# etherCon Cabling



## MNicolai (Feb 3, 2013)

I was recently specifying a sound system with a Dante network for a project that sparked more than a little debate throughout the office on two subjects:

1) Whether or not to use heavy-duty etherCon cabling to last for a long period of time or to use standard-duty CAT5E cabling and throw the cables out as they get mangled.

2) Whether or not to use...
a) conventional network switches, standard CAT5E cabling.
b) conventional network switches, etherCon cabling with custom panels in the racks that translate the RJ-45 connectors on the switches over to etherCon.
c) network switches with etherCon connectors, etherCon cabling.

The use-case is for a sound system with portable four portable stage racks, an FOH console, a monitor console, and redundant networking. A primary and secondary switch located in two of the racks with stage boxes and one located at FOH.

Before I detail what it is I ended up specifying and why, I'd like to hear what different people prefer.


----------



## cpf (Feb 3, 2013)

I'd say option b: c) would severely restrict which switches you could use, while a) is just asking for someone/something to get snagged and rip a critical cable right out its RJ45 jack.


----------



## Chris15 (Feb 3, 2013)

A + B
Standard Catx within the rack, enough Ethercons mounted at a sensible place on the front or back of the rack for the external links envisaged, colour coded for primary or secondary network.


Oh and the having 2 connectors means if it all hits the fan you can undo the shell and plug straight into the switch, whereas if master connection is direct to the switch, then if it gets broken the switch port is written off.


----------



## jhochb (Feb 3, 2013)

D Series - Neutrik

A standard CAT 5 / 6 cable will mate with an EtherCon female. So option b or c seems OK
C would be more expensive & B would be a fair bit of labor.
If you go with B, don't try to make male ends. they look easy but they're not.
use a punch-down tool & go female EtherCon to female RJ45 then use short jumpers.


----------



## AlexDonkle (Feb 4, 2013)

I agree with option B though, having a custom plate at the back of the rack can simplify connections for the users. Whirlwind also makes Audio/Data snakes now which can use Neutrik EtherCon (the locking Cat5e or the non-locking Cat6 versions)


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 8, 2013)

I'm surprised to not see a more lively debate on this matter. What I'll say for now is that I'm hearing a lot of similar opinions to what I heard in our office. 

When I asked Yamaha what others were doing, they had seen a lot of the same experiences where people either ignored etherCon altogether or pulled back the connector barrels as needed.

I find neither of those methods to be desirable solutions for end users...


----------



## Wood4321 (Feb 8, 2013)

I would say C, whenever possible.
This is going to easily be the most robust solution.

I also don't find the male or female Ethercon connectors to be very difficult to deal with. 

In any case, I like the VIA switches from Pathway, I have a few on a show right now with no problems whatsoever.
VIA


----------



## Stookeybrd (Feb 8, 2013)

Option B.

If some trips on a cable and destroys the connector, it cannot be the connector of the switch, or stage box, or rack-unit, etc. All my built racks are stek paneled so that patching is easier and for the above reason.


----------



## themuzicman (Feb 8, 2013)

+1 for Option B and just stekking everything.


----------



## TimmyP1955 (Feb 17, 2013)

There are now Ethercons that can be removed from a cable, instead of just pulled back. They can also be installed on cables that are already terminated.


----------



## Chris15 (Feb 18, 2013)

The install after termination Ethercons have been around for years.
From memory though they are a little less robust becuase of the neccessary compromises to allow a fitting to an assembled cable...


----------



## TimmyP1955 (Feb 28, 2013)

I've seen several switch models being mentioned as working better than some others. Lab Gruppen for instance say that some don't meet specs, and some drop packets. They recommend the LinkSys SRW224G4 and the LinkSys WAP200. Audinate make have recommendations as well.


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 28, 2013)

TimmyP1955 said:


> I've seen several switch models being mentioned as working better than some others. Lab Gruppen for instance say that some don't meet specs, and some drop packets. They recommend the LinkSys SRW224G4 and the LinkSys WAP200. Audinate make have recommendations as well.



As of March 5 at 2PM I can begin more thoroughly discussing my research and the financial implications of one option over another. This is because the project is currently out for bid and I cannot disclose project-specific information until the bidding process is complete.

