Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Charlie Richmond]

Warning!!!  Commercial Post!!!

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Gregorio Garcia Karman <
ggkar...@musicologia.com> wrote:

> On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 14:56 , Andrew Horsburgh <
> andrew.horsbu...@uws.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> That with the matrix is interesting. Do you mean controlling the gain of
> the inputs to the matrix or is it possible to control the actual gain of
> the matrix cross-points?
>

SoundMan-Server matrix is up to 999x999 with every crosspoint having
controllable gain, eq and delay at each crosspoint as well as at each input
and output independently.

And it aggregates multiple ASIO drivers.

Charlie

* Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond
* http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com
 "Performance
for the Long Run"
* SoundMan-Server & AudioBox II - Virtual Sound System Core Audio Engine
* LinkedIn & Twitter:
charlierichmond *
Facebook:
charlie.richmond
* G+: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/117175238910652375011/
* RSD on Google+: https://plus.google.com/101997019719186030659/
* Primary and much preferred method of communication is via skype
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Sebastian Gabler]

Am 09.12.2012 12:12, schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
iiuc, connecting each card to an always-active wc source directly 
should have avoided the issue, right? when i get the chance, i'll 
check that. 
Adding that the source is coherent for all cards involved (which I guess 
you implied) this is correct. I have tested it with WC, ADAT, AES, 
SPDIF, and MADI signals. It worked any way.


BR

Sebastian
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Sebastian Gabler]

Am 09.12.2012 13:00, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:

Apart from that, syncing cards requires more than just a common
clock, you also need a single 'start' signal distributed in HW
('start' meaning that the next sample will be at position 0 in
the first buffer). If the start signal is just distributed in
software, then no matter how fast this is done there will always
be corner cases when one card sees the start in the current clock
period and another sees it in the next, resulting in a one sample
delay difference. I've even seen this happen between the capture
and playback sides of a single card (which ALSA sees as separate
devices).
That's a property of the audio server and client, resp. ASIO driver and 
host. I have tested this only extensively under ASIO, and there it seems 
to be the case that the loop is started with all child devices assumed 
in sync. From what I understand there is no messaging whatsoever should 
the sync state of a child device change during operation.
When devices are seen independently, as you describe (which is even more 
the case under legacy Windows driver models), buffers may be filled 
asynchronously, and it may take several Interrupt cycles until the 
streaming really starts. In fact this means that there is no common 
start position at all, with basically any kind of offsets in place.


BR

Sebastian
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Gregorio Garcia Karman]

On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 14:56 , Andrew Horsburgh 
 wrote:

> RedNet is focusrite's integration with Dante. Effectively acts as an audio 
> switch for cat5 cabled devices.
> Some units are DAs, some units are ADs. I'm sure to implement 256 channels of 
> audio would be costly (far greater than 14k)
> but it does give you remote control of every signal in the matrix, including 
> gain.
> They released a fair amount of publicity at AES133 in SF - so I'd be 
> surprised if the audio community hasn't already dug out some of the details.
> 

Thanks for the clarification Andrew. In theory, a single Dante gigabit link is 
capable of up to 512x512 in each direction at 48 KHz ( higher sample rates are 
supported by reducing the number of channels). A Rednet link has a fixed number 
of channels of 128x128 i/o at 48/96 kHz and 64x64 at i/o 192 kHz 
(http://global.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-pcie-card/specifications).
 So even if money would not be a concern, a single Rednet link would not be 
able to take care Augustine's 256-channel system.

That with the matrix is interesting. Do you mean controlling the gain of the 
inputs to the matrix or is it possible to control the actual gain of the matrix 
cross-points? 

Best
G

> Andrew J. Horsburgh, Researcher
> andrew.horsbu...@uws.ac.uk
> 
> Ambisonic & Spatial Audio Research Group
> University of the West of Scotland, www.uws.ac.uk
> 
> From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf 
> Of Gregorio Garcia Karman [ggkar...@musicologia.com]
> Sent: 07 December 2012 12:15
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
> 
>> 
>> Lots of people quite surprised/horrified .  Differing yes - but if you look
>> at the result 80% of people voted for the Behringers - and this is one of
>> the largest communities of sound engineers on the web who would have been
>> listening on their own equipment at home/studio - sure a couple of people
>> who believe they have "golden ears" differed - but most artists are looking
>> to impress 80% of their listeners not 20 % - "better" is a very subjective
>> term. I have used them myself and they sound fine  - I believe game of
> 
> Sure, art and engineering are different things. I was only trying to help you 
> by encouraging to compare and judge by yourself but if you prefer to trust 
> what is posted in a forum then that's perfectly fine with me.
> 
>> https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-interface.php
>> 
>> If that doesn't work google "rednet 5" then click on shopping - apparently
>> has 32 outputs (=;
> 
> No. As I said the Focusrite Rednet converters are in the range of 200 euros / 
> channel. The Rednet 5 has not yet been released but I would be surprised if 
> it has any pyhsical I/O. I think the Rednet 5 it is just a kind of 
> protools-rednet bridge.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>> --
>> 07580951119
>> 
>> augustine.leudar.com
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121207/c463b0f1/attachment.html>
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> 
> Please consider the environment and think before you print
> 
> ***
> 
> University of the West of Scotland aims to have a transformational influence 
> on the economic, social and cultural development of the West of Scotland and 
> beyond by providing relevant, high quality, inclusive higher education and 
> innovative and useful research. 
> 
> Visit www.uws.ac.uk for more details
> 
> University of the West of Scotland is a registered Scottish charity. Charity 
> number SC002520.
> 
> ***
> 
> Legal disclaimer
> --
> 
> The information transmitted is the property of the University of the West of 
> Scotland and is intended only for the person or entity 
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
> mater

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/09/2012 06:20 PM, Michael Chapman wrote:


Been lurking (with interest (and financial envy ;-)> ) :


Jörn  wrote:


  but with the
andiamo you get rid of the toslink risk,


Could you explain, that comment ?

