Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
the audio side was just standard wireless hifi headphones, using lots of headphones but only two of the transmitters. The interesting part technically was the bike powered generators, but the 2 channel headphones dance floor and double DJ thing was lots of fun. ah, nice. very clever! would love to check that out! I may be making a bit of headway in looking at rtmp and hls streaming media servers like mist server and the rtmp module for nginx webserver. it accepts a raw connection to its input ports. my question now becomes, which of the signal capable network objects can work without an associated in~ object? i have been toying with netsend~, udpsend~ mp3streamout~ streamout~ and mp3cast~, which works with the icecast server, but the others return errors so far. i have the greatest confidence in getting the netsend~ to eventually work, but does anyone have any experience with the others in regards to sending their outputs to non-pd or max based inputs like network ports set up to recieve other data? Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
I implemented a version of an idea that had been done several times in the past ... a silent disco, where there are two djs playing to wireless headsets over 2 different channels ... with all sharing the same physical space. The result is quite fun, in our case it was in a public square and was all powered by people jumping onto bikes hooked up to alternators etc (well - I did have quite a large battery in the circuit just to be sure it wouldn't all wind down and get boring, but we did generate enough power almost all the time) was this using wifi? how were you able to implement it? was it a server type system or a broadcast system? might need to bike alternators as well to power this joint, lol. -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
I recently worked a on a project where we wrote a custom OSC Android app that sent control data to the patch and an app called SoundWire that received audio on the phone and ran in the background. All communication was over a WiFi network we setup. Latency did obviously exist but it was manageable. The audio server app runs on Linux and Windows (no OSX unfortunately) and can have multiple devices connected to it. http://georgielabs.99k.org/SoundWireHelp.html I'd be happy to share more details if required. yes please! that sounds perfect. i mainly need to know to bit that serves up the audio at low latencies. ive got the icecast server stuff working wirelessly to multiple devices but the latency is killing me (10-5 sec). would it be possible to use your server directly to the browser? currently, i simply need a low latency stereo audio instance to come on when they log into my network. that is it (for now) i have alot of other things i want to build around it, but i really need to know 1. what format does pd need to output to useful to... 2. a way to serve said audio out from my wireless router 3. instant sound output as soon as they login. so far, i have investigated web audio api and just started digging into the idea of feeding the audio feed as a data dump so i can at least see that it is transmitting anything-garbage-to the browser, then i can figure out how to deal with it after that is sorted. i am playing with netsend~ right now with mixed results (server connection issues). any insight is much appreciated. Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
On Apr 26, 2013 10:08 PM, katja katjavet...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Onyx, What is your aim, do you want to entertain your (physically present) audience via smart phones instead of PA system? Actually it a sonic space I want to explore. To play to people on their own personal bionic ear. Click and listen. The scope for experimentation intrigues me. Gestural binaural processing will be fun. I have a similar quest pending: to send Pd audio from a wearable computer over wireless to PA system. It's simpler than your purpose (because it does not involve an internet browser), but still complicated enough. So far I've learned that UDP is the preferred protocol for real time audio transmission, because it can go one way without the time-consuming error-checking and recovery. I use UDP with the new wireless system I put together and it completely overhauled my latency. I think the new HTML 5 components for real-time audio will work since they are also primed for VoIP. I am also tweaking this shout cast server to buffer maybe 2-3kbps so I can try for a hoped for 100-300ms latency. I think it's just a matter of tweaking a few things. I am looking into possibly using mp3streamout to stream directly into a stream input in the browser itself, without any other code. I don't know how yet but everything I read makes me believe it is very doable to get 50 stable, low latency 128kbps mp3 streams at 1000ms or less. Smart phones only do wireless, and wireless suffers a lot from packet loss, and packet loss must be concealed with clever dsp routines. Besides that, there is the (in this case relatively minor) issue of clock drift between two sound card clocks. Even if you send audio between two computers with [udpsend~] / [udpreceive~] over an ad hoc (point to point) wireless network you'll notice these issues. Just try it with two laptops and you'll see what I mean to say (here's how to set up ad hoc wireless network: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Adhoc). At this point, I'd rather have crackly-fast low quality sound, than ok-3 second lag-sound. Which of the audio network able objects work without a receive object? Still I think that ad hoc networking would be the way to go for low latency local wireless connection. It would not work with regular internet browsers though. A yet to design (Pd or Jack based) app would be required at the receiving