On Jan 30 2016 14:04, Jonathan Woithe wrote:
If you have different stories, please show reasoning from enough facts, at first. Not from your opinion or memories.
Sending timestamps derived from a fixed interval did not provide reliable audio output from these devices in general. This was observed with real hardware and tangentially, the hardware did not send SPH timestamps with a fixed interval either. At 48 kHz for example, deviations from a difference of 512 were routinely observed in both directions even with official drivers on vendor-supported OSes.
This statement includes mixture of facts, your opinions and the lack of information: - facts: - When reading packet dumps, the sequence of SPH in tx/rx packets includes time stamps which are not even lapses. - opinions: - The sequence of SPH with even lapses doesn't bring reliable audio output. - the others without enough information: - As long as _you_ experienced, putting time stamps with even lapses to SPH in rx packets causes non-reliable audio output. (But which models? the way to generate the time stamp? and so on?)
As long as I investigated, packets from 828/828mk2/828mk3(FireWire/Hybrid) at 48.0kHz of sampling transmission frequency(stf) the sequence of SPH in each data block includes differed lapses. In theory, in this stf, the gap between two successive time stamp should be 512 ticks at time representation on IEEE 1394 bus, however it's sometimes 511 or 513 in fact. This is also the same packets from driver for Windows operating system.The algorithm to generate exactly the same sequence of SPH is not clear yet.
However, we program IEC 61883-1/6 engine of ALSA firewire stack with an assumption that time stamps include even lapses: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tiwai/sound.git/tree/sound/firew...
As long as handling packets with this engine, the sequence of time stamp should includes even lapses for correct calculation. In this reason, I use the pre-computed table.
Well, when using a kind of words such as 'in general', 'all', 'absolutely', 'resolutely', it's a signs of over-generalization and you should pay enough attention to what you're going to describe. And when describing the facts, subject of contexts is important. You still have a tendency of these wrong directions, in my opinion.
Regards
Takashi Sakamoto