Thanks in advance, Michael.


the andiamo is a MADI device, hence no adat connectors, and no 
MADI-to-ADAT bridge necessary.





--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 05:20:04PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
> 
> Been lurking (with interest (and financial envy ;-)> ) :
> 
> 
> Jörn  wrote:
> 
> >  but with the
> > andiamo you get rid of the toslink risk,
> 
> Could you explain, that comment ?

I guess it just means that first converting MADI to ADAT adds
some equipment and cabling that could fail. 

While the DA side of the Behringer is decent enough, there's
one problem I noticed: when you have just one or two channels
active with 'digital silence' on the others, the ADAT clock
sync tends to be fragile. Only solution is to use the word 
clock input. With 32 units that again requires more equipment
and cabling.

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)

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Michael Chapman]

Been lurking (with interest (and financial envy ;-)> ) :


Jörn  wrote:

>  but with the
> andiamo you get rid of the toslink risk,

Could you explain, that comment ?

Thanks in advance, Michael.


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/09/2012 01:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 12:12:15PM +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:


i could imagine how a situation like you describe could come about
when wiring the cards this way, but it feels a bit weird. iiuc,
connecting each card to an always-active wc source directly should
have avoided the issue, right? when i get the chance, i'll check
that.


(this may be related)

The way the (Linux) hdspm driver behaves has changed over time.
Originally, when the card was configured for external clock but
no clock signal was present, it would silently fall back on
internal, *and remain in that mode* even if later the external
clock became available. I complained about that, and apparently
things have changed. The behaviour I see now is that when the
card is configured for external clock but the clock is not
present, opening the device fails. Which is to be preferred as
it provides a clear indication that something is wrong.


good to know. for the record, the issue i described was happening on a 
(gasp!) windows workstation using the original rme drivers :-D



Apart from that, syncing cards requires more than just a common
clock, you also need a single 'start' signal distributed in HW
('start' meaning that the next sample will be at position 0 in
the first buffer). If the start signal is just distributed in
software, then no matter how fast this is done there will always
be corner cases when one card sees the start in the current clock
period and another sees it in the next, resulting in a one sample
delay difference. I've even seen this happen between the capture
and playback sides of a single card (which ALSA sees as separate
devices).


i see. but with a delta of one or maybe a few tens of samples, i 
wouldn't have complained. the deltas we were seeing amounted to over a 
hundred milliseconds. it takes some real engineering to get things that 
wrong.


--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister (VDT)

http://stackingdwarves.net
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 12:12:15PM +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

> i could imagine how a situation like you describe could come about
> when wiring the cards this way, but it feels a bit weird. iiuc,
> connecting each card to an always-active wc source directly should
> have avoided the issue, right? when i get the chance, i'll check
> that.

(this may be related)

The way the (Linux) hdspm driver behaves has changed over time.
Originally, when the card was configured for external clock but
no clock signal was present, it would silently fall back on
internal, *and remain in that mode* even if later the external
clock became available. I complained about that, and apparently
things have changed. The behaviour I see now is that when the
card is configured for external clock but the clock is not
present, opening the device fails. Which is to be preferred as
it provides a clear indication that something is wrong. 

Apart from that, syncing cards requires more than just a common
clock, you also need a single 'start' signal distributed in HW
('start' meaning that the next sample will be at position 0 in
the first buffer). If the start signal is just distributed in
software, then no matter how fast this is done there will always
be corner cases when one card sees the start in the current clock
period and another sees it in the next, resulting in a one sample
delay difference. I've even seen this happen between the capture
and playback sides of a single card (which ALSA sees as separate
devices).

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)

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/09/2012 10:06 AM, Sebastian Gabler wrote:

Am 07.12.2012 20:16, schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:

as mentioned by someone else, rme hdsps can be ganged. _but_ i've seen
weird timing issues with an old hdsp madi pci and a hdsp madi pcie -
they would be in perfect sync, but with random offsets of plus/minus
several hundred samples, apparently randomly after each reboot.

chances are this bug has long since been solved, but do measure it and
complain to rme loudly if you still see it.



I have seen that with all HDSP(e) cards. This happens due to the RME
SteadyClock sync mechanism if the clock source is not steady. Provide a
clock source that is present before the computer boots, have set all RME
cards to external sync, and you should be fine. If the clock is lost
during operation (i.e. connection loss), it should suffice to restart
the audio server or ASIO loop to get back to stable ground.

Is this a bug?  IMHO, no. I think it's quite logical that a system that
tries to mitigate clock drifts will do exactly that. But documentation
could help with the multi-card scenario. You cannot use internal clock
reference of one of the cards in this case because it will not be steady
during re-boot. Each of the cards has an independent quartz, and there
is no way to predict if the master will be "ready" before the slaves.


interesting comment, thanks. i'm pretty sure that the computer system as 
a whole was slaved to a nexus clock which was definitely running all the 
time, but i'd have to ask my colleague if he remembers how the cards 
themselves were connected. i think we used a short wc cable from the 
first card to the second, or maybe the internal sync cable.


i could imagine how a situation like you describe could come about when 
wiring the cards this way, but it feels a bit weird. iiuc, connecting 
each card to an always-active wc source directly should have avoided the 
issue, right? when i get the chance, i'll check that.