end, which does packet concealment and clock drift compensation. About clock drift compensation, Miller Puckette had a hint a while ago, very probably referring to this article: http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/papers/adapt-resamp.pdf I will check that out. Thank you. Hope you are well. Onyx Katja On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to ask if i might gain some of your insight on a project i am undertaking. I am currently attempting to stream my audio into html5 capable web browsers of smartphones. i have created a local network and installed nginx as my webserver. i and a friend got everything working with the oggcast~ and mp3cast~ objects and the icecast 2 server, but the latency was horrific-5-15seconds. I would like to investigate the idea of taking advantage of the plugin-less nature of these modern fast browsers and pipe the audio directly into it as directly as possible the same way voip works but lower bandwidth and only one way. I see that udpsend~ can do alot of what i think i want, but i am confused as to how i might connect it with the audio socket in the client browser (if socket is even the right term). Any insight would be greatly appreciated. and if i get it working, as before, i will document the findings in a step by step once it works. thank you. cheers! Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
Why not send FUDI to a box connected directly to the PA system? The sound space is the headphone s.I want to use the digital sonic space to play in live. And there Afr so many smartphones in circulation that it is viable as a presentation platform now. And if it isn't. I can always connect to a speaker system normally. -Jonathan ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
Greetings! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to ask if i might gain some of your insight on a project i am undertaking. I am currently attempting to stream my audio into html5 capable web browsers of smartphones. i have created a local network and installed nginx as my webserver. i and a friend got everything working with the oggcast~ and mp3cast~ objects and the icecast 2 server, but the latency was horrific-5-15seconds. I would like to investigate the idea of taking advantage of the plugin-less nature of these modern fast browsers and pipe the audio directly into it as directly as possible the same way voip works but lower bandwidth and only one way. I see that udpsend~ can do alot of what i think i want, but i am confused as to how i might connect it with the audio socket in the client browser (if socket is even the right term). Any insight would be greatly appreciated. and if i get it working, as before, i will document the findings in a step by step once it works. thank you. cheers! Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
Thanks for getting back to me do quickly. Is there a network audio object (s) that can output standard formatted audio? On Apr 25, 2013 4:32 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote: Well, [udpsend~] is meant to work with [udpreceive~], so you really have to run Pd on both ends of the connection. Of course you are free to modify the code to make it work with your setup -- that would mean integrating [udpsend~] into the server and [udpreceive~] into the clients' browsers, which I have no idea how to do. Martin On 2013-04-25 10:14, o...@onyx-ashanti.com wrote: Greetings! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to ask if i might gain some of your insight on a project i am undertaking. I am currently attempting to stream my audio into html5 capable web browsers of smartphones. i have created a local network and installed nginx as my webserver. i and a friend got everything working with the oggcast~ and mp3cast~ objects and the icecast 2 server, but the latency was horrific-5-15seconds. I would like to investigate the idea of taking advantage of the plugin-less nature of these modern fast browsers and pipe the audio directly into it as directly as possible the same way voip works but lower bandwidth and only one way. I see that udpsend~ can do alot of what i think i want, but i am confused as to how i might connect it with the audio socket in the client browser (if socket is even the right term). Any insight would be greatly appreciated. and if i get it working, as before, i will document the findings in a step by step once it works. thank you. cheers! Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com http://www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
cool video. I dont know if my synthesis and performance system would work from a server and if it did, i doubt i would get the 2-5ms latency i am comfortably getting now. is webpd able to deal with heavy patches? the idea sounds interesting. what is the realtime latency of webpd in real terms?it might be cool, if the latency is controllable and if it can scale with evolving complexity. thanks! On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:03 PM, s p seb...@gmail.com wrote: Or you could try a different approach. Instead of streaming the audio, generate it client-side ... example, this performance that I did last week-end with WebPd : https://vimeo.com/64514693 2013/4/25 august aug...@alien.mur.at Onyx, Interesting idea. What kind of threshold are you looking for regarding latency? I assume this would be for a local network, right? If I were you, I would first try to fine-tune your current setup by getting all latency variables as low as possible (icecast, pd+oggcast~, and the html audio player). ICECAST: There should be config settings for it where you can manage the buffering/latency. Usually buffering/latency is good for streaming media since you never know what will happen on the network. oggcast~ : I'm guessing it is as low as it can go right now, but there may be an internal buffer that you can adjust/downsize. HTML audio player: Most importantly, in the HTML, you should check to make sure that the audio is not buffering. My guess is that this is where you are experiencing the largest latency. Since HTML5 is a moving target, I'm not sure how you would currently do that. May not even be possible. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/HTML/Element/audio ... Then, if the above didn't work, you might try to hook up the output of a TCP netsend to a websocket and then translate the audio data chunks into JS Audio. UDP won't work on websockets AFAIK. best -august. o...@onyx-ashanti.com say: Greetings! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to ask if i might gain some of your insight on a project i am undertaking. I am currently attempting to stream my audio into html5 capable web browsers of smartphones. i have created a local network and installed nginx as my webserver. i and a friend got everything working with the oggcast~ and mp3cast~ objects and the icecast 2 server, but the latency was horrific-5-15seconds. I would like to investigate the idea of taking advantage of the plugin-less nature of these modern fast browsers and pipe the audio directly into it as directly as possible the same way voip works but lower bandwidth and only one way. I see that udpsend~ can do alot of what i think i want, but i am confused as to how i might connect it with the audio socket in the client browser (if socket is even the right term). Any insight would be greatly appreciated. and if i get it working, as before, i will document the findings in a step by step once it works. thank y cheers! Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- http://aug.ment.org GPG: 0A8D 2BC7 243D 57D0 469D 9736 C557 458F 003E 6952 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
I was just wondering. would it be possible to use the mp3streamout~ object to stream directly to a modern browser? to make it listen for the stream somehow, without shout/icecast, and just play? shouldnt it be as simple as; pd to mp3streamout mp3streamout to port number port to (i dont know...websocket, voodoo, tardis...) to browser, just blasting. or, possibly to create, say, 50 mp3streamouts, each with their own port, which could be served up by the webserver?basically, pd would be the server. of course i dont know what i am talking about but can any of these work On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:21 PM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:54 PM, august aug...@alien.mur.at wrote: What kind of threshold are you looking for regarding latency? No more than 100ms. I feel that should be achievable with a close range private network. hmm. I'm not so sure you'll be able to get 100ms or less. Each component in your set up is going to need some buffering. With an ideal streaming setup, you have at least 2 components: the streamer and the receiver, each with buffering. With your setup, you have even more: pd+oggcast, icecast, audio player. Depending on your network, you could have extra buffering for wireless , packet filtering etc. You might be able to whittle it down even further by dumping oggcast~ and then using low-latency pd+jack. Then just stream directly from jack. There may even be a wav streamer. If not it would be simple to write. I am open to this option. I dont see a reason why i shouldnt be able to take the audio from something like [netsend~] and dump it to a port, then push that out to (???) so it comes out of the browser or media player of the device in realtime. I am very not married to oggcast or icecast or any cast. my only real hinderance is my lack of knowledge of the protocols. although i will say that websockets look really really good. i'm investigating some way of creating a sort of one-way voip thing. that definitely comes in around 50-100ms and most voip sounds pretty good even over the internet so a local feed should be very decent. the jack idea looks interesting. how would that work? Onyx I assume this would be for a local network, right? Yes If I were you, I would first try to fine-tune your current setup by getting all latency variables as low as possible (icecast, pd+oggcast~, and the html audio player). ICECAST: There should be config settings for it where you can manage the buffering/latency. Usually buffering/latency is good for streaming media since you never know what will happen on the network. oggcast~ : I'm guessing it is as low as it can go right now, but there may be an internal buffer that you can adjust/downsize. HTML audio player: Most importantly, in the HTML, you should check to make sure that the audio is not buffering. My guess is that this is where you are experiencing the largest latency. Since HTML5 is a moving target, I'm not sure how you would currently do that. May not even be possible. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/HTML/Element/audio Thanks! I will check all of those tonight. Websockets for HTML 5 looks like it might be the ticket. They seem to be catering to the gamers, so I think that might work as well as allow future development. ... Then, if the above didn't work, you might try to hook up the output of a TCP netsend to a websocket and then translate the audio data chunks into JS Audio. UDP won't work on websockets AFAIK. I will try this tonight! Netsend formats the audio in a manner that the Websockets understand? If that is the case, then it is Christmas! Unfortunately, it will be more like a devout catholic easter. You;ll have to fast for 40 days to get some candy! Websockets are pretty new and the implementation in browsers is shoddy. You would have to script it all yourself and then write the output in the browser using the html5 audio apiwhich is another can of worms. suerte! -a. -- www.onyx-ashanti.com -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] can i bypass comport?
