Anyone running a DX168 on the same network as a Dante AoIP?

[tourtelotParticipant]

I am trying to come up with a plan to add a few mics from a live stage (live recording) without using up inputs on my Grace m108 preamps. Since I need remote control, but these mics are “second-tier” inputs (think audience mics, playback tracks, etc.), I was thinking that if I added a DX168 box on stage and had those inputs come directly into my SQ6, I could then put them into the Dante stream for input into recorders etc.

A couple of worries. Would latency be a big problem with this idea, and has anyone tried this running the DX168 down a VLAN to keep it separated from the Dante stream but still running down one piece of Cat-wire. There is already a switch at each end, stage and control-room, and they are configured for two VLANs. Adding a third would be easy.

Just cogitating here. 🙂

D.

[ShowtimeParticipant]

If you are already using dante why not the dt168.

Richard

[SteffenRParticipant]

the DX168 should work with this scenario

but the DT168 could be a good alternative since the DANTE is already in place

[tourtelotParticipant]

Thanks. The DT168 had sorta flown under the radar for me but a possibility like other Dante mic preamps.

I was interested in using the DX168 because the SLink function was available in the desk already, un-used, and the DX168 is $500 cheaper than the DT168 (street). Any advantages to the DT168, 1) over any other Dante mic preamp set and 2) over the DX168 via SLink over a VLAN?

Thanks for any thoughts on this.

Doug

[SteffenRParticipant]

1) it works with the SQ, you can set the preamp directly from the console
2) it has DANTE, you can split easier to other recorders or mixers

[tourtelotParticipant]

Sorry, not trying to be dense here, but if I use the DX for a few mics and maybe a few line level returns to the stage via SLink, isn’t it easy to split those mics out to the Dante stream, and recorders and such, using tie lines in the SQ?

What would make it important that I spend an additional $500 to get the Dante version as opposed to using the SQ to route a few inputs to the Dante stream?

D.

[SteffenRParticipant]

nobody said this

the advantages against a DX168 are exactly these
if it’s relevant to you and your situation was not part of the answer

maybe on more: you can setup a standard network with switches to distribute the DANTE signals

if all of this is not important to you… so go for the DX
but remember the DX needs a 100MBit network no GBit
if your switch can’t do that it will not work

read the whitepaper on the DX, there should be more information
I will try to find it and add a link

[SteffenRParticipant]

he document
White Paper

[tourtelotParticipant]

Thanks so much for the link. I’ll read it ASAP.

Okay. I already have a (fairly) large Dante closed network (maybe 25 devices) for location recording. So adding a DT168 would be no problem.

I am just trying to understand why I would, necessarily, want to spend $500 extra if the DX168 would accomplish the same ends.

Are you saying that the DX168 will NOIT work on a Gigabyte network switch? Seems unlikely.

More after I read the white paper.

Thanks for your patience.

D.

[SteffenRParticipant]

Are you saying that the DX168 will NOIT work on a Gigabyte network switch? Seems unlikely.

exactly this, but I’m not 100% shure
maybe @nicola can say some more

if I had that much Dante Equipment I would go the DT168 way… the DANTE does not limit the stagebox to A&H systems
but at the moment there is no remote control from outside the A&H universe possible
so good to have a SQ, Avantis or dLive

[tourtelotParticipant]

Okay. All food for thought.

It seems that 100mbit stuff should work fine on a 1gbit network. I have a few Dante things that are 100mbit and they work as they should. It is certainly true the 1gbit stuff will not work at 1gbit on a 100mbit network but some (most) will work, albeit at 100mbit.

I’d be interested in what you turn up.

D.

[Nicola A&HKeymaster]

Adding to what Steffen said, essentially our protocols (DX, gigaACE etc.) were never designed for VLAN use or converged networks. They have other advantages. If VLAN is the use case, DT would be my go-to choice for hassle free networking. Yes it is theoretically possible to run a DX168 over a VLAN, but many caveats apply and more often than not, you will need to spend time troubleshooting. In addition to the white paper, more info here: https://support.allen-heath.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/gigaace-and-dx-networking-vlans-and-fibre-optics

[tourtelotParticipant]

Okay. thanks for all the info.

D.

[Author]

Posts