Speakerplans.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > Advanced Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Behringer S16 Cat5 Multi & DCX2496 Ultradrive
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Behringer S16 Cat5 Multi & DCX2496 Ultradrive

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Soundscape View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Soundscape Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Behringer S16 Cat5 Multi & DCX2496 Ultradrive
    Posted: 12 February 2012 at 10:24pm
I tried a search on this subject but didn't find anything relevant so if it has come up before, sorry.

The new Behringer X32 digital mixer plus the forthcoming X16 version are intended to be used with the S16 Digital Multicore - obviously 2 of these units required for use with the X32 and linked together via AES50 standard cables.

Reading through the spec of the X32 it packs in a lot of features but as far as I can tell doesn't include any form of LMS - probably the design brief never allowed or intended this and maybe a 'step too far' as they already produce the Ultradrive.

However, suppose you're a band or PA operator wanting to use a DCX2496 Ultradrive in your FOH rack with one of the above mixers (yes, I'm well aware it's not considered 'pro gear' by many and those who already have BSS or XTA based systems probably won't be interested anyway), it appears to me you could use the 6 returns built into the S16 via the 6 line ins built into the mixers.

What do others think? Is this setup perfectly feasible or is there a better solution - preferably still using CAT5 for the returns e.g such as APPSYS offer?

Thanks to all    Steve

Back to Top
Phil B View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 21 November 2004
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phil B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2012 at 12:03am
Depends if you want redundancy?
Normally returns are seperate from FOH desk multis to allow for re-patching and board swapping etc etc. Also the power for the drive comes down the returns not the FOH multi again for redundancy.
For small gigs with no changes it would be fine...what you would really need though is an Ultradive that accepts AES50! Maybe that`s in the pipeline?

.p.
Mostly harmless.... except if catering is shut.

Solar Sound System Shennanigans..http://diyhifi.biz/
Back to Top
Soundscape View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Soundscape Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2012 at 9:47am
I agree that having capacity for redundancy is a wise choice and use a separate returns multi with other setups.

Mind you there was a case some years ago when some 'well meaning' numtie of a stage hand decided to tidy up multicores laid in a venue somewhere by nailing them to the structure......
I can just imagine the look of horror on the PA opo's face when he relaised what had happenedOuch

Double redundancy needed!!

But an updated version of the Ultradrive with AES50 outputs - that would be useful. However, if that's not going to be available for various reasons we come back to using a conventional multicore for returns. The Swiss co. Appsys  (http://www.appsys.ch) have some nice kit which I've been considering but there's still the issue of converting analogue - digital and back to analogue which is a tad messy.

Steve
Back to Top
shagnasty View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 30 July 2007
Location: Guildford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shagnasty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2012 at 1:00pm
With AES-50 you can true rundancy by using HyperMac routers to load balance over several links in case on fails, the truth is CAT-5 isn't very gig friendly and no-one in their right mind would build a CAT5 multi without at least one spare line in it.
AES-50 is a Layer 1 Ethernet protocol, IE it abaides by the electrical spec for Ethernet but use proprietry framing and encapsulation so you can't just slam the wire into a Cisco switch and run a cat-5 down either side of the room, but if you treat a cat-5 'core with the TLC you should treat and anolog core you should be fine.
As for AES-50 > Ultrdrive there is no real point in pumping tens of channels of AES-50 into an LMS-with only 6 outs, an AES-50 <> AES/EBU bridge node is what you need, so you can grab the returns channels you need and shoot them into your Ultradrive, but this kinda kit has been historically VERY expensive, that said as the EtherSound, AES-50 market open up budget kit should become available...
 
Back to Top
Smiter View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User
Avatar

Joined: 21 August 2010
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 1160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Smiter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2012 at 1:24pm
You should be able to use matrix outputs to control the speakers - and the outputs of these should have EQ, limiting and HPF / LPF slopes. If it can't do that, then it's not even as capable as an LS9
Back to Top
Phil B View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 21 November 2004
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phil B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 February 2012 at 2:03am
Originally posted by shagnasty shagnasty wrote:

As for AES-50 > Ultrdrive there is no real point in pumping tens of channels of AES-50 into an LMS-with only 6 outs, an AES-50 <> AES/EBU bridge node is what you need, so you can grab the returns channels you need and shoot them into your Ultradrive, but this kinda kit has been historically VERY expensive, that said as the EtherSound, AES-50 market open up budget kit should become available...
 


Too right it`s expensive! The Midas Network Bridge is great tool but far too expensive!

http://www.midasconsoles.com/dn9650.php?src=pro6

Let`s see if the Bellringers can come up with a cheaper AES50 / AES convertor?

.p.
Mostly harmless.... except if catering is shut.

Solar Sound System Shennanigans..http://diyhifi.biz/
Back to Top
Soundscape View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Soundscape Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 February 2012 at 9:54pm
Thanks for the comments & info.

