On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:06:19AM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote: > Fons created Zita-njbridge to build a multi-channel networked system; > according to the description: > > " Zita-njbridge can be used for a one-to-one connection (using UDP) or in a > one-to-many system (using multicast). Sender and receiver(s) can each have > their own sample rate and period size, and no word clock sync between them > is assumed. Up 64 channels can be transmitted, receivers can select any > combination of these. On a lightly loaded or dedicated network zita-njbridge > can provide low latency (same as for an analog connection). Additional > buffering can be specified in case there is significant network delay > jitter." > > It was reported to work better with 24 bit streams: > > http://qrqcwnet.ning.com/profiles/blogs/remote-rig-audio-over-ip-using-zita-njbridge-16-bit-verses-24-bit
This is somewhat misleading. Zita-njbridge does not 'work better' using 24 bits. The only thing shown by the test comparing 16 and 24 bits is that 16 bits will have a higher quantisation noise. The signals shown on the left are the ones *before* conversion to 16 or 24 bit. The ones on the right are what you get afer conversion to 16 or 24 bit. This has nothing at all to do with zita-njbridge which will deliver an exact copy of either format to the receiver(s). > > But the question is whether it would be a fixed value and predictable, > > and thus correctable. Apart from the average network delay (which should be very short on a dedicated network) the latency is defined and predictable. > The "no world clock sync assumed" feature of Zita-njbridge is puzzling... The receiver resamples to the local sample clock. This is done without any perceptable loss of quality. Ciao, -- FA _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
