AVB Protocol

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions AVB Protocol

This topic contains 27 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Scott Scott 1 week, 5 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #87477
    Profile photo of ilya20008
    ilya20008
    Participant

    Hello!
    please consider the AVB Protocol option as an optional card.
    Today, this Protocol is quite relevant, and the leaders of the audio industry are already using this Protocol

    #87485
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    +1

    Would like this option on dLive as well.

    #87487
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    this is difficult at the moment
    too many problems between the vendors implementations…
    it will take some more time to solve the issues I guess

    #87488
    Profile photo of Nicola A&H
    Nicola A&H
    Keymaster

    Steffen is right in saying that cross-vendor interoperability is still an issue for AVB. In fact, I’ll go further in saying that there is no such thing as an ‘AVB protocol’. The AVB set of standards regards primarily hardware, and doesn’t dictate on what protocol to use. Most pro audio companies claiming to use AVB are in fact using a Layer 2 protocol known as IEEE1722, which makes use of some AVB standards. IEEE1722, in turn, doesn’t really specify a connection management layer nor a device discovery protocol, which explains the interoperability challenge.
    The MILAN initiative, supported by leading speaker manufacturers, promises to solve this, and at A&H we are watching such development with interest. If MILAN picks up in the industry, we will certainly consider developing an option card.

    #87491
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    Thanx Nicola

    #100892
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    How incompatible could the vendors’ implementations ultimately be when, for instance, MOTU advertises that Macs can communicate natively with their products via AVB? (Certainly they still advise using USB or Thunderbolt for latency and performance, but AVB does supposedly work.)

    It would be great to see AVB support in A&H products. Even if no one is conforming perfectly to Milan yet, perhaps A&H could be the one to set the example.

    #100895
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    How incompatible could the vendors’ implementations ultimately be when, for instance, MOTU advertises that Macs can communicate natively with their products via AVB?

    so many contradictions in this statement… 😉

    the communication and the configuration is a problem… this is solved by the vendors itself, but it still prevents devices of different vendors from communication together…
    The audio data (stream) part is normally not the problem, but gets a problem again with Milan. Milan is not compatible to MacOS-AVB and this implies that MOTU-AVB is not compatible to Milan as well.

    Device management and connection management is not “solved” in AVB(TSN), Milan tries to solve this… there are how many products out there to support Milan? 3? maybe 4?

    One real problem is that the AVB world (TSN) is “driven” by car manufacturers with their own problems and system interoperability is not valid for them.
    A different problem is that you need special hardware to use TSN.
    Standard unmanaged switches do not work (and will never do) and many expensive managed switches don’t perform well or need upgrades to comply to TSN.
    Again, Milan tries to provide a solution… but it’s far from practical relevance at the moment.

    This all could change in the next years… but AVNU alliance behaves like all other organizations before… I doubt that Milan will become a replacement technology for Dante, Ravenna or Soundgrid in the next 5 years.

    AES67 was a good starting point, but Milan still lacks support for AES67… that would change anything.
    If Milan will become connectable to AES67 it will have much success within months.

    #100898
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    Not seeing the contradictions.

    One way or another, MOTU at least came up with something that works and that easily solves the problem of capturing large numbers of channels without special hardware. A&H hasn’t. 😉

    #100901
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    One way or another, MOTU at least came up with something that works and that easily solves the problem of capturing large numbers of channels without special hardware.

    What you mean with “without special hardware”?
    MOTU sells audio interfaces… not special enough?
    I know… just hardware… and compatible to all MOTU interfaces with AVB, a Mac and… ahm nothing else?

    #100902
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    I’m not trying to pick an argument.

    But, MOTU does have AVB drivers for Windows. All I’m saying is, there’s no equivalent solution from A&H. I’d need a Dante card from A&H, a Dante PCIe card, and an external PCIe enclosure, and the capabilities still wouldn’t match AVB (or whatever you want to call it). That’s $2000 worth of hardware. Also, that solution may well be a dead end for Mac.

    It would be great to have a better option from A&H. I really don’t care much whether that solution is called “AVB”, so long as it works. If it doesn’t even require drivers on the platform with pretty much unarguably better audio interface support, all the better.

