Dante AVIO Review (streaming audio interfaces)

[ctcwired]

Sounds like a good case for putting Dante equipment on its own VLAN or physical switch depending on equipment needs / capabilities.

VLANs certainly help but if the traffic shares a wire you still have to consider latency spikes when the PHY rate gets maxed.

 

[Rja4000]

If you want to experiment with Dante for cheap, but with full performance up to 96kHz, you can use this one instead
https://m.thomann.de/fr/dante_avio_aes3_io_adapter_2x2.htm

Then you stay in fully digital domain (AES3)

(The Amphenol version is probably just a re-brand of the same but with Amphenol connectors)

 

[ctcwired]

If you want to experiment with Dante for cheap, but with full performance up to 96kHz, you can use this one instead

Indeed but just be aware the input has a permanently enabled async-resampler, since that model does not let you use the AES3 signal as a source clock for the Dante network. I haven't tested the quality of said resampler on mine. Luckily the output seems bit-transparent and follows the Dante clock, at least in the 44.1khz 24-bit null test I did.

 

[Rja4000]

An addition to an existing Dante network would likely be it's main use.

Secondary would be to add zones through existing ethernet architecture without having to run audio cable I'd guess?

Yes.
Imagine a big (modern) concert hall.

You want to add a low-level monitor in the VIP bar with soundstage sound.
No brainer.
You use existing Cat 6 ethernet wall plug in the bar to connect this adapter to the network (and you use PoE to power it), and you plug the analog side of the adapter to some active monitor.
Then, from your laptop close to the mixing desk, you use the Dante controller software to route the main mix output to it.
Click-click-done.
Repeat at will.
(With as many different mixes as you whish)

 

[BDWoody]

Sounds like a good case for putting Dante equipment on its own VLAN or physical switch depending on equipment needs / capabilities.

There is the ability to run both a dedicated Dante network and a normal network with redundant fallback with some devices (like this one) if I read things right.

 

[Rja4000]

There is the ability to run both a dedicated Dante network and a normal network with redundant fallback, if I read things right.

View attachment 103684

Yes
Dante supports fully redundant architecture, with 0 loss.
Well, not with those cheap adapters of course...

But Dante network IS a normal network.
With proper QoS settings, you pretty much don't care what else is attached to the network.
Thats the whole goal of it.

 

[infinitesymphony]

There is the ability to run both a dedicated Dante network and a normal network with redundant fallback with some devices (like this one) if I read things right.

View attachment 103684

But in that case, failover would only happen if the primary link went down completely for a certain period of time, right? I'm thinking about the case of a multi-WAN router where the default time from link down to failover is somewhere between 30 seconds to 5 minutes.

The latency issues @ctcwired brings up would only cause ms-level hiccups, which may or may not result in failover depending on how that part is designed.

 

[Rja4000]

But in that case, failover would only happen if the primary link went down completely for a certain period of time, right? I'm thinking about the case of a multi-WAN router where the default time from link down to failover is somewhere between 30 seconds to 5 minutes.

The latency issues @ctcwired brings up would only cause ms-level hiccups, which may or may not result in failover depending on how that part is designed.

Both links should be up and active in parrallel all the time.
Whenever the main link loses the clock, the secundary is taking over.

 

[ctcwired]

But in that case, failover would only happen if the primary link went down completely for a certain period of time, right?

As far as I'm aware the "Dante Redundancy" feature sends all the audio data down both networks simultaneously (meaning the redundant network must match the topology of the non-redundant) and is first-come-first-serve with the arrival of ethernet frames. So there is no drop if one fails.

Meanwhile if you use LAG or spanning tree on a switch you could experience a drop if one fails, depending on configuration.

 

[Rja4000]

Redundancy is described here
https://focusritepro.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360002925099-What-is-Dante-Redundancy-

 

[infinitesymphony]

That's rad, glad to hear it works that way. Thanks for filling in the details, @ctcwired and @Rja4000.

 

[Rja4000]

Indeed but just be aware the input has a permanently enabled async-resampler, since that model does not let you use the AES3 signal as a source clock for the Dante network. I haven't tested the quality of said resampler on mine. Luckily the output seems bit-transparent and follows the Dante clock, at least in the 44.1khz 24-bit null test I did.

I will test one, one day or another.
My switches aren't PoE though.
So, someday...

 

[SegaCD]

I assume this is hinting that devices continuously monitor and adjust for drift over time to follow a master clock, but I don't see them explicitly state that.

