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 => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Kevin Maxwell on February 14, 2019, 09:31:31 AM

Title: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 14, 2019, 09:31:31 AM
Dante questions

I have mixed on a system that was interconnected with Dante but I had nothing to do with the setup and I am a complete novice regarding Dante. I have watched some videos but that hasn’t helped me too much yet.

I am working on a change to the speaker system in an install and the amps that look like the best choice that have the needed DSP also have Dante. This is a distributed system that will consist of around 20 – 30 speakers, there are 21 at the moment. The present mixer (Avid SC48) that we are in no rush to replace doesn’t have Dante but does have the AES XO16 card installed. I will most likely use the AES outputs on that card because I need a lot of outputs for different things. Including stems sent to the IEM system, that’s another story but no questions regarding that at the moment. The Amps don’t have AES inputs. I was going to use the Audinate Dante AVIO adapters to convert the AES outputs from the mixer  to Dante.

Am I correct to assume that I would need a gigabit switch at the FOH end to combine all of these AVIO adapters (4 or 5 of them) and another in the amp room backstage to split to the amps? I also assume that I can then in the amps pick the sends from FOH out of the Dante stream, including picking off the same signal to multiple amp channels. I will be using the matrix outputs of the mixer to send to the different amp channels. If this works as I think I see the advantage of Dante working as an audio distribution method to the amps instead of needing an additional DSP of some sort. Instead of a lot of Y cables.

Is there anything that I am missing?
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Erik Jerde on February 14, 2019, 09:39:09 AM
Dante questions

I have mixed on a system that was interconnected with Dante but I had nothing to do with the setup and I am a complete novice regarding Dante. I have watched some videos but that hasn’t helped me too much yet.

I am working on a change to the speaker system in an install and the amps that look like the best choice that have the needed DSP also have Dante. This is a distributed system that will consist of around 20 – 30 speakers, there are 21 at the moment. The present mixer (Avid SC48) that we are in no rush to replace doesn’t have Dante but does have the AES XO16 card installed. I will most likely use the AES outputs on that card because I need a lot of outputs for different things. Including stems sent to the IEM system, that’s another story but no questions regarding that at the moment. The Amps don’t have AES inputs. I was going to use the Audinate Dante AVIO adapters to convert the AES outputs from the mixer  to Dante.

Am I correct to assume that I would need a gigabit switch at the FOH end to combine all of these AVIO adapters (4 or 5 of them) and another in the amp room backstage to split to the amps? I also assume that I can then in the amps pick the sends from FOH out of the Dante stream, including picking off the same signal to multiple amp channels. I will be using the matrix outputs of the mixer to send to the different amp channels. If this works as I think I see the advantage of Dante working as an audio distribution method to the amps instead of needing an additional DSP of some sort. Instead of a lot of Y cables.

Is there anything that I am missing?

Using AVIO units you don’t have the secondary network so you’re a little more exposed to a failure.  I’d recommend using switches that support link aggregation groups so you can have a couple cables (or more) between switches which are always active and will give you some built-in redundancy.

Make sure the FOH switch is a POE switch for powering the AVIO adapters.  You don’t want the mess that comes with having to put POE injectors on every line.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Michael Lawrence on February 14, 2019, 09:44:56 AM
Good point about the POE.

I would just add that distributing the same signal to multiple amplifiers is what Audinate refers to as a Fanout Configuration, and you can do things a little more efficiently with a multicast flow. Not the end of the world in a small network but if things are added over time, you'll want to go with multicast.

It's covered in this Dante training video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clY65dm9YPY), and if you've got a spare hour, watching the Level 1 training online is well worth the time. Plus you get a certificate!

EDIT: funky grammar
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Andrew Hollis on February 14, 2019, 10:26:35 AM
You may find it more cost effective to use a single AES/Dante converter box instead of a bunch of dongles. This can also give you redundancy.

https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Rick Earl on February 14, 2019, 11:55:40 AM
We are mainly a Yamaha facility as we do some pretty extensive Dante' networking,  but our recording studios have been using the Focusrite equipment for some time without issue, the RedNet D16 AES might be a better long term option over the dongles.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Phillip Ivan Pietruschka on February 15, 2019, 03:00:20 AM
Dante questions

I have mixed on a system that was interconnected with Dante but I had nothing to do with the setup and I am a complete novice regarding Dante. I have watched some videos but that hasn’t helped me too much yet.