so, late last week i gave away my systems xbee radios in hopes that it would spur me into making the rn-xv's work. i was able to get them working using udp and properly configured ports. [udpsend] transmits to teh arduino but the issue was getting communication from the arduino/rn-xv side. at first the [udpreceive] didnt work, but i fiddled with it until it was sending blocks of numbers which i could see had a sequence so i tried to send that block and it didnt work so i read the data coming out of comport using one xbee radio i have left and saw that it was coming out as a stream, so i put [list-drip-quick2], which i found online in a forum thread some of you guys had, underneath the udpreceive object and viola! it works! not only that, but i increased the baud rate for firmata (no other changes neccessary)and the uart of the rn-xv to 115200 and set a flush timer to shoot those packets over to the computer every 5ms, which works beautifully. the playable resolution is wildly faster in both directions. i havent used it in a live performance situation so i cant give it top marks yet, but so far it is everything i had hoped the xbees would be, but better in everyway. i just wanted to update you on the progress of this issue, and thank everyone for your help! i will be posting a more detailed blog post later. onyx On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:51 PM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.cawrote: Better to use [tcpclient] / [tcpserver] or [udpreceive] / [udpsend]. A single [tcpserver] or [tcpclient] can send and receive. ok, i am experimenting with that now, per your suggestions (thank you, by the way). the real issues now are that i am learning how to set up ports and i only just discovered what udp is, this week. i am going to toy around with UDP settings and ports and i will report my findings. cheers! Onyx Ok, so i got the [tcpsend]to work. i connected it at the point where the comport would usually get info. it is connected to the ip xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 3000 and when i turn the patch on, it sends the appropriate data to the arduino fio/rn-xv over wifi. the problem now is that the [tcpreceive 3000] isnt receiving anything. from what i have read, tcpsen and tcp recieve work on the same port so if that port is an ip address, what would be the prefered means of getting the data from the fio? I am experimenting with port forwarding on my router right now. Is there anything you might know of that i could/should try, that might sort the port conflict out? cheers, Onyx On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com mailto:o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com mailto:onyxasha...@gmail.com** wrote: I am going to investigate the updated wifly, wiflyserial and ethernet libraries onto the sketch for the rn-xv/arduino. this should allow me create a serial socket or something, once i grasp all that stuff a bit better. tcpclient, in place of [comport] connects and shows data sent but nothing is happening in pd or the arduino fio. i have begun toying with udpsend/udprecieve but that isnt working because i am sure that i havent connected the i/o in a manner that provides [comport] replacement functionality. i should have some results from that shortly. from what i have read, the way udp works might be better and if i can get one of the above libraries to see it, maybe my problem will be solved. i will let you what i come with in a few hours On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.ca mailto:martin.peach@**sympatico.camartin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote: On 2012-11-25 15:51, o...@onyx-ashanti.com mailto:o...@onyx-ashanti.com wrote: if comport could accept an ip port argument, as well as a serial port argument, all would be lovely and nothing would have to change. it would simply recieve itsport from the ip. is there anything like this? In pd-extended there are [udpsend] and [udpreceive] as well as [tcpclient] and [tcpserver] that can be used instead of [comport]. Probably you'll need to add a [import net] to get them. Martin -- www.onyx-ashanti.com http://www.onyx-ashanti.com -- www.onyx-ashanti.com http://www.onyx-ashanti.com __**_ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/** listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- www.onyx-ashanti.com -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] can i bypass comport?