This is correct. With the Brooklyn II Dante PDK and External Sync enabled (or sometimes simply by switching preferred masters), you can drive the PDK with an external word clock and watch a product's internal word clock on the other end of the link correct to it. Its a pretty nice example of how resilient the Dante device suite/protocol is.

 

[ctcwired]

This is correct. With the Brooklyn II Dante PDK and External Sync enabled (or sometimes simply by switching preferred masters), you can drive the PDK with an external word clock and watch a product's internal word clock on the other end of the link correct to it. Its a pretty nice example of how resilient the Dante device suite/protocol is.

That's awesome! I assume they just check how fast/slow they're running compared to the master every so often and nudge their local tick rate up/down to follow, with the latency acting as a safety buffer.

 

[preload]

It typically works without fuss on any managed non-blocking gigabit switch, especially when isolated. (The models being reviewed are only 10/100.) Tweaks are only needed when mixing with existing setups. Things like disabling Green Ethernet, QoS, IGMP etc, can help with long term stability, but it isn’t usually necessary.

Slight correction, disabling "green" features on your switch IS necessary. I think it's important to point this out because if someone wants to use this audio-over-LAN system on their existing home network, a LOT of commonly available switches DO have green features, and if they're unmanaged, there's no way to turn it off. I learned this the hard way, and the resulting latency is so horrible, it leads to actual audio dropouts.

From the Audinate AVIO FAQ:

Can I use switches with EEE (Energy Efficient Ethernet or 'Green Ethernet') in my Dante network?
Short answer: no. EEE (Energy Efficient Ethernet) is a technology that reduces switch power consumption during periods of low network traffic. It is also sometimes known as Green Ethernet andIEEE802.3az. Although power management should be negotiated automatically in switches that support EEE, it is a relatively new technology, and some switches do not perform the negotiation properly. This may cause EEE to be enabled in Dante networks when it is not appropriate, resulting in poor synchronisation performance and occasional dropouts. Download list of incompatible, unmanaged switches with Energy Efficient Ethernet Therefore we strongly recommend that:

1. If you use managed switches, ensure that they allow EEE to be disabled. Make sure that EEE is disabled on all ports used for real-time Dante traffic.
2. If you use unmanaged switches, do not use Ethernet switches that support the EEE function, because you cannot disable EEE operation in these switches.

P.S. very cool of @amirm to test these

 

[mv038856]

Many 'smaller' Dante devices are using POE. Considering how obsessed the audiophile world is about the importance of the power supply for the sound quality, I am wondering if the quality of the device providing POE power does make a difference on products like the AVIO adapters reviewed here.
Does the POE standard guarantee a minimum quality of the power supplied or will POE-based audio products have to have some circuitry to 'clean up' the power supplied?

Other manufacturers of Dante compatible equipment like Sonifex also use POE, even for devices consuming more power (see the 16 channel Dante D/A converter Sonifex AVN-AO16).

BTW, I am one of the JBL Synthesis SDP-55 owners that want to use the Dante output on that device. I went for the Tascam ML-16D A/D-D/A-converter, using only D/A, i.e. 50% of its capabilities, of course. It has its power supply integrated, though. As of host firmware 1.44/JBL-Dante firmware 1.2, I would not yet recommend the Dante route to 'improve' things in conjunction with the SDP-55, though.

There are currently too many restrictions and limitations:

• the SDP-55 as a sender sets the transfer sampling rate, which is fixed at 48 kHz in JBL-Dante firmware 1.2. It can downsample 96 kHz, but cannot handle 44.1 or 88.2 kHz yet, so there is silence through Dante with those sampling rates.
• when changing audio streams, stopping playback or switching off the source during playback, there can be nasty noises through the speakers
• the JBL Synthesis SDP-55's Dante implementation is based on Audinate's Brooklyn II, so it should be capable of delivering lots of channels. Right now, only the 16 Zone 1 channels have been implemented though. The two additional Zone 2 channels, which are advertized on the SDP-55's website, are not available through Dante yet.

There might be more issues, but these are the ones I encountered in my use scenario, which is home theater (through a Zidoo Z9S) and occasional audio sreaming (through a Logitech Transporter). Harman support confirmed that there still is work to be done on the Dante side of the SDP-55, but the next firmware is, as of Jan 6, 2020, supposed be released in a matter of days. I am sure hoping for some improvements.

