I don’t think you fully understand the Dante protocol. For your application ( A small network with 3-4 devices and 1 switch) you could have latency as low as 250 microseconds. If you scaled into a larger application your latency would be 1ms, which is beyond human comprehension. Plus, Dante only requires the switch to “snoop” packages when in multicast mode. Dante is usually in Unicast mode which is what you have demonstrated in your drawing. These unicast setups don’t require the switch to decide where packages go. This is why Dante can work with unmanaged network switches. Finally, the applications that Audinate makes for Dante are much better than the products made for the AVB protocol. For instance, Dante via and Dante Virtual Soundcard. These pieces of software are super powerful and can really Up the game of any studio or live production. I’m not sure where you got your info about Dante from but I don’t think it was correct. You should check out Audinate’s free Dante Certification program so you get the info straight from the source.
I hate to leave a negative comment, but as so many comments point out, this video is so filled with misinformation I am surprised it hasn't been taken down by the author. There is virtually nothing said that's accurate - please don't rely on this at all in deciding between Dante and AVB.
We don't get latency, we get "buffer underrun". The thing with low latency audio is, that when audio-data is sent over the connection (USB, Ethernet, Thunderbolt or what ever) there's a time deadline that's *absolute* for when it has to arrive to the destination device so it can put it into it's DAC-buffer so one can hear that piece of audio that's supposed to be played. I could write more comprehensive explanation, but I'd just want to point out that it's a bit oversimplification of the issue that can be confusing. :)
AVB -huge medium and long term mistake, or if you want current interoperability, video or quick, cheap, stable ability to ad hoc integrate most things currently. We use AVB and Dante, but our AVB stuff runs on the side like orphans to everything else. AVB was a mistake for many. I hope it changes, as I love open standards, but AV Dante and AI based Dante that are out now may kill it now. When you add to the fact that regular 1 - 40Gb Ethernet switches, interfaces and related equipment works, rather than having to use specials switches and dedicated networks. It has also been much more stable than AVB as of the Dante release a few moths ago, but maybe they’ll fix AVB also.
What layer is AVB on in the OSI model? Ethernet (Layer 2) or IP (Layer 3)? I think what you are describing in the first part is not a switch, but the workings of a hub. A switch is just a smart hub, which remembers which MAC addresses and / or IP addresses (a Layer 3 switch) are behind a certain switchport. Because of this nature a switchport can be utilised 100%, contrary a hub. That blue light what you are describing seems Quality Of Service to me. This is something any modern switch supports. Aren't they trying to sell us "AVB switches", but wouldn't normal switches also suffice? After reading Wikipedia it is giving me the impression that AVB compatible switches and gear automagically configure things for you. That would be the plus for buying this gear (an AVB switch) then, if you're not well versed in networking stuff.
Hey! Can you specify the "networkingproblems" you see with dante? I´ve been working in live situations with massive Dante Networks managing several hundred channels perfectly in a complex networking environment. So I don´t get the fuzz :S
Would be nice to have a chat with you about it, since I have never worked with large scale Dante Networks... If you ask me, there are 2 major upsides of AVB compared to Dante. The first one is that its an open IEEE Standard. The second one is that AVB guarantees the latency over the whole network to be lower then 0,625ms, no matter what happens...
Ah! I didn´t know about the latency guarantees. Would be nice to have a review with someone who has extensive expirience with AVB and latency. In the Livesituations I got to know dante we mostly have been working on Yamaha CL and QL descs and their native dante capabilities. The latency in those systems is about 2ms as far as I remember. I understand how 2ms is a little to much in the studio considering additional latency introduced by software buffers but in live situations the distance between the artist and the crowd alone introduces a higher latency. So maybe AVB is the better solution for the studio. On the other hand Focusrites RedNet is basically Dante with a special set of hardware and the RedNet stuff appears to be relatively common. Sadly I can´t say that I have been working in a RedNet Studio environment nor have ever met someone who switched to RedNet from ProTools HD...
