I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network. I could use a pair of clunker
computers running Shoutcast and Winamp, but I'd like to find a more
elegant and idiot proof solution. These devices will be unattended,
and rebooting a computer every now and then is not something that would
be easy to do.

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

TIA

Chuck

chuxgarage wrote ...
I have an application that requires sending stereo audio
over a standard Ethernet computer network.

When you say "over a standard ethernet computer network"
do you mean that you will be competing for bandwidth
with ordinary computer data traffic, going through switches,
routers, etc.?

If so, how will you know if you have enough network
bandwidth for your desired transmission quality?|

Or do you mean that you have Cat5 UTP (unshielded twisted
pair) wire between two locations and you want to use the
existing UTP instead of pulling conventional audio cable?

If so, a simple and inexpensivve pair of passive or active
balun (balanced to unbalanced converters) would likely
do the job.

wrote:

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

Last year, everyone and his brother was showing some new audio-over-ethernet
system at the AES show. All of them worked fine on a small network with low
traffic loads. None of the ones I saw were routable.

If the things have AES/EBU in and out so you don't care about converters,
and the traffic is routable, I don't see anything to go wrong.
--scott

TIA

Chuck



--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

Last year, everyone and his brother was showing some new
audio-over-ethernet
system at the AES show. All of them worked fine on a small network with
low
traffic loads. None of the ones I saw were routable.

If the things have AES/EBU in and out so you don't care about converters,
and the traffic is routable, I don't see anything to go wrong.
--scott

Wasn't Sony promoting one that was supposedly routable?

Harry

Scott Dorsey wrote:

wrote:

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

Last year, everyone and his brother was showing some new audio-over-ethernet
system at the AES show. All of them worked fine on a small network with low
traffic loads. None of the ones I saw were routable.

If the things have AES/EBU in and out so you don't care about converters,
and the traffic is routable, I don't see anything to go wrong.

If it is IP, then it is routable.

Chuck


--scott


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

On 28 Jan 2006 12:07:28 -0800, "
wrote:

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

I've had a lot of experience with Musicam's Netstar 500
http://www.musicamusa.com/

I say a lot of experience because I've had a lot of problems. I've
had one unit back to the factory and it's still not right so Musicam
is sending me a replacement finally. I'm running it uncompressed
1.5MB/s which is the most demanding usage. It looks like these barix
models do only mp3 and might be a lot more reliable at 320 kb/s or
less. I assume that's sufficient quality for your application? How
much are they?

Julian

" wrote:

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network. I could use a pair of clunker
computers running Shoutcast and Winamp, but I'd like to find a more
elegant and idiot proof solution. These devices will be unattended,
and rebooting a computer every now and then is not something that would
be easy to do.

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

Cobranet for uncompressed audio. It's not cheap. This task is more
difficult than most ppl think. I think the Barix unit does mp3 ( or some
flavour of compressed ) only - look for the words 'sub-band codec'. The
really cheesey audio over IP boxes talk about having 'stereo quality'
whatever that is - LOL.

Graham

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:07:28 -0500, wrote
(in article .com):

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network. I could use a pair of clunker
computers running Shoutcast and Winamp, but I'd like to find a more
elegant and idiot proof solution. These devices will be unattended,
and rebooting a computer every now and then is not something that would
be easy to do.

I've discovered an interface box made by a Swiss company, Barix,
www.barix.com that look like they might fill the bill. They use a
standard T base 10/100 ethernet connection, can be assigned individual
IP addresses, and claim reasonable specs. Has anyone had any experience
with these things? Any other suggestions? Price is important, but so
is reliability and quality.

TIA

Chuck


Are you referring to over-the-internet, or in a facility?

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

It would be in a closed network. The actual application is for a
backup STL (studio transmitter link) for a community radio station.
The idea is to use a pair of Tranzeo 5.8 GHz links to make the hop, and
use the Barix (or similar) to encode at one end and decode at the
other.

Yep, the MP3 thing scares me too, but 392 KBS is probably OK. It's
just FM radio. Barix claims that there will be upgrades available to
make the thing handle .WAV files, which would be better, but so far
that is vaporware.

And no, since it is wireless, it isn't just using a couple of twisted
pairs in an existing CAT-5 cable. I wish it were that simple, since
I've had great luck using CAT-5 for audio. Since this has to interface
with the ethernet port on the wireless receivers, USB isn't an option
either. I might as well use a pair of old computers at each end and be
done with it if I have to do that. The problem with using computers is
"too many moving parts." This is for unattended operation, and in that
case, less is more.

Oh, and somebody asked what they cost. The encoder is a little under
$400. There are a couple of choices for the decoder ,one about $250
and another about $350.

" wrote:

Barix claims that there will be upgrades available to
make the thing handle .WAV files, which would be better, but so far
that is vaporware.

I've seen other products that 'handle' wav files. They simply change them
to compressed to transfer and uncompress at the receiving end. This market
is full of bull****ting.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
I've seen other products that 'handle' wav files. They simply change them
to compressed to transfer and uncompress at the receiving end.

If it's a lossless compression, that's a perfectly reasonable
engineering solution.

Well, I guess I'm going to buy a pair of the Barix modules. I haven't
found anything that seems better for anywhere near the price. I'll let
everyone know how they work. Unfortunately, they don't weigh enough to
use as anchors.

On 1/31/2006 12:52 AM, Pooh Bear wrote:

" wrote:

Barix claims that there will be upgrades available to
make the thing handle .WAV files, which would be better, but so far
that is vaporware.

I've seen other products that 'handle' wav files. They simply change them
to compressed to transfer and uncompress at the receiving end. This market
is full of bull****ting.

Graham


See Slim Server.

Dan

Look into Icecast for a free solution. http://www.icecast.org/

Actually, it isn't exactly free, since it would require a computer at
each location. Yes, you could use a couple of clunkers, but as I
mentioned in the original post, I'd like to avoid the extra hardware.
It is more stuff to go wrong. In this case, less is more.

If these things don't work out, icecast/shoutcast may be the choice for
"plan B."

On 28 Jan 2006 12:07:28 -0800, "
wrote:

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network.

WL-500g

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2006 12:07:28 -0800, "
wrote:

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network.

WL-500g

What does an ASUS wireless router have to do with the OP's question ?

Grahm

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:33:38 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:



Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2006 12:07:28 -0800, "
wrote:

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network.

WL-500g

What does an ASUS wireless router have to do with the OP's question ?

Grahm


Google..

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:33:38 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:



Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2006 12:07:28 -0800, "
wrote:

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network.

WL-500g

What does an ASUS wireless router have to do with the OP's question ?

Grahm


Google..

I already did you idiot. How do you think I even found out what it was.

It has no relevance to audio at all and you're an idiot know-nothing
troll.

Graham

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:51:19 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:



Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:33:38 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:



Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2006 12:07:28 -0800, "
wrote:

I have an application that requires sending stereo audio over a
standard Ethernet computer network.

WL-500g

What does an ASUS wireless router have to do with the OP's question ?

Grahm


Google..

I already did you idiot.

Try harder.

How do you think I even found out what it was.


I thought you might have owned some, like I do, but were unable to
open the box on your own.


It has no relevance to audio at all and you're an idiot know-nothing
troll.


I only come here when I want to be insulted for trying to help.