I will say this -- I was able to a redundant switch that uses the Cisco switches recommended by Yamaha for Dante networks. The manufacturer takes Cisco's PCB's, puts two of them together in a housing, and then cables from the ports on the switch to the etherCon ports on the facepanel of the housing. They then pre-load all of Yamaha's recommended settings for Dante networks onto the switches.

If a user needs to have a switch PCB repaired, they can take the PCB for that switch out of the housing without voiding warranty and then send that PCB back to the manufacturer. To that end, someone could buy a replacement switch, tear the PCB out of it, and mount it in the housing themselves. The manufacturer expects users may be in mission-critical situations where they would need to take apart their products for expedited RMA or repair processes, so they remain far more lax on what it takes to void their warranty. They'd rather be able to troubleshoot something over the phone with you and have you take a screwdriver to their product than require you send the product to them for the sake of maintaining warranty if it's something the user may very well be capable of taking care of with over-the-phone guidance.


----------



## AudioGreg (Mar 1, 2013)

I will second the Linksys SRW224G4 switch. I have about a dozen of these i use for IP network distribution. They are very cost effective and I have never had a failure issue, even with one of these sustaining shipping damage that required a complete enclosure replacement. I use a different but similar protocol than Daunte, but these units handle my system and cobranet concurrently. I use the gigabit trunks with fiber SFPs to connect units, and have six different VLANs programmed to handle various systems. So Primary audio, CobraNet, internet, wireless mic management, and two other data networks all coexist in one switch, all isolated from each other.

The only thing I use Ethercon for is actually audio signals. We have replaced our 3x XLR harnesses for our announcer consoles with a single Ethercon cable. All the audio is line level, so unshielded cable isn't a problem for our application. The connector panel in our racks is separate from the actual equipment it connects too, I don't think i would like a locking connector directly on a piece of gear to be the thing someone is going to snag and rip out. Much better to repair an external panel that we most likely built to begin with.

Funny story, I wasn't sold on Ethercon at first. We rigged a panel jack up high, plugged in an ethercon cable, and let some kids use it as a swing rope. it actually held up!


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 19, 2013)

Now that the contract has been awarded, I can discuss the details of the project and my findings.

The system included three points of primary and secondary switches (FOH, Monitor Console, one of the portable stage racks).

Here was my list of materials and my estimate of man-hours:

Option A - Conventional
This uses conventional network switches with custom panels in each rack to provide an etherCon connection between racks and devices.

(6) Switches
(3) Custom Panels
(4.5 hours) Labor - Drafting
(6 hours) Labor - Rack Prep
(1.5 hours) Labor - Verification Testing
(3) 10RU Racks


Option B - LinkUSA etherCon Switches (see here for product information)
This uses 1RU HW N210 switches by Link USA (or Link Italy depending on where you are), which include a primary 5-port switch and a secondary 5-port switch together in a housing with etherCon connectors. Switch PCB's provided by Cisco, using Yamaha/Audinate's recommended settings and switch models for Dante.

(3) Switches
No Custom Panels
(1.5 hours) Labor - Drafting
(.75 hours) Labor - Rack Prep
(1 hours) Labor - Verification Testing
(3) 6RU Racks

Using those specifications, I estimated that Option A would cost $4900 and Option B $3200.

Option B has fewer potential points of failure, less labor, no custom panels necessary, smaller racks because the switches only occupy 1RU instead of 2 and don't require custom panel interfaces.

Aside from that, the project schedule is accelerated because less time is required to draft custom panels and schematic diagrams, no time is needed for custom panel fabrication, much less time is needed for rack assembly, configuration, and testing.

As far as the client is concerned, they have easier system for maintenance and troubleshooting, less space taken up by racks, and an easier system

There was some reluctance at first in our shop to go this route, but after the research and pricing estimations, we are confident in our decision to specify this alternative solution. Using a company we had no previous experience with was one of the points of hesitation, but because they use the Cisco PCB's we are not concerned.

We had Yamaha and Link both come to our shop and performed testing using a couple of Link's switches, a stage box, and a CL1 console. Everything worked well and the equipment played nicely together.