The thing with a live environment that always worries me is that the latencies add up to each other. You not only have the 2ms from the network, but also latency coming from digital wireless microphones, P.A processing, the audio processing in the consoles etc. etc. etc. I've just had a call with someone who is interested in doing a complex session in the studio with several interfaces connected over AVB recording music and routing headphone mixes all over the place. Really interested to see how that turns out. The whole Dante thing isn't a bad protocol, as long as you know what you are doing... The thing with AVB is that it is waaay more monkey proof.
I'm just started to use MOTU AVB and agree with the benefits of AVB. Dante aren't bad but maybe more targeted towards large routed networks. I know that the Swedish Broadcasting is using Dante in their national network. AVB can be used for span up to 70 km per span from what I understand with optical media converters without passing the 2 ms max. MOTU in their setup says 0,625 ms endpoint to endpoint, max 6 or 7 hops. I believe that AVB will reach popularity according to their open IEEE approach in the long run.
Dont know what networking issues you are talking about since you really didnt specify. I've been touring for the last 10 years. Dante rigs on the last 5 or so and havent had any of these "networking issues" the only issues I see are from people who buy crap switches / cables What are these "networking issues"?
So basically AVB traffic is a usual Ethernet traffic with level 1/4 QoS priority. Which is actually WORSE than Dante, because it has flexible QoS queueing, and prioritizes monitoring traffic over broadcast one by default (to make sure that players don't lag, lol). Of course, it gives the control of it if you use any QoS-compatible Ethernet switch with 4 independent queues (any modern switch), and AVB requires AVB switches that assign media packets to 1st priority. What I can see here is that AVB can support less channels in the network and the latencies will increase earlier, hence AVB is worse than Dante. PS. I use AVB live and it already gave me some problems with set-ups easier than my colleagues with Dante.
Forgive me, it's been a long time since I researched this but I thought that AVB had a comprehensive RSVP mechanism that guaranteed (better than the old RSVP offered by non AVB switches) the exact number of AVB streams through the switch that would never get stepped on, no matter what. Latency "should" never really be an issue as jitter should be eliminated for AVB streams.
As others have said I don't think you truly understand how Dante works. Dante sends unicast flows as standard at around 6mb/s each (a typical flow contains 4 channels of audio). Using your example as a gigabit network it would be virtually impossible to experience audio drop outs. The "blue lights" you are referring to is called QoS (Quality of Service). QoS is available inside managed switches to prioritise data where needed. While it's not generally turned on be default inside managed switches, it can be and sometimes is for large scale Dante networks, but you are talking 100's of channels of bi directional audio before this would cause a problem, and its bandwidth dependent. Generally this is not an issue with your small-medium Dante network and again you would not experience audio drop outs or any noticeable latency in your system. While AVB is an open standard, AVB compliant switches are not cheap. Dante is a protocol that will work with any off the shelf managed or unmanaged network switch. I would definitely recommend learning more about Dante, there is a reason it has been so widely accepted as the industry standard.
You should really consider researching some of this stuff prior to publishing.. To help with some of your misinformation: 1. Dante doesn't 'require a license to use.' THey (Audinate) license the technology to the mfr, OR they sell a simple dedicated chipset to the mfr (say Presonus/Sennheiser/etc), who installs that Dante interface chip inside their box. There is no ongoing fee for using anything Dante. 2. AVNU Alliance (AVB people) haven't been able to create a solid standard or solidify anything for years. That's why only a few companies are building around it, while Dante is in use by dozens of times more devices. 3. Dante is by far a better interface structure at the moment. Dante is capable of networks multiple times larger than AVB, with managed processes, ease of design, and rapid integration. the Domain Manager software basically allows management of audio much the same as a computer network admin guy who just logs into his network and with a few clicks, reroutes traffic however he wants.. While that may sound complicated to non-techies, it's about as challenging as having a guitarist play the same 4 chords in a progression 5x's in a row. Dante is stupidly simple to implement. 4. Dante's latency management process is easy to manage... you can choose latency structures in small increments (.5ms, up to 8ms). simple. easy. manageable - it's just a few clicks on a mouse. again.... simple. Can you play an E chord at 3 places on your guitar? If so, that's more difficult than managing latency modeling on Dante. 5. AVB has the ultimate potential (under 1722a protocol rules, assuming IEEE and AVNU can ever quit arguing and get their acts together) to operate a layer below Dante. However, this claim has been out there for years with little movement or traction.. the 1722a playbook will see AV packets operate at a MAC ID level (ie., below IP), but this is going to be a while coming.. and it would appear that the industry has spoken already and is really accepting Dante as the default standard.
