2016-01-15, 23:38
To drop in my two cents: I have to agree with Steph, a delta encoder has a good chance of performing well if you actually send a waveform.
And actually several other stream compression methods could potentially perform quite well as well. Additionally the question is which sort of fidelity is necessary, if you know what you really need in the signal you could potentially build a short period of the signal out of a series of pre-determined orthogonal elements that are linearly combined in a way to match the signal with an acceptable error. Sending that combination could be a lot "cheaper" in terms of data than the current method. Question is of course how feasible it'd be to do that one on the fly with the existing hardware?
There are three issues with most methods I can think of though:
a) Server load during busy moments,
b) The moment you lose one packet you could probably throw away the rest of the data if you don't add redundancy.
c) Latency (if you hold on to your data longer you could gain more but you'll lose the quick response time).
And actually several other stream compression methods could potentially perform quite well as well. Additionally the question is which sort of fidelity is necessary, if you know what you really need in the signal you could potentially build a short period of the signal out of a series of pre-determined orthogonal elements that are linearly combined in a way to match the signal with an acceptable error. Sending that combination could be a lot "cheaper" in terms of data than the current method. Question is of course how feasible it'd be to do that one on the fly with the existing hardware?
There are three issues with most methods I can think of though:
a) Server load during busy moments,
b) The moment you lose one packet you could probably throw away the rest of the data if you don't add redundancy.
c) Latency (if you hold on to your data longer you could gain more but you'll lose the quick response time).