Hello and welcome to the discussion.
> I've followed the discussion about timing and synchronisation - what do you
Shall take that as a question (you have no ?)?
Don't you always have to separate the digital and the analog domains?
My plan is to build a card frame based system with one main power
module, one cpu card, with the possibility to add a lot of different
i/o cards. One such card could be for audio input/output. (Although
my main interest is industrial measurement and control.)
With this the "dirty business" of ADC is separated to another card
like an ordinary old soundcard you attached to your motherboard.
Do we need more separation? Could it possible be because of:
. space constraints
. noise and audio quality
. power constraints
. economical factors
What are the key factors for you ?
> We need the codec, some kind of amplification, a clean power supply etc. to get
Do you have a spec. which you'd like to discuss ?
E.g. how many channels are you regulary using, what s/n ratio is a
minimal requirement for you ?
> There exist many (more or less) pro-audio devices with well documented
Is your point, that the system should behave as an spdif etc.
device instead of delivering the audio over ethernet?
SPDIF , seems to be able to carry 20bit (maybe 24) 2 or 4 channels
at 44.1 or 48kHz (possible other) sampling rates.
AES-3 , seems to have the similar (24bit though) carrying capacity.
ADAT , seems to be limited to 8 channels at 48 kHz, 24 bit.
MADI , seems to be limited to 64 channels at 96kHz, 24 bit.
If this project shall implement any of theese interfaces it might
then be the ADAT or MADI, since I see no reason to implement the
But if we successfully implement adat or madi, we are still missing
the adat/madi part on the pc. So we still have a problem...
And if we get i/o capacity problems with ethernet, we could easily add
another ethernet card at relatively low cost. But then you might find
that the rest of the computer is to small.
> - a cheap one is e.g. the Behringer