HD Native and Dante
 

Can you use HD Native to record via Dante (with the Dante Virtual Soundcard)?

We have a Yamaha CL5 which will run 64x64 channels of 24-bit/48kHz over Cat5e on a Gigabit Ethernet network.

I have to upgrade our Mac Pro and when I do that I'm considering getting an HD Native system with the Thunderbolt unit. I guess I wouldn't really have much use for the Omni I/O, but I'd put in the rack anyway. But it would be nice to use the Dante network to record all 64 channels at the same time (obviously, I can't use the normal Protools 11 for this because it tops out at 32 channels of input).

Otherwise I would have to use Nuendo Live to record all 64 channels for a show. :o

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

Sorry, posted this in the Windows forum. It should be in the Mac forum.

(I use PT on my personal Windows laptop, but this would be my work system which is a Mac Pro). Tagged for relocation.

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

Good question. No idea.

My home setup (the Gypsy) is HDN with an 002R, so I downloaded DVS (have a license because of the big system on Arsenio). I know this doesn't prove much, but I installed DVS, set it for 64x64, started it, (without a Dante source) and then started PT10. DVS does indeed show up in the Playback Engine pulldown, and better yet in the I/O Setup all 64 channels of DVS are available. I'm thinking it might work for you.

I turned the Beast (my one-time Hackintosh) into a Windows machine (7) thinking that its main job would be to backup record the Mac Pro HDX|3 system (just the 64 channels dedicated for guest artists) so I installed Dante Virtual Soundcard on it. But of course in PT10 the ASIO driver will only see 32 of the 64 channels. I have Nuendo 4 on the same machine and it sees all 64 channels no problem.

Hoping Avid rewrites the ASIO driver.

Turns out that 11 is so stable on the big Mac Pro that I don't really need a backup, so the Beast now spends its time as the Dante system nanny running Dante Controller.

Good luck,
Peter

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

Update:

I made an I/O template for DVS with 64 ins and outs and started a dummy session with 64 tracks. All channels map to their respective ins and outs and the tracks will drop into Input and Record Ready. I'm thinking you're good to go with the HDN idea.

Please tell me it was just a typo when you said you were using CAT5. All of the engineer types I know at Yamaha would recoil with terror if they knew you weren't using CAT6 for all the interconnects.

We have five CL desks and six 32 channel Rios on Arsenio. The Dante system allows us amazing flexibility between FOH, Monitors, and the music truck (me). I'm a big fan.

Peter

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

Thanks for the info on the HDN and Dante DVS. The guys over on the Pro Sound Web: Live Audio Board also confirmed that the DVS works fine as an ASIO or Core Audio interface for Protools. I guess my main quesiton was whether the DVS shows up as part of the Aggregate I/O in the Core Audio set up in PT HDN like it does with the regular Protools, of if you specifically had to only use the HD hardware.

So Basically, you buy an HD system like the HD Native Thunderbolt with Omni interface, and then you don't even have to use the Omni I/O that you just purchased, since it only has two mic inputs. And DVS gives you 64x64 (for $29).

Per page 17 of the CL Series Owner's Manual, we are using shielded Cat5e (solid core at that): Also, the Yamaha Training staff confirmed in the CL User Training that shielded Cat5e is all that is required.

Are you actually using all five CL consoles on the same network? The specs from Yamaha say that you can only use up to four CL consoles on the same network.

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

JC,

Yeah, I don't keep an HD I/O at home so I don't have any way to check if you can aggregate the DVS with another interface. I suppose I should try it with the 002R at some point and see if it explodes. I was just trying to demonstrate that PTHD with an HD|N card, regardless of whether a physical interface is even connected, can fully access all of DVS.

You got me on the manual, it's written right there. Yeah, I did the CL user training and networking seminars too. I just remember them stressing using CAT6 everywhere.

For Arsenio we have essentially three "nodes"--Monitors, FOH, and the music truck. Monitors has two CL5s and five Rio3224s, FOH has two CL5s, a CL3, and one Rio, and I have four Rednet 5s in the truck. Monitors and FOH each have two GigE switches, one for the Primary and one for the Secondary, and it's all CAT6 at each location. In the Music Truck I just have one GigE switch as the Rednets are Primary-only devices. Each switch has GBIC fiber modules, and the runs between each "node" are fiber (the one from FOH to the truck is just over 300' long, Monitors to FOH just slightly less).

It is true that only four CL consoles on any single Dante network can be set to control Rio head amps. But if a console is just sending and receiving audio and not controlling anything, the only limit becomes the theoretical Dante channel traffic limit. If the fifth CL has no Rios mounted the network just sees it as another device ready to inject or retrieve audio to or from the network. We use Dante Controller to assign I/O to the fifth desk, works just fine.

Peter

PS--Please forgive the CAT6 crack. It came off a little snarky, and I'm not snarky. But I do love that word. Snarky. Fun to type.

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

Ok.... I have a Question.. as I am unfamiliar with DVS

We have a Roland M-400 Digital Console for live (Waiting for our Midas Pro 2 to come back)

It has Cat5 out........

Can I use DVS via PT11 (I have HD Native PCIe and HD I/O's) to record directly from the M-400 ?????????

If so, will it unlock full HD or run as Vanilla ??

Thanx for any info - I was hoping to find a solution for this, but wasn't sure if it were possible - it would be nice to record live without having to also haul my interfaces and additional snakes

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

DVS stands for Dante Virtual Soundcard, which is part of a protocol that Audinate licenses to a bunch of manufacturers including Yamaha, Focusrite, Shure, Allen & Heath among others. The M-400 uses a proprietary ethernet protocol Roland calls REAC. REAC has quite good latency figures but is limited to 40 channels. Dante has a theoretical limit around 500 channels when used with Gig-E switches and probably more when 10G switches come around.

So I don't think DVS would be any use to you. The only device I know of that natively records REAC is the Roland R-1000, so you probably still have to lug your interfaces around. Roland makes a MADI bridge as well for REAC, if that helps.

Peter

HD Native and Dante
 

Nope you can't do that test as the 002 (and 003) drivers do not support aggregating. And no, you also cannot aggregate any HD Native or HDX IO with any core audio devices. You are pretty locked in with a HD environment for bad (marketing) and probably good (aggregation can be pretty unreliable) reasons. If you want to connect bulk IO into a HD environment the options today really are interfaces that use TDM/emulate an Avid HD interface box, ADAT/SMUX and MADI. Hopefully Avid will do some more AVB toys in future, but then AVB is different again from Dante.

Re: HD Native and Dante
 

It's interesting (although slightly off-topic) that Uli Behringer has centered Midas around the AES 50 protocol (48 channels bidirex at 48khz). That flavor of AES 50 is based on 100MBPS and has that built in speed limitation. The newer version of AES 50 is based on Gig-E service and claims 384 channels bidirex at 48khz, much closer to Dante numbers. The Gig-E war seems to be heating up! Most interesting to me is the claimed latency for the new AES 50 service--just two samples per link.

The manufacturers all seem to assume bi-directional use--in other words, no matter how many nodes are hanging on a network, only one node will claim any given signal from the stream at one time. In the real world, not so much…

With Dante, once you get past two RX units claiming a particular signal you have to declare a multicast pathway to the network, and multicast uses more bandwidth. All sorts of voodoo going on here.

Peter