DX168 -> SQ5 -> Dante, vs DT168 -> Dante

[dreamsoundaudio]

It appears there are 2 methods to get an A&H stagebox, an SQ5 and Dante to play together. The SQ5 will be running stage monitors/IEM, and the FOH console will be on Dante. FOH console will be an Avantis or maybe the Digico S31. If the system is running 1 mixer, the SQ5 would be the one coming out of the truck most likely. Dante is definitely going to be a necessity due to multitracking and video guys. Anyway, what I’m wondering is which way is the right idea?

DT168 -> Dante -> SQ5 or DX168 -> SQ5 (tie lines) – > Dante ?

I’m pretty experienced with Dante & it’s network, but it’s all from a Yamaha/Nexo/Focusrite point of view . The A&H aspect is new, but I’m assuming it’s all about the same. Mainly curious about latency for the IEM’s and what it’s like at FOH.

Todd

[Søren Steinmetz]

DT168 – Dante into a switch

Switch – SQ5

Switch – Avantis/FoH

No extra latency to either console.

[dreamsoundaudio]

That’s what I’m thinking really…so how different is the latency compared to the DX168 pathway? Is it worth the $500 price difference?

Todd

[Nicola A&H]

Hi Todd,
There are more things to consider. For example, if you opt for an Avantis at FOH, with a DT168 you could have both the SQ5 and the Avantis ‘see’ and control the preamps on the stagebox, with the option of gain tracking on the Avantis. With a DX168 and tielines, only the SQ5 will have control of the preamps. The DT168 is also more network friendly, meaning you can easily go through one or multiple switches alongside other traffic if the need arises.
In terms of latency, the DX168 is marginally lower latency at 8 samples (~80us) for point-to-point connections, whereas the lowest possible latency on Dante is 150us. Chances are your IEM system will introduce far greater latency.

[dreamsoundaudio]

Thank you! That’s precisely what I needed to know.

Todd

[Author]

Posts