# Confusion about Ethersound



## zuixro (May 25, 2010)

In our upcoming sound upgrade, we are getting a Yamaha LS9-32 (not my first choice, I wanted an M7...) and a yet to be determined number of SB168-ES Stageboxes. There's been a little bit of confusion over how the new system was to be setup. The TD wanted to replace every output of our old analog snake with one of the Stageboxes. (or at least the majority of them) I told him that I didn't think it would work, since you can only have two cards in the LS9, therefore only two Stageboxes. Makes sense right? Well after I started thinking about it, I started to wonder, if you did have 4 Stageboxes on one network, could you use them all and just make sure to not overlap any ports? Or could you (using a computer with their software) patch the different inputs/outputs on the Stageboxes to inputs/outputs on the LS9?

I've done a lot of research, and I haven't been able to figure it out. It's starting to look like Cobranet or Dante would be better suited for our situation, especially since Ethersound has to be linear or cyclical, no star topologies.


----------



## soundlight (May 25, 2010)

I have heard that Ethersound has bandwidth issues, but that's not direct experience - just several other people's results. But one of said people tested rather extensively.

If you do go with CobraNet, I can definitely help you out - I'm something of a self-taught CobraNet specialist, including various manufacturers' products that utilize CobraNet.

And yes, I do think CobraNet would be very well suited to your situation, something along the lines of an E-Snake and Yamaha DME mixed system.

However, I will add the caveat that you will probably not have on-console gain control if you go with CobraNet, as that feature is not implemented with LS9 consoles and CobraNet snakes such as the Whirlwind E-Snake. However, it's easy to set gain with a computer - I use an Asus T91 netbook.

Also, are you replacing any processing? The Yamaha DME Satellite series of processors can be purchased in Cobranet or Ethersound varieties, and are very flexible as far as system processing. We're gonna be replacing a good 20 rackspaces of analog processing and DBX Driverack PAs with two Yamaha DME Sattelite 8o-C units, which are each one rackspace, and the system processing is then configurable from any computer connected to the Yamaha control network.


----------



## zuixro (May 25, 2010)

soundlight said:


> Also, are you replacing any processing? The Yamaha DME Satellite series of processors can be purchased in Cobranet or Ethersound varieties, and are very flexible as far as system processing



That was another question I had, about processing. If you have two Stageboxes on the network, then where do the processors go? They would have to overlap with the Stageboxes. That leads me to believe that overlap is ok. (at least with outputs)

And yes, we are replacing processing. It's a complete overhaul (except for maybe the booth monitoring system, and the analog snake may be left as backup/supplemental)

Another thought I had was to pull two runs of Ethernet to each place where the analog snake comes out, and run those back to a patch panel in the booth. Then we could patch the Ethernet to only run the the locations we're using. Here is a diagram I made demonstrating my idea:



Even if we did go with Cobranet, we could just have Ethernet pulled to each of the snake outlets, and add the module things (the real name escapes me) only at the ones we need, when we need them. Cobranet looks to be more expensive though...


----------



## DaveySimps (May 25, 2010)

We have an LS9-32 and two of the SB168es. If your existing snake terminates to where you board will be, just leave it, and add the data run for the stage boxes (and extra data runs as desired). The board supports 64 inputs, only 32 of which can be the stage boxes. Use the connectors on the back of the board to use your existing snake channels. 

The SB168's are addressed as one entire unit (16 ins and 8 outs), so your network would not be able to route to more than 2 boxes with the LS9. You could get extra boxes (if you are willing to drop the cash) and just have more than one on the same address. For example, have box 2 appear stage right and in a video booth, that way you just have to run CAT5 to get get extra ins and outs in a location. The boxes are not cheap, so it does start to add up quickly. 

You can route all 64 ins and 16 outs however you want to within your network.

Hope this info is useful to you.

~Dave


----------



## zuixro (May 25, 2010)

DaveySimps said:


> We have an LS9-32 and two of the SB168es. If your existing snake terminates to where you board will be, just leave it, and add the data run for the stage boxes (and extra data runs as desired). The board supports 64 inputs, only 32 of which can be the stage boxes. Use the connectors on the back of the board to use your existing snake channels.
> 
> The SB168's are addressed as one entire unit (16 ins and 8 outs), so your network would not be able to route to more than 2 boxes with the LS9. You could get extra boxes (if you are willing to drop the cash) and just have more than one on the same address. For example, have box 2 appear stage right and in a video booth, that way you just have to run CAT5 to get get extra ins and outs in a location. The boxes are not cheap, so it does start to add up quickly.
> 
> ...



That's exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks. 

I don't think the TD knows that those stageboxes run about $4-5k apiece. 

What we might do is have one mounted on either side of the stage (at least semi-permanently), have Ethernet pulled to each snake outlet, and have one or two other stageboxes to put wherever we need ins/outs. That still doesn't solve the problem that the layout has to be linear, which really bugs me. 

