routing is
required when you want to chat machines outside your local network as
defined by your netmask bits.
8:55 p.m.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:09:33PM -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
If I bring up a local network, say:
$ sudo ifconfig eth0 192.168.42.177 up
The route to that 42 network is added to the routing
table:
$ route -n
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
192.168.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
Again, assuming we're keeping it simple and dealing with non-overlapping netmasks, a
local route doesn't have to be added explicitly. Maybe that's what caused the
confusion.
What made me write the previous post was this excerpt from the
route manpage:
route add default gw mango-gw
adds a default route (which will be used if no other route matches). All packets
using this route will
be gatewayed through "mango-gw". The device which will actually be used
for that route depends on how we
can reach "mango-gw" - the static route to "mango-gw" will have
to be set up before.
which seems to imply that the existence of an interface does *not* imply
that packets for the corresponding network are routed to it. Nor, IMHO,
should it - you still may want to route some destinations on that network
via an other way, for whatever reason.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
9:42 p.m.
somebody wrote:
adds a default route (which will be used if no other
route matches).
which seems to imply that the existence of an interface does *not* imply
that packets for the corresponding network are routed to it.Do you want to read that man
page again? Or perhaps just those two sentences.
The direct route will be taken unless you are very, very serious, take a good aim,
brace yourself, and then explicitly shoot yourself in the foot. You can do it, but you
probably wouldn't want to do it again.
That course of action was not a part of the thread. Your interpretation of the manual
is wrong.
Regards, nick.
"we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear”.
Jim Wong, president of IT products, Acer
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 22:50:08 +0200
From: fons(a)kokkinizita.net
To: ken(a)restivo.org
CC: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Sending audio to another computer
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:09:33PM -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
If I bring up a local network, say:
$ sudo ifconfig eth0 192.168.42.177 up
The route to that 42 network is added to the
routing table:
$ route -n
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
192.168.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
Again, assuming we're keeping it simple and dealing with non-overlapping netmasks, a
local route doesn't have to be added explicitly. Maybe that's what caused the
confusion.
What made me write the previous post was this excerpt from the
route manpage:
route add default gw mango-gw
adds a default route (which will be used if no other route matches). All packets
using this route will
be gatewayed through "mango-gw". The device which will actually be used
for that route depends on how we
can reach "mango-gw" - the static route to "mango-gw" will
have to be set up before.
which seems to imply that the existence of an interface does *not* imply
that packets for the corresponding network are routed to it. Nor, IMHO,
should it - you still may want to route some destinations on that network
via an other way, for whatever reason.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:02 p.m.
On Sunday 23 May 2010 22:38:04 Ken Restivo wrote:
However, you'd require setting up a route if
either of the machines doesn't
have an internet connection of its own, also turningon ip_forward, setting
up /etc/resolve.conf, etc etc.,.
Nah. The original "spec" called for keeping the audio traffic off of the local
net. Once you start routing internet traffic over the new link it becomes a
part of the local net even if a different subnet. If the two subnets
never "meet'" then the audio would not be a part of the local net... ~;-)
-ken
all the best,
drew
12:35 p.m.
On Saturday 22 May 2010 16:39:55 Grant wrote:
That would require setting one of the systems up as a router right?
No, I don't think so. Just put those nics on a different subnet.No routing
would be needed as traffic on that subnet would always be sent to that subnet
only.
computer1extranic<-------crossovercable------->computer2extranic
That should do the trick. I think.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
!DSPAM:4bf8419e305406918268278!
There's a few ways, but AFAIK they depend on a
local network being
available.
Well, you could put an extra nic in each computer and use netjack over
that while keeping the traffic off of the normal local network. If so, that's what I'll do, but I want to be
sure there isn't a
simpler way.
- Grant
all the best,
drew
Pulseaudio makes it quite simple, there's also icecast (don't
think that's for all audio though, just for individual players).
net-jack does the job as well, whether that or pulse is better for you
depends on your requirements.
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 16:57 -0700, Grant wrote:
> Is there a way to digitally send all audio output from one computer to
> another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
> playback? Maybe jack? Could the two computers be connected via some
> type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
>
> - Grant
all the best,
drew 
23 May
23 May
4:21 p.m.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Grant <emailgrant(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Is there a way to digitally send all audio output from
one computer to
another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
playback? Maybe jack? Could the two computers be connected via some
type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
- Grant
The two methods I use are:
1) spdif coax
2) ADAT optical
Both embed clock information in the transmission so you should set the
receiving computer as the clock slave which will put the two computers
in sync at the sample level. This assumes that the receiving
computer's sound card is capable of syncing to an external clock
source.
I actually use word clock for my sync, but have used both spdif and
ADAT clocks in the past.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Mark
24 May
24 May
5:37 a.m.
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:21:45AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Grant
<emailgrant(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Distance on SPDIF is, what, 10 meters?
Ethernet might be a better choice if the distances are longer.
-ken
Is there a way to digitally send all audio output
from one computer to
another where it will then be sent to the sound card for actual
playback? ??Maybe jack? ??Could the two computers be connected via some
type of direct cable method instead of going over a local network?
- Grant
The two methods I use are:
1) spdif coax
2) ADAT optical
Both embed clock information in the transmission so you should set the
receiving computer as the clock slave which will put the two computers
in sync at the sample level. This assumes that the receiving
computer's sound card is capable of syncing to an external clock
source.
I actually use word clock for my sync, but have used both spdif and
ADAT clocks in the past.
5118
days inactive
5121
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
20 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Brett McCoy -
david -
drew Roberts -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Grant -
Hakan Koseoglu -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Ken Restivo -
Mark Knecht -
Ng Oon-Ee -
Nick Copeland -
Paul Davis