Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-traditional in the sense that I can't immediately transport data over my sound card with
Mouth sounds.
Meat sounds.
Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
71–80 of 81 posts
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, did you selected audible frequencies (1760hz-10.5khz) because there were the only ones technically feasible with the current popular mics/speakers or because you actually wanted users to hear the data? I have played with minimodem to do this (FSK) and while cool, it is an unpleasant noise. I managed to transmit at inaudible frequencies but certainly it was very very unreliable with normal consumer hardwa…
Both, in fact. Add to this we wanted the system to work reliably at very low volumes in noisy surrounds, and it was a very interesting challenge. If you'd like to know more, we have trial SDKs you can goof around with. Feel free to give the technology a spin.
One more startup in this area is http://www.getpangea.com/
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if this is what you meant, but Chromecast's guest mode will pair using ultrasound. The guy who worked on it has some code using the WebAudio API on github and his linked blog: https://github.com/borismus/sonicnet.js
No there was an article on here several months ago that I couldn't find when searching where someone wrote a PoC for the transmission of data via near-ultrasonic sounds from a computer speaker and microphone. I don't think it was this [1] one, but it shows the concept being used. Maybe I'm misintepreting the OP's work and not realising how it differs in some subtle way? I get that they've put TCP/UDP over it, but is…
Oh, I think you mean this from Fraunhofer FKIE in 2013:
[1] Ars Coverage: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-...
[2] Paper: http://www.jocm.us/uploadfile/2013/1125/20131125103803901.pd...
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#74It reminds me a app called chirp which allowed data transfer via sound from phone to phone.
I know which app you're talking about. I've played with it a little, it seems to just transfer a link/identifier by sound to then download the file via the internet.
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a distinction without a difference. If another family member picked up the phone while you were dialed up, they certainly heard it.
That's why it was just for monitoring - you could hear, but the communication itself was not done via sound.
I don't feel like your reply really explained the confusion. I'll go ahead and be the dense one haha.
Can you further explain the difference in your example? I assume you mean that the bulk of the dial-up data was sent over non-audible ranges? Ie, we couldn't hear the actual data transfering, but we could hear the monitoring tones?
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why it was just for monitoring - you could hear, but the communication itself was not done via sound.
I don't feel like your reply really explained the confusion. I'll go ahead and be the dense one haha. Can you further explain the difference in your example? I assume you mean that the bulk of the dial-up data was sent over non-audible ranges? Ie, we couldn't hear the actual data transfering, but we could hear the monitoring tones?
You're not being dense, not at all. I was in a hurry and not clear enough:
Sound is different of audio signal.
Audio signal is whatever way you arrange to represent signals in the audio range of frequencies and, usually, dynamic rang. Sound is a physical phenomenon caused by variation of pressure on air that we can listen to.
So, the transfer was usually done by audio signals, transmitted electrically via copper wire (and, sometimes, magnetic coupling in some modems). You could, of course, convert these audio signals to sound by picking up the phone (or wiring the modem to the sound card), but this was just for you to listen to. The communication was not depended on sound itself.
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good catch, but it was actually over audio signals. Sound was just for monitoring.
Some ye olde modems had a socket that you plugged your regular handset into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler I think one was used in the film War Games , but can't recall clearly.
I stand corrected! At least until the latter days of dial-up.
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#78Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't feel like your reply really explained the confusion. I'll go ahead and be the dense one haha. Can you further explain the difference in your example? I assume you mean that the bulk of the dial-up data was sent over non-audible ranges? Ie, we couldn't hear the actual data transfering, but we could hear the monitoring tones?
You're not being dense, not at all. I was in a hurry and not clear enough: Sound is different of audio signal. Audio signal is whatever way you arrange to represent signals in the audio range of frequencies and, usually, dynamic rang. Sound is a physical phenomenon caused by variation of pressure on air that we can listen to. So, the transfer was usually done by audio signals, transmitted electrically via copper wire…
[deleted]
Re: Show HN: TCP/UDP over sound
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good catch, but it was actually over audio signals. Sound was just for monitoring.
Some ye olde modems had a socket that you plugged your regular handset into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler I think one was used in the film War Games , but can't recall clearly.
Back in the day, I carried an acoustic coupler with my laptop. Also a patch cable with alligator clips. And tools to disassemble stuff.