I have a simple application where I need an SQ S-Link compatible stagebox where I only need to use 1 or 2 outputs. All the options available I’ve seen are way over kill on I/O numbers and price for what’s required. Is there anything smaller, ie 1 to 4 outputs only, or say a 4 inputs, 2 outputs or 2 inputs, 1 output stagebox that doesn’t break the bank?
Smallest device for S-link connectivity and DX protocol is the DX88-P.
https://www.allen-heath.com/hardware/everything-i-o/dx88-p/
AR84 is another option, but it is using the older dSnake protocol.
https://www.allen-heath.com/hardware/everything-i-o/ar84/resources/
1 Like
In your case, using CatCore (or similar) might also be an option, as it provides four bidirectional (analog) ways.
However, if you also intend to use inputs for dynamic microphones and outputs for high-level line signals simultaneously, you would need to test whether any crosstalk occurs when using simple, inexpensive Cat cables.
(Also, keep in mind that there is only one common ground for all four channels.)
How far are you trying to reach?
A 6 or 8 channel (copper) drop snake with turn-arounds for outs could do.
I think the advice to do analogue over cat cable is probably the best, but another option is to get the small Dante option card and use the tiny https://www.allen-heath.com/hardware/everything-i-o/dt20/ (Overall saving might not be great…)
The problem with the cat snakes, is the cable is not very robust. Also, any phantom power is carried by the single shield. They are also limited to 4 channels. For non-short runs, a proper drop snake is going to be more reliable.
1 Like
If you use the same cable you would use for your digital stagebox, it’s just as robust.
However, you can even use an existing fixed cable or a permanent installation.
What’s the problem?
His minimum requirement was 3.
Have you ever used a longer “CatCore” run?
What was unreliable about it?
The application doesn’t require phantom power. CAT7 install cable is very robust.
CATcore as mentioned already would be a solution.
Or Dante, but the problem would be the money…
XLR to head, head to cat, cable, cat to box, box to xlr. More points of failure. The only advantage I see is the ability to use different length cables.
So we can now assume that you yourself, as a matter of principle, never use digital stageboxes at all, just to eliminate the two avoidable additional critical points of failure by the unreliable RJ45 connectors. 
My, we are getting a little snippy.
If my common need was only 3 or 4 channels, I would seriously consider a snake.
I wouldn’t know where.
It’s just a logical consequence of your own last sought arguments.
Not that this would apply to everyone here, but I have been using Cat Cable for 8 years, maybe more, and have not had a single cable or connector failure. I use it almost always for Dante Audio over IP but sometimes as a conduit for four analog signals with the proper boxes of course. All my cables have Ethercon connectors, just as sturdy as XLRs I think. Not one failure ever. To be fair, I have not have had very many instances of analog failure in over 50 years of pro audio work. So I think cable robustness is maybe not a thing. Just my $.02.
D.
1 Like