Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Sound Server For X

Posted by timothy on from the your-screen-is-talking dept.

An anonymous reader writes "X.org, the organization that governs the evolution of the X11R6 specifications, has released a sound server for X, called MAS. According to their site: 'MAS integrates with a compatible X11 server on your desktop. It processes graphic information locally, alleviating the need for network transmission of uncompressed graphical content. Graphic events are easily synchronized with audio events for professional-quality multimedia and accessibility-enabled applications.'" The X.org site describes MAS as an "affiliated technology" rather than "official," but it is released under the same license. "MAS" stands for "Media Application Server," and it's developed by Shiman Associates.

8 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Is it something like... by cronot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ESound? Asd? ARTs? It seems a little different in concept, but I just can't get it. If it is, so cheers to the guys that made it... Linux at least (as I understand this is for X, so *BSDs and other *nix should benefit too) need a more standardized sound architecture (Yeah, I know about ALSA, but I mean something more higher level - like DirectSound)

  2. I'll have to see the bandwidth tests first. by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It processes graphic information locally, alleviating the need for network transmission of uncompressed graphical content.

    Since it relies on X11 I suspect the bandwidth requirements are going to be really high. X11 over the network is a bandwidth hog, that's all there is to it. Now they're adding sound?

    X11 needs a new protocol. Graphical applications run across the network consume ridiculous amounts of bandwidth. If you want to do a test try running the XMMS gui across the network via X11. The last time I did it, XMMS was using 11 megabits per second. It would really suck to try that over a modem or a 64K frame-relay link.

    1. Re:I'll have to see the bandwidth tests first. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your problem is that you're trying to use a program that relies on eye-candy over the network. (At least, I think that's the idea. I can't imagine any other reason for the incredibly bizarre interface of XMMS.) Of course it's going to be slow without a fast link. How is a "new protocol" going to help?

      This will essentially be the same as streaming audio from the network. (You might be able to cache some sounds locally, for improvement, but for playing music or whatever that's probably not much of an option.) No, the modem users probably won't find this useful. But those of us with a fast connection to the other computer can benefit greatly.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  3. NIH = Not Invented Here. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does the National Institutes of Health have to do with this? :_|

    NIH = Not Invented Here. (Implication: So let's ignore it and reinvent this wheel our own way. Like maybe without that obnoxious radial symmetry. Besides, a round wheel might violate some patent. So let's have lots of engineer fun and waste lots of money, instead of pulling an existing design off the shelf, filing off a few rough spots so it will fit, and installing it.)

    NIH goes along with management that thinks you need young developers who are constantly creating (and will reinvent the bubble sort), rather than experienced developers who already have the answers in the can (and will pull down their copy of Knuth Vol III and pick the right sort for the job.)

    Which is not to say that I agree with the poster's conclusion that they may be ignoring fine solutions in order to construct one of their own. Integrating the video and audio server and protocols - rather than grafting audio onto an existing video server (which is in turn grafted onto something originally designed for more static displays) - is the right solution for synchronized video/audio. And the integration may have different problems than gluing the bag onto the side of the kludge.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  4. About time! by Kickasso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And for those who are asking what's wrong with existing sound servers: there's no standard mechanism to query whether one of them is running, especially on a remote machine. (No, relying on magic port numbers is wrong.) And not all of these servers run under all Unix variants. I personally have had very hard time trying to make aRTs work under comercial unices. With this stuff you just talk to X server. There's hope big players will support it because X is the industry standard. esd, to put it bluntly, isn't.

  5. Re:What X needs more than a sound server: by diamondc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. The X clipboard takes some used to (text copied with left button is different from text that is copied from ctrl+c), but it's been standard for over a decade.

    --
    "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
  6. Re:Virtual Environments - Network Monitors by Greedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're talking about Peep, right?

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
  7. Re:Is the X Consortium relevant anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > XFree86 is the "Official" X.Org references implementation, if that answers your question.

    For a long time, x.org snubbed XFree86. It was finally accepted into the fold because the popularity of XFree86 had gone way above and beyond any other, and X.org had thus become quite irrelevent compared to Xfree86.