We could just get two stageboxes, and use the analog snake for everything else, but the TD wants to completely drop it. It's starting to get very unreliable. The patch panel completely flaked out the other day during a rental. That would also prevent us from being able to move the board around easily.


----------



## DaveySimps (May 25, 2010)

The money from a third stage box could go a long way into fixing issues with your existing snake.

~Dave


----------



## zuixro (May 26, 2010)

*Re: Re: Confusion about Ethersound*


DaveySimps said:


> The money from a third stage box could go a long way into fixing issues with your existing snake.
> 
> ~Dave



We may end up doing that. The goal was to go all digital though so we could easily move the console (in stead of pulling 20 XLR cables back to the booth.)

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveySimps (May 26, 2010)

With the LS9, that would be about as digital as you can go. With just a little extra cash (hopefully) you would also maintain your existing "analogue" infrastructure. 

Most people really only have one or two place they ever set up a board, say one in a booth and one in an open air audience location. Do you really have the need for several locations? You did not say what sort of space you are in, so I am not certain. In any event, I think it is a good investment to put a little bit of cash into making your existing wiring stable. You will always find a use for them.

~Dave


----------



## museav (May 26, 2010)

Unfortunately, this seems an example of having to design around the gear already selected rather than having a coordinated design concept prior to selecting the equipment. Some of the issues you are noting are the reasons why I chose a different approach on a recent project, it simply did not work well for the application.

I think part of the confusion is the use of the terminology "stage box". For many that probably brings up visions of the typical metal box that you use to extend analog I/O. Maybe use one for the drums, one to center stage, etc. as needed. However, digital snake type stage boxes aren't connecting to existing inputs and outputs but rather represent unique inputs and outputs. So people are often surprised to find that they can't necessarily use digital snake stage boxes like they did analog stage boxes.

Something I often look at doing in existing facilities is to maintain the analog cabling at the stage. In many venues that all goes to some common point to run to the console. You can then break those lines there, run the analog stage lines into the digital snake interfaces and run the digital snake back to the console. You can also have open interface connectivity at that point.

EtherSound can be a star topology, just not bi-directional. You can use a switch in the line but the signal flow is then uni-directional downstream. Good for applications such as background music and paging where you might have a limited number of inputs but be distributing that audio to many locations.

On the processing, there are a number of matrix DSP units with Cobranet connectivity, for example a BSS London BLU-80 or BLU-800 could support the 16 outputs noted (analog, AES digital or a mix) for about the same cost but in a single, network addressable, 1 RU unit rather than requiring two boxes with an additional Cobranet hop. Nothing against the Yamaha DME processors, but there are other options if you are not worried about preamp control from the console.

Also, don't become stuck on a digital path, especially when it is networked audio. While working on a system design the other day I found that I could make a connection with a Cobranet hop with a minimum latency of 1.33ms or make the same connection by an A/D out of one device and D/A conversion in to the next device with a maximum latency 1.4ms while saving several thousand dollars by doing so.


----------



## Chris15 (May 26, 2010)

museav said:


> Also, don't become stuck on a digital path, especially when it is networked audio. While working on a system design the other day I found that I could make a connection with a Cobranet hop with a minimum latency of 1.33ms or make the same connection by an A/D out of one device and D/A conversion in to the next device with a maximum latency 1.4ms while saving several thousand dollars by doing so.



I have seen gear specs for which you entail less latency by using an analogue connection than an AES one, so Brad's point should not be understated...


----------



## soundlight (May 26, 2010)

I have all sorts of ideas about what to recommend - be it a CobraNet or EtherSound system - but all of that's useless if I don't know what your current space is set up like. What house processing is being replaced, and how many channels of processing output do you have (# of signals going to amps)? Where are the amps in relation to the booth and stage? How many local inputs are in the booth that will need to be accessed when the console is being used from another position in the facility (playback devices, paging sources, house mic lines that will remain analog, etc)? What kind of outputs will you need at stage level or elsewhere in the facility, and what for?

Also, if you have the money for cable, pull at least 4 discrete networks in the facility - even if some of the cable ends up unterminated right now. We have 8 discrete networks in our facility right now - and 5 of them are already spoken for (with the other 3 patchable in the network room). We have the campus network, ETCnet, CobraNet, Yamaha Control Network, and a network for Shure wireless mics to control them with WWB. All 8 networks are terminated all over the facility at all levels to provide instant connectivity anywhere. This can seriously reduce the amount of gear you have to purchase - if you know you'll only ever need 32 mic inputs from the stage, put network connections in the wings and have 2 ES2s with input cards, and drop each of those 16-in boxes wherever you need them - one on each side, both on one side, one sidestage and one at the drum riser, whatever.


----------



## DaveySimps (May 26, 2010)

museav said:


> I think part of the confusion is the use of the terminology "stage box". For many that probably brings up visions of the typical metal box that you use to extend analog I/O. Maybe use one for the drums, one to center stage, etc. as needed. However, digital snake type stage boxes aren't connecting to existing inputs and outputs but rather represent unique inputs and outputs. So people are often surprised to find that they can't necessarily use digital snake stage boxes like they did analog.





Although I agree with many of your points, in the case of this specific thread, the inputs can be patch anywhere on the board via Studio Manager, or on the board directly. 

~Dave


----------



## Morpheus (May 26, 2010)

DaveySimps said:


> Although I agree with many of your points, in the case of this specific thread, the inputs can be patch anywhere on the board via Studio Manager, or on the board directly.
> 
> ~Dave


I think he meant like this... you can;t keep cascading digital stageboxes like you can those mini-snakes...


----------



## zuixro (May 26, 2010)

museav said:


> I think part of the confusion is the use of the terminology "stage box". For many that probably brings up visions of the typical metal box that you use to extend analog I/O. Maybe use one for the drums, one to center stage, etc. as needed. However, digital snake type stage boxes aren't connecting to existing inputs and outputs but rather represent unique inputs and outputs. So people are often surprised to find that they can't necessarily use digital snake stage boxes like they did analog stage boxes.



Yeah that's how the TD thought it was. I think I said this earlier, but we are probably just going to get two or three and replace the most used boxes, and use the analog snake for the rest.


DaveySimps said:


> Although I agree with many of your points, in the case of this specific thread, the inputs can be patch anywhere on the board via Studio Manager, or on the board directly.
> 
> ~Dave



If I were designing a digital snake system, I would make it possible to have a lot of inputs/stageboxes, then patch them to the 32 inputs on the console.


soundlight said:


> I have all sorts of ideas about what to recommend - be it a CobraNet or EtherSound system - but all of that's useless if I don't know what your current space is set up like. What house processing is being replaced, and how many channels of processing output do you have (# of signals going to amps)? Where are the amps in relation to the booth and stage? How many local inputs are in the booth that will need to be accessed when the console is being used from another position in the facility (playback devices, paging sources, house mic lines that will remain analog, etc)? What kind of outputs will you need at stage level or elsewhere in the facility, and what for?



All house processing is being replaced. The only processing we have was installed 20 years ago, and consists of a crossover, a graphic EQ, and a compressor. We don't use any of it. (We pretty much just use two Eon's right now to cover the whole house)

Amps are in the booth. I don't know how many signals are going to the amps. 

Local inputs in the booth isn't much of a problem. We have the two house mics, and a feed to the booth speakers. That's about it. The two mics could be routed to the stage with no problem. The booth feed could come out of an extra channel on the processor (if there is one)

At stage level we need mic inputs (of course), and outputs for powered speakers. (effects speakers, monitors, etc.)



This is what I'm so worried about with this upgrade. The TD and I know exactly what we want in the system. Somehow the specs got sent out to bid before the TD could confirm what he wanted. He's not even completely sure what is on it. So yeah, should be fun.



We do need to be able to send signal back to the stage, so we can't have a switch in it. I don't understand how Dante and Cobranet can support star topologies, but not Ethersound. Seems like a major failure on their part.


----------



## Chris15 (May 27, 2010)

zuixro said:


> I don't understand how Dante and Cobranet can support star topologies, but not Ethersound. Seems like a major failure on their part.



It's about where in the ISO layers the various protocols sit...
Ethersound and Cobranet are using the ethernet at the data link level. A-net uses only the physical layer. Dante is into the IP layers (and as such is fully switchable and routable).

These are decisions that manufacturers have to make when developing their products. Ethersound has far better latency than Cobranet, but it's topology can be a limiting factor...

In theory, AVB will change many of the interoperability issues we see with competing protocols now, but what I've read has yet to totally convince me it will be anything like plug and play...


----------



## museav (May 27, 2010)

DaveySimps said:


> Although I agree with many of your points, in the case of this specific thread, the inputs can be patch anywhere on the board via Studio Manager, or on the board directly.


Morpheus had it right, my point was that a traditional stage box connects to inputs and outputs that are already existing, it is simply a wiring or cabling extension. You could connect and disconnect an analog stage box, even to a digital stage box, without the system I/O changing in any way other than the locations of the physical terminations. But connect or disconnect a digital stage box and the actual system I/O, how many inputs and outputs are available or at least where you can route signals, changes.

As far as Cobranet and Dante better supporting switches and star topologies than EtherSound, you have to consider when they were developed and the intended applications. There are many considerations and tradeoffs once you really get into the details. Then again, AVB (Audio Video Bridging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and IEEE 802.1 AV Bridging Task Group) may resolve many of the problems and obsolete some existing protocols.

Added: Sorry for the redundancy with Chris's reply, that's what I get for starting a reply and then getting pulled into something else before posting it.


----------