    #100904
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    There is always one with other needs. But the story of an audio network protocol is not finished to be written. at the moment Dante is the more versatile protocol with more supported devices compared to AVB/Milan. You cannot only connect mixers with Dante cards to computers, there are also a lot of sources and sinks available out there which do support Dante, Wireless microphones, simple line to Dante and Dante to line converters, Sound reinforcement systems with Dante, Stageboxes, Audio Interfaces …. just to name some categories. With AVB/Milan there is currently only a very small amount of devices available and most of them are incompatible. You say that Motu-AVB is supported by current Macs. But what if I am using Windows and want to use such devices using the network? so what will help you with your Mac would be a No Go for me and my Windows Computer?
    I am running Dante on several Mixers from different Vendors and am using also several computer in that Dante network, for several reasons. I also own some Motu devices with AVB Support but had always only a reasonable success when I am using USB to connect my computer with that devices. I have to confess that my newest Mac is running on Catalina. Furthermore there are also a lot of limitation when you will run AVB on your network. You have to use one of only a view AVB enabled switches and even then it is not guaranteed that these switches can be used with AVB devies from different vendors.
    One big advantage of Dante is that some big players, like Yamaha, committed their support for Dante. Until there is a similar Vendor which fully bet on AVB/Milan I see no big chance for that protocol. Frankly spoken, A&H is not one of the big player on the relevant market to do such a risky step, I am afraid.

    #100919
    Profile photo of tourtelot
    tourtelot
    Participant

    Am I reading this correctly? “A dead end for mac.” Are you talking about Dante AoIP on Macs? Dante runs circles around AVB (well unless you are heavily invested in the “V” part). AVB espoused by a lot of reinforcement hardware companies but well overtaken by the sheer numbers of companies embracing Dante. It is Betamax v. VHS and I think that there is little question that Dante will be the “only real game” in AoIP.

    That opinion and five bucks will buy you a Starbucks.

    D.

    #100923
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    Am I reading this correctly? “A dead end for mac.”

    if Apple is changing it’s AVB software it is possible to support Milan
    they have to implement new talkers and listeners and need to implement the discovery part of Milan
    and it would be no problem to make it compatible to older AVB solutions and Milan

    Dante runs circles around AVB (well unless you are heavily invested in the “V” part).

    What you mean?
    There is no real AVB Video product available at the moment, at least I’m not aware of any
    Audinate released Dante Video last year
    SMPTE introduced 2 standards for video over IP that integrate multichannel audio as well

    The whole AoIP and VoIP is not clear for the future… everything changes all the time
    We will see what the future will provide…

    To make a decision which route to go we can only trust on available products…

    #100937
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    Am I reading this correctly? “A dead end for mac.”

    You’re reading, but not understanding. Dante currently has no compatibility story for future Mac hardware. That $2000 solution I quoted is what’s currently required, if I’m not mistaken, to stream upwards of 32 channels at maximum sample rate to a computer, and there are currently no plans to support Dante PCIe cards on Apple Silicon, making the solution a dead end on Mac. (I was told it’s simply not possible, but I don’t think that’s quite true.)

    Dante may be the industry heavyweight, but its usefulness in the particular scenario of streaming many channels of audio to a computer for capture seems to be limited, and the pace of support for new systems is a bit underwhelming.

    #100938
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    Hmm, I am used to use computer which meets my requirements and which are compatible to my used environment. I don‘t switch operating systems and hardware until I can use them in my environment. That means for me that a new platform, like the M1 from Apple, will be on hold until I can use them. Nobody forces me to use all the new fancy gadgets made by Apple at the moment they release them. Apple is best known for removing previous introduces API without respect for all the third party vendors of hard- and software. So these vendors have to adopt their products, or in the worst case re develop them, so that they can be used with the new hip and fancy apple gadget.
    So, tell me, who should be blamed for that situation? For me only Apple is responsible when there is a dead end scenario for their products. It is not possible that the whole music industry will jump immediately after Apple says „jump now“. But I am ok with that. Maybe in five years I will reevaluate the situation with this new gadgets whether they are then usefull or not. It is always no good idea to be an early adopter at all.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.