We need a new standard in transferring digital signals between audio equipment.

[John Dyson]

9 hours ago, R1200CL said:

......maybe it’s even possible to mix Ethernet and USB protocols in same cable 😀 ?

(Maybe not my smartest idea)

I have been thinking the same idea.   Note that on ethernet transported netowrks:  ethernet packets encapsulate IP packets (usually) which encapsulate TCP/UDP and friends.  Very often, on local networks, there are packet forms that talk direct ethernet or use a generally non-routed IP packet.

 

As long as the ethernet BW isn't totally eaten up, then the scheme should work.  However, if the bandwidth is eaten up, then the latencies will start being very bad.  OTOH, just using 1Gb ethernet for audio alone, that should be perfectly okay if used on a consumer level app, perhaps even sharing the network at lower rates.

 

Talking 'ethernet' is trivial, but handling collisions/etc and using proocols/routable protcols on ethernet that starts being real work.

There might not be enough bandwidth on 1Gb for everything, but calculating an extreme example:

768000samples/second * 32bits/sample * 8 channels, that would give approx 200Mbits/second.

 

So, if you have two bidirectional communications, there just might be enough bandwidth for that high end application.

The calculation was based to minimize collisions -- going above 1/2 capacity starts accumulating collsion problems,

even though, with ethernet type protocols, the SW must be written to handle collisions.

 

A reliable UDP style thing might be best.  TCP and friends do have some ease-of-programming matters, but there are apparently

reasons to prefer UDP because there is more intimate control of retries..   Using a standard protocol might allow easier networking

compatibility, but of course realtime can be

a problem on a shared net unless the other devices on the network are cooperating.   Less than my extreme example would

probably be much more cooperative (e.g. 96k * 32bits/sample * 2->5 channels) -- that is MUCH MUCH easier to slip in to

an active network.

 

Of course, this is off-the-cuff, and I might have missed somthing.

Using dedicated ethernet protocols, telling people not to use the cabling/fiber for other applications -- that would probably

work pretty nice.   All of the hard, HW work is already done, and there is a lot of experience doing the higher level protocols.

Why not?  Proprietary control, maybe?

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

That’s essentially Thunderbolt

Does Thunderbolt use a USB like transport?  I don't know or not...  Ethernet is so compatible already...  Of course, with the fiber version of Thunderbolt, it would be more practical to wire your house.   Ethernet and ethernet/fiber can already do that.

 

Frankly, back before USB was introduced, the Intel people came over and were giving me advanced information on it -- I didn't like it at all.  However, as USB became more useful and advanced, it started to make sense.   I am a terrible predictor of the future.

 

Except, what I was doing conceptual work at AT&T Bell Labs ended up being our current cell network (video, transports et&al.)   I didn't think that it would be practical, but I was thinking too much in terms of technology in 1983.   Should have patented it for the future -- I would have gotten my patent bonus, and whomever owns AT&T patents today would be more rich.