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.cawrote: Better to use [tcpclient] / [tcpserver] or [udpreceive] / [udpsend]. A single [tcpserver] or [tcpclient] can send and receive. ok, i am experimenting with that now, per your suggestions (thank you, by the way). the real issues now are that i am learning how to set up ports and i only just discovered what udp is, this week. i am going to toy around with UDP settings and ports and i will report my findings. cheers! Onyx Ok, so i got the [tcpsend]to work. i connected it at the point where the comport would usually get info. it is connected to the ip xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 3000 and when i turn the patch on, it sends the appropriate data to the arduino fio/rn-xv over wifi. the problem now is that the [tcpreceive 3000] isnt receiving anything. from what i have read, tcpsen and tcp recieve work on the same port so if that port is an ip address, what would be the prefered means of getting the data from the fio? I am experimenting with port forwarding on my router right now. Is there anything you might know of that i could/should try, that might sort the port conflict out? cheers, Onyx On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com mailto:o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com mailto:onyxasha...@gmail.com** wrote: I am going to investigate the updated wifly, wiflyserial and ethernet libraries onto the sketch for the rn-xv/arduino. this should allow me create a serial socket or something, once i grasp all that stuff a bit better. tcpclient, in place of [comport] connects and shows data sent but nothing is happening in pd or the arduino fio. i have begun toying with udpsend/udprecieve but that isnt working because i am sure that i havent connected the i/o in a manner that provides [comport] replacement functionality. i should have some results from that shortly. from what i have read, the way udp works might be better and if i can get one of the above libraries to see it, maybe my problem will be solved. i will let you what i come with in a few hours On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.ca mailto:martin.peach@**sympatico.camartin.pe...@sympatico.ca wrote: On 2012-11-25 15:51, o...@onyx-ashanti.com mailto:o...@onyx-ashanti.com wrote: if comport could accept an ip port argument, as well as a serial port argument, all would be lovely and nothing would have to change. it would simply recieve itsport from the ip. is there anything like this? In pd-extended there are [udpsend] and [udpreceive] as well as [tcpclient] and [tcpserver] that can be used instead of [comport]. Probably you'll need to add a [import net] to get them. Martin -- www.onyx-ashanti.com http://www.onyx-ashanti.com -- www.onyx-ashanti.com http://www.onyx-ashanti.com __**_ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/** listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] can i bypass comport?
Ok, so i got the [tcpsend]to work. i connected it at the point where the comport would usually get info. it is connected to the ip xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 3000 and when i turn the patch on, it sends the appropriate data to the arduino fio/rn-xv over wifi. the problem now is that the [tcpreceive 3000] isnt receiving anything. from what i have read, tcpsen and tcp recieve work on the same port so if that port is an ip address, what would be the prefered means of getting the data from the fio? I am experimenting with port forwarding on my router right now. Is there anything you might know of that i could/should try, that might sort the port conflict out? cheers, Onyx On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com wrote: I am going to investigate the updated wifly, wiflyserial and ethernet libraries onto the sketch for the rn-xv/arduino. this should allow me create a serial socket or something, once i grasp all that stuff a bit better. tcpclient, in place of [comport] connects and shows data sent but nothing is happening in pd or the arduino fio. i have begun toying with udpsend/udprecieve but that isnt working because i am sure that i havent connected the i/o in a manner that provides [comport] replacement functionality. i should have some results from that shortly. from what i have read, the way udp works might be better and if i can get one of the above libraries to see it, maybe my problem will be solved. i will let you what i come with in a few hours On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.cawrote: On 2012-11-25 15:51, o...@onyx-ashanti.com wrote: if comport could accept an ip port argument, as well as a serial port argument, all would be lovely and nothing would have to change. it would simply recieve itsport from the ip. is there anything like this? In pd-extended there are [udpsend] and [udpreceive] as well as [tcpclient] and [tcpserver] that can be used instead of [comport]. Probably you'll need to add a [import net] to get them. Martin -- www.onyx-ashanti.com -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] can i bypass comport?