I think the main criticism is that it's not open, it's not an open source thing, right? The fact that any element of it is licensed or for-profit makes it inferior to the open-source solution as long as it ultimately does the same thing, which it does. Not that I don't think people should be making money, it's just the case that a completely open and free competitor exists that obsoletes therefore obsoletes Dante, it's the tiniest point in the video. Hardware is the thing that makes all of this work, the hardware is the only thing that matters, the software can be figured out later, so yes, the large part of Dante is licensed and closed, it doesn't matter if other elements of it are not.
Open is NOT a good thing when you want reliability and repeatability. Look at PC (open) vs Mac (closed), or iOS (Even more closed and compare reliability. Dante is open enough that it has wide support from 1000's of manufacturers and devices. Personally, I wouldn't want it to be so open that it has the potential for unreliability or problems. Open could even allow things like viruses to corrupt the data. I for one am happy that Dante keeps all the tech in one place, just like Apple does.
AVB, mostly due to the people that want networked video options, is trumping Dante. There is no slowing it down, you can only sidestep it for so long. The issue has been that the audio side of the technology just hasn't been as sorted out as the video side, mainly because distributing audio digitally sucks compared to analog (or distributed digital video as well). But companies like MOTU or Presonus are wise to put AVB in their gear because it's going to happen. ANNNNND....you can play an E chord in far more places on the neck than three, but that doesn't make it more challenging that managing latency on Dante. In both cases you just have to learn the vocabulary and what is where. Good luck finding that fourth position.
this video is simply incorrect snake oil :-) Dante is interoperable with AVB & AES67 & with close to 2000 products embedded with Dante, it's pretty remarkable how this small Australian company managed to do what they've done. I'm guessing their offering had to be uniquely sound to gain this much adaptation.
hello very intersting ! i'm a composer & i have two or three questions : 1) what is the best latency you have on your system with a "typical" project ? 2) with AVB is it possible to share the audio chanel of the sound card with another pc ? 3)can i share audio channels between PCs ? my dream is a multiple PC setup share one soudcard and extra PCs for VST, for know i need to freeze some tracks because most Plug are CPU hangry even with a recent i7. i kwow the is a solution to do that call Vienna ensemble PRO but i think it's mostly for Kontakt users.
I tried AVB before I went to DANTE... I found that one manufacturer's AVB wouldn't work with another manufacturer's and when they did work they were very error -ridden. Dante worked flawlessly from the start. I have 32 analog i/o, 64 MADI i/o , 2 macs, 2 win10, NAS, and a server all running on the same network with low latency and zero errors. All on cat 5 through a $100 off-the-shelf router from Office max.......DANTE may be a licensed system but sometimes you don't get what you don't pay for!
So you run dante network without an expensive switch? I had a hard time setting up my cheap routers for dante. Maybe, there is some issue with multicast routing. What is the name of the router you are using?
Hoi Wytse, dat Dante verhaal klop niet helemaal. voor dante is er wel special hardware nodig deze worden gemaakt door Audinate en zit standard in Dante interfaces of kaarten. sommige mensen gebruik Dante Virtueel Soundcard maar wel meer latency op dat is dan ook meer voor een back-up situatie. Dante werkt het met een daw via een Dante PCIe kaart. de latency via zo'n kaart is onder een 1ms. overigens werkt dante met QOS maar dat moet je switch kunnen. als meer wil weten over dante hier een linkje www.audinate.com/learning/training-certification/video-tutorials .
