[PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency

[Jonathan Wilkes]

>________________________________

> From: katja <katjavetter at gmail.com>
>To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Phil Stone <pkstone at ucdavis.edu>; pd-list <Pd-list at iem.at> 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:24 AM
>Subject: Re: [PD] direct connection from pd to webrowser, low latency
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>Btw-- are you sending compressed or uncompressed audio?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Uncompressed, 16 bit ints. Compression requires analysis, introducing extra latency. I'm not using it in practice yet, as I still have to find (or develop) a solution for packet loss concealment.


You might check out Opus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28audio_format%29

-Jonathan


>
>
>As of now, I use a cheap work-around for wireless monitoring only: an FM 'stereo' transmitter and receiver. FM stereo does not send over two frequency channels, therefore audio quality is suboptimal, not suitable for regular PA situations. However it may be suitable for 'silent concert' experiments in small venues.
>
>Onyx, is that an idea? Most cell phones do have an FM receiver. They only work with wired headset connected, functioning as antenna. As wired headsets can be cheap, just offer them for sale during the event. The good thing with FM is, it has zero latency. I got a LinexFM transmitter from here:
>
>http://www.linexfm.nl/
>
>Rumors go that USA versions have higher transmission power than the ones sold in Europe.
>
>
>
>Katja
>
>
>