There's something of a dilemma here as we can see good quality, used analogue gear coming onto the market at reasonable money. But the size and weight of this gear e.g. 24, 32 & 40 ch desks + outboard racks + standard multicores can be an issue for small PA companies and bands:  number of people required to setup and operate, size of van/truck required and its associated costs, space available in smaller venues (of which there are fewer, especially pubs that provide live music), setup and takedown times compared to what rates can be charged.

The development of various digital products offering more features and importantly, more value, has to be helpful in many ways.

I appreciate the pro touring market and larger venues are going to specify industry standard products - that's their choice and no one is likely to argue (much) about using a Midas Network Bridge if the tour can afford it.
However, I'm eager to see more budget kit come to market because it will present new opportunities at the lower end of the market and hopefully the successful bands will move up the (food?) chain and then use the best kit available.

Back to Top
chickenfizz View Drop Down
Young Croc
Young Croc
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chickenfizz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 June 2012 at 6:14am
Originally posted by Smiter Smiter wrote:

You should be able to use matrix outputs to control the speakers - and the outputs of these should have EQ, limiting and HPF / LPF slopes. If it can't do that, then it's not even as capable as an LS9


Pulling this thread up from the dead (maybe appropriately since this desk does actually genuinely appear to be going to ship within the next couple of weeks), the limitation with LS9 and many other 'bodge' generic dsp approaches to loudspeaker management is that they're usually only 12dB/Octave Butterworth slopes, like a typical channel inline hpf, which in my opinion is a poor active crossover, I'd sooner use a very cheap outboard analogue crossover that at least had 4th order filters and hopefully Linkwitz-Riley slopes too.
Back to Top
kevinmcdonough View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2005
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Points: 3749
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kevinmcdonough Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 June 2012 at 11:55am
hey

I think I'm a little hungover maybe, am confused by the OP's post.  As far as I can understand, your talking about having your LMS with you at the mix position and doing your crossing over there, and then sending the six post-crossover lines down the desk returns to stage/PA?

Would it not be easier to have your LMS at the stage with both the PA and the stage ends of the stagebox/multicore?  That way you can just feed your stereo out or LRS output into the DCX from the output channels of the stagebox and then the crossover feeds straight into the amps?

Both achieve the same thing, but just seems like a lot more hassle to me the first way?

Or am I more hungover than I thought and not understanding what you mean? Smile


k
Back to Top
spiffing View Drop Down
Young Croc
Young Croc


Joined: 17 August 2006
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Points: 634
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spiffing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 July 2012 at 11:32pm
Originally posted by kevinmcdonough kevinmcdonough wrote:

hey

I think I'm a little hungover maybe, am confused by the OP's post.  As far as I can understand, your talking about having your LMS with you at the mix position and doing your crossing over there, and then sending the six post-crossover lines down the desk returns to stage/PA?

Would it not be easier to have your LMS at the stage with both the PA and the stage ends of the stagebox/multicore?  That way you can just feed your stereo out or LRS output into the DCX from the output channels of the stagebox and then the crossover feeds straight into the amps?

Both achieve the same thing, but just seems like a lot more hassle to me the first way?

Or am I more hungover than I thought and not understanding what you mean? Smile


k

I'm guessing he wants to b able to see the berry while mixing the band. simplest/cheaper way is to use the software for the berry and run a cable from amp rack to foh laptop?


Back to Top
ceharden View Drop Down
The 10,000 Points Club
The 10,000 Points Club
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2005
Location: Southampton
Status: Offline
Points: 11776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ceharden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 July 2012 at 1:04am
Personally I would just make a multicore with a couple of CAT5 (or whatever is required for the digital multi), 16A power and an 8 way analogue signal cable for the returns from the FOH processor.

Still much lighter than a conventional analogue multicore but gives you a few analogue lines for returns, DMX if necessary.
Back to Top
shagnasty View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 30 July 2007
Location: Guildford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shagnasty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 July 2012 at 1:12am
Originally posted by ceharden ceharden wrote:

Personally I would just make a multicore with a couple of CAT5 (or whatever is required for the digital multi), 16A power and an 8 way analogue signal cable for the returns from the FOH processor.

Still much lighter than a conventional analogue multicore but gives you a few analogue lines for returns, DMX if necessary.
A lot of sense there, I'd even go to 3 runs of cat-5e, not just 2, a bit of 8w FSM and 2.5mm mains feeder.
 
Ideally run a 4-line fibre and but media converters in, hypermac will go through a fibre<>copper converters as long as it isn't a switch and 4 line 50micrometer multimode fibre is lighter and tougher than cat5.
 
But comms, returns and a DMX line all up copper is a good plan, use Canford FSM8 as it is DMX/AES-EBU/RS-485 rated as well as audio and weighs toss all. If you want I can also do some very nice little multipins on it!!!!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.171 seconds.