One of the better points about the Link switches are the models they have that include fiber. If you need a primary/secondary fiber solution in a system with etherCon cables, they've got you covered (again, using Cisco's PCB's). This is more useful in long-distance applications where runs longer than 100m are needed between active devices.


----------



## emac (Jan 15, 2017)

MNicolai said:


> Now that the contract has been awarded, I can discuss the details of the project and my findings.
> 
> The system included three points of primary and secondary switches (FOH, Monitor Console, one of the portable stage racks).
> 
> ...




Any word on how these switches held up? Any further purchases from the same company? I am looking at getting some and would love some first hand use info!


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 15, 2017)

emac said:


> Any word on how these switches held up? Any further purchases from the same company? I am looking at getting some and would love some first hand use info!



There were some initial issues over the first 6 months of occasional audio dropouts. I seem to recall on this particular project the cause was identified as a clock sync issue with an unrelated Cobranet switch but not being able to say the Dante switches were approved by Yamaha or Audinate made for some issues getting tech support out of Yamaha.

Link's not doing anything special. Their low level switches are OEM'd Linksys(?) switches put inside a housing with ethercon connectors and the act/link lights brought forward onto the chassis. Their higher level switches are Cisco SG300 circuit boards of the same style -- they buy the circuit boards from Cisco and stick them into their own enclosures. If I were going to get switches with ethercon connectors, I'd go with Link's SG300 versions just to spare the BS when you try to get support from Yamaha.

My preference these days is Pakedge SX-series switches. You can get the same model switch with the RJ45 jacks on the front or on the back and get an ethercon interface panel with 24" whips from Whirlwind or whoever. What I really like about the Pakedge switches is that they're backed by a company that knows what Dante, Q-Sys, Cobranet, SoundGrid, and the other AV protocols are. I was having a lot of issues getting the new Yamaha SWP1-series switches to talk with Pakedge's SX24's and I had a Pakedge engineer remote'd into my system for 4 hours doing packet traces and changing settings on both the Pakedge and the Yamaha switches to get them to play nicely with one another. The Pakedge HQ is just up the road from Yamaha's HQ -- I think he may have even driven over to Yamaha on a later day to further troubleshoot the compatibility issues with directly with Yamaha.

Most important thing is that I highly recommend you stay within one manufacturer of switch for your entire network. Yamaha makes a number of claims about how great their new SWP1 ethercon switches are and maybe they are in fact the best thing since sliced bread but they're bloody expensive for only a few ports. If you really want to scare yourself look up their firmware release notes. If you know just a little about networking you can get the sense that they didn't know what they were doing when they first released that switch onto the market. I believe that's all resolved now but I still find that the SWP1 switches are very expensive for the number of ports that they offer. On the other hand, if you need a small ethercon switch with native fiber ports, that may be your best bet.

I do more installs and roadhouse systems than tours so depending on your types of events your mileage may vary.


----------



## emac (Jan 16, 2017)

MNicolai said:


> There were some initial issues over the first 6 months of occasional audio dropouts. I seem to recall on this particular project the cause was identified as a clock sync issue with an unrelated Cobranet switch but not being able to say the Dante switches were approved by Yamaha or Audinate made for some issues getting tech support out of Yamaha.
> 
> Link's not doing anything special. Their low level switches are OEM'd Linksys(?) switches put inside a housing with ethercon connectors and the act/link lights brought forward onto the chassis. Their higher level switches are Cisco SG300 circuit boards of the same style -- they buy the circuit boards from Cisco and stick them into their own enclosures. If I were going to get switches with ethercon connectors, I'd go with Link's SG300 versions just to spare the BS when you try to get support from Yamaha.
> 
> ...




Awesome! Thanks for the insight. 

We have Cisco sg300 series switches in my current amp racks (running NXAMPS) and they have been really great. We made custom Rack ears with two ethercon ports on either side of the switch that are great for connecting to other racks. But I need some more switches, and would like something with more ethercon connectors per switch. 

I like the look of the pakedge switches, but I would rather stick with the same hardware as you suggested. Keep everything as simple as possible as our shows are usually in and out in 48 hrs.