can u make a episode about low latency, how to achieve low latency inside the daw, which interfaces and which connection (USB, thunderbollt...), will give you low latency and systems like uad quad processors or protools hdx system improve the power of computer and which benefits to get from it
tohot tohandle traditional pcie interfaces/dsp cards(uad) with properly written drivers tend to have the best latency, 2nd place is thunderbolt/usbc, 3rd place is usb3.0 and earlier. this is just in general
Actually as a choice of Dante or AVB platforms ESPECIALLY RUNNING ON A PC FOR RECORDING I'm afraid that the AVB solution is at best... rubbish! Companies like Presonus launch gear like the StudioLive III 32 channel mixer, but trying to get that to run on a PC is folly. Presonus are very 'sheepish' when you mention PC's running windows and AVB in the same breath. Who on earth would choose AVB when for just $29 you can make a network card in to a Dante card on any reasonable PC and integrate simply with Dante. Dante is the standard and AVB seems to be getting driven by companies like Presonus and MOTU and to be honest... it seems that both those companies love Apple? I don't and neither does the majority in the world using computers today, so using AVB limits your own networking, whereas Dante is far superior. I don't care about the 'technicalities' - like most users of the gear I am only interested in 'does it work or not' and bearing in mind that Dante is years ahead it sort of relegates AVB to an also ran. Disappointingly I was less than pleased that for the Presonus StudioLive III console that on this latest version they took away the interface board. Why? My personal view is because they are pushing AVB along with MOTU and they don't want to support competitors called Dante. Sad. And for those that think that AVB is 'catching on' its been around for years and still seems to retain its back seat networking protocol. I am not surprised. However, I am still persevering with AVB currently (I also have Dante on other equipment) and will decide over the next month or so to either keep it all working on a PC or throw out the AVB and NEVER go back. Nuff said.
I was gonna say, I wish there were English subtitles so that I could understand this video. But perhaps someone could point out another video to learn about AVB and Dante
This post is ridiculously inaccurate, from the topology explanation of a 'typical' network, through the arguments put for 'Open' versus 'Closed' standards. If anyone still thinks that a hardware manufacturer building a reliable product 'based' on an 'open' standard hasn't factored in their own out-of-pocket/what-the-market-will-bear costing for the IP they bring to the equation, they're naive at best. Buying a solution (like Dante) instead of rolling-your-own is purely a commercial decision, just as running Macs or PC's in a corporation instead of Linux is. Add to this the extraordinary bang-for-buck that Dante provides and it would be commercially insensitive to allow the sort of Open=Better pseudo tech jibber-jabber that permeates some organisations to get more oxygen than it deserves. If you are a completely 'build' shop (Uni's, National Broadcasters, Research Labs, et al) then of course, flex your IP muscles and use the open standards that are available. But if your core business is not networks AND especially if most of your tech is bought, then why would you take on the significant risk of exposure to interoperability that comes with an open but not Industry Standard setup?
Wrong information here. Because it's not really what you are telling. Dante is based on QoS so that you get a really low latency ever. Something like microseconds, sending up to 1024 channels at 192 kHz at 32bit. I challenge you to have the same with USB or thunderbolt. This IS Dante! And it's really just great. So really please: don't talk about things where you really have superficial knowledge about.
Nice work, thanks! I was sold on Dante before watching this. Dante is familiar, easy, and very widely used for live audio, which I also do. I wasn’t even looking at AVB. Thanks again! Cheers - Tim
Do not listen to this amateur, he knows nothing about networking, QoS (prioritizing types of network communication - general standard he describes like AVB feature) and definitely never used Dante. I am using it daily in a network setup he used as an example, the latency is 5-10 ms, stability is rock solid. I didn´t have to buy any hardware, just 2x virtual soundcards and Dante Via, total cost: $90. Get your facts straight kiddo.
I don’t think you fully understand the Dante protocol. For your application ( A small network with 3-4 devices and 1 switch) you could have latency as low as 250 microseconds. If you scaled into a larger application your latency would be 1ms, which is beyond human comprehension.
Plus, Dante only requires the switch to “snoop” packages when in multicast mode. Dante is usually in Unicast mode which is what you have demonstrated in your drawing. These unicast setups don’t require the switch to decide where packages go. This is why Dante can work with unmanaged network switches.
Finally, the applications that Audinate makes for Dante are much better than the products made for the AVB protocol. For instance, Dante via and Dante Virtual Soundcard. These pieces of software are super powerful and can really Up the game of any studio or live production.
