Forums › Forums › iLive Forums › Archived iLive Discussions › Dante instead of ACE? › 2436
quote:
Originally posted by Jens Droessler@ nicola: So this means after that firmware update for Dante I can have a single network cable run between surface and mixrack based on Dante audio transport inseatd of your proprietary ACE, right? Are there any drawbacks compared to ACE? Do I have to do the patching every time? Or will you maybe offer a standard routing for Dante comparable to the default ACE routing?
The patching will be stored in the Dante modules so once configured, there should be no need for Dante Controller.
ACE is a cost-effective solution, easier to setup for the basic user (no need for computers), and very low latency. There are pros and cons for both options. Most users are happy with a dedicated link between Surface and MixRack, then use whatever format in Port B for expansion, recording and integration with third party.
quote:
Also, would this work with a Dante card in an iDR16, 32, 48, 64?
No, the Surface and MixRack always connect via Port A, which is fixed ACE in fixed format MixRacks and Surfaces. You need a modular iDR and modular Surface to use Dante, MADI or EtherSound for this link.
quote:
@ millst: As far as I know the Dante card offers two network connectors which can be used to provide “lossless” redundancy. Isn’t this working
As mentioned above, redundancy will be available with a firmware update for the Dante card, currently in testing.
Nicola
A&H
