Sam_Scholten wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:08 am why can't I find a simple Dante bridge?"

Because capitalism obviously, but you'd think capitalism would allow an outboard Dante bridge for a few hundred that would get legacy gear online.

Well the simple answer is basically what BishopDante said, The computer becomes the Dante Bridge between your traditional IO and the Network. It's the single reason Dante Virtual Soundcard and VIA exist. Also, those softwares are less than $100 for both and if there was a piece of hardware where you plugged your USB/FW hardware into and it spit out Dante would cost Thousands of dollars, so this is a rare occasion where they aren't ripping you off. I also see a lot of Driver/control software problems with a box that did the trick because the Dante box becomes the host and not your CPU. The Options that are available are probably better, but again, expect your usual HW latency and a little more. Admittedly, all of my Dante experience is in a facility where we have about 20 tech booths decked out with audio and video/camera and broadcast networking solutions made by Cisco and the like. We just shoot shit everywhere and the delays are inconsequential. I've never used it in a studio recording environment.

Sam_Scholten wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:08 am So I saw the SSL Big Six has USB connectivity and I thought, "Man, wouldn't it be awesome to kick out some Dante channels to one of these and back. Or if we go with a different summing mixer, my RME is collecting dust and I'd love to put it to use instead of having to sell and shell for another Dante interface.

It's just ones and zeros anyway, why can't I find a simple Dante bridge?"

Because capitalism obviously, but you'd think capitalism would allow an outboard Dante bridge for a few hundred that would get legacy gear online.

The Big Six's implementation of USB just makes it a big interface with a bunch of knobs. How is this any different than another interface with Dante built-in?

I think the challenge with creating such a "bridge", is that there's no standard for how the console or interface manufacturers implement USB. Some devices are Host some are Devices. All are dependent upon USB drivers. Someone would need to build a bridge that could support a USB mixer or interface running as Host or Device and if Host be able to receive and install the host drivers, or running as Device, be able to install the software that could provide the drivers to the device. So it would need to have the software architecture to be able to do that. It would probably also need another flavor of Dante Controller as well to be able to control the USB routing matrix and port that to the Dante Routing matrix. USB is not inherently a networking interface, so for anything other than connecting to a computer, which provides the open architecture to allow a myriad or drivers and software protocols, it's a quagmire to manage in the physical domain - as anyone who's managed to try to cobble together multiple host devices on multiple hubs to host simultaneous HID devices, cameras, microphones, speakers, etc...while trying to manage power budgets on each port and so on, have found.

I think the problem is that by the time Audinate developed and licensed such a thing, the cost would exceed that to just use a new interface or console with Dante built-in or as a card accessory.

The other issue is that Audinate's business model is selling chipsets or virtualization software to specific input/output matrix sizes, so now they'd be stuck having to offer various bridge flavors based upon the Ultimo, Brooklyn II, HC etc... chipsets.

Would a cheapo live mixer with a Dante interface get you what you needed?

^ more graceful way of saying what I was trying to say.

Kniferide wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:31 pm ^ more graceful way of saying what I was trying to say.

It took a bit of thought to throw that together.

I've designed most of the audio systems I've done over the past 6+ years around Dante and AES67, but most of these have been either live event/performance spaces, or corporate meeting/conference facilities and higher-ed facilities. I've only worked on a few production environment projects in that time, and that was a video-centric post suite as well as a few campus broadcast type facilities. I have yet to design an audio recording suite or facility around Dante/AES67.

Before Dante it was AVB Layer-2 stuff, and before that - CobraNET (yuk!). The last time I put an analog pair snake in a facility was around 2009-11 with a bunch of 64-channel runs in a multipurpose university center that paralleled a redundant EtherSound (then Dante) topology. They only used the Dante stuff and later admitted they wasted about $30+k building out those analog snake systems that nobody ever touched.

I hate to admit it, but it won't be long and absolutely everything will just be IP network traffic. The only signals I'm running in facilities these days that isn't IP, are some still reliable HD-Base-T systems, as well as the user endpoint connections. But even things like 3.5mm, RCA, 1/4"TRS have been eschewed for Bluetooth, and when quality is a concern people just ask for better Bluetooth transceivers and codecs.

On a small PAC or theater project, all the wireless mic receivers are Dante, the mixer is Dante, the DSP/speaker controller is Dante, the amps are Dante, the ALS transmitter is Dante (and the ALS is Wi-Fi, not just FM or IR), and the stage boxes, breakout boxes, IEMs are Dante too. I run separate edge switches and VLANs for AV-over-IP, Dante/AES67, Control/monitoring, and H.264/265, and if available use an OOB port to connect to the Enterprise.

edit: I'm still not doing much with networked or digital production intercom. That's still mostly analog party-line with 1.9 or 2.4 GHz wireless intercom. Broadcast and live production people like their intercom and IFB as unfuckwithably reliable as possible.

bishopdante wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:34 pm Video transport is now done very nicely over IP by SDVoE, but it does require the 10Gb/100Gb sort of bandwidth if you want any to loads of 4k uncompressed streams.



Unlike a lot of prior video systems, the latency on the contemporary IP networked video distribution / routing systems is extremely low, so it can be used for KVM or multi-stream / tiled systems, and will handle a lot of warping and scaling features on the network / I/O nodes.

