| ▲ | jauntywundrkind a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
Really nice!!! I wonder if gigabit would make a difference on latency, faster packet transmissions. Could packets drop from 64 to 32b? 4ms is pretty good but I feel like sub 2ms would be nicer. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | dcrazy a day ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Dante’s default latency compensation is 1ms: https://dev.audinate.com/GA/dante-controller/userguide/webhe... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Neywiny 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Sadly the H7 doesn't have a gigabit MAC. And most likely doing one over USB high speed host wouldn't help? But it would be an interesting experiment | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | altairprime a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
https://semiengineering.com/latency-considerations-for-1-6t-... It seems like, at 16000TbaseT anyways, you’re adding an overhead of about 150% on top of copper/fiber latency plus transmit time latency to process data at that bandwidth. I wonder if the same holds true at 100 vs 1000, 2500, 10000? Certainly this is a known tradeoff for DDR performance tuning — if you don’t mind spiking response times greatly, you can get the advertised maximum speeds, else you accept less bandwidth for somewhat less latency — and they’re both effectively using the same strategies to talk over copper. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | alowell an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
1G would certainly decrease the processing latency (not the audio latency) by quite a bit. STM32H7 doesn't have a 1G MAC. 1G MAC is kind of rare on "friendly" microcontrollers, although there are at least two that I'm evaluating for the next project. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lstodd an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
One can fit a nice (eg, not 1-channel, but actually useable) LTE base station frontend in a gigabit eth on 2014-s tech. | |||||||||||||||||