Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums > Console Connectivity Solutions

Yamaha CL series

<< < (2/4) > >>

Mac Kerr:

--- Quote from: Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) on August 13, 2013, 10:08:06 am ---I use a Black Box TS580A "LAN Performance Verifier" to test and verify category performance of all the Ethernet cables we use for digital audio.  At $535USD it's a cheap necessity.

--- End quote ---

I think a cheap flashlight style fiber illuminator is a good thing to have as well. $40-$80 gets you a good one.

I just connected 2 CL-5s, 8 Rios, and 3 Ro8s with Pathport Via12 switches and multimode fiber. Worked a charm.

Mac

Jim Wilkens:
I've got questions.

Here's my set up. CL5 console with FOH rack, two RIO3224 stage racks. FOH rack and stage rack 1 have two CiscoGS300 switches in each set up as primary and secondary networks. Switches are wired to panel mount Opticalcon quad conectors and I have a 200 meter Opticalcon quad multimode cable. This set up works great and has a lot of flexibility.

Here are my questions. I'm setting up a VLAN on the secondary network for control. Do I need tobe concerned at all about clock synchronization with the two different networks carrying different traffic? Should I set up all the ports as trunk or make the control ports access? The port between FOH and stage will have to be trunk anyway. Does this make a real difference?

Mac Kerr:

--- Quote from: Jim Wilkens on July 11, 2014, 03:28:49 pm ---Here are my questions. I'm setting up a VLAN on the secondary network for control. Do I need tobe concerned at all about clock synchronization with the two different networks carrying different traffic? Should I set up all the ports as trunk or make the control ports access? The port between FOH and stage will have to be trunk anyway. Does this make a real difference?

--- End quote ---

No worries. You will be so far under the capability of your network you will never notice any other traffic.

As long as your switches are configured with QoS the Dante data will have the highest priority, and nothing will impinge on it. You can send 48x48 of Dante over a 100MB connection, so 64x64 will be under a 20% load on your network. The control data will be a tiny fraction of that. You will have network headroom for days.

Mac

Jim Wilkens:

--- Quote from: Mac Kerr on July 11, 2014, 05:28:36 pm ---No worries. You will be so far under the capability of your network you will never notice any other traffic.

As long as your switches are configured with QoS the Dante data will have the highest priority, and nothing will impinge on it. You can send 48x48 of Dante over a 100MB connection, so 64x64 will be under a 20% load on your network. The control data will be a tiny fraction of that. You will have network headroom for days.

Mac

--- End quote ---

Thanks Mac. I'm curious if there is a way to actually monitor that load.

By the way, the Audinate folks at Infocomm informed me that there is now a way to edit your Dante patch off line with the new version on Dante Controller. I have not figured it out yet. Have you?

Mac Kerr:

--- Quote from: Jim Wilkens on July 11, 2014, 05:36:35 pm ---Thanks Mac. I'm curious if there is a way to actually monitor that load.

By the way, the Audinate folks at Infocomm informed me that there is now a way to edit your Dante patch off line with the new version on Dante Controller. I have not figured it out yet. Have you?

--- End quote ---

I have run much larger systems than the one you have with both control and video distribution sharing the network with no issues. I'm sure there is a way to monitor the network load, but I don't know it.

The last time they told me about offline editing, it was by editing the text file that Dante Controller creates. Not really a solution as far as I'm concerned.

Mac

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version