Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
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 ?
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 http://www.richmondsounddesign.com/ Performance for the Long Run * SoundMan-Server AudioBox II - Virtual Sound System Core Audio Engine * LinkedIn Twitter: charlierichmondhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond * Facebook: charlie.richmond * G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/117175238910652375011/https://plus.google.com/u/0/117175238910652375011/posts * 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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121210/e5eb93fd/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 14:56 , Andrew Horsburgh andrew.horsbu...@uws.ac.uk 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 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 ?
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/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121208/42dc5633/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 08:38 , Gregorio Garcia Karman ggkar...@musicologia.com wrote: and 8 of these: https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-r...-interface.phphttps://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-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 ?
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
Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
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 ggkar...@musicologia.com 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 ?
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 ?
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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121207/54e0d342/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
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
Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121206/03b76b07/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 256 channel out system - recommendations ?
On 7 Dec, 2012, at Fri 7 Dec 03:12 , Augustine Leudar augustineleu...@gmail.com 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 http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/335267-lynx-aurora-16-vs-behringer-ada8000.html 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 | DV247http://www.dv247.com/computer-hardware/focusrite-rednet-pcie-card--82689 and 8 of these: https://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-r...-interface.phphttps://www.kmraudio.com/focusrite-rednet-5-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 ggkar...@musicologia.comwrote: 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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121207/435e892c/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
