Not sure I am the best person to answer this ... but as I asked the initial question.
On Linux AND Mac, 'Jack' (not Jacktrip) allows one to 'patch' audio applications and input/output sockets together (hence jack, as in jack plug). Jacktrip is one of the possible extensions to Jack, that allows a 'socket' on one computer's Jack to be a connection to a socket on another computer's Jack. Perhaps a reallife example: We were running a DAW as a hefty way to play a four-channel file, then passing that to Ambdec to decode to eight-channels of speaker feed. The first computer did not have a (effective) soundcard. So we were trying to patch the 8 channels through to another machine with a multi-channel sound card. Hope that helps, Michael PS Thanks for all the other comments. The consensus seems to be channels >4 ought to fit down the diameter of cable we have. Will start investigating why they don't . . . > As a (mostly) non-user of Linux, I'm uncertain as to what Jacktrip is used > for.� > Is it to stream data over a network?� Or is it to distribute computing > between > multiple machines?� If it is the former, then I'm puzzled.� I can easily > play a > 16-channel�file hosted on one machine on my 100 baseT network from another > machine on the network.� That only takes about 13% of the network > bandwidth.� I > can stream the data for hours without dropping a single sample.� I can't > report > on the ability to stream larger numbers of channels because I don't have > the > hardware to do it.� Or the need, for that matter. > > Eric > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Chapman <[email protected]> > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, June 8, 2011 3:02:03 AM > Subject: [Sursound] Jacktrip (bandwidth) > > > I can't find any indicative performance (bandwidth) > figures for Jacktrip ... so ask for the experience of > others. > > On a standard CAT-5 cable between two adjacent > machines I can get four (mono) channels at 48 KHz, > but trying to set channels >4 just results in a (very > silent) failure to connect. > > Back of an envelope calculations of audio flux > against 100 Mb/s (say 10 MB/s) suggest more > should be possible. > That said secure copy (scp) of files seems to > run at <<100Mb/s. > > Anyone done better ? > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
