Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Paul Davis <paul@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 1:14 am

--002354471af819d37304d3fe88b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Jan 23, 2013 5:13 PM, "Paul Davis" wrote:

results if designed right.
subject to a separate clock, in addition to the audio sample clock and the
PCI bus clock (which is so high a frequency as to be mostly irrelevant).

Anyway you got to have a breakout box with any decent pcie card. The noise
in the power supply has to be bad on the pcie bus. It's better to use a
good external power supply. So all you really get out of the pcie is the
bus transport to some other processor in a breakout box that runs the audio
clocks adcs and dacs.

My ideal audio interface would run on something like infiniband or 10Gb
cable. Insane bandwidth. But 1Gb is good and can have latency in the low
ms. It's really cheap and flexible. Endpoints can be 100s of m away if
you can run that much copper.

--002354471af819d37304d3fe88b3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jan 23, 2013 5:13 PM, "Paul Davis" <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:

g there
m are
em to
Gb NIC
t
ter results if designed right.
f them are subject to a separate clock, in addition to the audio sample clo=
ck and the PCI bus clock (which is so high a frequency as to be mostly irre=
levant).

Anyway you got to have a breakout box with any decent pcie card.=A0 The =
noise in the power supply has to be bad on the pcie bus.=A0 It's better=
to use a good external power supply.=A0 So all you really get out of the p=
cie is the bus transport to some other processor in a breakout box that run=
s the audio clocks adcs and dacs.=A0

My ideal audio interface would run on something like infiniband or 10Gb =
cable.=A0 Insane bandwidth.=A0 But 1Gb is good and can have latency in the =
low ms.=A0 It's really cheap and flexible.=A0 Endpoints can be 100s of =
m away if you can run that much copper.=A0

--002354471af819d37304d3fe88b3--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Wed Jan 23, 2:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Jan 23, 4:43 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Joe Hartley, (Wed Jan 23, 8:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Wed Jan 23, 10:10 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Florian Faber, (Thu Jan 24, 7:53 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Thu Jan 24, 9:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Jan 25, 1:43 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Fri Jan 25, 2:45 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Jan 25, 3:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sync and digital audio transport, Len Ovens, (Fri Feb 1, 2:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Jan 25, 7:15 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Sat Jan 26, 2:04 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Jan 26, 9:42 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Sat Jan 26, 3:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Jan 26, 3:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Sat Jan 26, 5:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Jan 25, 2:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Paul Davis, (Wed Jan 23, 11:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Charles Z Henry, (Thu Jan 24, 1:14 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Paul Davis, (Thu Jan 24, 2:31 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Thu Jan 24, 3:48 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Jan 24, 1:32 am)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Charles Z Henry, (Wed Jan 23, 10:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Jan 23, 4:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Sample rate vs. SNR, Len Ovens, (Thu Jan 24, 4:26 am)