ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Dante questions  (Read 2785 times)

Justice C. Bigler

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2263
  • Somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific
    • My homepage
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2019, 10:56:51 am »

Kevin, what amplifiers and speakers are you using?

Yamaha has the Rsio64, which is a Dante interface with 4 MY card slots that you can fill with any of their MY Cards, including the AES cards. It will convert AES to Dante, or Madi to Dante, or analog, ethersound, or any number of other formats to Dante. There is also the aforementioned Focusrite RedNet D16R.

I wouldnít hesitate to put either of those units into a system that I designed, depending on the cost vs I/O needs of each.

You can get AES-XLR to AES-DB25 break in cables already built.

If I were designing this network, I would use a pair of switches instead of the AVIO adapters.
Logged
Justice C. Bigler
www.justicebigler.com
Head Audio/A1 Blue Man Group: Speechless tour

Andrew Hollis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2019, 01:09:22 pm »

Thank you for the attempts at helping me. I will look at the video link and see if that helps at all. I am actually more confused now from these replies them I was before. I guess I have to learn what the terms mean so I can understand what you are talking about. It is Greek to me. I am by no means a novice except to Dante.

It sounds like cost is very important. You're right, a single hardware interface is probably more. Just highlighting the benefits. In your case go with the AVIO. They will completely do what you need. First-time Dante'er's don't really need to be concerned with unicast, multicast, or anything else at this stage. You can deal with it if you need to later. Or if you want to know take Level 1 online.

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2019, 06:04:43 pm »

Kevin, what amplifiers and speakers are you using?

Yamaha has the Rsio64, which is a Dante interface with 4 MY card slots that you can fill with any of their MY Cards, including the AES cards. It will convert AES to Dante, or Madi to Dante, or analog, ethersound, or any number of other formats to Dante. There is also the aforementioned Focusrite RedNet D16R.

I wouldnít hesitate to put either of those units into a system that I designed, depending on the cost vs I/O needs of each.

You can get AES-XLR to AES-DB25 break in cables already built.

If I were designing this network, I would use a pair of switches instead of the AVIO adapters.

The answer to you amp question is in my post just before yours. At the moment all I am able to publicly say is the speaker manufacturer is in that post also. You may have replied as I was posting that.

WOW the Yamaha  RSio64-D is expensive and it looks like that is an empty unit and you need to buy the MY cards. This isn't a cheap upgrade but I don't want to get carried away where I don't need to.

What pair of switches are you referring to that can replace some AES to Dante adapters? Is this something other then the Gigabit switches I was referring to?
Logged

Erik Jerde

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2019, 08:53:52 pm »

It sounds like cost is very important. You're right, a single hardware interface is probably more. Just highlighting the benefits. In your case go with the AVIO. They will completely do what you need. First-time Dante'er's don't really need to be concerned with unicast, multicast, or anything else at this stage. You can deal with it if you need to later. Or if you want to know take Level 1 online.

Unicast/Multicast may very well come into play based on how Kevin routes things.  3 two flow channel devices makes for 6 flows which need to then serve 4 4 channel amps.  Is it possible to set it up so uni/muticast doesn't come into play?  Yes, absolutely.  It's also equally likely that someone unaware of the complication will get tripped up on it.

Kevin, no switch can replace AES to Dante adapters.  I also don't think anyone is trying to save you cost by using a single AES unit and replacing a switch.  More they are just trying to save you complication.

To keep your system easiest to use based on everything you've said I'd recommend you use a single unit like the Focusrite D16AES.  If you don't care about redundant network you could probably then bypass the need for a switch all together.  Just cable to Focusrite D16AES to the first amp then daisy-chain through.  I'd still recommend a redundant network setup for both redundancy and future expansion but that's your call.

If you do it this way you won't have to worry about multi/unicast.  Rack mount is cleaner.  No POE switches necessary.  Yes it costs more but you're getting more too.  As you pointed out in the whole scheme of things it's a small additional cost.  If cost/complexity is a driving concern then pull analog lines back to the amps and be done with it.
Logged

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2019, 10:54:53 pm »

Unicast/Multicast may very well come into play based on how Kevin routes things.  3 two flow channel devices makes for 6 flows which need to then serve 4 4 channel amps.  Is it possible to set it up so uni/muticast doesn't come into play?  Yes, absolutely.  It's also equally likely that someone unaware of the complication will get tripped up on it.

Kevin, no switch can replace AES to Dante adapters.  I also don't think anyone is trying to save you cost by using a single AES unit and replacing a switch.  More they are just trying to save you complication.

To keep your system easiest to use based on everything you've said I'd recommend you use a single unit like the Focusrite D16AES.  If you don't care about redundant network you could probably then bypass the need for a switch all together.  Just cable to Focusrite D16AES to the first amp then daisy-chain through.  I'd still recommend a redundant network setup for both redundancy and future expansion but that's your call.

If you do it this way you won't have to worry about multi/unicast.  Rack mount is cleaner.  No POE switches necessary.  Yes it costs more but you're getting more too.  As you pointed out in the whole scheme of things it's a small additional cost.  If cost/complexity is a driving concern then pull analog lines back to the amps and be done with it.

Thank you for the reply. The Focusrite D16AES is discontinued. It seems to have been replaced by the
Focusrite RedNet D16R. How does one do a redundant network, what is needed to do that?

I thought I had mentioned that I needed to use the AES outputs because of the complexity of the IEM system in use, I don't have enough free analog outputs and the amps don't take AES. And these seem to be the best amps for the speakers unless I want to spend $1200 more per amp.   
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6553
  • Audio Plumber
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2019, 11:03:46 pm »

The Focusrite D16AES is discontinued. It seems to have been replaced by the
Focusrite RedNet D16R. How does one do a redundant network, what is needed to do that?

The RedNet D16R supports a redundant network. You would run 2 CAT5 cables from the D16R at the console, to the stage or amp room where you would have 2 8 port switches like the Netgear 108 Justice mentioned. One is primary, the other is secondary. Then you connect the primary switch to all the primary ports on the amps, and the secondary to the secondary. Done.

Mac
Logged

Erik Jerde

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2019, 01:01:50 am »

The RedNet D16R supports a redundant network. You would run 2 CAT5 cables from the D16R at the console, to the stage or amp room where you would have 2 8 port switches like the Netgear 108 Justice mentioned. One is primary, the other is secondary. Then you connect the primary switch to all the primary ports on the amps, and the secondary to the secondary. Done.

Mac

Almost done.  Make sure all the equipment is configured for redundant operation.  Miss one and youíve got a mess on your hands.
Logged

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2019, 09:58:54 am »

Almost done.  Make sure all the equipment is configured for redundant operation.  Miss one and youíve got a mess on your hands.

Do I need to contact the Department of Redundancy Department?  ;)

Now to complicate things a little more, last night I got to wondering if for the IEM mixer for the singers (it will be an X32 Rack) if it would make any sense to get the Dante card for it. Then any stems that I was planning on sending to it from the Avid SC48 could be done over Dante instead of analog lines. If I am only using 6 channels of AES (3 AES connectors) to the main speakers that would mean that I will have 4 AES channels (2 AES connectors) left over. I may be able to do what I need on those 4 channels or I may not. There are enough analog lines already so that part isn't the issue. But would this add too much propagation delay? I see that the Focusrite RedNet D16R is only AES and it doesn't have any analog inputs. 8 analog and 8 channels of AES would have been nice to accomplish this. Maybe someone makes a unit with this configuration. BTW what is the propagation delay in the Dante system?   

Since I know someone will ask about it here is a basic description of the IEM system.
The plan with the X32 Rack (in the amp room) for the singers IEM mixer is to take the second output of their receivers into the X32 Rack inputs. Then to send the Rack stems (sub mixes) from the SC48 to fill in their IEM needs. This will allow the singers to push their own vocal in their IEMs with a tablet or the person mixing FOH can help them with a tablet or a computer hooked up to the X32 rack. They have 4 Ė 6 singers on stage and with this setup I can easily do 8 stereo or 16 mono IEM mixes if the X32 rack isnít doing any effects. I could see sending the effects from the SC48 .   

The musicians on stage donít sing (except for 1) they have a hardwired IEM system that consists of little analog mixers for each of them with their instrument directly into it. They also get the vocal sub group into another input. They kept asking for the singer that takes the lead in a song to be pushed in their monitors when they used to use wedges. And when we came up with this IEM system being feed by the vocal subgroup it solved that issue. I had been telling them that the person singing the lead should actually sing the lead and the other singers should back off and that will fix that problem but this method has worked. (Sarcasm on) - Why fix it the right way when you can fix it with electronics. Ė (Sarcasm off.)

We also had a small diaphragm condenser plugged directly into the mixer (XLR size no cable needed) as an ambient mic, they never used that and the mic was removed. They also get another stem from the SC48 to fill in there other needs. They have loved that system, it is simple and they don't need to know how to mix. There are no amps on stage, all instrument are direct. The drums are behind a shield. The loudest thing on stage has been the floor wedges for the singers and this IEM system for the singers will eliminate that. It is another part of the system upgrade. The wedges have been too loud and mess it up for the seats in front of the stage.   

My basic feeling regarding IEM mixes that the musicians do themselves is many times it is destined for failure. Because if a person that canít tell you what they want in their monitors and donít realize that a lot of the time they need other things turned down instead of keep asking things to be turned up if they do the same for IEMs they wonít be happy. So a system that allows us to take it over and help them if they need it is more likely to be successful.

Thank you for your help. Please keep the Dante advice coming.
Logged

Phillip Ivan Pietruschka

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2019, 04:30:57 pm »

Do I need to contact the Department of Redundancy Department?  ;)

Now to complicate things a little more, last night I got to wondering if for the IEM mixer for the singers (it will be an X32 Rack) if it would make any sense to get the Dante card for it. Then any stems that I was planning on sending to it from the Avid SC48 could be done over Dante instead of analog lines. If I am only using 6 channels of AES (3 AES connectors) to the main speakers that would mean that I will have 4 AES channels (2 AES connectors) left over. I may be able to do what I need on those 4 channels or I may not. There are enough analog lines already so that part isn't the issue. But would this add too much propagation delay? I see that the Focusrite RedNet D16R is only AES and it doesn't have any analog inputs. 8 analog and 8 channels of AES would have been nice to accomplish this. Maybe someone makes a unit with this configuration. BTW what is the propagation delay in the Dante system?   

Since I know someone will ask about it here is a basic description of the IEM system.
The plan with the X32 Rack (in the amp room) for the singers IEM mixer is to take the second output of their receivers into the X32 Rack inputs. Then to send the Rack stems (sub mixes) from the SC48 to fill in their IEM needs. This will allow the singers to push their own vocal in their IEMs with a tablet or the person mixing FOH can help them with a tablet or a computer hooked up to the X32 rack. They have 4 Ė 6 singers on stage and with this setup I can easily do 8 stereo or 16 mono IEM mixes if the X32 rack isnít doing any effects. I could see sending the effects from the SC48 .   

The musicians on stage donít sing (except for 1) they have a hardwired IEM system that consists of little analog mixers for each of them with their instrument directly into it. They also get the vocal sub group into another input. They kept asking for the singer that takes the lead in a song to be pushed in their monitors when they used to use wedges. And when we came up with this IEM system being feed by the vocal subgroup it solved that issue. I had been telling them that the person singing the lead should actually sing the lead and the other singers should back off and that will fix that problem but this method has worked. (Sarcasm on) - Why fix it the right way when you can fix it with electronics. Ė (Sarcasm off.)

We also had a small diaphragm condenser plugged directly into the mixer (XLR size no cable needed) as an ambient mic, they never used that and the mic was removed. They also get another stem from the SC48 to fill in there other needs. They have loved that system, it is simple and they don't need to know how to mix. There are no amps on stage, all instrument are direct. The drums are behind a shield. The loudest thing on stage has been the floor wedges for the singers and this IEM system for the singers will eliminate that. It is another part of the system upgrade. The wedges have been too loud and mess it up for the seats in front of the stage.   

My basic feeling regarding IEM mixes that the musicians do themselves is many times it is destined for failure. Because if a person that canít tell you what they want in their monitors and donít realize that a lot of the time they need other things turned down instead of keep asking things to be turned up if they do the same for IEMs they wonít be happy. So a system that allows us to take it over and help them if they need it is more likely to be successful.

Thank you for your help. Please keep the Dante advice coming.

Kevin, delay is configurable by device. For a simple system like youíre proposing, 0.25ms or 0.5ms should be easily achievable without issue. This is set via the Dante Controller software.

There are plenty of devices that can accept a variety of signal types, AES, Analog, etc. The Rsio64d mentioned above is one, but again the audinate website has a more extensive online catalog than anyone could hope to remember.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 04:33:40 pm by Phillip Ivan Pietruschka »
Logged

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Dante questions
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2019, 11:35:22 pm »

Kevin, delay is configurable by device. For a simple system like youíre proposing, 0.25ms or 0.5ms should be easily achievable without issue. This is set via the Dante Controller software.

There are plenty of devices that can accept a variety of signal types, AES, Analog, etc. The Rsio64d mentioned above is one, but again the audinate website has a more extensive online catalog than anyone could hope to remember.

I have been watching a lot of the Audinate Dante videos today it looks relatively easy. But I am having problems finding a device with 8 AES inputs and 8 analog inputs. There are so many devices on the Audinate website pages that it may take a while to find one. I found a Glensound DARK 1616M Dante but I have never heard of this company and it is over $3000 and I think that is too expensive for what I am trying to do. I may go back to the idea of using the AVIO devices at least for the analog output to Dante, if I put any of the analog outs into the Dante. And maybe the Focusrite RedNet D16R for the AES outputs.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Dante questions
¬ę Reply #19 on: February 18, 2019, 11:35:22 pm ¬Ľ


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.07 seconds with 22 queries.