ProSoundWeb Community
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 => Topic started by: Doug Fowler on August 12, 2013, 03:49:02 PM
-
X32 connectivity solutions here.
-
X32 > 225 ft Belden Data Tuff w/ ethercon > S16 # 1 > 50 ft Belden Data Tuff w/ ethercon > S16 # 2
http://www.markertek.com/Cables/Computer-Data-Cables/CAT-5-Cables/TecNec/CAT5XTRM-10.xhtml?utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_source=googlebase&cvsfa=3786&cvsfe=2&cvsfhu=434154355854524d2d3230&gclid=CNzHusLwnbkCFUhk7AodX0AAOQ
While I was waiting for the DataTuff cable to be shipped, I bought a 100' spool of Cat5 off the shelf at Home Depot. I had no issue with it and have had none with the Belden.
-
X32 > 225 ft Belden Data Tuff w/ ethercon > S16 # 1 > 50 ft Belden Data Tuff w/ ethercon > S16 # 2
http://www.markertek.com/Cables/Computer-Data-Cables/CAT-5-Cables/TecNec/CAT5XTRM-10.xhtml
While I was waiting for the DataTuff cable to be shipped, I bought a 100' spool of Cat5 off the shelf at Home Depot. I had no issue with it and have had none with the Belden.
I have a 100' piece of generic CAT5e UTP on our cross-stage drive loom and used it to connect an X32 to S16. Coiled up, with the ends freed enough to do the patch, we encountered no problems in shop tests. I need to see if there is 250' - 300' left in a box and try it out.
The Markertec product looks interesting. Behringer says "shielded" but so far having no luck with "stock" assemblies of STP/Ethercon.
-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/130892764848 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/130892764848)
Works well , rugged... keep away from DMX cables paralleling the CAT5 cable...
-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/130892764848 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/130892764848)
Works well , rugged... keep away from DMX cables paralleling the CAT5 cable...
How much of an issue is this in your experience? I assume the same goes for paralleling AES/EBU audio with CAT5?
-
The digital signal of the DMX line, and they were using std. mic cables for DMX was noticeable during load in and setup. It did seem to go away once the show started , but that may have been attributed to us not noticing due to volume, however even during the performer change outs, it was not there...really strange but next time we will separate DMX by some distance from the CAT5/6 cables. A Shielded CAT5/6 most likely/probably/would reject the interference for sure.
-
The digital signal of the DMX line, and they were using std. mic cables for DMX was noticeable during load in and setup. It did seem to go away once the show started , but that may have been attributed to us not noticing due to volume, however even during the performer change outs, it was not there...really strange but next time we will separate DMX by some distance from the CAT5/6 cables. A Shielded CAT5/6 most likely/probably/would reject the interference for sure.
While this may not be the right forum for discussion, I must say, John, that the DMX being next to or on top of AES50 cabling will NOT do what you're claiming.
Why? Because the signals are digital, if there was any corruption of the AES data you would lose word clock sync. Shit would stop working.
The demodulated DMX noise was getting in somewhere, but it wasn't in the AES50 run...
-
We used Belden 1583A for our install. FOH run is around 100 feet to the first S16, and another 50 feet or so to the second S16 on the opposite side of the stage.
Has worked rock solid so far, no crackles, pops, or loss of signal outside of user error. I know its not a touring solution, but for install it has worked.
http://www.belden.com/techdatas/english/1583A.pdf
-
Using the multi version of Gepco CT504HDX with Midas with no troubles.
-
Two S16's, Two X32's, one P16D, eight P16M.
S16-->S16-->X32 FOH-->X32 Record, using generic Cat5e UTP (install, through conduit). Roughly 100-150' runs. Also, X32 FOH-->P16D-->8X P16M, also generic C5eUTP. Add patch cables at FOH and the P16's (connected via Neutrik NE8FDP's).
No problems. Though figuring out how to get returns from Record to FOH took a bit of thinking.
-
S16-->Jumper-->S16-->350' Duracat Ethercon c5e UTP Pick-->X32.