--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister (VDT)

http://stackingdwarves.net
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/09/2012 01:40 AM, Augustine Leudar wrote:

So Im trying to find a price for these Andiamo things :

http://www.directout.eu/en/products/andiamo.html

Does anyone know more or less how much they cost or can anyone post a link
- cant seem to find it on sale anywhere ?


their uk distributors are:

Aspen Media Ltd
11 Wingbury Courtyard
Aylesbury HP22 4LW
Leighton Road
Wingrave

tel: +44 (0)1296 681313
fax: +44 (0)1296 681316
Kontakt: Chris Collings

webenqu...@aspen-madi.com
http://www.aspen-madi.com

HHB Communications Ltd.
73-75 Scrubs Lane
London
NW10 6QU

tel: +44 20 8962 5000
fax: +44 20 8962 5050

sa...@hhb.co.uk
http://www.hhb.co.uk


last time i looked, the simple andiamo (no aes/ebu, no microphone 
preamps) was around 2k€ for 32 channels of ad/da.
sure, you could have it cheaper with behringer 8000s, but with the 
andiamo you get rid of the toslink risk, you get slightly better 
converters with much better engineering, and you save lots of rackspace 
(8 HU for the andiamos vs. 36 HU for behringers and madi-to-adat bridges)




--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister (VDT)

http://stackingdwarves.net
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Sebastian Gabler]

Am 07.12.2012 20:16, schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
as mentioned by someone else, rme hdsps can be ganged. _but_ i've seen 
weird timing issues with an old hdsp madi pci and a hdsp madi pcie - 
they would be in perfect sync, but with random offsets of plus/minus 
several hundred samples, apparently randomly after each reboot.


chances are this bug has long since been solved, but do measure it and 
complain to rme loudly if you still see it.
I have seen that with all HDSP(e) cards. This happens due to the RME 
SteadyClock sync mechanism if the clock source is not steady. Provide a 
clock source that is present before the computer boots, have set all RME 
cards to external sync, and you should be fine. If the clock is lost 
during operation (i.e. connection loss), it should suffice to restart 
the audio server or ASIO loop to get back to stable ground.


Is this a bug?  IMHO, no. I think it's quite logical that a system that 
tries to mitigate clock drifts will do exactly that. But documentation 
could help with the multi-card scenario. You cannot use internal clock 
reference of one of the cards in this case because it will not be steady 
during re-boot. Each of the cards has an independent quartz, and there 
is no way to predict if the master will be "ready" before the slaves.


BR

Sebastian
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

So Im trying to find a price for these Andiamo things :

http://www.directout.eu/en/products/andiamo.html

Does anyone know more or less how much they cost or can anyone post a link
- cant seem to find it on sale anywhere ?

On 8 December 2012 23:14, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

> Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>
>
>>
>> if you want height because you're unhappy with the degree of ambience and
>> envelopment that horizontal wfs offers you, then just restrict yourself to
>> direct sources on the horizontal plane and add a few speakers above and
>> below.  use algorithmic reverb to feed them. for natural recordings, render
>> mono point sources on the wfs, add some plane waves recorded with fig8s
>> hamasaki-style. for the additional non-wfs speakers, hamasakis work well
>> too, and maybe some cardioids pointing away from the direct sound or
>> boundary mics on the walls.
>>
>> volker werner taught me this approach at ICSA (he was directing the
>> IOSONO recording, together with frank melchior), and the result was quite
>> spectacular. we had only four height speakers in addition to an
>> 80-something 2d wfs, but they made a huge difference in terms of timbre and
>> envelopment. height localisation was never an objective, though.
>>
>>
>>  Then use fewer speakers than WFS,  and  still use height?
>
> (Getting increasingly angry if reading this thread. At first you have to
> set some aims, and after this you would look for some solution.
>
> Efficiency matters in engineering, BTW.)
>
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan Schreiber
>
> P.S.: Oh, and Windowz supports only 254 instead of 256 output channels,
> which is a HUGE problem IF you want to use 255 or 256 channels.
>
> Hope they didn't need 257 channels, which breaks everything again...
> :-D
>
>
> P.S. 2: Mac OS might be able to support the 256 channel number, but I am
> not sure if this helps. (Apple won't go into the WFS business...)
>
> P.S. 3: Stays Linux, but which one?!
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  attachments/20121208/72e0386b/**attachment.html
> >
>
> __**_
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:




if you want height because you're unhappy with the degree of ambience 
and envelopment that horizontal wfs offers you, then just restrict 
yourself to direct sources on the horizontal plane and add a few 
speakers above and below.  use algorithmic reverb to feed them. for 
natural recordings, render mono point sources on the wfs, add some 
plane waves recorded with fig8s hamasaki-style. for the additional 
non-wfs speakers, hamasakis work well too, and maybe some cardioids 
pointing away from the direct sound or boundary mics on the walls.


volker werner taught me this approach at ICSA (he was directing the 
IOSONO recording, together with frank melchior), and the result was 
quite spectacular. we had only four height speakers in addition to an 
80-something 2d wfs, but they made a huge difference in terms of 
timbre and envelopment. height localisation was never an objective, 
though.




Then use fewer speakers than WFS,  and  still use height?

(Getting increasingly angry if reading this thread. At first you have to 
set some aims, and after this you would look for some solution.


Efficiency matters in engineering, BTW.)


