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 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #100939
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    Why the defensiveness? What I’m saying simply boils down to, “It would be great to have a more compatible solution for multichannel audio streaming over Ethernet.”

    Personally, I try to stick to solutions that adhere to standards and don’t put me in the position of waiting months or years for new hardware and software support. I’m sure Dante is great when you’re able to plan an entire installation around its support requirements, but that’s not what I’m doing.

    #100946
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    “It would be great to have a more compatible solution for multichannel audio streaming over Ethernet.”

    And I was trying to say that this is not Milan or AVB for the near future in our A&H context. And I tried to explain why…
    There are simple limitations for Mac users that can be solved by the vendors.

    If Audinate is disabling the limit in DVS (maybe for extra money) this would be a very good decision for both PC and Mac Users.

    Or somebody needs to build a PCIe card, or a Thunderbolt/USB interface with Dante, maybe they can give them a fancy name, something like RedNet?
    Or you buy a PC just for recording, you can call it “recorder”…

    “Irgendwas ist immer”

    #100949
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    And I was trying to say that this is not Milan or AVB for the near future in our A&H context. And I tried to explain why…

    I don’t think anyone much cares whether the solution is AVB, Milan, Dante, etc. All that matters in the end is that it’s available, supported, and cost-effective. To an extent, Dante is that solution, but it comes with a lot of caveats — including both the lack of a clear support path for one of the major platforms and rather eye-wattering pricing on much of the hardware. The entire argument that Dante is superior because it doesn’t require dedicated networking hardware, for instance, is largely moot, since you could buy enough switches to power an AVB installation 10 times over for the price difference between common AVB and Dante hardware.

    At least some AVB hardware also supports class compliant USB streaming of 128 bidirectional 96kHz channels, making compatibility a non-issue across all platforms and operating systems. With Dante, we’re still waiting for support for an OS and hardware that’s been out for half a year. There are absolutely good reasons that’s a hard problem, in both cases, but it also didn’t have to be a problem at all.

    None of that is to say that AVB is necessarily the right option for A&H, but Dante is also not the solution to everyone’s needs.

    If Audinate is disabling the limit in DVS (maybe for extra money) this would be a very good decision for both PC and Mac Users.

    Indeed, that would be an easy solution to the specific problem I’m trying to solve, if Audinate chose to make it so.

    Or somebody needs to build a PCIe card, or a Thunderbolt/USB interface with Dante, maybe they can give them a fancy name, something like RedNet? Or you buy a PC just for recording, you can call it “recorder”…

    Condescension just muddies what you’re trying to say. Please don’t. If there’s some hardware I’ve missed, please point it out, don’t insult my intelligence. Or just move on, since this isn’t really a discussion of AVB.

    #100951
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    including both the lack of a clear support path for one of the major platforms

    If you mean operating systems… then it lacks support of 2 major platforms
    Linux is not supported as well… so for a Linux user AVB or Milan would be the only solution at the moment
    the tools are available as source code…

    At least some AVB hardware also supports class compliant USB streaming of 128 bidirectional 96kHz channels

    none of the available devices I’m aware off support more than 64 channels, maybe I missed the device you have in mind?

    With Dante, we’re still waiting for support for an OS and hardware that’s been out for half a year. There are absolutely good reasons that’s a hard problem, in both cases, but it also didn’t have to be a problem at all.

    The Apple people ignore the audio and video business more and more… and introduced a lot of problems with their last 3 major MacOS updates
    a lot of compatibility issues…

    We will see where it goes…

    #100959
    Profile photo of tourtelot
    tourtelot
    Participant

    All this seems to me to be an exercise. Workable solutions exist already. I still use OSX High Sierra on 2012 Macs (MBPs) for my Dante network. So in the case of my network, and for my requirements, this “outdated” system, both in terms of hardware and operating system works perfectly for me. Tried, true and tested.