Depends what's useable for you I guess.
You just need to set the comport objects baud rate to 57600.
The RN-XV manual says: Valid settings are {2400, 4800, 9600, 19200,
38400, 57600, 115200, 230400, 460800, 921600}
So you could probably go faster than 57600, the arduino can do at least
115200.
i have it working as a serial link with the virtual serial port program i
have. can i route the 57600 stream from the router, straight into the
arduino object, with the comport removed and just pipe the data straight
from the ip address into the object, without any routing through serial?
and if so, which of the networking objects would give me the
bi-directional link neccesry for this to happen?
Martin
--
www.onyx-ashanti.com
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] can i bypass comport?
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Martin Peach martin.pe...@sympatico.cawrote:
I don't understand what you mean by the arduino object.
As I understand it you have a RN-XV plugged into an Arduino using an xbee
shield. The RN-XV makes a wifi connection to your PC via a router, and you
want to use that connection to communicate with the Arduino. The Arduino
itself talks to the RN-XV using its serial port. Is that correct?
yes. it communicates on pins 2 and 3 of the rn-xv. that part works. it
connects to the router. the arduino object is the pduino object in pure
data. it interprets the data coming from the arduino. from looking at the
inside of the patch, it seems that what the arduino is sending and what the
abstraction [pd command processing] inside the [arduino] object, is
interpreting, are the same thing so i guess i am wondering if the serial
protocol is neccessary to link the two (firmata formatted tcp stream coming
from the arduino and a firmata formatted [route] that seems to have every
named input stream that is coming from the arduino). and if not, which
object, that doesnt use serial,would allow this tcp (or udp)
bi-directional conduit?
im not married to deleting the comport but i would like to see if it works
because the whole system might work better.
Martin
On 2012-11-25 12:31, o...@onyx-ashanti.com wrote:
Depends what's useable for you I guess.
You just need to set the comport objects baud rate to 57600.
The RN-XV manual says: Valid settings are {2400, 4800, 9600, 19200,
38400, 57600, 115200, 230400, 460800, 921600}
So you could probably go faster than 57600, the arduino can do at
least 115200.
i have it working as a serial link with the virtual serial port program
i have. can i route the 57600 stream from the router, straight into
the arduino object, with the comport removed and just pipe the data
straight from the ip address into the object, without any routing
through serial? and if so, which of the networking objects would give
me the bi-directional link neccesry for this to happen?
Martin
--
www.onyx-ashanti.com http://www.onyx-ashanti.com
__**_
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/**
listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--
www.onyx-ashanti.com
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] Networking patches to utilize multiple cores
I've once made a project like this, and found out that it's better to not send interpolated data through FUDI, interpolation can be done on client's end, it saves a lot of bandwidth. yes, my idea as well, is the only send message data across, with all the heavy lifting done in the signal patch on the client end. Just an idea, for sequencing events there are ways to reduce a lot the dataflow by using protocols different from MIDI sequencing. MIDI needs a very tight timecode, the amount of data is increasing with bpm and controller values. I've found one different way that is about sending a packet containing all the pattern informations that would be triggered with a simple beat clock. There is a backup of this work there: http://megalego.free.fr/pd/patko/list-sequence/ would this work properly on high speed realtime data? my goal is to create a connection that can handle many streams of real time data, very fast. it may be a moot point later this week as i just ordered an i7 based quadcore laptop which i think will deal with all of this without blinking but I would like to find the most efficient route for elegance sake. thanks for the feedback. i will investigate those patches thoroughly. onyx This might be suited for transmitting sequential events through network, but I haven't experimented this yet, the main idea was about interpreting tabla language: http://megalego.free.fr/pd/patko/tablas/ There you have my two cents, good luck in your project. Colet Patrice - Mail original - De: o...@onyx-ashanti.com onyxasha...