DX2412?

This topic contains 20 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of iandrewc iandrewc 2 weeks, 2 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #78200
    Profile photo of alli
    alli
    Participant

    Hello A&H-Team,

    will there be other 96k-Stageboxes besides the DX168? The AR2412 is the perfect size for most acts I’m working with. Maybe release a new version with 96k-converters in it?

    #78214
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    Has been asked before, but still a valid request. Same form factor as AR2412, please.

    #78215
    Profile photo of Jordan T. Hurt
    Jordan T. Hurt
    Participant

    I’d personally pay extra for a 96k box that’s 32×16 or larger.

    #78539
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    +1

    The DX168 is a strange product where you’d need 3 of them to achieve 48 inputs remotely, it would make much more sense to have a DX2412 which would allow two in a rack to achieve the maximum 48 inputs.

    I understand the DX32 works, but again you’d be running a DX32 and a DX168 which is just awkward as it’s two very different units.

    Either a DX4824 (similar to the DX32 with modular I/O) or a DX2412 must be made to cater towards this SQ crowd….

    #78542
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    I am afraid that it is not possible to build a DX4824 since the DX Protocoll only supports max 32 channels in each direction. That is the reason why the DX hub is connected via gigaACE to the console (which supports 128 channels).
    So probably in future there will be some stageboxes which are directly talking gigaACE.
    (Hmm maybe to much communication protocolls for one company;-) )

    #78545
    Profile photo of cedd
    cedd
    Participant

    Most flexible option would maybe be a 32 input rack with gigaACE back to the console and a S-Link port or 2 ready for additional DX168’s. Basically a rack with a small DXHUB built in. Similar then to the DLive boxes but without the “brain” inside. That’d give you a central “hub” connection point at the stage to bring most things to, then a satellite stage box that could go on a drum riser or (in my case) in the orchestra pit. If you wanted the full 48 inputs in one place then you just rack the DX168 below.

    Any plans to bring out a smaller box? One of my favourite things about my Roland setup is the 8×8 stageboxes. They’re POE and are perfect for drum risers or to tuck away next to (or in!) your amp racks. One single cat5 and you’re sorted.

    #78554
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    While a Stagebox with GigaACE (built-in DX-Hub) makes perfect sense for the SQ people, it doesn’t make any sense in the complete picture with dLive taken into account. The stagebox wouldn’t connect to the dLive’s DX ports, you’d need a GigaACE card for the dLive mixrack. That clutters up the portfolio and makes things unnecessarily complicated, as people have to watch what DX stagebox to plug where. A non-modular 3216 DX box or a 2412 with DX interface makes most sense in that context. Buying a DX-Hub and putting it in the same rack as the DX stagebox is more flexible in the long run.

    #78581
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    I understand the limitations of the protocol(s)

    Maybe a DX2412 is the right option, if possible.

    If someone needs two, the DX-hub would be placed in the rack to allow dual DX2412’s allowing 48 inputs in a small rack, which is the maximum of SQ capabilities and makes the most sense.

    #80807
    Profile photo of alli
    alli
    Participant

    Any official informations to that topic?
    I mean if there will be some new hardware, A&H could tell us?

    #80830
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    Just adding a +1 for a DX2412

    It would completely maximize all SQ series consoles as 48 in 24 out is its limit.

    Toss two in a rack, 1 DX hub, and you have a full channel count remote I/O over a single ethercon.

    I want to stay 96k so no AR2412 for me, I also don’t want 3 awkward DX168’s…

    #80948
    Profile photo of j4k3st4ff
    j4k3st4ff
    Participant

    +1 for this. Or a different option I’d like is a smaller specifically rackmount format DX168 that’s 2u? It’s annoying the DX168 is 4u when it can be smaller. My DX16/8s are rackmounted in a rack along with a 48 channel split and line system. I could cut the size of that rack down by 6u if the DX16/8s were smaller. I’m happy not to have a 48/24 or 24/12 IF the 16/8s were smaller.

    #80957
    Profile photo of moebius
    moebius
    Participant

    Hm, why not go modular and offer 16×8, 32×16 stageboxes with a slot for cards that deliver the Allen Heath Protocols and/or Dante, maybe MADI as well. On one hand you would loose the vendor lock-in, but on the other hand those boxes may pull in additional buyers who run Dante already, but don´t go for a new desk at the moment.

    #83498
    Profile photo of alli
    alli
    Participant

    Any news on that?

    #83751
    Profile photo of gunzy
    gunzy
    Participant
    #83754
    Profile photo of Steffen R
    Steffen R
    Participant

    and this as well

    DT168

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.