On Wed, January 23, 2013 6:31 pm, Paul Davis wrote: > "but all you really get out of the of network interface is the bus > transport to some other processor in a breakout box that runs the audio > clocks adcs and dacs" Yes... > > if you know what you are doing and build the machine entirely from the > ground up (e.g. RADAR from iZ), you can deal with the in-box issues very > successfully. it involves clever stuff to do with "power rails" that i > don't claim to understand. it also isn't an option with a regular > computer. Building a general purpose computer from the ground up is a lot of work. Not only are you trying to make it work with whatever os and applications are out there but whatever other (badly designed) peripherals are around. Then you have to redesign it ever 6 months or yearly anyway to keep up with whatever is new. With a network/firewire/USB box, things are more static. If a network audio interface had been designed 10 years ago with only 2 i/o at 10M. It would still work today. There can be control of what is in that box... to the last diode and every part placement can be done for audio. Extra shielding is possible. So yes, an external audio box is in effect it's own little computer, but it only does one thing and it makes sense to take care of the audio. It doesn't have to have the latest processor or run the newest version OS. Have you ever opened a $15 network switch? 3 main chips, Arm cpu, multi-ethernet and memory.... hmm, all the stuff needed to make an ethernet to MADI interface. Just change the rom and add the right drivers/plugs for the MADI end. The only problem is the cost of the MADI stuff to plug in. -- Len Ovens www.OvenWerks.net _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
