but we also like to talk about new technologies and new trends
and some speculations are still allowed, I hope…
@Chaos215bar2
there was no Condescension intended
none of the available devices I’m aware off support more than 64 channels, maybe I missed the device you have in mind?
USB 3.0 MOTU devices (e.g. 8A) do support this.
All this seems to me to be an exercise. Workable solutions exist already. I still use OSX High Sierra on 2012 Macs (MBPs) for my Dante network.
Building a system on hardware that can’t be replaced at-will is a recipe for trouble down the line. (The situation would be different, of course, if Intel Mac hardware weren’t being phased out.) No one is saying that there aren’t solutions, but options for streaming upwards of 32 channels from A&H hardware in particular seem to be limited and none that I’m aware of have a clear path forward that doesn’t potentially involve switching platforms or relying on aging hardware. Place the blame where you like, but there are still good reasons for wanting to record on Mac.
Yes, unobtanium hardware could certainly be a problem. Right you are. Backup gear today. But I guess I am saying that beating our heads against the walls that those who provide the technology build (and I am specifically thinking Avid and Apple who have played this upgrade game for years) doesn’t usually get us to our goal. Run into a wall too high to climb? Turn left.
My recoding chain of Grace Dante enabled preamps and a JoeCo Dante recorder will get me a 64 track recording, albeit at 24/48. With nothing more than the simplest OS (Mac or PC) that will run DVS. Any additional add-ons, monitoring, mixers, controllers, backups, etc? It’s my job as the engineer and recording technician to make this work today. That’s both the trick and the fun.
D.
My recoding chain of Grace Dante enabled preamps and a JoeCo Dante recorder will get me a 64 track recording, albeit at 24/48.
Indeed, and this is likely similar to the solution I’ll end up going with. The limitations are just frustrating.
The one really nice thing about A&H in this context is that the only hardware which needs to speak Dante is the mixer itself (plus DVS, of course). Hardware using A&H’s own protocols (gigaACE/GX/DX) seems to be much more cost effective than similar Dante hardware. (See DX168 vs. DT168.)
The gigACE etc is cheaper for A&H to implement than the Dante, as they are not required to buy other brand hardware and license to make them.
For recording above 32 channels Dante in 96Khz, it will take like the Motu or RME Dante/USB interfaces (or similar)
As for the AVB protocol, all companies I work with on a regular basis, have tried it and returned to Dante (or Madi) for higher stability and interoperability between brands…
(only experience I have myself though is the problems to get a console to talk to same brand stageboxes, did not work with any other brand AVB switch than their own)
If AVB/Milan get those quirks worked out, they might be a serious alternative to Dante though.
All the time that AVB is trying to iron out the kinks, Audinate will be moving forward.
D.
That’s… not really how standards development works.
Besides, viable competition is rarely a negative for an industry. Rooting for the dominant player in the market isn’t really going to help anything.
There are several AVB ↔ Dante converters out there that could do the trick if you need AVB.