I am working on a change to the speaker system in an install and the amps that look like the best choice that have the needed DSP also have Dante. This is a distributed system that will consist of around 20 – 30 speakers, there are 21 at the moment. The present mixer (Avid SC48) that we are in no rush to replace doesn’t have Dante but does have the AES XO16 card installed. I will most likely use the AES outputs on that card because I need a lot of outputs for different things. Including stems sent to the IEM system, that’s another story but no questions regarding that at the moment. The Amps don’t have AES inputs. I was going to use the Audinate Dante AVIO adapters to convert the AES outputs from the mixer  to Dante.

Am I correct to assume that I would need a gigabit switch at the FOH end to combine all of these AVIO adapters (4 or 5 of them) and another in the amp room backstage to split to the amps? I also assume that I can then in the amps pick the sends from FOH out of the Dante stream, including picking off the same signal to multiple amp channels. I will be using the matrix outputs of the mixer to send to the different amp channels. If this works as I think I see the advantage of Dante working as an audio distribution method to the amps instead of needing an additional DSP of some sort. Instead of a lot of Y cables.

Is there anything that I am missing?

One of the things you need to pay careful attention to when working with dante systems, is their flow limitations. a device using an ultimo interface has a maximum of two flows (up to 4 channels per flow) in each direction. So using unicast transmission, you are limited to transmitting to (or receiving from) two devices. If you want to transmit to more than two devices you can do so using multicast flows, but you will need to make sure your network is appropriately setup with IGMP snooping, especially with a bunch of 100Meg interfaces on the network.
There is not as easy a work around for the flow limitation on the input side (i use an audio router to combine signals into a signal flow when necessary). I am not so familiar with the AVIO units, however I expect their flow resources to be inline with the similarly small ultimo interfaces. However, if you put a larger (and more expensive) Brooklyn 2 based AES interface with you console, you would likely not need a network switch at FOH.

Audinate has some good resources on switch configuration if you end up multicasting from your AVIO units.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 16, 2019, 09:46:31 AM
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.

I would usually lean to buying a rack mount AES to Dante converter but they seem to be A LOT more expensive than the AVIO units. The AVIO units sell for under $130 each and I would probably only need 3 or 4 of them. I am only looking to send Dante to the amps from about 6 matrix outputs from the (Avid SC48) mixers AES sends. So I don’t understand why I need a more expensive AES to Dante converter. Or maybe I am just not finding a simple unit that will do what I want.

I am looking to go with the Dante to the amps because I am hoping this would work the best for what we are doing and will be usable in the future if they ever change out the mixer to one with Dante in the future.

BTW I watched a video of someone that dissected one of the AVIO units and they look to be built very solidly. It took a lot for him to cut it apart. The Brooklyn II seems to be a card that is used in some devices like the Focusrite RedNet D16R AES/EBU Interface that sells for about $2100. And I would need to make a cable that goes from XLR to DB25 for that unit. I actually may have one of them lying around but I don’t like the DB25 connectors. But that unit at the moment seems like serious overkill.

Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Erik Jerde on February 16, 2019, 03:19:05 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.

I would usually lean to buying a rack mount AES to Dante converter but they seem to be A LOT more expensive than the AVIO units. The AVIO units sell for under $130 each and I would probably only need 3 or 4 of them. I am only looking to send Dante to the amps from about 6 matrix outputs from the (Avid SC48) mixers AES sends. So I don’t understand why I need a more expensive AES to Dante converter. Or maybe I am just not finding a simple unit that will do what I want.

I am looking to go with the Dante to the amps because I am hoping this would work the best for what we are doing and will be usable in the future if they ever change out the mixer to one with Dante in the future.

BTW I watched a video of someone that dissected one of the AVIO units and they look to be built very solidly. It took a lot for him to cut it apart. The Brooklyn II seems to be a card that is used in some devices like the Focusrite RedNet D16R AES/EBU Interface that sells for about $2100. And I would need to make a cable that goes from XLR to DB25 for that unit. I actually may have one of them lying around but I don’t like the DB25 connectors. But that unit at the moment seems like serious overkill.