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 16, 2017)

I completely agree. If you're already on the SG300 line, stick with it. Any issues you may encounter however catastrophic or minor, it's monumentally easier to troubleshoot if you stay within one manufacturer of switches for your backbone. Much easier to find which setting needs to be flipped or to quickly rule out the switches as the issue altogether.

The simple question you'll have to decide for yourself is if you want ethercon, do you go with Link's SG300 variety and pay a hefty fee, or do you just have a panel fabricator cook you up a rack panel with some ethercons loaded into it with whips? The only real differences being how many rack spaces it takes up to add a panel and whether or not you want to have the act/link lights next to each of the connectors.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 16, 2017)

@MNicolai, So it seem back, when this thread began several years ago, you weighed the options an decided that the more expensive switches, with theoretically less labor, were actually cheaper in the end. So, what changed you view on this today?

My thought would be that, by ordering pre-make Ethercon panels, there is still a good amount of savings in time, but also not adding nearly as much cost in parts as the Ether-con switches. Plus an added benefit to doing it this way lets you get custom screen printing on the panel, which can make installation and trouble shooting cleaner. Plus you can stick a logo on there for a little advertising. 

Out of curiosity, Do you remember what retail pricing was on those DGlink switches?


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 17, 2017)

MikeJ said:


> @MNicolai, So it seem back, when this thread began several years ago, you weighed the options an decided that the more expensive switches, with theoretically less labor, were actually cheaper in the end. So, what changed you view on this today?
> 
> My thought would be that, by ordering pre-make Ethercon panels, there is still a good amount of savings in time, but also not adding nearly as much cost in parts as the Ether-con switches. Plus an added benefit to doing it this way lets you get custom screen printing on the panel, which can make installation and trouble shooting cleaner. Plus you can stick a logo on there for a little advertising.
> 
> Out of curiosity, Do you remember what retail pricing was on those DGlink switches?



I haven't seen pricing in awhile but I seem to recall it was quadruple digits, even for the small stuff. In fairness, the ethercon connectors cost $15-25/pop depending on which one you get. Get a 10 or 20-port switch and those costs stack up quickly. For what they're doing, I'm not surprised they cost as much as they do by the time you stick the switch PCB and the ethercon connectors in an enclosure and put your own UL listing on it.

My thought is that with a custom panel I get to choose color-coded bushings for primary/secondary, and can do custom engraved labeling for the ports. Easier to do on an install than on a tour, but I'm a big fan of things have a certain place. When there's a decided, labeled order to things, it's easier to troubleshoot what's wrong and where. The worst case with this approach is that someone relabels the panel with adhesive labels or you strip the connectors and order an inexpensive, new panel with the punchouts and labels made and stick your old connectors into it.

If it's appropriate, this approach also lets me put a custom panel on both the front and the rear of a portable rack if that's how the rack is best cabled in the field.

My primary motivator for avoiding ethercon switches in my projects is that Q-Sys doesn't support SG300's. I've heard different rumors as to why they dropped support for this model, but it hardly matters because QSC specifically does not support it. If I go with SG300-based ethercon switches for Dante, now I have to have a separate model of switches for Q-LAN. If I use the Pakedge switches, I not only get a manufacturer who understands our applications and protocols, but I can keep all of the switches in the project from the same manufacturer.


----------



## firewater88 (Jan 26, 2017)

My building, built in 2004, was all ethernet for the audio backbone. 5 separate networks over 5 switches, Primary, Secondary- Signal Management, Primary, Secondary Speaker Management and Ethernet. All patch ports are Ethercon and terminated to standard ends at the switches. All Cat6 cabling. When I upgraded to Dante last year, I added 2 Cisco switches in the rack and moved all the primary and secondary Signal Management lines to the new switches. I did make my own Ethercon patch bay at the stage rack to go to the wall. I also had quite a few 15' and 25' Ethercon cables. I use those cables to go from floor pocket to FOH console direct for Dante and Ethernet. My Madi lines are custom ethercon that go direct to the stagebox. 
I do like the robustness of the cables and ends. Have not had one fail, but they dont get moved around a ton either. I do have the custom color per network plug and custom engraved panel. Looks real good.


----------

