On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:16:16 +0100 fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 04:36:30PM +0000, Folderol wrote: > > > With this lack of standardisation is there any point in going for OSC > > with it's quite significant overhead? Netjack also seems to have quite > > a high overhead, and no specific mechanism for RT syncing audio. > > > > It seems that the UDP protocol is already the preferred protocol for a > > number of streaming media apps (1) for the same reasons as I mooted > > earlier. Low packet overhead, virtually any packet size, chuck it out > > as fast as the transport layer can cope with. > > If you are comparing OSC to UDP you are comparing apples > to oranges. UDP is a transport protocol. OSC is a way to > encode events and associated data in a binary format. And > indeed there are no standards that define the meaning of > any OSC message. That again is at a different level. I'm quite aware of that. I don't know what makes you think I was trying to make a direct comparison. In fact, I think I actually compared UDP to TCP in an earlier post. > And where do you get the 'quite significant overhead' ? > It just depends on how you use it. Well, maybe I'm wrong, but looking through the info I could find I got the impression there was a lot of identification stuff going on before you got anywhere near actual data. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
