Advertisement

Wireless Networked Music Performance

  • Leonardo GabrielliEmail author
  • Stefano Squartini
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)

Abstract

Wireless NMP has very few examples in the literature, if none (depending on the definition the reader adopts for NMP). This chapter reports advancements and developments in wireless NMP. The challenges posed by wireless NMP and the opportunities it offers are different from those seen in wired remote NMP. For this reason, a specific approach and framework has been developed by the authors which is reported in this chapter and compared to other meaningful approaches and technical achievements from other authors in wireless and wired NMP. Most of the contributions are by the authors and colleagues. The rationale and goals of the authors’ project, named WeMUST, are described and its technical achievements later reported. The project also targets portability and ease of use in wireless NMP. Embedded platforms are, thus, employed which are power-autonomous and provide some DSP capabilities. They adopt connection automation tools based on custom service discovery mechanisms based on existing networking technologies. The software used and related parameters are described and motivated. Finally, issues related to outdoor use are reported and technical choices to overcome these are described.

Keywords

WeMUST Wireless networked music performance Embedded computing Clock synchronization Automatic connection Service discovery Linux 

References

  1. 1.
    Reuter J (2014) Case study: building an out of the box Raspberry Pi modular synthesizer. In: Linux Audio Conference (LAC2014). Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Letz S, Denoux S, Orlarey Y (2014) Audio rendering/processing and control ubiquity? a solution built using faust dynamic compiler and JACK/NetJack. In: Joint Internation Computer Music Conference and Sound and Music Computing (ICMC+SMC14). Greece, September, Athens, p 1518Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gabrielli L, Squartini S, Piazza F (2013) Advancements and performance analysis on the wireless music studio (WeMUST) framework. In: AES 134th convention, May 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cáceres J-P, Chafe C (2010) Jacktrip: under the hood of an engine for network audio. J New music Res 39(3):183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheshire S, Krochmal M (2013) RFC 6762: Multicast DNS. In: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standardGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CheshireS, Krochmal M (2013) RFC 6763: DNS-based service discovery. In: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standardGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freed A, Schmeder A (2009) Features and future of Open Sound Control version 1.1 for NIME. In: Proceedings of the conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME), Pittsburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eales A, Foss R (2012) Service discovery using open sound control. In: Audio engineering society convention, vol 133. Audio Engineering SocietyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bowen N, Reeder D (2014) Mobile phones as ubiquitous instruments: towards standardizing performance data on the network. In: Joint international computer music conference and sound and music computing (ICMC+SMC2014). Greece, AthensGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ogborn D (2012) Espgrid: a protocol for participatory electronic ensemble performance. In: Audio engineering society convention, vol 133. Audio Engineering SocietyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weibel H, Heinzmann S (2011) Media clock synchronization based on PTP. In: Audio Engineering society conference: 44th international conference: audio networking. Audio Engineering SocietyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Razavi B (2002) Design of analog CMOS integrated circuits. Tata McGraw-Hill EducationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adriaensen F (2005) Using a DLL to filter time. In: Linux audio conferenceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang C-KK (2003) Delay-locked loops-an overview. Phase-Locking in High-Peformance Systems. Wiley-IEEE Press, New York, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gabrielli L, Bussolotto M, Squartini S (2014) Reducing the latency in live music transmission with the BeagleBoard xM through resampling. In: Proceedings of the European embedded design in education and research conference, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adriaensen F (2012) Controlling adaptive resampling. In: Linux audio conference, Stanford, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Molnar I Modular scheduler core and completely fair scheduler CFS. Linux-Kernel mailing listGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong C, Tan I, Kumari R, Lam J, Fun W (2008) Fairness and interactive performance of o(1) and CFS linux kernel schedulers. In: International symposium on information technology, 2008. ITSim 2008, Aug 2008, vol 4, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topliss J, Zappi V, McPherson A (2014) Latency performance for real-time audio on Beaglebone Black. In: Linux audio conference (LAC2014). Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meier F, Fink M, Zölzer U (2014) The Jamberry-a stand-alone device for networked music performance based on the Raspberry Pi. In: Linux audio conference, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berdahl E, Ju W (2011) Satellite CCRMA: a musical interaction and sound synthesis platform. In: International conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME), Oslo, Norway, 30 May–1 June 2011Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gabrielli L, Squartini S, Principi E, Piazza F (2012) Networked beagleboards for wireless music applications. In: EDERC 2012, September 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rahman Siddique M, Kamruzzaman J, Hossain M. An analytical approach for voice capacity estimation over WiFi network using ITU-T E-model. IEEE Trans Multimedia 16(2):360–372Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.A3LabUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Ancona UniversityAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations