Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chris Hindle]

I remember when the audio industry was talking about going digital, it went something like this:

"Currently the analog world has all kinds of differences, dBu, dBV, 600 ohm, balanced, unbalanced etc.  But don't worry, when we go digital, everything will be the same and everything will work with everything else, you just plug it in and go".

YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is FAR worse than it was-as far as components and compatibility.

Just because everyone seems to have a different interpretation of "the Standard"....
Chris.

[Ivan Beaver]

Just because everyone seems to have a different interpretation of "the Standard"....
Chris.

The nice thing about "standards" is that there are so many to choose from

[Benjamin Krumholz]

The nice thing about "standards" is that there are so many to choose from

" We've upped our standards, now UP YOURS!"

[drew gandy]

On one hand I want to say 'hats off' to the Australians.  They've done something truly spectacular with their tax dollars. 

But on the other hand, if we're going to have a standard (de facto or not) it really needs to be open and available.  At this point, DANTE requires their proprietary physical chips.  I don't believe that any of the under the hood details are openly published.  As of a couple years ago Audinate was not interested in working with smaller manufacturers which is really a shame since audio has been a home to dozens and dozens of tiny companies for decades.   

I don't know how Audinate treats the education world.   

AVB/TSN is open.  But, like other open standards, things can move very slowly.  Some of the silicon companies (Xmos for one) who could really help in making a new standard a reality, jumped in several years ago but have since back-pedaled.  Presumably this is because it started to appear that AVB wasn't being adopted by the industry after all.  Thankfully there's been more movement after the automotive industry took notice. 

Again, I hope this isn't another VHS/Beta situation where consumer confidence steers the ship.  DANTE and AVB/TSN can both exist but so far it's been confusing for end users who largely view them as direct competitors to each other.   

And all the while, I'm sure some are still mourning the other network audio standards that have already died.   

[Andrew Broughton]

Ok, we're starting to get somewhere now.

[rant]
In the world of PROFESSIONAL LIVE audio, I'm getting sick of hearing how this or that multi-channel audio can "co-exist" on other networks, and how you can use "consumer grade" networking components. How and why did this become a thing?
In the "good old days", we BARELY would piggyback anything on an analogue multicore (maybe some returns, but not DMX or COM if you knew what you were doing). Do you buy consumer preamps and mics? Why shouldn't the networking be as professional as the rest of the gear? Why would you not run your own network for your audio? You had to run your multi-$k multicore by itself in the past, so why are you trying to share these inexpensive networking cables with some other network? Multi-cores cost $1000's, why shouldn't you spend $1000's on your networking too? It shouldn't be about saving money and lowering quality, it should be about the convenience and flexibility that comes with Digital.

Who cares if the networking is Layer 2 when it's running on it's own? As long as there are bridges between protocols that allow you to send/receive digital audio between different formats, that's all that matters. Just like you used to run your OWN Multicore, run your OWN network cabling for the audio.
Argh.
[/rant]

If there is truly a clocking issue with Dante and AVB is the solution (I really don't think companies like Midas and L'Acoustics would choose a protocol lightly), then the missing part of AVB currently seems to be bridges to convert formats, OS support for a working AVB ASIO/CoreAudio Driver, and IO cards for companies that use them (Yamaha, Midas, Behringer, Soundcraft, etc.)

[John P. Farrell]

As far as I'm concerned, these are both "new standards". 

If you are using DANTE on a dedicated network with no other traffic then you are far less likely to encounter an issue.  One of the biggest concerns that is addressed with AVB/TSN is that it guarantees the timely delivery of the signal by giving it priority at a fairly low level in the networking protocol.  When functioning at Layer 3, it is far more difficult to guarantee the timing of the data.  Of course, it could be argued that if you are using a dedicated network you may as well operate at layer 2 but, the finer details of that are swamped by all sorts of other issues.   Suffice to say, engineering is usually about balancing priorities.  DANTE is great in a number of areas but has drawbacks in others.  I hope that both protocols will exist into the future.  Rather than looking at them as competing, we should probably see them as useful options to solve our 'problems'.  You can find info about AVB at the AVNU alliance as well as at some of the manufacturer's websites.  Biamp in particular seems to have a lot of info. 

 

I would hardly call DANTE a new standard.  It's been around since 2006 and I haven't been to an A level gig in years where it wasn't part of the audio distribution, console audio, or RF path.  For those of us using things like Axient or ULXD and Yamaha desks having to adapt to a new standard (which has admittedly also existed for a while, but never really caught on to my knowledge or markets I visit worldwide) there needs to now be a bridge and new card set to consider.  Also with all the desks that have DANTE capability via card to interface with current networks (AH, Midas, Soundcraft seem to be prime suspects here) the argument that DANTE has a lot of issues seems to be refuted by the popularity of it's use.  But hey, I'm always interested in something better.  I am not interested in solutions looking for a problem though, and I have yet to have a real problem that wasn't self imposed in the DANTE realm. 

[Taylor Hall]

...but so far it's been confusing for end users who largely view them as direct competitors to each other.

I wouldn't exactly say that's the case, I had no idea AVB even existed before this thread. Granted, that's primarily because I don't live in any of the OEMs' ecosystems that are developing it, and I would say that others ignorant of AVB would share that same reasoning.

If anything, I see this as a first to market type scenario where Audinate got their product out first, and have gained significant market share for over a decade because of it. Like John just mentioned, it's everywhere you look now on products ranging from mixers and active cabinets to wireless rx and amps/processors across multiple tiers of products from MI gear all the way to arena touring. Trying to pry people away from it at this point is going to take a paradigm shift either in terms of performance, cost, or both.

[Andrew Broughton]

Again, the most damning evidence for there being a problem with Dante is that companies that can afford to do WHATEVER they want, including creating their own protocol from scratch, are NOT choosing Dante. Cost and licensing cannot be a factor at this level.

I hesitate to mention that I've heard the difference on a K2 rig switching between running AVB and Analog (not AES, unfortunately) and the difference was quite audible. The reason I say that I hesitate to say this is that it wasn't any kind of proper laboratory test, no double-blind, etc. and I've been a big Unbeliever in things like external wordclocks and so on, with the attached claims of changing people's lives, etc. So, I don't put much weight to the "evidence" from that one listening test.

[Russell Ault]

Again, the most damning evidence for there being a problem with Dante is that companies that can afford to do WHATEVER they want, including creating their own protocol from scratch, are NOT choosing Dante. Cost and licensing cannot be a factor at this level.

That's not universally true; Yamaha certainly could have done whatever they wanted to, but they chose Dante.

I always figured that it was about control (and not being beholden to a third-party): AVB lets you roll your own chips and firmware, Dante doesn't.

[...] You had to run your multi-$k multicore by itself in the past, so why are you trying to share these inexpensive networking cables with some other network? Multi-cores cost $1000's, why shouldn't you spend $1000's on your networking too? [...]

I've never understood this mentality. We work in a niche industry (or a niche of a niche, if you will), so almost nothing we do has the ability to benefit from economies of scale; yet when the opportunity presents itself to allow us to take advantage of other industries' economies of scale, so many of us balk at the idea.

An unmanaged network switch is, at its heart, a pretty simple device that does a pretty simple job. For most professional live sound applications (i.e. ones that don't need touring-grade physical durability) the difference between a $100 switch and a $1000 is $900 (that could be put towards something more useful).

In addition to saving money, network sharing and commodity hardware leave a lot more options on the table for solving those "oh shit" moments. They also leave the door open to doing things that would otherwise be much more difficult (getting audio between buildings on IT Department infrastructure is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than burying your own fibre).

Basically, there's more to professional live audio than top-tier touring with top-tier budgets. If the audio is getting from A to B reliably, why spend more than you have to?

-Russ

[Andrew Broughton]

I disagree about using consumer grade hardware and sharing networks, but let's not derail the conversation any more than I already have! :-)

[ProSoundWeb Community]