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

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions DX168 -> SQ5 -> Dante, vs DT168 -> Dante

This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of dreamsoundaudio dreamsoundaudio 4 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #97824
    Profile photo of dreamsoundaudio
    dreamsoundaudio
    Participant

    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

    #97825
    Profile photo of Søren Steinmetz
    Søren Steinmetz
    Participant

    DT168 – Dante into a switch

    Switch – SQ5

    Switch – Avantis/FoH

    No extra latency to either console.

    #97829
    Profile photo of dreamsoundaudio
    dreamsoundaudio
    Participant

    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

    #97848
    Profile photo of Nicola A&H
    Nicola A&H
    Keymaster

    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.

    #97884
    Profile photo of dreamsoundaudio
    dreamsoundaudio
    Participant

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

    Todd

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.