Kevin there's lots of good info in this thread but I'm not surprised that for a Dante novice it's overwhelming.  With the setup as you've described it could be simple or it could be complicated depending on the multi-cast vs uni-cast flows thing described above.  That's part of the Dante system that starts to get confusing fast.

In order to figure out if this would impact you we'd need to have a fuller vision of the amp side of things.  You mentioned 20-30 speakers.  How many amps are driving these speakers?  How many channels in each amp?  Is each channel getting a different input or are they sharing inputs and just processing differently via onboard DSP?  You said 4-5 AVIO adapters.  Lay out your console to amp patching for us and we can help out.

I won't make your head spin more by trying to explain uni-cast vs multi-cast.  It is important though and with limitations of the AVIO adapters it could make your system less flexible than you anticipate if you were to just buy the gear and slap it all together.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Phillip Ivan Pietruschka on February 16, 2019, 11:53:00 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.

I would usually lean to buying a rack mount AES to Dante converter but they seem to be A LOT more expensive than the AVIO units. The AVIO units sell for under $130 each and I would probably only need 3 or 4 of them. I am only looking to send Dante to the amps from about 6 matrix outputs from the (Avid SC48) mixers AES sends. So I don’t understand why I need a more expensive AES to Dante converter. Or maybe I am just not finding a simple unit that will do what I want.

I am looking to go with the Dante to the amps because I am hoping this would work the best for what we are doing and will be usable in the future if they ever change out the mixer to one with Dante in the future.

BTW I watched a video of someone that dissected one of the AVIO units and they look to be built very solidly. It took a lot for him to cut it apart. The Brooklyn II seems to be a card that is used in some devices like the Focusrite RedNet D16R AES/EBU Interface that sells for about $2100. And I would need to make a cable that goes from XLR to DB25 for that unit. I actually may have one of them lying around but I don’t like the DB25 connectors. But that unit at the moment seems like serious overkill.

Kevin, the Brooklyn2 and Ultimo (and Broadway) are modules that OEMs buy from Audinate and incorporate into their devices as a dante interface. Whilst there is some custom configuration with each device, these modules have particular characteristics that set some upper limits on performance. In brief an Ultimo (or its variants) can have a maximum of 4 channels in and 4 out, with two flows in each direction (so the four outputs can only be from a maximum of two sources); it always has a 100Mb network interface, and can not support a redundant network. A brooklyn2 can support a maximum of 64io (though not every implementation does) with 32 flows in each direction, it is always a 1Gb network interface, and some implementations can support redundant network connection.

A unicast (one to one) flow carries four channels; a multicast flow (one to many) can carry up to 8 channels.

IGMP snooping is a process network switches use to determine which receivers want a multicast transmission, and then delivers it only to them. If your network switches do not support IGMP snooping, or it is not configured correctly, a multicast flow may behave like a broadcast transmission (one to all) and go to every interface. If your interfaces are only 100Mb they will be flooded with data they don't need or want without IGMP snooping. This would potentially include all of your AVIO AES transmitters receiving all the audio data from all the other AVIO AES transmitters.

If you made a detailed map of the required distribution (ie dante patching), you would have a better idea of if multicasting would be necessary.

Ultimately my suggestion for using a Brooklyn2 based interface was because the increased cost of the device is traded off against possibly only needing one network switch (or at least, not needing one at FOH, as there would only be a single cable run); and a lower mandatory level of network configuration for many applications making implementation easier. This may also open the door to some form of network redundancy (depending on the end points), but I'd consider this a lower priority than the two points above.

If you go to the audinate website you can do a search of all dante enabled equipment to find suitable candidates. There are several devices I use that could do the job such as the Yamaha Rsio64D and NTP Penta 720; however I have no doubt there are many others probably at more appealing price points, and with XLR connectivity. ASL make AES interfaces that have XLRs for instance.

I would strongly encourage you to do as much of the online dante training as you can. Consider it insurance again future headaches.

Phillip.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 17, 2019, 10:33:36 AM
I will attempt to explain the routing intended with this system. This is all just one way from mixer to amps.