Not so much. Saw it, tried to sync...but wouldn't lock. Not really a surprise; not only does the distance exceed the 320' spec'd maximum, it was also picked with a 350' U-ground, and a run of Soca. I in no way blame Behringer for this setup's failure.
-
Has anyone had an issue with static electricity yet? I read about some issues when using a non shielded cable (lots of pops and crackles when static is introduced at the microphone), but hadn't had an issue until last week. We were in a venue that had very dry and and a carpet stage. Step up to the mic and you would here a loud crackle thru the channel (and others that were even in use). We switched from the S16 to a copper snake and the issue went away. We were using DURACAT for the termination between the X32 producer and the S16. I have some shielded Cat5 on the way to see if that fixes the issue (I have heard from some others that it will). Shocked I am not hearing about more people having issues with this yet.
-
A few folks tested the X32/S16 connection against static discharge using shielded and unshielded cable. The discussion of that is available in this thread:
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,143428.150.html
The results are pretty conclusive that the S16/X32 connection is highly sensitive to static discharge at either end when using unshielded cable. Shielded cable with Ethercon connectors seems to fix the problem. I haven't seen anyone report being able to cause the S16 to disconnect when using shielded cable with Ethercons.
-
Has anyone had an issue with static electricity yet? We switched from the S16 to a copper snake and the issue went away.
The issue went away but it is not any kind of evidence that the noise was in fact static to start with and you still don't know if shielded CAT would be the "solution".
I have been using unshielded CAT cable for my X32 in some very dry theatres and, so far, no issues.
Still, I think I might look into a shielded option.
-
A few folks tested the X32/S16 connection against static discharge using shielded and unshielded cable. The discussion of that is available in this thread:
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,143428.150.html
The results are pretty conclusive that the S16/X32 connection is highly sensitive to static discharge at either end when using unshielded cable. Shielded cable with Ethercon connectors seems to fix the problem. I haven't seen anyone report being able to cause the S16 to disconnect when using shielded cable with Ethercons.
Worth re-emphasizing the Ethercon component. I'd guess that either the Ethernet jack is not a shielded compatible type and so the ethercon is required to make the grounded connection, or the Ethercon and shield connection of the Ethernet jack are not tied together, leaving the Ethernet jack ungrounded to the shield.
It's also worth noting that S16's linked into an otherwise properly cabled setup would occasionally drop out when using an unshielded or non-ethercon equipped cable. For best results, use properly assembled solid core shielded cabling with Ethercons for all AES50 links on the system.
-
Guys,i wonder if Berry X32 can use wireless router to communicate between S16 and the main console,and im planning on using x32 core with expectation it can be Avid S3L cheap version and my question is can x32 core to be use with control surface device like novation ? sorry for my poor english :)
-
Guys,i wonder if Berry X32 can use wireless router to communicate between S16 and the main console,and im planning on using x32 core with expectation it can be Avid S3L cheap version and my question is can x32 core to be use with control surface device like novation ? sorry for my poor english :)
Please go to your profile and change the "Name" field to your real first and last name as required by the posting rules displayed in the header at the top of the section, and in the Site Rules and Suggestions (http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,36.0.html) in the Forum Announcements section, and on the registration page when you registered.
Mac
-
Please go to your profile and change the "Name" field to your real first and last name as required by the posting rules displayed in the header at the top of the section, and in the Site Rules and Suggestions (http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,36.0.html) in the Forum Announcements section, and on the registration page when you registered.
Mac
Done Mac :)
-
Guys,i wonder if Berry X32 can use wireless router to communicate between S16 and the main console
No
-
Guys,i wonder if Berry X32 can use wireless router to communicate between S16 and the main console,and im planning on using x32 core with expectation it can be Avid S3L cheap version and my question is can x32 core to be use with control surface device like novation ? sorry for my poor english :)
No. While the X32 and S16 use shielded CAT5e, the signal is AES50 digital audio. It is not packet-switched data and therefore using wireless access points or data switches will not work.
I don't know about using other controllers but the X32 can emulate the Mackie HUI. Several independent software developers have written programs to allow use of other means of control, but whether or not Novation will work, I do not know.
-
No. While the X32 and S16 use shielded CAT5e, the signal is AES50 digital audio. It is not packet-switched data and therefore using wireless access points or data switches will not work.
I don't know about using other controllers but the X32 can emulate the Mackie HUI. Several independent software developers have written programs to allow use of other means of control, but whether or not Novation will work, I do not know.
Thank you for the answers Tim, i wonder Berry team would make make one ,it would be fun ;D .im trying to test my control surface into x32,ill post here if it works .
-
A real hacked-together-looking setup, but surprisingly stable:
At FOH:
[BCF2000] --<USB>--> [Raspberry Pi] --<Cat5>--\
[talkback mic] --------------<XLR>-------------> [custom Ethernet/Audio adapter] --<Cat5 to stage>-->
[headphone amp] -------------<XLR>------------/
At Stage:
/--<Cat5>--> [wireless router] --<Cat5>--\
--<Cat5 from FOH>--> [custom Ethernet/Audio adapter] <--------------[talkback XLR]--------------> [X32 Rack]
\-------------[monitor TRS]--------------/
I use this setup more than any other these days (despite also owning a full-size X32) because it gives me a 16x8 digital mixer with a 300' house snake in a package that fits in my (absurdly small) car.
-Russ
-
A real hacked-together-looking setup, but surprisingly stable: -Russ
Hello, curious about this hacked setup. Might the rest of us be privy to some detailed info about the design, construct, and implementation of such if you might be so kind. :)
-
Hello, curious about this hacked setup. Might the rest of us be privy to some detailed info about the design, construct, and implementation of such if you might be so kind. :)
He is using the Pi's to extend the midi from the remote surface.
Why not just use a iPad or a computer with a large touch screen @ FOH ??
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
-
He is using the Pi's to extend the midi from the remote surface. Why not just use a iPad or a computer with a large touch screen @ FOH ??
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Yes, an obvious best guess would be the BCF midi control via X32 ethernet remote port. This should leave 2 pairs and a possible shield available for the talkback mic and cans amp. Russel has previously posted of preference/desire for tactile control.
I personally prefer WiFi remote mix controlfor most times and situations, but fully understand and appreciate any one`s desire or need for tactile control.
If into sharing, I thought there may be a possible pic, sketch, report from the field for the asking. One less cat5/6 cable run for an InstaSnake & X32 remote ethernet port FOH deployment piqued my curiosity and could warrant consideration for particular situations if practical.
-
Yes, an obvious best guess would be the BCF midi control via X32 ethernet remote port. This should leave 2 pairs and a possible shield available for the talkback mic and cans amp. Russel has previously posted of preference/desire for tactile control.
I personally prefer WiFi remote mix controlfor most times and situations, but fully understand and appreciate any one`s desire or need for tactile control.
If into sharing, I thought there may be a possible pic, sketch, report from the field for the asking. One less cat5/6 cable run for an InstaSnake & X32 remote ethernet port FOH deployment piqued my curiosity and could warrant consideration for particular situations if practical.
Your guess is pretty spot-on. The adapters aren't anything photo-worthy (they're literally built out of $20 worth of parts from Home Depot), but it does exactly what you're suggesting: 100Base-TX Ethernet and 2 XLR connectors (one male, one female) goes in, and a single 8P8C jack comes out with Ethernet on pins 1,2,3, and 6, and analogue audio on pins 4,5,7, and 8. Plug in a short patch cable and an EtherCon coupler, and it's almost road-worthy (and lets me use the hundreds of feet of shielded cat5e cable with EtherCons I built for AES50 snakes).
The RPi's software was designed to work with the v1 firmware the X32 Rack shipped with, so instead of simply shunting MIDI down the line (the original X32 MIDI specification was... well, it wasn't, really) it does bi-directional Open Sound Control translation. I don't see any reason it couldn't be done with X-Touch-style MIDI-over-Ethernet instead, but because of other projects I know the X32's OSC implementation pretty well, and I've found it to be thoroughly (if unofficially) documented. (Incidentally, I don't see any reason why my adapters wouldn't work with one of the X-Touch units in place of the BCF2000 and the RPi, although with a used BCF2000 going for very reasonable sums on eBay, my solution is almost certainly more cost-effective.)
A lot of the sound work I've been doing for the past couple of years is in the realm of vocal jazz or vocal a cappella, where I find I spend much of the show making constant, small adjustments to a lot of different channels, and where having tactile control surface (with tactile solo buttons) is almost a can't-live-without-it. Different situations call for different tools, though, and I probably wouldn't have bothered with all this if I was doing more traditional rock and roll. To be clear-though, a tablet is absolutely vital to this rig, as my BCF2000 is only setup for main LR channel faders (originally only DCAs), mutes, solos, and a couple of function buttons (mute groups, tap delay, talkback). Everything else (EQ, dynamics, aux mixes, etc.) has to be done from the tablet (which, incidentally, is why bi-directional translation for the BCF2000 is nice: I can wander around with the tablet during sound check, and the control surface will always be in sync with that I'm doing; it's also a neat party trick to demonstrate to the uninitiated :D ).
As for a report from the field, I've been using this rig for the past year or two, and it's the only mixer that I do one of my more popular clients on. They often get hired to do events where they're only doing sometimes as little as one song, and the ability to roll up with their IEM mixes (and more esoteric EQs for beat-boxing, etc.) setup and ready to go means a half-hour sound check becomes a possibility. It's definitely done a couple of shows with 500+ people in the house (and recently in a packed 1700 seat venue).
The only time I've ever run into trouble with it was a somewhat cobbled-together outdoor show where the BCF2000 wouldn't respond to any control signals from the X32, although mercifully it was still sending messages out. Of course, when I got home, I tested the system and everything worked fine again (and has worked fine since), so I'm operating under the assumption that the mains power at FOH (which consisted of a lot of crappy orange extension cables) was so under-volted that the BCF2000 wasn't getting enough power (which makes me thankful I wasn't trying to run an actual mixer out there!). Even so, the show came off just fine and, as I say, no issues when the BCF2000 is less than 200' from the nearest outlet and not sharing power with 12 amps worth of powered speaker. :P
-
Your guess is pretty spot-on.
As for a report from the field, I've been using this rig for the past year or two, and it's the only mixer that I do one of my more popular clients on. :P
Well I thank you for sharing your Roll Your Own rig, as well as the accompanying field report. Necessity is whose momma ? :D
I would imagine this set-up of interest to more than a few users of similar platforms and scenarios. Quick now, http://www.uspto.gov/ :D
-
Hey Russell, that's quite an ingenious solution when working with a wired setup, which for critical gigs I think I would feel safer with. I had completely forgotten that there were two unused pairs in a standard ethernet connection. Definitely going to knock something up along those lines when I get time. Since I'll have a FOH PC for main X32-Rack control and a Stage PC for USB recording duties, I'm also going to experiment with streaming the monitor send to FOH and Talkback from FOH to stage over RTP connections on the ethernet. In theory this config should also work with a wireless FOH-Stage connection but I have yet to play with that. May even combine the two so I can use the two pairs for stereo monitor feed from Stage to FOH and use a stream to get talkback from FOH to Stage (any slight latency should be no issue for this).
Thank-you for putting the idea out there - been pondering the best way to solve this issue Cheers.
Vic
-
Worth noting that the split pairs between network and audio may be fine for Ethernet but may not work well for AES50 (not certain there) and I know from experience would not work for passing Ultranet. I even corrected an accidental crossover cable someone had created to pass Ultranet that actually worked to some extent but had channels swapped in position at the P16. It appeared to carry 4 channels of audio per pair on the cable.
-
Worth noting that the split pairs between network and audio may be fine for Ethernet but may not work well for AES50 (not certain there) and I know from experience would not work for passing Ultranet. I even corrected an accidental crossover cable someone had created to pass Ultranet that actually worked to some extent but had channels swapped in position at the P16. It appeared to carry 4 channels of audio per pair on the cable.
And they won't work for GB Ethernet, which uses all 4 pairs, so no Dante. There are pretty specific conditions under which this works.
Mac
-
And they won't work for GB Ethernet, which uses all 4 pairs, so no Dante. There are pretty specific conditions under which this works.
Mac
Of course, if you have Dante (which should, if I'm not mistaken, happily coexist on the same network run with a few OSC messages), you probably don't need the analogue audio at all. (I had considered going this route at one point instead of my franken-adapter, but small-format Dante nodes seem to be rare and cost-prohibitive.)
-Russ
Edit: this also dawned on me after I submitted the post: I'm 99% sure that Dante only requires 100 Mbit Ethernet.
-
Edit: this also dawned on me after I submitted the post: I'm 99% sure that Dante only requires 100 Mbit Ethernet.
A small node can run on 100Mb, but Audinate recommends not using any 100Mb infrastructure. You can get GB switches for $100, why run 100Mb and risk failure.
HERE (https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled/new-products) is a showcase of Dante products.
Mac
-
Yes, but Dante equipped small interface units are horrendously expensive. When Dante brought out the Ultimo chip, I was hoping that their claim "The Dante Ultimo chip is a highly cost-effective but feature-rich Dante solution for low channel-count applications. It extends Dante networking to endpoint products such as powered speakers, amplifiers, wall plates and break-out boxes." would be true. But even RDL, a company known for well priced products, their 2 channel interface is $450!!!
Looks like the cheapest low channel count Dante interface is an X32R with the Dante card in it.
I'm hoping someone is going to figure out how to make a low cost Ethernet equipped thing, like a Raspberry Pi, or an IoT thing, connect to decent audio I/O, by which I mean balanced, not a headphone output. Or even that Berry will make a Dante version of the ADA8200, or a 8 channel version of the SRC2496 with AES, MADI, and ADAT. I can dream, right?
And 100MB/Sec is fine for a couple Dante channels.
-
And they won't work for GB Ethernet, which uses all 4 pairs, so no Dante. There are pretty specific conditions under which this works.
Mac
Good spot Mac - I started my networking days on 10Base2 and 10Base5 so hadn't absorbed the fact that GB Ethernet was using all 4 pairs. Luckily my intention will only be to use it on the control link from PC to X32Rack for which 100BaseT will be more than enough.
Scale of my gigs doesn't get anywhere near warranting the cost of Dante (nice though that might be!)
-
I'm hoping someone is going to figure out how to make a low cost Ethernet equipped thing, like a Raspberry Pi, or an IoT thing, connect to decent audio I/O, by which I mean balanced, not a headphone output. Or even that Berry will make a Dante version of the ADA8200, or a 8 channel version of the SRC2496 with AES, MADI, and ADAT. I can dream, right?
I have reasonably high hopes that AES67 will open the door for this sort of thing. There's nothing I'd love more than to be able to drop the analogue audio and replace it with some sort of software driver on the RPi (or a more powerful SoC) passing audio in and out through a 4x4 USB interface (or something along those lines).
Then again, if Audinate would just release a Linux-compatible virtual soundcard driver, that would do it too. Ah well.
-Russ
-
Behringer says 16 channels out and top 4, 13 to 16 are used by effects sends. So is my logic correct when I use the X32 rack connected to S16 with aes50 that I only have 4 outputs on the S16. 1 to 4. 5 to 8 is using the effects.
Is there something I missed in configuring the S16 and the patching? I would like to get all 8 outputs working on the S16. 1 threw 8 are working fine on the Rack. L/R out and 6 monitor sends.
-
Behringer says 16 channels out and top 4, 13 to 16 are used by effects sends. So is my logic correct when I use the X32 rack connected to S16 with aes50 that I only have 4 outputs on the S16. 1 to 4. 5 to 8 is using the effects.
Is there something I missed in configuring the S16 and the patching? I would like to get all 8 outputs working on the S16. 1 threw 8 are working fine on the Rack. L/R out and 6 monitor sends.
You will be able to use all 8 outputs on the S16. You will still use Sends 13-16 for the effects, but those are intenal busses that don't patch trough the S16.
-
You will be able to use all 8 outputs on the S16. You will still use Sends 13-16 for the effects, but those are intenal busses that don't patch trough the S16.
Thanks will give another try after the weekend work.