I’m not sure where you got your info about Dante from but I don’t think it was correct. You should check out Audinate’s free Dante Certification program so you get the info straight from the source.
I hate to leave a negative comment, but as so many comments point out, this video is so filled with misinformation I am surprised it hasn't been taken down by the author. There is virtually nothing said that's accurate - please don't rely on this at all in deciding between Dante and AVB.
We don't get latency, we get "buffer underrun".
The thing with low latency audio is, that when audio-data is sent over the connection (USB, Ethernet, Thunderbolt or what ever) there's a time deadline that's *absolute* for when it has to arrive to the destination device so it can put it into it's DAC-buffer so one can hear that piece of audio that's supposed to be played.
I could write more comprehensive explanation, but I'd just want to point out that it's a bit oversimplification of the issue that can be confusing. :)
Pretty sure Dante uses QoS too
AVB -huge medium and long term mistake, or if you want current interoperability, video or quick, cheap, stable ability to ad hoc integrate most things currently. We use AVB and Dante, but our AVB stuff runs on the side like orphans to everything else. AVB was a mistake for many. I hope it changes, as I love open standards, but AV Dante and AI based Dante that are out now may kill it now. When you add to the fact that regular 1 - 40Gb Ethernet switches, interfaces and related equipment works, rather than having to use specials switches and dedicated networks. It has also been much more stable than AVB as of the Dante release a few moths ago, but maybe they’ll fix AVB also.
Hey W, I got a question for you! Do you have any stories about engineers with tinnitus and how they deal with it? Thanks!
I will answer this one in an upcoming Q&A video ;-)
I'm sorry to point out that a network switch don't work the way you depicted; a router does.
This is a nice video, but one thing is driving me crazy. Units of information on a data network are called "packets", not "packages".
What layer is AVB on in the OSI model? Ethernet (Layer 2) or IP (Layer 3)? I think what you are describing in the first part is not a switch, but the workings of a hub. A switch is just a smart hub, which remembers which MAC addresses and / or IP addresses (a Layer 3 switch) are behind a certain switchport. Because of this nature a switchport can be utilised 100%, contrary a hub.
That blue light what you are describing seems Quality Of Service to me. This is something any modern switch supports.
Aren't they trying to sell us "AVB switches", but wouldn't normal switches also suffice?
After reading Wikipedia it is giving me the impression that AVB compatible switches and gear automagically configure things for you. That would be the plus for buying this gear (an AVB switch) then, if you're not well versed in networking stuff.
It's a layer 2 protocol....
If I was to compare AVB latency with a fast Thunderbolt 3 audio interface, would it be similar? Can it achieve very low figures like 1ms?
Hey! Can you specify the "networkingproblems" you see with dante? I´ve been working in live situations with massive Dante Networks managing several hundred channels perfectly in a complex networking environment. So I don´t get the fuzz :S
Would be nice to have a chat with you about it, since I have never worked with large scale Dante Networks... If you ask me, there are 2 major upsides of AVB compared to Dante. The first one is that its an open IEEE Standard. The second one is that AVB guarantees the latency over the whole network to be lower then 0,625ms, no matter what happens...
Ah! I didn´t know about the latency guarantees. Would be nice to have a review with someone who has extensive expirience with AVB and latency. In the Livesituations I got to know dante we mostly have been working on Yamaha CL and QL descs and their native dante capabilities. The latency in those systems is about 2ms as far as I remember. I understand how 2ms is a little to much in the studio considering additional latency introduced by software buffers but in live situations the distance between the artist and the crowd alone introduces a higher latency. So maybe AVB is the better solution for the studio. On the other hand Focusrites RedNet is basically Dante with a special set of hardware and the RedNet stuff appears to be relatively common. Sadly I can´t say that I have been working in a RedNet Studio environment nor have ever met someone who switched to RedNet from ProTools HD...
The thing with a live environment that always worries me is that the latencies add up to each other. You not only have the 2ms from the network, but also latency coming from digital wireless microphones, P.A processing, the audio processing in the consoles etc. etc. etc. I've just had a call with someone who is interested in doing a complex session in the studio with several interfaces connected over AVB recording music and routing headphone mixes all over the place. Really interested to see how that turns out.