@gmail.com À: Pd-list@iem.at Envoyé: Jeudi 8 Décembre 2011 19:19:55 Objet: [PD] Networking patches to utilize multiple cores Greets. Is there a proper or preferred method for using any of the networking objects in pd-extended to allow for realtime bi-directional communication between patches on the same computer, so as to utilize 2 or more cpu cores? I am currently trying to discover the best way to handle this. i started with netsend/netrecieve and used [route] to send approximately 40 or so streams as messages, and it worked, somewhat, but I think i may have been squeezing too much data through that one netsend as it was a bit sluggish (running on a dual core thinkpad 1.83ghz, 3gb ram). I am working with 2-5ms latencies so sluggish can screw me up in performance, especially since i havent even added 60% of the data that will be streaming from my messages patch to my signals patch. I am looking at netserver/netclient and contemplating breaking the streams up into 2 or more clients but i wanted to see if anyone had any advice in this regard. the goal is to have a messages patch that would interpret all the incoming sensor and performance data, send it to subpatches for GEM visualizations, interpretive synth controls and looping system parameters, THEN, send that data to a separate patch that would house around 15 signal object based subpatches for synthesis, looping and effects. any status feedback i need from the signal objects would need to be sent back to the messages patch for processing and display, so a realtime, bi-directional solution is very important. insight? Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] Networking patches to utilize multiple cores
Greets. Is there a proper or preferred method for using any of the networking objects in pd-extended to allow for realtime bi-directional communication between patches on the same computer, so as to utilize 2 or more cpu cores? I am currently trying to discover the best way to handle this. i started with netsend/netrecieve and used [route] to send approximately 40 or so streams as messages, and it worked, somewhat, but I think i may have been squeezing too much data through that one netsend as it was a bit sluggish (running on a dual core thinkpad 1.83ghz, 3gb ram). I am working with 2-5ms latencies so sluggish can screw me up in performance, especially since i havent even added 60% of the data that will be streaming from my messages patch to my signals patch. I am looking at netserver/netclient and contemplating breaking the streams up into 2 or more clients but i wanted to see if anyone had any advice in this regard. the goal is to have a messages patch that would interpret all the incoming sensor and performance data, send it to subpatches for GEM visualizations, interpretive synth controls and looping system parameters, THEN, send that data to a separate patch that would house around 15 signal object based subpatches for synthesis, looping and effects. any status feedback i need from the signal objects would need to be sent back to the messages patch for processing and display, so a realtime, bi-directional solution is very important. insight? Onyx -- www.onyx-ashanti.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] audio to arduino to PD, back to audio
Greetings. I wanted to see if something is possible. I realized that most of my vocalizations in my system are for the vocoder. I am trying not to add too much to the hardware configuration of my system so i have been entertaining the idea of using an electret microphone amplified to send its signal to an analog pin on my arduino then transmit that into pure data. I would like to have the frequencies register as voltages. i do not know if this is possible. I dont know much about the mechanics of how this process would work but i theorize that i should be able to create a means of converting the PWM signal from the arduino, back to something audio-ish, in PD. any insight would be much appreciated. Onyx -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] any easy way to get data from 3 arduino (firmata) to one comport (pduino)?
greetings. i was wondering, any insight on taking the data from 3 arduinos running firmata and dumping them, using xbee trancievers, to a single comport in in pure data? my project uses 3 xbee transmitter nodes which communicate directly with its own xbee basestationreciever at my computer. this works but i seek to refine the system to have one basestation xbee that will recieve all of the data from the 3 nodes. from what i understand of this process, i need to add a tag like left in the arduino code then parse that data on the computer end. but it seems as if this will break the arduino object. my options, i feel, are to try to either add the tag, parse the data in pure data before the arduino object and somehow send the parsed data to 3 instances of the arduino object or to attempt to rewrite the arduino firmaware and the pd recieving abstraction since i dont foresee the hardware configuration changing all that much. insight? cheers, Onyx -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] any easy way to get data from 3 arduino (firmata) to one comport (pduino)?
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.atwrote: The Firmata protocol is built around a one device connection (it was written for Arduino-USB), so having multiple devices sending their data over a single serial port won't work with the Firmata protocol. what about removing the comport in the arduino object and replacing with with data from an abstraction that would parse all three data streams and send the data that the comport would have sent were it there? so it could still have most of the guts of the arduino object intact but where the comport object was, would be a routed stream from an abstraction that would send the patch the data it was expecting, sans comport object. then all three streams could dump to this precursor object which would have the one comport input from the xbee connected to the computer. I seem to recall that Xbees can send on different channels. If so, I think the easiest thing to do is to have one xbee receiver per arduino, each on its own channel, and therefore one serial port per xbee. thats what i am doing now. it works ok, but I'd like to make the system more efficient. i dont have to do it right now. this is just a project i want to start getting my head around and would like to know the options. If you want to only have one receiver, you'll have to create your own protocol. Perhaps an easy way to do that would be to wrap the existing Firmata protocol with some identifier of which arduino is came from. yeah, its looking like that. the good thing is that the system i designed is stable, ie. i dont plan to make any major configuration changes in the hardware for for quite sometime, so it would be feasible to just do simple data sends to pure data and lock the config in. You could also look at the xbee object in the pure-data svn, its in externals/io/xbee. But that also means no Firmata. I didnt even know there was an xbee object! going to download it now! thanks for the link. i will check it out now! cheers .hc On Oct 26, 2011, at 7:47 AM, o...@onyx-ashanti.com wrote: greetings. i was wondering, any insight on taking the data from 3 arduinos running firmata and dumping them, using xbee trancievers, to a single comport in in pure data? my project uses 3 xbee transmitter nodes which communicate directly with its own xbee basestationreciever at my computer. this works but i seek to refine the system to have one basestation xbee that will recieve all of the data from the 3 nodes. from what i understand of this process, i need to add a tag like left in the arduino code then parse that data on the computer end. but it seems as if this will break the arduino object. my options, i feel, are to try to either add the tag, parse the data in pure data before the arduino object and somehow send the parsed data to 3 instances of the arduino object or to attempt to rewrite the arduino firmaware and the pd recieving abstraction since i dont foresee the hardware configuration changing all that much. insight? cheers, Onyx -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list [T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government. - Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] is Gem working in 0.43.1 Pd-extended for Linux?
I don't understand your statement about /usr/lib/, /pd and /pd-extended... I was talking about pd-extended source tree. Do you source compile it or get it as a binary ? I sorted it out now. i updated the synaptic package manager repository links and downloaded 0.42.5 pd-extended and edited the .pdrc and everything is cool. before there was the 0.43.1 pd-extended folder AND a pd folder and i think they were conflicting. i deleted everything and started over and it worked. thank you for your help! onyx -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] is Gem working in 0.43.1 Pd-extended for Linux?
I have been pulling my locks out for 2 day trying to configure 0.43.1 to run in puredyne. every thing works except Gem. I have linked to the pd folder, i have downloaded the latest version of Gem and installed it, to no avail. every once in a while, it will render [gemhead] and no other Gem objects. I've tried the pd -lib /path/Gem thing. I've tried copying it from the Pd folder. Is it just not working yet or is there something i am doing wrong? if its not working, that's fine too. i can wait and just reinstall 0.42.5. either way is cool. but i would love to investigate 0.43.1 cheers, Onyx -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] is Gem working in 0.43.1 Pd-extended for Linux?
thanks for getting back to me. on my system there are two pd folders in /usr/lib. /pd and /pd-extended. the pd-extended doesnt have a /packages folder whereas the /pd folder does. i found and commented the line you mentioned to no avail. same issue. yes it does, but there's a trick. You have to edit the pd-extended/packages/linux_make/Makefile and comment out the OPT_CFLAGS += -mtune=i686 -march=i386 line (around line 40). Works on archlinux, kernel 3.0, dual i686. -- Help me build the sickest live performance system ever! www.indiegogo.com/beatjazzsystem www.onyx-ashanti.com Germany+49 176 3543 7859 ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
