Using the DX168 stage boxes for stage boxes is great. But, I’d love to see a compact rack mount version for allowing 8 or 16 inputs that could be used in a radio mic rack to allow the use of the DX connection to the mix rack to save audio looms?
Thoughts?
I’ve been asking this from the start! Would be so usefull…
an 8 out rack as well for IEM racks. All our wireless is in groups of 8 so something like this would really clean things up.
Made the case for this to the A&H US Central Region Sales Manager about a month ago:
- Install targeted
- 1 RU, IEC direct power
- Redundant DX on front or rear
- Ideally, 8 in and 8 out, but based on the card size for preamps they are using that may be difficult.
- Phoenix blocks for all audio I/O.
Apparently it is a frequent request, no insight to if it will become a product.
1 RU is not possible with 8 in and 8 out on cards
but it sounds interesting
If you have a dante card: KLANG:quelle 19" - 4 Channel Headphone Amplifier - KLANG
I use 3 of 4 channel version, POE, it works great.
A&H has the AR2412, which is very compact for the IO count. They have the AR0804, which is basically as compact as the AR2412. Both don’t work on dLive (I don’t understand why that is. Should have been easy to implement a backward compatibility into the DX ports. But not the point). dLive is their top notch pro system, right? So why is the DX168 a stagebox in the shape of an MI product? Why isn’t it a 2U rack device? I never understood that. Yes, there is a rackmount, which I will use because there is no alternative except the far more expensive DX32, but it is 4 (four!) freakin’ U! And almost no depth! AND the connectors of the side. Come on, A&H! Pro products only for your pro line! If you have to reuse cases, make a DX2412 out of the AR2412.
I personally see both use cases. It would be nice to place a dx-something into a iem or wireless case and use a cat5 to fonnect that rack to the mixrack. On the other hand the dx168 is fine to place it somewhere on the stage as a subsnake, the usecase per design for that box as far as I can see it. ‚Pro’ means for me to have the choice out of a big varity of products from ‚MI’ up to ‚real Pro‘.
1 Klangquelle costs nearly as much as a DX168, no thanks…
Mfk0815: What’s the problem in using a stagebox in a small rack as a subsnake on stage? I see only benefits: I can use 1U more and put a racklight or a power distribution in the rack too. It’s more rugged, so no hassle if someone steps on it and so on. THAT is “pro” to me. Putting a DX168 as is on stage is not.
Steffen R: AND there is no control of the preamps from the desk.
Jens, there is no problem, but what would be the problem to have a 1RU DX804 or similar AND a DX168X as it is. You don‘t have to use the DX168X if you don‘t like it. Then we would have a similarity to the dSnake Products which is in my eyes not so bad.
To echo Mfk0815.
Form-Fit-Function
The DX168 meets the “fit” and “function” for a pro audio system, but completely missed form.
As a stage box, it is too vulnerable. Open gaps to spill liquids into, connectors fully exposed to be stepped on regardless of rotation, no locking power and it isn’t even an even rack size. It doesn’t even travel well. I’m build some custom “racks”, no larger than necessary, that protect it accordingly and can just be dropped in work trunks to travel.
Everyone I work with has racks of gear - mostly wireless - and as a 4+ RU with all connectors on the front, again, it missed form. Mount it backwards, it still takes up more than 1/4 of my rack and adds unnecessary weight. This also applies to any installs. Put a couple in a rack and it is a nice little stage box. If they are going to do 8/0 or 0/8, then it needs to be able to chain up to 4 devices instead of 2. Redundant chaining will probably require a pair of DX Hubs.
Just my opinion, but I could use 4 in’s and 2 out’s today.
Jay
Not really a solution, but if Dante counts, then RIO would be an option: https://xilica.com/products/rio/
16 in/out in 1RU (Phoenix) or 2RU (XLR).
And if we talk IEM- I absolutely recommend trying Lectrosonics Duet, it has Dante option and it sounds like if there is no radio between mixer and phones. Little latency is the price.
if there was a small solution with Phoenix connectors for radio racks, i would also find it very interesting.
a cascadable 4In / 4Out device with 1 RU and half rack width with the designation DX44, which can be operated with POE+, would be a dream. 
The DX168 meets the “fit” and “function” for a pro audio system, but completely missed form.As a stage box, it is too vulnerable. Open gaps to spill liquids into, connectors fully exposed to be stepped on regardless of rotation, no locking power and it isn’t even an even rack size. It doesn’t even travel well. I’m build some custom “racks”, no larger than necessary, that protect it accordingly and can just be dropped in work trunks to travel.
You probably know this, but the DX168 has a optional rackmount kit.
No, we know that. But it will be 4HU then, with connectors INSIDE the rack besides the stagebox. It’s far to big for its capabilities, needs an additional patchbay on the back for power and network connections. And if you want it “compatible” in handling with the rest of A&H rack gear, you need to put that patchbay in the front also (because everything else has the net and power connectors on the front), adding another HU. The AR2412 shows how it’s done in a professional manner: 8 ins, 4 outs per HU and all connectors in front, rack mountable.
I see it as a fact that by far the most of the buyers would have prefered or at least accepted a 2HU rack version instead. You have to buy some kind of case for the DX168 anyway. Why not have a rack that protects the DX168 even in use by default? A standard rack might even be cheaper than a case you have to order to fit when using the DX168 without rack kit. And a 2HU rack is cheaper than a 4HU or even 5HU rack of the same quality.
Can the AR2412 and AR84 be used with the dLive?
no.
only 96kHz extenders are used in the dLive system.
that is DX168, DX164 and the modular DX32
I see, thank you.
So they need to bring out a DX2412 and DX84 it seems…
I always thought it would have been nice for the DX ports to be backwards compatible with dSnake, especially for the people upgrading from GLD and Qu to dLive. But yes, a DXR2412 would be nice. I see not much appeal in a DXR0804, but in a DXR12I and and DXR12O, if you understand what I’m implying by name…