The whole Dante thing isn't a bad protocol, as long as you know what you are doing... The thing with AVB is that it is waaay more monkey proof.
I'm just started to use MOTU AVB and agree with the benefits of AVB.
Dante aren't bad but maybe more targeted towards large routed networks. I know that the Swedish Broadcasting is using Dante in their national network.
AVB can be used for span up to 70 km per span from what I understand with optical media converters without passing the 2 ms max.
MOTU in their setup says 0,625 ms endpoint to endpoint, max 6 or 7 hops.
I believe that AVB will reach popularity according to their open IEEE approach in the long run.
Dont know what networking issues you are talking about since you really didnt specify.
I've been touring for the last 10 years. Dante rigs on the last 5 or so and havent had any of these "networking issues" the only issues I see are from people who buy crap switches / cables
What are these "networking issues"?
So basically AVB traffic is a usual Ethernet traffic with level 1/4 QoS priority. Which is actually WORSE than Dante, because it has flexible QoS queueing, and prioritizes monitoring traffic over broadcast one by default (to make sure that players don't lag, lol). Of course, it gives the control of it if you use any QoS-compatible Ethernet switch with 4 independent queues (any modern switch), and AVB requires AVB switches that assign media packets to 1st priority.
What I can see here is that AVB can support less channels in the network and the latencies will increase earlier, hence AVB is worse than Dante.
PS. I use AVB live and it already gave me some problems with set-ups easier than my colleagues with Dante.
Forgive me, it's been a long time since I researched this but I thought that AVB had a comprehensive RSVP mechanism that guaranteed (better than the old RSVP offered by non AVB switches) the exact number of AVB streams through the switch that would never get stepped on, no matter what. Latency "should" never really be an issue as jitter should be eliminated for AVB streams.
Is it possible to use AVB ethernet as an ethernet(Regular)?
@ White Sea Studio
Please explane the Dante Network Problems ...?
As others have said I don't think you truly understand how Dante works. Dante sends unicast flows as standard at around 6mb/s each (a typical flow contains 4 channels of audio). Using your example as a gigabit network it would be virtually impossible to experience audio drop outs.
The "blue lights" you are referring to is called QoS (Quality of Service). QoS is available inside managed switches to prioritise data where needed. While it's not generally turned on be default inside managed switches, it can be and sometimes is for large scale Dante networks, but you are talking 100's of channels of bi directional audio before this would cause a problem, and its bandwidth dependent. Generally this is not an issue with your small-medium Dante network and again you would not experience audio drop outs or any noticeable latency in your system.
While AVB is an open standard, AVB compliant switches are not cheap. Dante is a protocol that will work with any off the shelf managed or unmanaged network switch.
I would definitely recommend learning more about Dante, there is a reason it has been so widely accepted as the industry standard.
You should really consider researching some of this stuff prior to publishing.. To help with some of your misinformation:
1. Dante doesn't 'require a license to use.' THey (Audinate) license the technology to the mfr, OR they sell a simple dedicated chipset to the mfr (say Presonus/Sennheiser/etc), who installs that Dante interface chip inside their box. There is no ongoing fee for using anything Dante.
2. AVNU Alliance (AVB people) haven't been able to create a solid standard or solidify anything for years. That's why only a few companies are building around it, while Dante is in use by dozens of times more devices.
3. Dante is by far a better interface structure at the moment.
Dante is capable of networks multiple times larger than AVB, with managed processes, ease of design, and rapid integration. the Domain Manager software basically allows management of audio much the same as a computer network admin guy who just logs into his network and with a few clicks, reroutes traffic however he wants.. While that may sound complicated to non-techies, it's about as challenging as having a guitarist play the same 4 chords in a progression 5x's in a row. Dante is stupidly simple to implement.
4. Dante's latency management process is easy to manage... you can choose latency structures in small increments (.5ms, up to 8ms). simple. easy. manageable - it's just a few clicks on a mouse. again.... simple. Can you play an E chord at 3 places on your guitar? If so, that's more difficult than managing latency modeling on Dante.
5. AVB has the ultimate potential (under 1722a protocol rules, assuming IEEE and AVNU can ever quit arguing and get their acts together) to operate a layer below Dante. However, this claim has been out there for years with little movement or traction.. the 1722a playbook will see AV packets operate at a MAC ID level (ie., below IP), but this is going to be a while coming.. and it would appear that the industry has spoken already and is really accepting Dante as the default standard.
I think the main criticism is that it's not open, it's not an open source thing, right? The fact that any element of it is licensed or for-profit makes it inferior to the open-source solution as long as it ultimately does the same thing, which it does. Not that I don't think people should be making money, it's just the case that a completely open and free competitor exists that obsoletes therefore obsoletes Dante, it's the tiniest point in the video. Hardware is the thing that makes all of this work, the hardware is the only thing that matters, the software can be figured out later, so yes, the large part of Dante is licensed and closed, it doesn't matter if other elements of it are not.
AVB has been integrated with Cisco switches, definitely think it will begin to pick up steam now.
Open is NOT a good thing when you want reliability and repeatability. Look at PC (open) vs Mac (closed), or iOS (Even more closed and compare reliability. Dante is open enough that it has wide support from 1000's of manufacturers and devices. Personally, I wouldn't want it to be so open that it has the potential for unreliability or problems. Open could even allow things like viruses to corrupt the data. I for one am happy that Dante keeps all the tech in one place, just like Apple does.
I believe he said the manufacturer needed a license to use Dante in their products.
AVB, mostly due to the people that want networked video options, is trumping Dante. There is no slowing it down, you can only sidestep it for so long. The issue has been that the audio side of the technology just hasn't been as sorted out as the video side, mainly because distributing audio digitally sucks compared to analog (or distributed digital video as well). But companies like MOTU or Presonus are wise to put AVB in their gear because it's going to happen. ANNNNND....you can play an E chord in far more places on the neck than three, but that doesn't make it more challenging that managing latency on Dante. In both cases you just have to learn the vocabulary and what is where. Good luck finding that fourth position.
this video is simply incorrect snake oil :-) Dante is interoperable with AVB & AES67 & with close to 2000 products embedded with Dante, it's pretty remarkable how this small Australian company managed to do what they've done. I'm guessing their offering had to be uniquely sound to gain this much adaptation.
hello very intersting ! i'm a composer & i have two or three questions : 1) what is the best latency you have on your system with a "typical" project ? 2) with AVB is it possible to share the audio chanel of the sound card with another pc ? 3)can i share audio channels between PCs ? my dream is a multiple PC setup share one soudcard and extra PCs for VST, for know i need to freeze some tracks because most Plug are CPU hangry even with a recent i7. i kwow the is a solution to do that call Vienna ensemble PRO but i think it's mostly for Kontakt users.
I tried AVB before I went to DANTE... I found that one manufacturer's AVB wouldn't work with another manufacturer's and when they did work they were very error -ridden. Dante worked flawlessly from the start. I have 32 analog i/o, 64 MADI i/o , 2 macs, 2 win10, NAS, and a server all running on the same network with low latency and zero errors. All on cat 5 through a $100 off-the-shelf router from Office max.......DANTE may be a licensed system but sometimes you don't get what you don't pay for!
So you run dante network without an expensive switch? I had a hard time setting up my cheap routers for dante. Maybe, there is some issue with multicast routing. What is the name of the router you are using?
Hoi Wytse,
dat Dante verhaal klop niet helemaal. voor dante is er wel special hardware nodig deze worden gemaakt door Audinate en zit standard in Dante interfaces of kaarten. sommige mensen gebruik Dante Virtueel Soundcard maar wel meer latency op dat is dan ook meer voor een back-up situatie. Dante werkt het met een daw via een Dante PCIe kaart. de latency via zo'n kaart is onder een 1ms. overigens werkt dante met QOS maar dat moet je switch kunnen. als meer wil weten over dante hier een linkje www.audinate.com/learning/training-certification/video-tutorials .
can u make a episode about low latency, how to achieve low latency inside the daw, which interfaces and which connection (USB, thunderbollt...), will give you low latency and systems like uad quad processors or protools hdx system improve the power of computer and which benefits to get from it
tohot tohandle traditional pcie interfaces/dsp cards(uad) with properly written drivers tend to have the best latency, 2nd place is thunderbolt/usbc, 3rd place is usb3.0 and earlier. this is just in general
DANTE and Ravenna with AES67 are the future and the now.
Volgens mij ben jij Nederlands of niet?
Actually as a choice of Dante or AVB platforms ESPECIALLY RUNNING ON A PC FOR RECORDING I'm afraid that the AVB solution is at best... rubbish! Companies like Presonus launch gear like the StudioLive III 32 channel mixer, but trying to get that to run on a PC is folly. Presonus are very 'sheepish' when you mention PC's running windows and AVB in the same breath. Who on earth would choose AVB when for just $29 you can make a network card in to a Dante card on any reasonable PC and integrate simply with Dante. Dante is the standard and AVB seems to be getting driven by companies like Presonus and MOTU and to be honest... it seems that both those companies love Apple? I don't and neither does the majority in the world using computers today, so using AVB limits your own networking, whereas Dante is far superior.
I don't care about the 'technicalities' - like most users of the gear I am only interested in 'does it work or not' and bearing in mind that Dante is years ahead it sort of relegates AVB to an also ran. Disappointingly I was less than pleased that for the Presonus StudioLive III console that on this latest version they took away the interface board. Why? My personal view is because they are pushing AVB along with MOTU and they don't want to support competitors called Dante. Sad.
And for those that think that AVB is 'catching on' its been around for years and still seems to retain its back seat networking protocol. I am not surprised.
However, I am still persevering with AVB currently (I also have Dante on other equipment) and will decide over the next month or so to either keep it all working on a PC or throw out the AVB and NEVER go back. Nuff said.
Excellent
You need to have more views man。。。。。
I was gonna say, I wish there were English subtitles so that I could understand this video. But perhaps someone could point out another video to learn about AVB and Dante
Thank you for info, great help!
This post is ridiculously inaccurate, from the topology explanation of a 'typical' network, through the arguments put for 'Open' versus 'Closed' standards. If anyone still thinks that a hardware manufacturer building a reliable product 'based' on an 'open' standard hasn't factored in their own out-of-pocket/what-the-market-will-bear costing for the IP they bring to the equation, they're naive at best. Buying a solution (like Dante) instead of rolling-your-own is purely a commercial decision, just as running Macs or PC's in a corporation instead of Linux is. Add to this the extraordinary bang-for-buck that Dante provides and it would be commercially insensitive to allow the sort of Open=Better pseudo tech jibber-jabber that permeates some organisations to get more oxygen than it deserves. If you are a completely 'build' shop (Uni's, National Broadcasters, Research Labs, et al) then of course, flex your IP muscles and use the open standards that are available. But if your core business is not networks AND especially if most of your tech is bought, then why would you take on the significant risk of exposure to interoperability that comes with an open but not Industry Standard setup?
Wrong information here. Because it's not really what you are telling. Dante is based on QoS so that you get a really low latency ever. Something like microseconds, sending up to 1024 channels at 192 kHz at 32bit. I challenge you to have the same with USB or thunderbolt. This IS Dante! And it's really just great. So really please: don't talk about things where you really have superficial knowledge about.
Nice work, thanks! I was sold on Dante before watching this. Dante is familiar, easy, and very widely used for live audio, which I also do. I wasn’t even looking at AVB. Thanks again!
Cheers - Tim
I love this channel, but this is complete "Snake Oil". "Open standards are good - Avnu Alliance", "Dante has serious network problems", come on...
He's also really cute XD
I purchased Dante Via...this software is overrated. Too many errors with licensing an installed.
Do not listen to this amateur, he knows nothing about networking, QoS (prioritizing types of network communication - general standard he describes like AVB feature) and definitely never used Dante. I am using it daily in a network setup he used as an example, the latency is 5-10 ms, stability is rock solid. I didn´t have to buy any hardware, just 2x virtual soundcards and Dante Via, total cost: $90. Get your facts straight kiddo.
Can U use 192Khz over Dante?
You have no idea what you’re talking about man.