    So, like anyone with any products, and let’s just keep it to audio now, each user will need to decide how to do what they need done, today. Is your Pro Tools not working on your brand new Mac? You have a decision to make. Is you mixer not allowing recording 128 channels of audio at 24/96? You have a decision to make. But there is little to be gained by trying to foretell the future and wish that it was happening today. Let the designers do that and simply put as good a system together as you can and come as close as you can today to manage your needed workflow. If things somewhere get better, you have decisions to make. Compatibility, cost, expected lifespan, the like.

    Or as my respected friend say, “go out and make a recording”.

    D.

    #100960
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    but we also like to talk about new technologies and new trends
    and some speculations are still allowed, I hope…

    @chaos215bar2
    there was no Condescension intended

    #100962
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    none of the available devices I’m aware off support more than 64 channels, maybe I missed the device you have in mind?

    USB 3.0 MOTU devices (e.g. 8A) do support this.

    All this seems to me to be an exercise. Workable solutions exist already. I still use OSX High Sierra on 2012 Macs (MBPs) for my Dante network.

    Building a system on hardware that can’t be replaced at-will is a recipe for trouble down the line. (The situation would be different, of course, if Intel Mac hardware weren’t being phased out.) No one is saying that there aren’t solutions, but options for streaming upwards of 32 channels from A&H hardware in particular seem to be limited and none that I’m aware of have a clear path forward that doesn’t potentially involve switching platforms or relying on aging hardware. Place the blame where you like, but there are still good reasons for wanting to record on Mac.

    #100963
    Profile photo of tourtelot
    tourtelot
    Participant

    Yes, unobtanium hardware could certainly be a problem. Right you are. Backup gear today. But I guess I am saying that beating our heads against the walls that those who provide the technology build (and I am specifically thinking Avid and Apple who have played this upgrade game for years) doesn’t usually get us to our goal. Run into a wall too high to climb? Turn left.

    My recoding chain of Grace Dante enabled preamps and a JoeCo Dante recorder will get me a 64 track recording, albeit at 24/48. With nothing more than the simplest OS (Mac or PC) that will run DVS. Any additional add-ons, monitoring, mixers, controllers, backups, etc? It’s my job as the engineer and recording technician to make this work today. That’s both the trick and the fun.

    D.

    #100964
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    My recoding chain of Grace Dante enabled preamps and a JoeCo Dante recorder will get me a 64 track recording, albeit at 24/48.

    Indeed, and this is likely similar to the solution I’ll end up going with. The limitations are just frustrating.

    The one really nice thing about A&H in this context is that the only hardware which needs to speak Dante is the mixer itself (plus DVS, of course). Hardware using A&H’s own protocols (gigaACE/GX/DX) seems to be much more cost effective than similar Dante hardware. (See DX168 vs. DT168.)

    #100967
    Profile photo of Søren Steinmetz
    Søren Steinmetz
    Participant

    The gigACE etc is cheaper for A&H to implement than the Dante, as they are not required to buy other brand hardware and license to make them.

    For recording above 32 channels Dante in 96Khz, it will take like the Motu or RME Dante/USB interfaces (or similar)

    As for the AVB protocol, all companies I work with on a regular basis, have tried it and returned to Dante (or Madi) for higher stability and interoperability between brands….
    (only experience I have myself though is the problems to get a console to talk to same brand stageboxes, did not work with any other brand AVB switch than their own)

    If AVB/Milan get those quirks worked out, they might be a serious alternative to Dante though.

    #100968
    Profile photo of tourtelot
    tourtelot
    Participant

    All the time that AVB is trying to iron out the kinks, Audinate will be moving forward.

    D.

    #100970
    Profile photo of Chaos215bar2
    Chaos215bar2
    Participant

    That’s… not really how standards development works.

    Besides, viable competition is rarely a negative for an industry. Rooting for the dominant player in the market isn’t really going to help anything.

    #100997
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    There are several AVB <–> Dante converters out there that could do the trick if you need AVB.

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.