Dante instead of ACE?

Forums Forums iLive Forums Archived iLive Discussions Dante instead of ACE?

This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Nicola A&H Nicola A&H 8 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23547
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    Let’s say I have a modular surface fitted with the Dante card and an iDR with a Dante card. It is said there will be an update for the Dante card to tunnel Ethernet form the control port of the card via the Dante link. If that is available (or is it already available?) would it be possible to connect surface and iDR solely via the Dante link (instead of using ACE)? Would the busses (PAFL etc.) work? That would make the system more flexible by far!

    #32798
    Profile photo of Rexeltw
    Rexeltw
    Participant

    Sorry if I’m misunderstanding the question but yes you can put Dante in both a modular surface and port A in an iDR-10 and use it as an audio transport. We do this already and with a gigabit switch we can run our PLM’s without traditional cabling.

    If you are asking whether you can get a modular surface with Dante to talk to a Dante card in port B on a fixed format iDR then AFAIK the answer is no!

    .

    Just remember kids no matter how good your mixing is you can’t polish a turd…

    #32802
    Profile photo of Nicola A&H
    Nicola A&H
    Keymaster

    Hi Jens,

    To use Dante in Port A as your primary Surface to MixRack link, you will need to patch manually the local I/O, PAFL and Talkback in Dante Controller. See the Dante Understanding guide on our website for the details.

    Bridging AH-Net into the Dante card for a one-cable connection will be possible with a Dante firmware update currently in testing here at A&H.

    Hope this helps,

    Nicola
    A&H

    #32817
    Profile photo of millst
    millst
    Participant

    I’ve gone down the path of ACE in port A and Dante in Port B.
    From my testing, this would be the recommended approach as Ace currently offers redundancy while Dante does not.

    Also, you can bridge control traffic onto the Dante network by using a gigabit switch. This works fine.

    #32818
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    Thanks for the replies!

    @ 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?
    Also, would this work with a Dante card in an iDR16, 32, 48, 64?

    My “dream” would be that A&H will drop ACE completely and go all in for Dante, even for T- and R series. Dante is everywhere, as it seems… Lab Gruppen PLM, Nexo NXAmps, Shure ULX-D wirelss microphones… the list grows and grows. Using Dante and ACE simultaneously offers no advantage, I think, only drawbacks…

    @ 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

    #32821
    Profile photo of clarocque
    clarocque
    Participant

    DANTE is not redundant at this time, the second port is working like a switch.

    One advantage I do see to using ACE with DANTE on different networks is you do not have to deal with QOS for DANTE traffic.

    #32823
    Profile photo of Nicola A&H
    Nicola A&H
    Keymaster

    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

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

The forum ‘Archived iLive Discussions’ is closed to new topics and replies.