Best,

Stefan Schreiber

P.S.: Oh, and Windowz supports only 254 instead of 256 output channels, 
which is a HUGE problem IF you want to use 255 or 256 channels.


Hope they didn't need 257 channels, which breaks everything again... 
:-D



P.S. 2: Mac OS might be able to support the 256 channel number, but I am 
not sure if this helps. (Apple won't go into the WFS business...)


P.S. 3: Stays Linux, but which one?!
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/08/2012 11:54 AM, Augustine Leudar wrote:

HI Jorn,
Thanks for the well informed reply as usual.



honestly, for a system like that, i wouldn't think about windows even for
a split second. there is really only one sane system choice, and that is
clearly linux. for your frontend and user experience, by all means go with
windows if it suits you, but for the backend machine(s)? never.



The last system I built used Linux with soundscape renderer (excellant
program) and would definitely be my first choice. However I need height
information as well for this system. Matt Montags WFSdesigner does this but
last time I checked it was only compiled for windows. Ill have a chat to
Miguel about Game of life though - or if soundscape renderer height
information 


looking at matt's website, i get the impression that it's indeed 
amplitude panning between two strata. you could hack up a similar 
solution with two instances of SSR without too much pain, but like i 
said before, i don't think it's a very effective approach.


if you really need controlled localisation at elevations != 0, then the 
only systems i've seen that work are vbap and HOA, and both only with 
reasonably dense and regular speaker grids.


if you want height because you're unhappy with the degree of ambience 
and envelopment that horizontal wfs offers you, then just restrict 
yourself to direct sources on the horizontal plane and add a few 
speakers above and below.  use algorithmic reverb to feed them. for 
natural recordings, render mono point sources on the wfs, add some plane 
waves recorded with fig8s hamasaki-style. for the additional non-wfs 
speakers, hamasakis work well too, and maybe some cardioids pointing 
away from the direct sound or boundary mics on the walls.


volker werner taught me this approach at ICSA (he was directing the 
IOSONO recording, together with frank melchior), and the result was 
quite spectacular. we had only four height speakers in addition to an 
80-something 2d wfs, but they made a huge difference in terms of timbre 
and envelopment. height localisation was never an objective, though.



--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

HI Jorn,
Thanks for the well informed reply as usual.

>
> honestly, for a system like that, i wouldn't think about windows even for
> a split second. there is really only one sane system choice, and that is
> clearly linux. for your frontend and user experience, by all means go with
> windows if it suits you, but for the backend machine(s)? never.


The last system I built used Linux with soundscape renderer (excellant
program) and would definitely be my first choice. However I need height
information as well for this system. Matt Montags WFSdesigner does this but
last time I checked it was only compiled for windows. Ill have a chat to
Miguel about Game of life though - or if soundscape renderer height
information 

>
>
>
> yes. swap the MADI to ADAT bridge for a directout exbox, and if you can,
> the behringers for directout andiamos (as mentioned by fons before).
>
> as others mentioned before, directout madi gear can be set to "start
> addresses", so that when you chain two 32ch andiamos, the first one will
> pick out ch 1-32 from its input and insert its AD into channels 1-32 of the
> output, and the second one can then deal with the upper half.


Excellent - thankyou

>
>
>
> the andiamos have dsub outs.
>
> when you design the installation, be very wary of the "last mile" of adat
> cabling - it's a very weak link. make the toslink cables short, ideally put
> them in a separate conduit so they don't get stressed when you have to
> revisit the other wiring, and don't coil them, it deteriorates the signal
> rapidly. if you have to coil them, the larger the bending radius, the less
> signal damping you'll get.
>
> adat sync loss was (and still is afaik) the bane of the wfs system at tu
> berlin.
>
>
> disclaimer: i'm personally acquainted with the directout developers, and
> they have helped me out with gear loans several times.
> in any case, their stuff is excellent and i can totally recommend it.
>


> Nice one Jorn - really useful info - thanks again
>
>
> --
> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
>
> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> Tonmeister (VDT)
>
> http://stackingdwarves.net
> __**_
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

yes Matts uses Vbap between two arrays for height - but only works on
windows thus far

On 7 December 2012 21:50, Miguel Negrao <
miguel.negrao-li...@friendlyvirus.org> wrote:

>
> A 07/12/2012, às 17:05, Augustine Leudar escreveu:
>
> > Thanks Joseph,
> > Actually Miguel works in the same room as me but I haven't been in
> > much recently - Do you know if game of life can be adpated to do
> > height as well ?
>
> Well, I do see you there from time to time... ;-)
>
> No it doesn’t work with height, but it wouldn’t be hard to add an
> ambisonics or vbap section for height.  What is the algorithm used by
> http://www.mattmontag.com/projects-page/wfs-designer  for height ? I
> would assume it’s not just crossfading, is it ?
>
> best,
> Miguel
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Miguel Negrao]

A 07/12/2012, às 17:05, Augustine Leudar escreveu:

> Thanks Joseph,
> Actually Miguel works in the same room as me but I haven't been in
> much recently - Do you know if game of life can be adpated to do
> height as well ?