This sound system is all in one room, it seats about 1800 people. It is a rectangular room that is 175 feet wide by 92 feet deep. The stage is built into the center of the long wall, so the room is wide and shallow. The speakers arcing out from the center of the front of the (new to be) curved stage jutting out from the center of the long wall. Right now the stage is mostly flush into that long wall. The renovation requires a rebuild of the speaker system and they want an upgrade of the speaker system in the process. There will be 4 delay arcs including the first arc. Plus front full speakers built into the front of the stage. The subwoofers will also be built into the front of the stage, they are self-powered with only analog inputs. I have nothing to do with the choice of the subs. The stage is low and they need to fit under the stage. The ceiling in the house is relatively low there are multiple levels in the room it is 15’10” in some places and 17’11” in others and even down to 13’11” in some. I give you that information to help you understand why the distributed sound system for this room. And the phrase I keep hearing over and over from the client is we only want to do this once.

Most likely 6 matrix outputs from the mixer (Avid SC48) using the AES outputs will be converted to Dante. 5 AES outputs are available, 3 will be used to give me 6 Matrix outputs. The Dante will go to the backstage equipment room to I assume a gigabit switch there to feed the amps. There will be four - four channel amps. For a total of 16 amp channels. The speaker layout is basically a mirror image from one side of the room to the other so in most cases each amp channel will feed 2 speakers. Except for the three speakers that will each be on their own channel running up the center of the room. BTW these will be Fulcrum Acoustic speakers.   I just want to pick off in the amps from the different matrix outputs to the individual channels of the mixer. Some matrix sends will feed multiple amp channels. There will be no mixing of multiple matrix sends to the same amp channel. The amps will be Powersoft Quattrocanali 4804 DSP+D.

The amps will handle all of the EQ and delay for the different speakers. The main reason for the matrix outputs of the mixer is so that the different zones can be muted at the mixer for smaller services or events in this room. Also so the levels of the person speaking can be pushed a LITTLE BIT more in speakers farther from the center of the stage. Giving more gain before feedback on the speech sends.

There seem like some of you are concerned about using the AVIO AES to Dante devices and saving the cost of a Gigabit PoE switch at FOH but it looks to me like those switches are under $200. So 3 AVIO or even 4 at a cost of around $130 each and 1 switch at under $200. For a total of around $720 compared to over $2000. I am not trying to cheap out, this speaker upgrade is possibly around $100,000  so a difference of one or 2 thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket. I was just having a hard time finding an AES to Dante rack device that looked like it fit the need and the AVIO devices looked like a simple way to do it. Also if in a few years they upgrade the mixer I assume it will be one with Dante built in. so the AES to Dante device we buy now will no longer be needed. 

Does this give enough information to explain what I am trying to do?

(http://)
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Justice C. Bigler on February 17, 2019, 10:56:51 AM
Kevin, what amplifiers and speakers are you using?

Yamaha has the Rsio64 (https://usa.yamaha.com/products/proaudio/interfaces/rsio64-d/), 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 wouldn’t 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.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Andrew Hollis 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.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 17, 2019, 06:04:43 PM
Kevin, what amplifiers and speakers are you using?

Yamaha has the Rsio64 (https://usa.yamaha.com/products/proaudio/interfaces/rsio64-d/), 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 wouldn’t 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?
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Erik Jerde 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.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell 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.   
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Mac Kerr 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
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Erik Jerde 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 you’ve got a mess on your hands.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 18, 2019, 09:58:54 AM
Almost done.  Make sure all the equipment is configured for redundant operation.  Miss one and you’ve 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 – 6 singers on stage and with this setup I can easily do 8 stereo or 16 mono IEM mixes if the X32 rack isn’t doing any effects. I could see sending the effects from the SC48 .   

The musicians on stage don’t 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. – (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 can’t tell you what they want in their monitors and don’t 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 won’t 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.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Phillip Ivan Pietruschka 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 – 6 singers on stage and with this setup I can easily do 8 stereo or 16 mono IEM mixes if the X32 rack isn’t doing any effects. I could see sending the effects from the SC48 .   

The musicians on stage don’t 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. – (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 can’t tell you what they want in their monitors and don’t 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 won’t 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 you’re 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.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 18, 2019, 11:35:22 PM
Kevin, delay is configurable by device. For a simple system like you’re 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.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: brian maddox on February 19, 2019, 12:32:32 AM
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.

The cheapest 22 input 14 output analog to Dante interface is an X32 rack with a Dante card.

I say that to say this.