As I live in Germany, sending the Tascam for an ASR review isn't a viable option. But it would be interesting to see how it performs, especially in comparison with the AVIO adapters in this review.

 

[somebodyelse]

For a broad overview of the multiple PoE standards, with links to the specifics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet - essentially it's ~50V DC so audio products are going to need to convert it to something they can use anyway, similar to many USB powered DACs generating other voltage supplies for the analog outputs.

 

[Olli]

Many 'smaller' Dante devices are using POE. Considering how obsessed the audiophile world is about the importance of the power supply for the sound quality, I am wondering if the quality of the device providing POE power does make a difference on products like the AVIO adapters reviewed here.
Does the POE standard guarantee a minimum quality of the power supplied or will POE-based audio products have to have some circuitry to 'clean up' the power supplied?

Other manufacturers of Dante compatible equipment like Sonifex also use POE, even for devices consuming more power (see the 16 channel Dante D/A converter Sonifex AVN-AO16).

BTW, I am one of the JBL Synthesis SDP-55 owners that want to use the Dante output on that device. I went for the Tascam ML-16D A/D-D/A-converter, using only D/A, i.e. 50% of its capabilities, of course. It has its power supply integrated, though. As of host firmware 1.44/JBL-Dante firmware 1.2, I would not yet recommend the Dante route to 'improve' things in conjunction with the SDP-55, though.

There are currently too many restrictions and limitations:

• the SDP-55 as a sender sets the transfer sampling rate, which is fixed at 48 kHz in JBL-Dante firmware 1.2. It can downsample 96 kHz, but cannot handle 44.1 or 88.2 kHz yet, so there is silence through Dante with those sampling rates.
• when changing audio streams, stopping playback or switching off the source during playback, there can be nasty noises through the speakers
• the JBL Synthesis SDP-55's Dante implementation is based on Audinate's Brooklyn II, so it should be capable of delivering lots of channels. Right now, only the 16 Zone 1 channels have been implemented though. The two additional Zone 2 channels, which are advertized on the SDP-55's website, are not available through Dante yet.

There might be more issues, but these are the ones I encountered in my use scenario, which is home theater (through a Zidoo Z9S) and occasional audio sreaming (through a Logitech Transporter). Harman support confirmed that there still is work to be done on the Dante side of the SDP-55, but the next firmware is, as of Jan 6, 2020, supposed be released in a matter of days. I am sure hoping for some improvements.

As I live in Germany, sending the Tascam for an ASR review isn't a viable option. But it would be interesting to see how it performs, especially in comparison with the AVIO adapters in this review.

I thought about this, too. But I wasn‘t aware of this:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-av-processor-review.13242/page-7#post-397908

Although my use case would have been different - to apply PC based convolution for all 16 channels with Audiolense DRC instead of using Dirac with an external sound card.

Now I am curious what Trinnov will do with the Altitude 16 that is ready to go on the hardware side, but lacking a firmware update to activate its AVB or Dante capabilities.

 

[Michel Forbes]

Here's a very complete product using AoIP - Ravenna - AES67 and POE
Merging Technologies - Interfaces

 

[HerbertWest]

VLANs certainly help but if the traffic shares a wire you still have to consider latency spikes when the PHY rate gets maxed.

Agree, VLANs would only protect from broadcast/multicast (depending on how the switch OS handles it), which is a non-issue in a small domestic network. For professional use in a large studio, totally worth it.

Latency spikes should not happen, unless the switch's chipset is total garbage or there is routing in the middle (and again, with a poorly underscaled router). A Dante 192 Khz/24bit stereo flow is only ~50 Mbps IIRC, so again for domestic use a normal 1 Gb ethernet would be OK, unless there is a download-heavy teenager (or a NAS) in the network path between the two Dante endpoints. Tbh for non-professional users, I would rather invest in a cheap unmanaged switch with a 10 GbE uplink rather than fiddle with QoS in a low-end consumer switch, whose support and latency impact depends again on the switch's firmware.

In case of redundant connection between switches (i.e. with 2 cables), in case of fault of one of the switch uplinks, loss of ethernet frames will happen both using LACP and STP, with spanning tree being far worse. If the user really cannot afford to lose an ethernet frame, and there is no buffering-retransmission on the Dante endpoints, you need two separate networks. No consumer ethernet technology can currently guarantee link recovery in less than 50 ms.

my 2 cents.