Well, I do see you there from time to time... ;-)

No it doesn’t work with height, but it wouldn’t be hard to add an ambisonics or 
vbap section for height.  What is the algorithm used by 
http://www.mattmontag.com/projects-page/wfs-designer  for height ? I would 
assume it’s not just crossfading, is it ?

best,
Miguel 
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/06/2012 10:37 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:

Hi all,
I am looking for economical ways of building a 256 channel out system which
will be connected to 256 speakers for a wavefield synthesis system. I do
not need a desk - or even inputs.
You can get an RME HDSPe MADI FX for around £1000 which will do 192 channel
out.
Question 1
anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme with
an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by the
same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
more important than usual in WFS systems.


as mentioned by someone else, rme hdsps can be ganged. _but_ i've seen 
weird timing issues with an old hdsp madi pci and a hdsp madi pcie - 
they would be in perfect sync, but with random offsets of plus/minus 
several hundred samples, apparently randomly after each reboot.


chances are this bug has long since been solved, but do measure it and 
complain to rme loudly if you still see it.



Question 2 -
Does windows still only support 254 channels ?


honestly, for a system like that, i wouldn't think about windows even 
for a split second. there is really only one sane system choice, and 
that is clearly linux. for your frontend and user experience, by all 
means go with windows if it suits you, but for the backend machine(s)? 
never.



Question 3 :
Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:

RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800


yes. swap the MADI to ADAT bridge for a directout exbox, and if you can, 
the behringers for directout andiamos (as mentioned by fons before).


as others mentioned before, directout madi gear can be set to "start 
addresses", so that when you chain two 32ch andiamos, the first one will 
pick out ch 1-32 from its input and insert its AD into channels 1-32 of 
the output, and the second one can then deal with the upper half.



Total £12,966 (ish)

I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?


the andiamos have dsub outs.

when you design the installation, be very wary of the "last mile" of 
adat cabling - it's a very weak link. make the toslink cables short, 
ideally put them in a separate conduit so they don't get stressed when 
you have to revisit the other wiring, and don't coil them, it 
deteriorates the signal rapidly. if you have to coil them, the larger 
the bending radius, the less signal damping you'll get.


adat sync loss was (and still is afaik) the bane of the wfs system at tu 
berlin.



disclaimer: i'm personally acquainted with the directout developers, and 
they have helped me out with gear loans several times.

in any case, their stuff is excellent and i can totally recommend it.


best,


jörn


--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister (VDT)

http://stackingdwarves.net
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/06/2012 11:35 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:37:42PM +, Augustine Leudar wrote:


I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?




But you'd pay for the AD converters which you don't need.


the rme DA 32 doesn't have ad converters. but it's twice the price of 
the andiamo :)




--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister (VDT)

http://stackingdwarves.net
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

obviously Id love to spend millions of pounbds on the best sytem - but
these days getting any money at all for experimental arts projects is
challenging !

On 07/12/2012, Gregorio Garcia Karman  wrote:
> Dear Augustine, I guess you are right. Congratulations for your past
> achievements and good luck setting up the WFS system. I certainly look
> forward to listen to the results if around. Best. G
>
>> I have received excellent reviews and feedback for
>> the last seven sound installations I've done with them.
>> I'd say in the case of art imagination is much more important than
>> subtle differences between D/A converters as long as the sound quality
>> is reasonable.
>
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>


-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Gregorio Garcia Karman]

Dear Augustine, I guess you are right. Congratulations for your past 
achievements and good luck setting up the WFS system. I certainly look forward 
to listen to the results if around. Best. G

> I have received excellent reviews and feedback for
> the last seven sound installations I've done with them.
> I'd say in the case of art imagination is much more important than
> subtle differences between D/A converters as long as the sound quality
> is reasonable.


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

Thanks Joseph,
Actually Miguel works in the same room as me but I haven't been in
much recently - Do you know if game of life can be adpated to do
height as well ?

On 07/12/2012, Joseph Anderson  wrote:
> Hello Augustine,
>
>
> The Game of Life Foundation has a package for SuperCollider:
>
> http://gameoflife.nl/en
> https://github.com/GameOfLife/WFSCollider/downloads
> https://github.com/GameOfLife/WFSCollider-Class-Library
>
>
>
> My best,
>
> ~~
> Joseph Anderson
>
> Artist:   http://joseph-anderson.org
> Ambisonic Toolkit:http://ambisonictoolkit.net
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 Dec 2012, at 11:31 am, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
>
>> PS - the reason I'm using windows is that the only WFS software that
>> allows
>> for height information is compiled for windows - WFSdesigner by Matt
>> Montag- Soundscape renderer on Linux is excellant but I dont think it
>> does
>> height - anyone know of any others ?
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> 
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>


-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

>
> Sure, art and engineering are different things. I was only trying to help
> you by encouraging to compare and judge by yourself but if you prefer to
> trust what is posted in a forum then that's perfectly fine with me.
>

If you read my previous post you'll see I have already used them and
judged them -  I actually used them in a WFS system I built a few
months ago - and I have received excellent reviews and feedback for
the last seven sound installations I've done with them.
 I'd say in the case of art imagination is much more important than
subtle differences between D/A converters as long as the sound quality
is reasonable.


>> https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-interface.php
>>
>> If that doesn't work google "rednet 5" then click on shopping -
>> apparently
>> has 32 outputs (=;
>
> No. As I said the Focusrite Rednet converters are in the range of 200 euros
> / channel. The Rednet 5 has not yet been released but I would be surprised
> if it has any pyhsical I/O. I think the Rednet 5 it is just a kind of
> protools-rednet bridge.

thats a bummer.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Joseph Anderson]

Hello Augustine,


The Game of Life Foundation has a package for SuperCollider:

http://gameoflife.nl/en
https://github.com/GameOfLife/WFSCollider/downloads
https://github.com/GameOfLife/WFSCollider-Class-Library



My best,

~~
Joseph Anderson

Artist: http://joseph-anderson.org
Ambisonic Toolkit:  http://ambisonictoolkit.net





On 7 Dec 2012, at 11:31 am, Augustine Leudar  wrote:

> PS - the reason I'm using windows is that the only WFS software that allows
> for height information is compiled for windows - WFSdesigner by Matt
> Montag- Soundscape renderer on Linux is excellant but I dont think it does
> height - anyone know of any others ?
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Andrew Horsburgh]

RedNet is focusrite's integration with Dante. Effectively acts as an audio 
switch for cat5 cabled devices.
Some units are DAs, some units are ADs. I'm sure to implement 256 channels of 
audio would be costly (far greater than 14k) but it does give you remote 
control of every signal in the matrix, including gain.

They released a fair amount of publicity at AES133 in SF - so I'd be surprised 
if the audio community hasn't already dug out some of the details.

Andrew J. Horsburgh, Researcher
andrew.horsbu...@uws.ac.uk

Ambisonic & Spatial Audio Research Group
University of the West of Scotland, www.uws.ac.uk

From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf 
Of Gregorio Garcia Karman [ggkar...@musicologia.com]
Sent: 07 December 2012 12:15
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

>
> Lots of people quite surprised/horrified .  Differing yes - but if you look
> at the result 80% of people voted for the Behringers - and this is one of
> the largest communities of sound engineers on the web who would have been
> listening on their own equipment at home/studio - sure a couple of people
> who believe they have "golden ears" differed - but most artists are looking
> to impress 80% of their listeners not 20 % - "better" is a very subjective
> term. I have used them myself and they sound fine  - I believe game of

Sure, art and engineering are different things. I was only trying to help you 
by encouraging to compare and judge by yourself but if you prefer to trust what 
is posted in a forum then that's perfectly fine with me.

> https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-interface.php
>
> If that doesn't work google "rednet 5" then click on shopping - apparently
> has 32 outputs (=;

No. As I said the Focusrite Rednet converters are in the range of 200 euros / 
channel. The Rednet 5 has not yet been released but I would be surprised if it 
has any pyhsical I/O. I think the Rednet 5 it is just a kind of protools-rednet 
bridge.

Cheers

> --
> 07580951119
>
> augustine.leudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121207/c463b0f1/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


Please consider the environment and think before you print

***

University of the West of Scotland aims to have a transformational influence on 
the economic, social and cultural development of the West of Scotland and 
beyond by providing relevant, high quality, inclusive higher education and 
innovative and useful research. 

Visit www.uws.ac.uk for more details

University of the West of Scotland is a registered Scottish charity. Charity 
number SC002520.

***

Legal disclaimer
--

The information transmitted is the property of the University of the West of 
Scotland and is intended only for the person or entity 
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
material.  Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent 
those of the company.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination and other use 
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or 
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete 
the material from any computer. 

--
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Gregorio Garcia Karman]

> 
> Lots of people quite surprised/horrified .  Differing yes - but if you look
> at the result 80% of people voted for the Behringers - and this is one of
> the largest communities of sound engineers on the web who would have been
> listening on their own equipment at home/studio - sure a couple of people
> who believe they have "golden ears" differed - but most artists are looking
> to impress 80% of their listeners not 20 % - "better" is a very subjective
> term. I have used them myself and they sound fine  - I believe game of

Sure, art and engineering are different things. I was only trying to help you 
by encouraging to compare and judge by yourself but if you prefer to trust what 
is posted in a forum then that's perfectly fine with me. 

> https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-interface.php
> 
> If that doesn't work google "rednet 5" then click on shopping - apparently
> has 32 outputs (=;

No. As I said the Focusrite Rednet converters are in the range of 200 euros / 
channel. The Rednet 5 has not yet been released but I would be surprised if it 
has any pyhsical I/O. I think the Rednet 5 it is just a kind of protools-rednet 
bridge.

Cheers

> -- 
> 07580951119
> 
> augustine.leudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

PS - the reason I'm using windows is that the only WFS software that allows
for height information is compiled for windows - WFSdesigner by Matt
Montag- Soundscape renderer on Linux is excellant but I dont think it does
height - anyone know of any others ?
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

>
> I would be quite surprised, particularly on the A/D end. Although the
> differences between converters may be getting subtler nowadays, I have come
> across a few online blind listening tests and measurements prepared by
> users, which differ significantly from you actually get at home. Note that
> there are people reporting different results on that thread. OTOH, it is up
> to you to decide if your application does not require this level of
> refinement.
>

Lots of people quite surprised/horrified .  Differing yes - but if you look
at the result 80% of people voted for the Behringers - and this is one of
the largest communities of sound engineers on the web who would have been
listening on their own equipment at home/studio - sure a couple of people
who believe they have "golden ears" differed - but most artists are looking
to impress 80% of their listeners not 20 % - "better" is a very subjective
term. I have used them myself and they sound fine  - I believe game of
life use them as well for their WFS setup with no complaints and many
engineers now grudgingly admit that Behringer have made something that
isn't total crap. From what I have read they basically ripped off one of
RME products - copied it capacitor for capacitor and left out the bells and
whistles - I haven't used the A/D side though - but I don't need that.
Having said that if Focusrite provide a similar priced solution I will snap
it up.

> I will take a closer look at Andiamos stuff - however each RME madi
carries
> 64 channels - so anything it connects to has to have at least 64 outs -

Why? you can easily bridge two units to get the 64 channels.
>

Because there's only 3 madi outputs on each RME card - if you can bridge
the device that counts as 64 channels in my book and that would be  fine.
Will definitely be taking a closer look at them.

> would you mind posting the link again? The focusrite line of rednet to
analog converters I find go for ca 200 euros / channel (x256 =  ca 51000?)


https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-interface.php

If that doesn't work google "rednet 5" then click on shopping - apparently
has 32 outputs (=;

-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Gregorio Garcia Karman]

On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 08:38 , Gregorio Garcia Karman 
 wrote:

>> and 8 of these:
>> 
>> https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-r...-interface.php
>> 
>> might be good though :- down to £10,000 !

would you mind posting the link again? The focusrite line of rednet to analog 
converters I find go for ca 200 euros / channel (x256 =  ca 51000?)
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Gregorio Garcia Karman]

On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 03:12 , Augustine Leudar 
 wrote:

> Thanks for the replies.
> Actually the Behringers are petty good despite being Behringer they
> actually outperformed an AD converter 20 times their price in a blind test
> recently  which left many engineers redfaced . Read the hilarityor even try
> it yourself  here
> 

I would be quite surprised, particularly on the A/D end. Although the 
differences between converters may be getting subtler nowadays, I have come 
across a few online blind listening tests and measurements prepared by users, 
which differ significantly from you actually get at home. Note that there are 
people reporting different results on that thread. OTOH, it is up to you to 
decide if your application does not require this level of refinement.

> I will take a closer look at Andiamos stuff - however each RME madi carries
> 64 channels - so anything it connects to has to have at least 64 outs -

Why? you can easily bridge two units to get the 64 channels.

> whether the be analogue or digital.
> Anyway I am quite liking this solution at the moment :
> 
> 
> Focusrite RedNet PCIe
> 
> Focusrite RedNet PCIe Host Card |
> DV247
> 
> and 8 of these:
> 
> https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-r...-interface.php
> 
> might be good though :- down to £10,000 !
> 
> that is of course assuming you can run two at once on the same computer
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 December 2012 23:47, Gregorio Garcia Karman
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Question 1
>>> anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme
>> with
>>> an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by
>> the
>>> same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
>>> more important than usual in WFS systems.
>> 
>> p 33 of the RME HDSPe MADI FX english manual: you may use up to three MADI
>> FX on one machine using OSX aggregation: "The current driver supports up to
>> three HDSPe in any combination" There seem to be people out there
>> successfully running at least three cards on one mac (
>> http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=16009). No idea what the
>> situation is on other platforms.
>> 
>>> Question 3 :
>>> Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:
>>> 
>>> RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
>>> RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
>>> 32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800
>>> 
>>> Total £12,966 (ish)
>> 
>> ADAT cabling has to be kept short, so I imagine this may condition the
>> system design and size of your array.  In you budget you forgot to include
>> the second HDSP for a 256 channel count; when comparing two setups cabling
>> will probably not turn the coin but is surely not neglect-able (256 XLRs
>> vs. ?)
>> 
>>> I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
>>> converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ?
>> Some
>>> sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?
>> 
>> There are a few MADI to analogue breakout boxes out there, many of them on
>> dsubs. With the RME M-32 AD or the Direct Out Andiamo line of converters,
>> you would only need 8 pieces of equipment vs 36. For instance a setup with
>> 8 Andiamos, means about five times less rack space and cabling. If you make
>> the calculation I think it would be about ca. 2x - 2.5x more expensive
>> (only); I bet you would have a more solid setup and much better sound if
>> quality matters.
>> 
>> G.
>> 
>> 
>>> --
>>> 07580951119
>>> 
>>> augustine.leudar.com
>>> -- next part --
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: <
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121206/50a58969/attachment.html
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Sursound mailing list
>>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>> 
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 07580951119
> 
> augustine.leudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Charlie Richmond]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Gregorio Garcia Karman <
ggkar...@musicologia.com> wrote:

>
> p 33 of the RME HDSPe MADI FX english manual: you may use up to three MADI
> FX on one machine using OSX aggregation: "The current driver supports up to
> three HDSPe in any combination" There seem to be people out there
> successfully running at least three cards on one mac (
> http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=16009). No idea what the
> situation is on other platforms.
>

We are testing multiple FX cards in Windows XP-8 with SoundMan-Server
aggregation and it  works very nicely.

Charlie
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Charlie Richmond]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Augustine Leudar
wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am looking for economical ways of building a 256 channel out system which
> will be connected to 256 speakers for a wavefield synthesis system. I do
> not need a desk - or even inputs.
> You can get an RME HDSPe MADI FX for around £1000 which will do 192 channel
> out.
> Question 1
> anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme with
> an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by the
> same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
> more important than usual in WFS systems.
>

Yes, use an FX card with an older single MADI RME card - SoundMan-Server
can aggregate the two ASIO drivers even if RME's drivers can't.


> Question 2 -
> Does windows still only support 254 channels ?
>

SoundMan-Server which runs on Windows NT up supports up to 999 channels in,
out and playback.


> Question 3 :
> Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:
>
> RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
> RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
> 32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800
>
> Total £12,966 (ish)
>
> I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
> converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
> sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?
>

So you are trying to get 256 analog outs?  The cheapest way to do that is
with MOTU 24I/O's (11 of them for a maximum of 264 channels in and out) and
3 PCIe cards using SoundMan-Server to aggregate the MOTU drivers.

Good luck!
Charlie


>
> --
> 07580951119
>
> augustine.leudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121206/50a58969/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

Thanks for the replies.
Actually the Behringers are petty good despite being Behringer they
actually outperformed an AD converter 20 times their price in a blind test
recently  which left many engineers redfaced . Read the hilarityor even try
it yourself  here

I will take a closer look at Andiamos stuff - however each RME madi carries
64 channels - so anything it connects to has to have at least 64 outs -
whether the be analogue or digital.
Anyway I am quite liking this solution at the moment :


Focusrite RedNet PCIe

Focusrite RedNet PCIe Host Card |
DV247

and 8 of these:

https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-r...-interface.php

might be good though :- down to £10,000 !

that is of course assuming you can run two at once on the same computer



On 6 December 2012 23:47, Gregorio Garcia Karman
wrote:

>
> > Question 1
> > anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme
> with
> > an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by
> the
> > same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
> > more important than usual in WFS systems.
>
> p 33 of the RME HDSPe MADI FX english manual: you may use up to three MADI
> FX on one machine using OSX aggregation: "The current driver supports up to
> three HDSPe in any combination" There seem to be people out there
> successfully running at least three cards on one mac (
> http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=16009). No idea what the
> situation is on other platforms.
>
> > Question 3 :
> > Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:
> >
> > RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
> > RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
> > 32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800
> >
> > Total £12,966 (ish)
>
> ADAT cabling has to be kept short, so I imagine this may condition the
> system design and size of your array.  In you budget you forgot to include
> the second HDSP for a 256 channel count; when comparing two setups cabling
> will probably not turn the coin but is surely not neglect-able (256 XLRs
> vs. ?)
>
> > I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
> > converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ?
> Some
> > sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?
>
> There are a few MADI to analogue breakout boxes out there, many of them on
> dsubs. With the RME M-32 AD or the Direct Out Andiamo line of converters,
> you would only need 8 pieces of equipment vs 36. For instance a setup with
> 8 Andiamos, means about five times less rack space and cabling. If you make
> the calculation I think it would be about ca. 2x - 2.5x more expensive
> (only); I bet you would have a more solid setup and much better sound if
> quality matters.
>
> G.
>
>
> > --
> > 07580951119
> >
> > augustine.leudar.com
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121206/50a58969/attachment.html
> >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Gregorio Garcia Karman]

> Question 1
> anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme with
> an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by the
> same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
> more important than usual in WFS systems.

p 33 of the RME HDSPe MADI FX english manual: you may use up to three MADI FX 
on one machine using OSX aggregation: "The current driver supports up to three 
HDSPe in any combination" There seem to be people out there successfully 
running at least three cards on one mac 
(http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=16009). No idea what the 
situation is on other platforms.

> Question 3 :
> Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:
> 
> RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
> RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
> 32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800
> 
> Total £12,966 (ish)

ADAT cabling has to be kept short, so I imagine this may condition the system 
design and size of your array.  In you budget you forgot to include the second 
HDSP for a 256 channel count; when comparing two setups cabling will probably 
not turn the coin but is surely not neglect-able (256 XLRs vs. ?)

> I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
> converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
> sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?

There are a few MADI to analogue breakout boxes out there, many of them on 
dsubs. With the RME M-32 AD or the Direct Out Andiamo line of converters, you 
would only need 8 pieces of equipment vs 36. For instance a setup with 8 
Andiamos, means about five times less rack space and cabling. If you make the 
calculation I think it would be about ca. 2x - 2.5x more expensive (only); I 
bet you would have a more solid setup and much better sound if quality matters.

G.


> -- 
> 07580951119
> 
> augustine.leudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:37:42PM +, Augustine Leudar wrote:

> I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
> converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
> sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?



But you'd pay for the AD converters which you don't need.

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)

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Eric Benjamin]

The Aphex 141 ADAT to analog converter is $400, so $3200 or £2000 
http://www.aphex.com/aphex-products/141-eight-channel-d-to-a/

I have no ideas on sources for a less expensive way of getting the channels out 
from a computer.




- Original Message 
From: Augustine Leudar 
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Thu, December 6, 2012 1:37:52 PM
Subject: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

Hi all,
I am looking for economical ways of building a 256 channel out system which
will be connected to 256 speakers for a wavefield synthesis system. I do
not need a desk - or even inputs.
You can get an RME HDSPe MADI FX for around £1000 which will do 192 channel
out.
Question 1
anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme with
an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by the
same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
more important than usual in WFS systems.
Question 2 -
Does windows still only support 254 channels ?
Question 3 :
Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:

RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800

Total £12,966 (ish)

I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?

-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121206/50a58969/attachment.html>

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?

[Augustine Leudar]

Hi all,
I am looking for economical ways of building a 256 channel out system which
will be connected to 256 speakers for a wavefield synthesis system. I do
not need a desk - or even inputs.
You can get an RME HDSPe MADI FX for around £1000 which will do 192 channel
out.
Question 1
anyone know how to do a 256 channel system ? - can you expand the rme with
an extra 64 channels somehow ? They would all need to be controlled by the
same clock so they were perfectly synchronised - perfect timing is even
more important than usual in WFS systems.
Question 2 -
Does windows still only support 254 channels ?
Question 3 :
Can anyone think of a cheaper way of doing this:

RME ADI 648 MADI Breakout MADI to ADAT (64 channels each) 4 * £ 1,749.00
RME HDSPe MADI FX £1099
32* behringer ADA8000 ADAT converters : £4800

Total £12,966 (ish)

I was thinking if I could cut down on the madi to adat boxes or DA
converters - is there something which uses D-SUB 25 out for example ? Some
sort of Madi-analogue converter with lots of outs maybe ?

-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound