Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] VST link (open?)
From: Phil Kerr (phil_AT_plus24.com)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 03:54:49 EET
Dustin Barlow wrote:
> I agree. So let me rephrase the question. Is there any movement or
> interest in having a multi-node audio system that can be controlled from a
> master host that uses a communication protocol that will provide more then
> just sync info? For example, it would be really sweet to have a node that
> just does effects processing and has no need to waste any of its cycles
> driving a gui. It could just be a "server" in the same sense that a
> black-box commercial effects unit would be.
This is exactly what DMIDI is designed to do, seperate the processing
from the control surface. I've a basic GUI controller for the Yamaha
Promix01 which I drive from one of my laptops, with the Promix connected
to the MIDI ports on my baseunit. I'm playing with a DMIDI-fied version
of ttrk as a sequencer and apart from coding the handling of the way
SYSEX and normal data can interleave it's pretty much fully
bi-directional (DMIDI -> MIDI, MIDI -> DMIDI).
As Dan pointed out, latencies of less than 1 ms are the norm on a
private network, and unless you are pushing large quantities of NFS data
through the wire at the same time it's going to be pretty reliable. If
you are going to be running over a public or a *dirty* network MWPP may
be better (John, how's the 0xf* problem doing?).
Another advantage of using multicast is that all the performance data
will be visible from anywhere on the network. So utilizing lower
powered kit for separate functions is possible (sequence from one box,
record on another, effect processing on a nice big box being controlled
from a GUI running on a 486).
I've not looked at any SMPTE sync'ing, only MIDI data.
Regards
Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 01:52:20 EET