I don’t really understand your routine scheme, but if you’re not using some of those X32 analog inputs, they could do duty as analog to Dante without using ANY of the X32 mixing.  Just as a pass through.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Justice C. Bigler on February 19, 2019, 02:44:27 AM
If you didn't need the AES inputs, you could get a Yamaha TIO1608-D, MSRP $1,200, with 16 analog inputs and Dante I/O.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Justice C. Bigler on February 19, 2019, 03:15:49 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
This also allows keeps things cleaner, with all the network patches in one place. And you can use less expensive non PoE switches.


With the AVIO adapters, you HAVE to have a network switch with PoE. They won't work as just analog, or AES to Dante adapters (except for the USB version which is powered by the computer USB connection). So you have to have a network switch in your system somewhere.


Some gear will allow you to connect everything together using a ring topology using the two network ports on the device as an in and out, without using a switch. The AVIO adapters don't. You have to use a star topology.


The NetGear GS108T is about $60-65. The Cisco SG350-10P can be found on Amazon for about $133. Still not super expensive.


But, how many of the AVIO adpaters will you need total? Each one needs it's own network port. And how many amplifiers do you need to connect? Each one will also need it's own network port. You might end up needing more than 10 network ports for all your AVIO-AES adapter and amplifiers, as each on only carries 2 channels in and out per each network port. The Focusrite D16R will carry 16 channel of AES per each network port. So you might end up having to bump up to a more expensive 24 port switch.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Phillip Ivan Pietruschka on February 19, 2019, 04:55:46 AM
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.

Glensound have more presence in broadcast than sound reinforcement. I wouldn’t have any reservations about using it if it meets your needs.

They also are one of the few companies that I’m aware of to incorporate SFP slots into their Dante interfaces, so you can go straight to fiber if need be.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 19, 2019, 11:48:01 PM
The cheapest 22 input 14 output analog to Dante interface is an X32 rack with a Dante card.

I say that to say this.

I don’t really understand your routine scheme, but if you’re not using some of those X32 analog inputs, they could do duty as analog to Dante without using ANY of the X32 mixing.  Just as a pass through.  Just a thought.

The X32 Rack For IEM mixes for the singers will be behind the stage and that would be over 150 foot of a cable run away. I was thinking of doing some of the FOH Avid analog outputs to a Dante network so I wouldn’t have to use the analog returns (stems off of the SC48) to the X32 rack for IEMs for the singers, but that can be on the analog runs from FOH to the backstage room. I have the analog cable runs already between those 2 points. Using a separate X32Rack as a Dante interface is an interesting idea but that doesn’t give me the AES inputs that I really need. I am leaning towards the Focusrite RedNet D16R AES to Dante interface.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 19, 2019, 11:48:44 PM
If you didn't need the AES inputs, you could get a Yamaha TIO1608-D, MSRP $1,200, with 16 analog inputs and Dante I/O.

But I really do need the AES inputs.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on February 19, 2019, 11:50:40 PM
BTW the Powersoft amps are now out of the running because it only has a primary Dante input and no secondary one. It looks like the Linea Research amps are now in.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Justice C. Bigler on February 20, 2019, 01:16:05 AM
BTW the Powersoft amps are now out of the running because it only has a primary Dante input and no secondary one. It looks like the Linea Research amps are now in.


So have you abandoned the idea of using the AVIO-AES adapters? Because if you are still intending to use them, the secondary network won't matter since they only have a single network port.


Have you found a suitable AES and analog to Dante interface? The Glensound interface seems about the only game in town for analog and AES to Dante, other than a mixing console or much more expensive i/i unit like the Yamaha RIOs.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Erik Jerde on February 20, 2019, 08:28:56 AM
BTW the Powersoft amps are now out of the running because it only has a primary Dante input and no secondary one. It looks like the Linea Research amps are now in.

That’s a rather interesting engineering choice.  I wonder how many sales they will loose due to the lack of redundancy.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Helge A Bentsen on February 20, 2019, 10:26:49 AM
That’s a rather interesting engineering choice.  I wonder how many sales they will loose due to the lack of redundancy.

It depends on the series you choose.

Quattrocanali, Duecanali and T-series has a single Dante-port
X and Ottocanali has redundant Dante
All of them have fallback to analog.

Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Riley Casey on February 20, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
One way to assess the need for redundancy is the nature of the cable path. Snakes are likely to run thru hostile environments ( a big part of why I’m not a fan of quad fiber runs in one jacket ) while backstage signal cable paths be they XLR or Dante are likely better protected.

