Oh and of course you have the Open-AVB project first started by Intel. Looks like folks are talking about getting it running on a BeagleBone or iMX6 based board: http://sourceforge.net/p/open-avb/mailman/message/33026258/
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Jesse Cobra <jesseco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just a few notes, not sure if this is of any use: > > Motu and Presonus are now shipping some semi-affordable AVB audio devices > and switches. The Motu switch is $295. > > All shipping Apple hardware supports AVB, via the BroadCom NIC they are > using. You could of course install Linux on said hardware. > > Any computer using the same BroadCom chipset can also support AVB. For > Windows Echo Audio was making an AVB to ASIO application for this. Again > you could install Linux on any of these computers. > > The NIC that the FreeScale iMX6 and Texas Instruments AM335x (of which the > BeagleBone is based) can support AVB. Some audio companies are shipping > closed AVB products based on the AM335x and iMX6 that use Linux. > > I know of one developer who was thinking of making his AVB stack for Linux > on AM335x BeagleBone open source but currently it remains a closed solution. > > Then of course you have the XMOS reference design but that has nothing to > do with Linux. > > I think the cost to do this is becoming a non-issue, with a $200 switch > and a BeagleBone based audio interface it should be possible to make a > cheap AVB solution on Linux. > > Just my 2 cents... > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Len Ovens <l...@ovenwerks.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Reuben Martin wrote: >> >> I thought I would post this since there was a big conversation here a >>> while back about AES67 and the slow death of AVB due to lack of support. >>> >>> Well I was talking with a guy from Meyer Sound who told me that AVB has >>> been resurrected from the dead. Apparently Cisco and other large network >>> hardware vendors were willing to back it as long as it was made more >>> generic to accommodate industrial uses that are also time-sensitive. >>> >>> So apparently it has been re-branded as “Time-Sensitive Networking” and >>> has a lot more momentum behind it. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-Sensitive_Networking >>> >>> http://www.commercialintegrator.com/article/rebranding_avb_4_key_takeaways_from_time_sensitive_networks_conference >>> >> >> Interesting. >> >> Some notes on AoIP and Linux. There are some well funded people/companies >> that use Linux for many things, but much of the development in the audio >> world is with people who have hardware that they can't afford to replace >> and so write drivers for. I think this is part of the reason we are not >> seeing much in the way of Linux drivers for AoIP (AVB, AES67, Ravena, >> whatever). Right now, AoIP on Linux costs about twice as much as a normal >> audio card because the Linux box requires both an interface card in the >> computer as well as the Audio IF on the other end of the network cable (not >> to mention a switch in the middle). >> >> Why is this? Linux is based on lowest common denominator hardware... we >> call it the PC. The Linux world has gotten much better preformance out of >> this box than it was designed for. But, in the case of audio, the HW does >> limit performance at least with AoIP. That limit is the clock. The PC does >> not have a HW PTP clock built in and in this case software is not good >> enough. The way around this is with a custom NIC that does. For some reason >> even though one can buy an ethernet chip that includes a stable PTP clock >> for less than $5, any NICs I have found with a PTP clock are closer to $1k. >> >> I was "listening in" on a IRC conversation about the differences between >> ALSA and Core audio and why Core audio "does it right". The difference ends >> up being this HW clock. That is ALSA is build the way it is because the PC >> requires it to be. >> >> Whats the point of all this? TSN sounds good to me. It widens the scope >> of low latency networking and the requirement of distributed clocking into >> areas where cost matters. I am hopeful that this means the cost of a NIC >> with good HW clock will go down or even become standard. All kinds of AoIP >> would see the benefit from this. I also think the cost of AoIP audio >> interfaces would come down to similar cost as USB or firewire. >> >> There is no reason we could not make an ALSA AES67 driver that would work >> with any GB-NIC out there but the closed drivers now available show that on >> a PC latency is double that of Core audio and handles fewer channels. >> (Core audio at 192K = 64 channels in and out min latency 32 samples, Win >> at 192k = 16 channels in and out min 64 samples) So any ALSA driver would >> suffer from similar lower performance. This is why almost all AoIP setups >> suggest their PCI(e) card in place of your stock NIC. >> >> * numbers from: >> http://www.merging.com/products/networked-audio/for-3rd-party-daw >> I have seen similar numbers (or worse) elsewhere. >> >> * I am not in any way suggesting anyone use 192k sample rate for audio >> recording or streams. It's use here is only to show the difference in HW >> capabilities. 48k is what I use and suggest others use. >> >> -- >> Len Ovens >> www.ovenwerks.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-audio-dev mailing list >> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev