Author |
Message |
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject:
ooscc - open open sound control controller |
|
|
Hello,
I recently finished designing an open source/hardware controller that communicates over Ethernet via Open Sound Control. The first one that I've built has 24 knobs and 8 sliders, but ooscc will hopefully develop into a platform for an arbitrary number of analog and digital inputs and outputs. You can read more about it (source, schems, videos and all) here: http://experimentalistsanonymous.com/ooscc . If any of you are brave enough to give a whirl to making one, that would be great!
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Antimon
Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 4145 Location: Sweden
Audio files: 371
G2 patch files: 100
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:57 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Oooh, this looks really cool! Can't say I'm one of those brave DIY:ers that will try making one of these, but OSC controllers with ethernet connections (besides kilobucks devices like the Lemur) is something that I've been wondering when they're going to start turning up.
/Stefan _________________ Antimon's Window
@soundcloud @Flattr home - you can't explain music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Antimon wrote: | Oooh, this looks really cool! Can't say I'm one of those brave DIY:ers that will try making one of these, but OSC controllers with ethernet connections (besides kilobucks devices like the Lemur) is something that I've been wondering when they're going to start turning up.
/Stefan |
Hopefully the ooscc is just the first of many. Most computers have ethernet jacks, unfortunately few music devices have them.
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:09 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm not in need of a controller myself, but I do think this to be a very good idea ... it is a bit of an odd situation where the whole world seems to know that MIDI is not the tool to use for the future but no manufacturer is doing anything really about it, apparently waiting for someone else to make a first move ... or for the market tto get ready for it ... well maybe that first move has to come from DIY-ers ... guess there would be a market for Ethernet/MIDI conversion boxes as well. _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:53 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | I'm not in need of a controller myself, but I do think this to be a very good idea ... it is a bit of an odd situation where the whole world seems to know that MIDI is not the tool to use for the future but no manufacturer is doing anything really about it, apparently waiting for someone else to make a first move ... or for the market tto get ready for it ... well maybe that first move has to come from DIY-ers ... guess there would be a market for Ethernet/MIDI conversion boxes as well. |
Yes, I definitely agree Re: everyone griping about MIDI but no one doing anything about it. It seems like it's been like that for a while. I think at least getting OSC into the hands of some people would be a good first step, as well as encouraging software guys to implement it (software is easier). An OSC/MIDI box is a planned project of mine - what is scaring me off is figuring out a way to program it (probably over USB) onto nonvolatile memory. You would basically define a mapping - say the osc messsage /frequency 440 .25 would send midi note A4 at velocity 32. You'd have to program that in, because OSC is very open-ended, and I doubt a standard will really come about - it would have to be heavily configurable, and be able to remember it's functions without a computer. OSC is very computer dependent atm
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Just some wild ideas, never used OSC myself, so these could be ... well ... not hindered by knowledge
I think I'd try to make an OSC/MIDI interface programmable over OSC / Ethernet and would likely not use an extra port for it. So the OSC implementation would have a fixed and a variable part then.
I could also imagine a fixed mapping (additional) from OSC to MIDI by using note numbers continues controllers etc. etc. (as a fall back strategy, something that would always work without any programming involved) ok, it seems to exist already : http://opensoundcontrol.org/topic/97 _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | ...I guess there would be a market for Ethernet/MIDI conversion boxes as well. |
Yes please, and now I´m really starting to hate all those annoying USB devices. Like.. how many ports am I supposed to have available? USB hubbing many of these controllers and interfaces and synths and outboard doesn´t work too well. What the F*ck is wrong with ethernet? It´s kinda cheap, it´s fast and it´s reasonably scaleable at least for controllers and stuff like that. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
And Ethernet is easier to interface on the computer as well. And when you don't want to implement Ethernet in your embedded system / controller there are off the shelf Ethernet/serial interfaces available to drop into your board (and those are not way out expensive). _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005 Posts: 381 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | I'm not in need of a controller myself, but I do think this to be a very good idea ... it is a bit of an odd situation where the whole world seems to know that MIDI is not the tool to use for the future but no manufacturer is doing anything really about it, apparently waiting for someone else to make a first move ... or for the market tto get ready for it ... well maybe that first move has to come from DIY-ers ... guess there would be a market for Ethernet/MIDI conversion boxes as well. |
The MIDI Manufacturers Association has had an "HD MIDI" effort underway for a few years now. There are many major manufacturers from several continents involved. I'm not sure of the current status, but I know there's steady progress being made. _________________ Chris Muir
http://www.eardrill.com <– My jobby (more than a hobby, less than a job) |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
cbm wrote: | The MIDI Manufacturers Association has had an "HD MIDI" effort underway for a few years now. There are many major manufacturers from several continents involved. I'm not sure of the current status, but I know there's steady progress being made. |
The hottest news I can find is an announcement from October 2005, is there more recent news? _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | Just some wild ideas, never used OSC myself, so these could be ... well ... not hindered by knowledge
I think I'd try to make an OSC/MIDI interface programmable over OSC / Ethernet and would likely not use an extra port for it. So the OSC implementation would have a fixed and a variable part then.
I could also imagine a fixed mapping (additional) from OSC to MIDI by using note numbers continues controllers etc. etc. (as a fall back strategy, something that would always work without any programming involved) ok, it seems to exist already : http://opensoundcontrol.org/topic/97 |
I think we may be on the same page. Programming over OSC would be nice for sure. That's one of the really nice things about OSC, that the command set is entirely fluid... you'd be teaching it how to speak in a language using that language.
elektro80 wrote: |
Yes please, and now I´m really starting to hate all those annoying USB devices. Like.. how many ports am I supposed to have available? USB hubbing many of these controllers and interfaces and synths and outboard doesn´t work too well. What the F*ck is wrong with ethernet? It´s kinda cheap, it´s fast and it´s reasonably scaleable at least for controllers and stuff like that. |
The problem with ethernet is there is already a lot of stuff on your network to muck it up. I always use my ooscc alone with my computer... it can get to be a hassle otherwise. But USB audio was always a huge (mysterious) hassle for me anyways.
cbm wrote: | The MIDI Manufacturers Association has had an "HD MIDI" effort underway for a few years now. There are many major manufacturers from several continents involved. I'm not sure of the current status, but I know there's steady progress being made. |
I'd be really interested to see what they come out with, but I can't imagine a much better system than OSC. I think ethernet ports (or at least, ethernet connetivity via some wired or non wired means) is here to stay, and OSC allows backwards, forwards, and sideways compatibility to boot. What's remaining is standardization, but that is to come I'm sure. There's also a lot of support for it already, with libraries (official and not) for tons of software. If HD-DVD vs Blue-ray is any indication...
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
expanoncolin wrote: | The problem with ethernet is there is already a lot of stuff on your network to muck it up. |
I do use some MIDI over Ethernet, not with OSC but just the MIDI messages wrapped up raw in TCP, no other protocol wrappings. Now I don't require small latency and never looked into that aspect really ... nevertheless I've always thought it wouldn't be a problem. Not having looked often means I'm wrong
Then my 2nd thought always is, okay ... so suppose ... latency really is a problem ... I could always use a 2nd network card and a dedicated "music net".
TCP, the thing I've used, is non-ideal in theory (for real time), but on a local network I've never seen seriuous non responsiveness over it (after turning on TCP_NODELAY (or disabling Nagle's algorithm))(and not specifically with MIDI, I do use some other 'funny' protocols over Ethernet as well). Anyway, switching to UDP should be a way out here when I turn out to be wrong?
Any thoughts on those points ? _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
All the Apple Mac Pro computers come with 2 ethernet interfaces. Obviously in a project studio you can dedicate one of these for OSC/Midi networking.
However, if you wanna check your email while playing live onstage with your laptop... _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: | However, if you wanna check your email while playing live onstage with your laptop... |
Yes I wanna
Not on stage maybe, but erm ... this keyboard should be able to control everything ... not? _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005 Posts: 381 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | The hottest news I can find is an announcement from October 2005, is there more recent news? |
I don't think that is any fresh public information. I only know of recent progress because I know someone on the committee. Apparently, all the parties involved seem to be reaching consensus. There's been a lot of activity in the last couple years.
All that said, I'm less than crazy about the fact that this is all done behind closed doors. The MMA has never figured out how to include academia, and other enlightened/interested parties.
-C _________________ Chris Muir
http://www.eardrill.com <– My jobby (more than a hobby, less than a job) |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
cbm wrote: | The MMA has never figured out how to include academia, and other enlightened/interested parties. |
Too bad, I'm curious and above that it seems to be a big risk they are taking ... but maybe the big companies are big enough for the big risk, only time knows ... _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | expanoncolin wrote: | The problem with ethernet is there is already a lot of stuff on your network to muck it up. |
I do use some MIDI over Ethernet, not with OSC but just the MIDI messages wrapped up raw in TCP, no other protocol wrappings. Now I don't require small latency and never looked into that aspect really ... nevertheless I've always thought it wouldn't be a problem. Not having looked often means I'm wrong
Then my 2nd thought always is, okay ... so suppose ... latency really is a problem ... I could always use a 2nd network card and a dedicated "music net".
TCP, the thing I've used, is non-ideal in theory (for real time), but on a local network I've never seen seriuous non responsiveness over it (after turning on TCP_NODELAY (or disabling Nagle's algorithm))(and not specifically with MIDI, I do use some other 'funny' protocols over Ethernet as well). Anyway, switching to UDP should be a way out here when I turn out to be wrong?
Any thoughts on those points ? |
UDP is nice, and will give obscenely fast speeds on a network. Over the net you will get latency, at least to an extent, but within a network it is blazing fast. Not sure why you'd be getting lots of latency with MIDI but I gues sMIDI was never meant for TCP. One problem with the ooscc atm is that with my macbook pro I can't use it and wi-fi at once. You have to select one network interface at a time :-/
Re: HD MIDI vs OSC, it truly would be sad if they were pitted against one another because HD MIDI would be adopted by everyone who's adopted MIDI and OSC would be pigeonholed into the artsy/creative/academtic types (as it already is). Unless HD MIDI Is really OSC in disguise,which wouldn't be so bad.
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Antimon
Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 4145 Location: Sweden
Audio files: 371
G2 patch files: 100
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:11 am Post subject:
|
|
|
expanoncolin wrote: | UDP is nice, and will give obscenely fast speeds on a network. |
I wonder how hard you need to push it (how much data you can send and how many devices you can put into the network) before you start experiencing lost messages in a bad way.
/Stefan _________________ Antimon's Window
@soundcloud @Flattr home - you can't explain music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
wetterberg
Joined: Jun 27, 2008 Posts: 48 Location: denmark
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Antimon wrote: | expanoncolin wrote: | UDP is nice, and will give obscenely fast speeds on a network. |
I wonder how hard you need to push it (how much data you can send and how many devices you can put into the network) before you start experiencing lost messages in a bad way.
/Stefan | One thing is for sure: You won't be able to congest the network with normal manual-input controllers! I've had 3(!) Lemurs hooked up to an ordinary laptop, three people going ape-shit inputting hand gestures, still online, happily seeding torrents as well. OSC is *solid*. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
wetterberg wrote: | Antimon wrote: | expanoncolin wrote: | UDP is nice, and will give obscenely fast speeds on a network. |
I wonder how hard you need to push it (how much data you can send and how many devices you can put into the network) before you start experiencing lost messages in a bad way.
/Stefan | One thing is for sure: You won't be able to congest the network with normal manual-input controllers! I've had 3(!) Lemurs hooked up to an ordinary laptop, three people going ape-shit inputting hand gestures, still online, happily seeding torrents as well. OSC is *solid*. |
There is sort of this weird perception that because UDP doesn't have TCP's error checking, it is bad. If you stay within a LAN, it's basically nothing! Plus, missing one packet is no big deal here - if we miss /adc 100 but get /adc 101 we just miss one step.
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
expanoncolin wrote: | There is sort of this weird perception that because UDP doesn't have TCP's error checking, it is bad. |
I think no one really said that
Still I think you are right, but also : * note offs *
In OSC examples I've seen sofar, note events have been specified mostly as <pitch, start-time, duration> tuples and then there is no problem really - an event might be missed which is shit but not a disaster. When running MIDI over OSC though it could be a problem, but not on a LAN (it would be unlikely for packets to get lost there).
No criticism here, but a shade to the picture, rather.
The "throughput question" is still open I think .. I wrote down some numbers a couple of days ago .. unfortunately I lost those notes as I had to do some huge house cleaning ... there is a number that I remember ... something like 50 times faster than MIDI on a 100 Mb LAN ... don't kill me for this .. but I think I made some reasonable guesses for Ethernet cable scheduling, Ethernet packet overhead and UDP packet overhead, and then added a bit of conservatism liklely _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: |
I think no one really said that
Still I think you are right, but also : * note offs *
In OSC examples I've seen sofar, note events have been specified mostly as <pitch> tuples and then there is no problem really - an event might be missed which is shit but not a disaster. When running MIDI over OSC though it could be a problem, but not on a LAN (it would be unlikely for packets to get lost there).
No criticism here, but a shade to the picture, rather.
The "throughput question" is still open I think .. I wrote down some numbers a couple of days ago .. unfortunately I lost those notes as I had to do some huge house cleaning ... there is a number that I remember ... something like 50 times faster than MIDI on a 100 Mb LAN ... don't kill me for this .. but I think I made some reasonable guesses for Ethernet cable scheduling, Ethernet packet overhead and UDP packet overhead, and then added a bit of conservatism liklely |
I didn't mean so much here as elsewhere. Read the wikipedia article on UDP (second paragraph) and you will see the sort of bias I mean.
Let's calculate it!
MIDI note-on: 24 bits at 31250 bps = 0.000768 seconds
OSC note message: 32 ASCII bytes (just as an approximate) at 100 mbps = 2.56 × 10^-6 seconds
I get 3000 times faster. Though 100 mbps is a pretty big estimate if your LAN is busy at all IMO. Typically I get more like 10, maybe 5 mbps.
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
There is a bit of protocol overhead for Ethernet and fotr IP/UDP as well, 16 bytes for 2 MACs, 8 for 2 IP addresses, 4 for 2 ports + some more for making packets & checksums, lets say adding up from 32 to 100 bytes (likely a few more, but it's all just an estimation for orders of magnitude).
So 33 times slower than MIDI sofar.
Then we have 100 Mb/s vs 32.125 kb/s -> 3000 times as fast as MIDI
3000 / 33 -> 94 times as fast as MIDI.
But there are collisions on the cable and retries so 50 times faster is not really a bad guess I think.
UDP/IP/Ethernet is not efficient or something _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Joined: Jul 14, 2008 Posts: 17 Location: Columbus
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Blue Hell wrote: | There is a bit of protocol overhead for Ethernet and fotr IP/UDP as well, 16 bytes for 2 MACs, 8 for 2 IP addresses, 4 for 2 ports + some more for making packets & checksums, lets say adding up from 32 to 100 bytes (likely a few more, but it's all just an estimation for orders of magnitude).
So 33 times slower than MIDI sofar.
Then we have 100 Mb/s vs 32.125 kb/s -> 3000 times as fast as MIDI
3000 / 33 -> 94 times as fast as MIDI.
But there are collisions on the cable and retries so 50 times faster is not really a bad guess I think.
UDP/IP/Ethernet is not efficient or something |
Ah yes, I totally forgot about the overhead. I think we can all agree on a 100 times faster, that's good enough for me.
-Colin _________________ http://www.experimentalistsanonymous.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|