That’s a rather interesting engineering choice.  I wonder how many sales they will loose due to the lack of redundancy.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: brian maddox on February 20, 2019, 03:23:13 PM
One way to assess the need for redundancy is the nature of the cable path. Snakes are likely to run thru hostile environments ( a big part of why I’m not a fan of quad fiber runs in one jacket ) while backstage signal cable paths be they XLR or Dante are likely better protected.

The need and/or appropriateness of fully redundant Dante systems has been something i've been giving a good bit of thought to recently.  Most of my thinking has been driven by some gig setup failures and troubleshooting problems CAUSED by having a redundant system in place and the inherent danger of the Primary and Secondary systems getting crossed/combined accidentally as a result.  That coupled with the fact that many of the devices i'm using on my shows don't even HAVE a redundant capability has caused me to seriously assess on a case by case basis if/when i should even USE a redundant system.

Am i Anti-Redundancy?  Of course not.  But i think ALWAYS running Redundant REGARDLESS of circumstances may not be the best option.  Truth is, running Primary/Redundant removes some failure points, but it also creates others.  it's a matter of thinking through the failure points on any particular situation and planning accordingly.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Dave Garoutte on February 20, 2019, 04:13:57 PM
It seems most of the failure points from redundancy are related to setup.
They wouldn't be intermittent or suddenly happen, it just wouldn't work correctly.
The failures of primary only are during actual use.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: brian maddox on February 20, 2019, 04:29:59 PM
It seems most of the failure points from redundancy are related to setup.
They wouldn't be intermittent or suddenly happen, it just wouldn't work correctly.
The failures of primary only are during actual use.

This is true.  But another failure point is if you have a failure of a piece of gear on the Primary/Redundant networks and it fails/reboots into Daisy Chain mode [which many default to] which will take down the whole Dante network.  Ask me how i know..

Does this happen all the time?  Of course not.  But it can/does.  Which goes to my point.  If the physical connection to a piece of Dante equipment is a single 2 foot cat5e cable From an enterprise quality switch in an installed rack that never gets opened, it might actually be safer to NOT use the redundant network on that piece of gear. 

Might....

Like i said, i've been thinking about it.  Doesn't mean i've come to a set conclusion.  :)
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Riley Casey on February 20, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
The one time I'd had a genuine failure was on show site, just prior to show.  A hotel employee somehow managed to cut cleanly one of my two fiber lines.  I've not been a fan of Whirlwind fiber cables since but my nice heavy duty European made Opticalcon cable on the secondary saved the show.

It seems most of the failure points from redundancy are related to setup.
They wouldn't be intermittent or suddenly happen, it just wouldn't work correctly.
The failures of primary only are during actual use.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on March 03, 2019, 02:34:37 PM
Where is the Dante configuration (that you are editing with your computer) stored? is it in the Focusrite RedNet D16R and/or the power amps, or is the Gigabit network switch. Or is there some other required equipment that I am overlooking?
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Justice C. Bigler on March 03, 2019, 05:03:59 PM
Where is the Dante configuration (that you are editing with your computer) stored? is it in the Focusrite RedNet D16R and/or the power amps, or is the Gigabit network switch. Or is there some other required equipment that I am overlooking?
Dante configurations are stored on the Dante chips in the Dante enabled devices. The configuration gets populated through the network to the other Dante chips on that network so they all see it.


Once you connect with Dante Controller with your computer, you can store that Dante setup file to your computer as any other file.
Title: Re: Dante questions
Post by: Andrew Broughton on March 03, 2019, 06:24:46 PM
Dante configurations are stored on the Dante chips in the Dante enabled devices. The configuration gets populated through the network to the other Dante chips on that network so they all see it.
I'm not sure that's completely correct. My understanding is that each device saves it's SUBSCRIPTIONS, which are only the input connections to that device. It knows nothing of the other devices on the network. That is to say, if a 2-channel device is on the network, it only knows the name and channel of the 2 subscriptions (the device name and channel name of the 2 signals that are going INTO that device), and has no information at all about where it's outputs are going or any of the other Dante signals that don't go to that device. It also knows it's own device name and the names of it's own outputs.

Dante Controller can look at each device on the network and get the names and subscriptions of each device and create the connection map.
That's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong...