Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jcrawfordor 2175 days ago
While this can't be dropped into a lot of existing networks, that doesn't really eliminate the advantages of IP.

This might be best explained by analogy: VoIP. Various issues including security model, DHCP-based provisioning, and QoS mean that corporate VoIP phones are typically deployed on a specially prepared network using a dedicated VLAN. While various VoIP vendors claim that you can just drop their solution on your existing network and have it work, this rarely pans out, and it's very common for introduction of VoIP to involve upgrades to network appliances and possibly architectural changes.

It might also be important context that prior to the adoption of VoIP most corporate environments were already using a proprietary digital telephone system such as Nortel Meridian, so it's not even a matter of upgrade from analog to digital.

Rather, the IP-based network, even with special requirements, is more flexible (due to the large set of routing, switching, etc protocols available for IP) and less costly to maintain (due to common skillset and equipment with computer networks). Even better, while there may be a new network investment required to switch to VoIP, that investment is "dual purpose" and the new network equipment will also serve your computers.

I'm not an expert in this field, my experience being limited to some work with Dante equipment years ago---VoIP is more my wheelhouse. But I think the situation is very similar here. Adopters of live audio over IP will almost certainly need to invest in new network equipment and possibly rearchitect their existing network. VLAN segregation and special QoS policy will presumably be the norm.

But choice of vendors and common skillset, if nothing else, will make the IP network less costly to maintain. There's a wide variety of technology available for moving IP around in interesting situations, fiber is popular in large theater contexts because of a perceived improvement in reliability over long runs (probably less significant in the days of GbE but I haven't been involved in this kind of thing in a while). Further, with sufficient precautions in place the network can be dual-use and can also serve purposes like administrative networks and even front-of-house wifi.

Protocols like Dante are already being widely adopted, and compatibility can be a big headache, so I think a uniform standard for this kind of thing will be very popular.

1 comments

I get your point, and you may be right and it might take off.

But is a latency of 2ms up to 50ms really attractive? I am in no way near audio engineering, but i can remember the MIDI-folks swearing about their 2ms latency.

Not very good keyboard player here: higher than ~~8ms is annoying for playing/recording. But 50ms probably isn't bad if say, you're blasting a message through a factory intercom, or piping music through a dental office, or stuff like that.
And for large venues, remember that sound only goes ~3.4 m in 10 ms. loudspeaker-to-ear latency can be larger than all of your processing. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter, but makes the last few ms less important.
AES67-2018 specifies packet times (latencies) of 125us, 250us, 333us, 1ms and 4ms. Senders and receivers may support additional packet times.