I've been impressed with SDVoE, but it is a bandwidth hog. Even just 1Gb HD streams use the full channel bandwidth, and if you'd got dozens of endpoints running simultaneously, the backplane on a typical edge switch will quickly run out. The need for switches running Tb backplane and 40-100Gb uplinks at the edge become vital.

I've been using the proprietary offerings of the 'trons mostly. Extron's NAV system is very low latency and very bandwidth-lean with minimal artifacting.

The only latency-critical stuff I work on outside of healthcare is either broadcast related, or live production with IMag video. More often than not, I'm still using 3/6/12G-SDI because it's simple and foolproof. Hit a switcher and then go out HD-base-T or IP if it makes sense and the network supports it.

In the future of realtime network computing, high-density multi-computers-on-a-die grid networks, custom FPGA design, and fiber optic transport, a whole different level of performance is going to be coming online.

This is a good thing for high definition, and it may finally be possible to achieve a significantly higher quality of rendition in cinemas than what could be done in the mid 1970s with analogue media.

Which honestly hasn't been possible to exceed using computers and digital systems - analogue quality is really high definition, being to all intents and purposes molecular precision.

The next frontier is realtime raytraced interactive rendering - games and installations can now look pretty much the same as a blockbuster movie from five years ago.



That's a lot of signal complexity.

That looks spectacular. Lots of signal complexity indeed. Lucky for me, I only concentrate on content presentation, not content creation or generation/rendering.

Geiginni wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:17 pm

Sam_Scholten wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:08 am So I saw the SSL Big Six has USB connectivity and I thought, "Man, wouldn't it be awesome to kick out some Dante channels to one of these and back. Or if we go with a different summing mixer, my RME is collecting dust and I'd love to put it to use instead of having to sell and shell for another Dante interface.

It's just ones and zeros anyway, why can't I find a simple Dante bridge?"

Because capitalism obviously, but you'd think capitalism would allow an outboard Dante bridge for a few hundred that would get legacy gear online.

The Big Six's implementation of USB just makes it a big interface with a bunch of knobs. How is this any different than another interface with Dante built-in?

I think the challenge with creating such a "bridge" [etc. etc. etc. and some much appreciated input]

It's different because it does OTB summing AND has some kind of sound card AND has a facsimile of the SSL bus compressor, so it would've made a nice tidy near term solution for printing analog mixes.

With some lateral thinking, we're going with a different solution: a Yamaha TF mixer with Dante card to handle all the monitor/headphone mixing and free up interface channels for printing mixes at the main desk.

Once again, very valuable input, much appreciated!

Sam_Scholten wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:08 am ...With some lateral thinking, we're going with a different solution: a Yamaha TF mixer with Dante card to handle all the monitor/headphone mixing and free up interface channels for printing mixes at the main desk.

Once again, very valuable input, much appreciated!

You're quite welcome.

I don't have intimate knowledge of your workflow, but if you're looking at a Yamaha TF, I'd recommend taking a look at the Allen & Heath SQ-5. The UI is better and the architecture gives you some features and flexibility the TF may not have. Roughly the same price, and if you ever have the need to move beyond Dante, you get access to the S-Link and D-Live protocols as well.

Edit: The SQ-5 is a bit more, honestly. The QU-16 might have more parity with the TF, but to be quite honest I haven't used the QU on any projects, just the SQ, Avantis and D-Live stuff.

Geiginni wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:26 pm Edit: The SQ-5 is a bit more, honestly. The QU-16 might have more parity with the TF, but to be quite honest I haven't used the QU on any projects, just the SQ, Avantis and D-Live stuff.

QU doesn't support Dante Expansion cards. Only SQ and higher. I do prefer the SQ to the TF. Pretty great really.

Kniferide wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:53 pm

Geiginni wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:26 pm Edit: The SQ-5 is a bit more, honestly. The QU-16 might have more parity with the TF, but to be quite honest I haven't used the QU on any projects, just the SQ, Avantis and D-Live stuff.

QU doesn't support Dante Expansion cards. Only SQ and higher. I do prefer the SQ to the TF. Pretty great really.

Thanks for clarifying! Probably the reason I've never used QU and when pinched into the sub $2k budget am stuck with either Behringer/Midas (Ugh) or Presonus (slightly less 'ugh').

Geiginni wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:17 pm

Kniferide wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:53 pm

Geiginni wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:26 pm Edit: The SQ-5 is a bit more, honestly. The QU-16 might have more parity with the TF, but to be quite honest I haven't used the QU on any projects, just the SQ, Avantis and D-Live stuff.

QU doesn't support Dante Expansion cards. Only SQ and higher. I do prefer the SQ to the TF. Pretty great really.

Thanks for clarifying! Probably the reason I've never used QU and when pinched into the sub $2k budget am stuck with either Behringer/Midas (Ugh) or Presonus (slightly less 'ugh').

I've used QU a lot. Great boards, dead simple. Auto mixer actually works. If they had card slot, they would be awesome fir the range. I use iLives several times a week, and they are all being replaced buy drives soon. Allen Heath boards are often overlooked.