On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:40:20PM -0400, richard nienhuis wrote:
> >
> This chart was enlightening:
> http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/0801pcbased2.gif
>
> If its true then 1000B-Tx or 10K ethernet will probably be as good or
> superior to 1934. If it is really critical there is hardware available for
> making low latency ethernet networks. The other option would be using
> infiniband which is really low latency. But interface cards for it are
> still pricey. I think ethernet is a good option though. Given a sane
> network and decent hardware it should be able to match 1394. Also I don't
> believe there is anything on the market in the way of network attached audio
> devices. It would be great if you could just drag one into a room with
> ethernet and be ready to go.
How about a dual-protocol network-attached audio device? For
professional recording it uses a custom time-division multiplex protocol
over Ethernet, providing absolute timing precision and dead-constant
microsecond latency. For casual use with a standard computer, it uses
TCP/IP, and resorts to time stamps to match up track timing from different
boxes during playback and mixdown from the hard disk.
Network capacity would be lower with TCP/IP, and the subnet would
still have to be dedicated to audio to guarantee delivery of every packet.
One possible board product for a computer would be an Ethernet card
that could handle the custom low-level protocol without dropping frames.
That's an all-digital product, and it would fall within Traversal's skill
set.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
