Focusrite Red 4Pre!

[JCBigler]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

but nothing more and comparing to the new $2500 4PRE is a non starter.

Holy crap! I was hoping the 4Pre would come in closer to $1,500. That's a lot of scratch, but it's about the perfect interface for me as it does both Dante and Digilink AND a thunderbolt connection AND has ADAT and analog i/o.

Maybe if Avid wasn't so wrapped up in all this cloud collaboration nonsense they could spend some effort actually developing a decent interface for once. But, they will probably just rebrand this 4Pre as an Avid Pre4 or something...

[EGS]

+1 This Focusrite thing looks pretty good.

[YYR123]

Yes it does, and it should do a lot...its at Apogee pricing

[DonaldM]

I'm not familiar with Dante. May I ask what, exactly, that is?

[JCBigler]

Originally Posted by DonaldM

I'm not familiar with Dante. May I ask what, exactly, that is?

It's a digital auto networking protocol that allows you to run high channel counts (up to 512x512 channels), currently up to 128 channels in each direction on a single Cat5e cable. You can use a standard RJ45 Etehrnet port on any computer and the Dante Virtual Sound Card (which is only $29, btw) to connect to any Dante enabled hardware and get up to 64 channels, or use a dedicated PCIe card for up to 128 channels in each direction.

Dante is similar to AVB and is supposed to be compliant with the AVB standards (if the AVnu Alliance ever gets around to actually finalizing the AVB spec), but it is able to run on much more commonly available general consumer and enterprise level networking gear.

It's been taking over like gangbusters in live audio where you need to run hundreds of channels over long distances on lightweight Category cabling. The Yamaha CL5 that I use every day is built around the Dante networking spec.

https://www.audinate.com/

[Skytouch]

Originally Posted by YYR123

I am really thinking this could replace the Omni that I want/need/want :)

I was looking for the omni to use as a monitor controller, with a tad bit more io > my only concern is how will it interface with PT (the focusrite)? Will I have to aggregate?

I honestly don't even suppose to know how the omni itself would be seen in PT....would it need to be aggregated or would it be seamlessly seen in PT.

I am exploring this too, Captain Nemo. Aarrr, like that handle.

I recently acquired a Yamaha Montage synth which is also a full-on audio interface, and need to aggregate this in Pro Tools. With Omni I am hosed due to its inability to aggregate. So the Red 4Pre is very appealing to me because it's backward compatible with D-link, and forward compatible with Dante and TB3.

Someone here mentioned that another Focusrite interface model is simply a bridge from Dante to D-link, which implies that as a Dante interface, the Red 4Pre will not aggregate. This would leave me with just TB3, which will not work with my cheese grater Mac Pro.

I plan to upgrade my CPU in 2018 but want to start this year with the interface. If anyone has succesfully aggregated Red 4Pre with another 3rd party I/O running natively in Pro Tools, please let us know. Fyi, I am not concerned about the 32-channel limit of non D-Link interfaces. I'll run my HD license at the lower channel count, provided I can aggregate. I can always switch back to D-link for higher channel count mixes.

Regards,
Sky

[V5V]

Originally Posted by JCBigler

It's a digital auto networking protocol that allows you to run high channel counts (up to 512x512 channels), currently up to 128 channels in each direction on a single Cat5e cable. You can use a standard RJ45 Etehrnet port on any computer and the Dante Virtual Sound Card (which is only $29, btw) to connect to any Dante enabled hardware and get up to 64 channels, or use a dedicated PCIe card for up to 128 channels in each direction.

Dante is similar to AVB and is supposed to be compliant with the AVB standards (if the AVnu Alliance ever gets around to actually finalizing the AVB spec), but it is able to run on much more commonly available general consumer and enterprise level networking gear.

It's been taking over like gangbusters in live audio where you need to run hundreds of channels over long distances on lightweight Category cabling. The Yamaha CL5 that I use every day is built around the Dante networking spec.

https://www.audinate.com/

I've only spent a total of maybe 2-3 hours taking a cursory look at a few methods of sending audio over IP, but based on that VERY limited experience I'm not sure I understand why people are discussing Dante and AVB but not Ravenna. Isn't Ravenna everything the other two are, plus more? Isn't it more flexible, capable, and easier to implement?

Is there something I'm missing?

[LukeHoward]

Originally Posted by V5V

I've only spent a total of maybe 2-3 hours taking a cursory look at a few methods of sending audio over IP, but based on that VERY limited experience I'm not sure I understand why people are discussing Dante and AVB but not Ravenna. Isn't Ravenna everything the other two are, plus more? Isn't it more flexible, capable, and easier to implement?

Is there something I'm missing?

Vendor adoption. But it is interoperable with Dante through AES67.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by LukeHoward

Vendor adoption. But it is interoperable with Dante through AES67.

Would it be fair to say Ravenna is Beta to Dante's VHS? Technically superior but defeated in the market?

Or are there reasons beyond wider availability to choose Dante over Ravenna?

Where does AVB fit in the picture?

If these questions are too basic and behind-the-times for this discussion, please feel free to ignore them. I realize I'm a kindergarten kid in a college class here.

[LukeHoward]

Originally Posted by V5V

Would it be fair to say Ravenna is Beta to Dante's VHS? Technically superior but defeated in the market?

Or are there reasons beyond wider availability to choose Dante over Ravenna?

Where does AVB fit in the picture?

Dante and Ravenna are more similar than different (they both operate at Layer 3), and indeed recent Dante devices with AES67-supporting firmware can interoperate with Ravenna (albeit only at 48k and with a minimum latency of 1ms). AES67 has the advantage of being an open standard but it does not dictate a protocol for discovering endpoints, so interoperability can (at the very least) require some manual configuration or impose some limitations (Dante's 1ms latency limitation when speaking to an AES67 device stems from it only supporting multicast discovery in that mode).

I would say that broader vendor support and ease of configuration is the reason Dante is more popular.

AVB, for better or for worse, seems to have lost out beyond being used as a vendor internal protocol (e.g. by Avid or MOTU). Well, that and cars. AVB does have some technical advantages but in a managed/high bandwidth network these are arguably small. It is a pity because AVB support does ship with every copy of OS X, and you can do some interesting things with it if you dig in (see avbutil(1) for the technically inclined). A difficulty with AVB is that it requires support in the Ethernet switch and very few switches support it; and for the ones that do, it is often an expensive add-on.