DX168 or DT168

[Bill-NCParticipant]

Hi, I’ve searched but still need more advice. We purchased an SQ6 and the reseller is trying to tell us to get a DX168 (use slink) instead of a DT168 and a Dante card. I want Dante for the flexibility and future growth and it feels like money would be better spent towards the DT and card now rather the DX and slink.

The seller is saying “If you have a Dante card you can send all the inputs from the console and the DX168 out over Dante.” From what I’ve read, that may be technically possible, but I wouldn’t think it would be optimal. I don’t want to buy the DX168 and be stuck with a point to point system and then later upgrade to Dante and have to buy a DT168 anyway. Thoughts and guidance is much appreciated!

-Bill

[SteffenRParticipant]

As always, it depends on the use case.
With the Dante system, you need to configure the system as you need it. With the DX 168 it is plug and play.
A combination of both would be possible, too.

[Bill-NCParticipant]

If you knew you were going to go Dante eventually, why start with DX? We currently have an analog snake hooked up to our old board, Presonus 24.4.2. The SQ could just fall in place with nothing else changed. Going Dante now is about $3600 which is a bit steep after buying the SQ. I figure it would be money better spent on a more flexible configuration with Dante. Skip the DX now and save the $1800, or put that $1k into the Dante card now and just hook up the analog snake.

What about the resellers statement that you can use a DX on Dante? Is he thinking tie lines from DX over to Dante at the mixer?

[TobiParticipant]

DX is native for the desk. Use additional Dante Card for everything else. Your Dealer is right.

[Søren SteinmetzParticipant]

The reseller most likely mean that if you have the Dante card, you will be able to send all inputs on the console as well as the ones from DX (max 64) out via the Dante net for recording in a Daw.
(TieLines would be the “preferred” way, as you then record the clean signal)

Then later you can change from the DX to Dante, if you want.

[Bill-NCParticipant]

Thank you all. Seems best use of money (for our situation) is to go DX168 and the Dante card for the SQ.

[BrianParticipant]

The power of Dante is that you can send that I/O audio anywhere. You can hook that stage box up and be able to access it from other devices (other consoles, DAWs, etc) without having to turn the SQ console on. However, even with a DX stage box, if your console has a Dante card you could accomplish the same thing by turning the console on and then sending the DX I/O through the console’s Dante card. A Dante stage box would be available without having to turn on the console.

The downside to Dante is the networks can be finicky to set up and maintain. So while they are great when everything is working, it isn’t uncommon to have issues that cause problems. These types of issues/problems are basically non-existent with the DX boxes however.

That is honestly the only differences I can think of. Personally I think Dante stage boxes are a waste unless your facility is decentralized and you have I/O all over campus that you need to access in various locations (without having to also turn on the FOH/monitor console). Then it can be great. But if you are simply trying to connect I/O from the stage to a console at FOH and/or monitors, then Dante boxes are probably more trouble than they are worth.

EDIT – I will add one more feature of Dante boxes. They are brand agnostic. This means if you move away from A&H in the future, but have A&H Dante stage boxes, you could use those same boxes with the new console/manufacturer as long as it also supports Dante. The downside to this is that you won’t have control of the stage boxes preamps (so no gain, phantom power, polarity adjustments, etc in the console). You will have to use the A&H preamp software to control the preamps in those Dante boxes. So while this can save money in not having to replace I/O boxes, it is also annoying to have to use a computer with some preamp control software running on it to control something as simple as gain for a channel.

[HughParticipant]

Thank you Brian for the clear objective assessment of most everything that is important to know about the Dante protocol. Clarification of the primary Dante advantages and their fit with universal mix and match protocols is timely advice for the OP and many others that have been pre conditioned and miss-led by marketing influenced popularity. It is somewhat reminiscent of the “Must Have Wireless Mics” demand that was all the rage with church worship committees 20 years ago.
Hugh

[chansParticipant]

besides Dante capability, is there performance benefit of the DT over the DX? is the analog pre-amp stage and/or A/D conversion better in the DT?

thanks

[BrianParticipant]

No. The preamps are the same in both the DX and DT boxes.

[Author]

Posts