What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
Online preregistration for the Interop Las Vegas show is open. This is the show for networking, data center and general IT types. I’ve been a few times over the years. What impressed me most is a feature/display/real network called Interop Net. Interop Net not only serves as a showcase for the latest in networking technology but as the real world network providing services to the largest networking show on the planet.
Some years back at my first Interop I got the idea that the pro audio world could do something similar to Interop Net. At the time audio networking and control had been out for a while, but was slow in making significant inroads to the market. The idea is that at a major trade show, AES for example (though Infocomm might be more appropriate), we showcase the latest and greatest in audio networking and control technologies. Imagine a network where booths were sharing audio tracks from a high speed network, controlling equipment in demo rooms or on the show floor from remote areas. Where we could see real world deployments, but in an environment controlled enough to get a chance to play a bit with the technology. The offsite technical tours are cool, but it’s not likely that a running show or facility will let one experiment too much with the technical bits. Put aside for a sec the gigantic task of deciding what tracks to use or what tracks to make (for example simulating airport paging or sport event announcing) and the related licensing issues. There are other reasons that this likely won’t come to pass anytime soon.
That’s because there is no real interoperability off the shelf with pro audio networking solutions. One can shuttle digital audio over a network pretty easily given the proper implementation for the application. It’s when we get into the monitoring and control that the idea shits the bed. There are all these fifedoms of proprietary protocols to control devices on a variety of interfaces. Some are still using serial interfaces. Gang, it’s 2006 why the hell are we still using RS422? Five years ago I bought the “slow adopter, backwards compatable” excuse but that dog don’t hunt no more. Also way back then, was the argument of not being able to get enough, or afford the right kind of programmers. That’s what contract shops are for, kids. You don’t have to do that sort of thing inhouse. If your core competency is to develop software based pro audio solutions it makes sense to have that inhouse. Otherwise, if you’re a box house that makes some equalizers or system controllers, it may make more sense to contract that sort of thing out.
I also don’t buy the “nobody wants those solutions” meme. True five years ago, not so much today. All the big installs and shows are using network based technology. It’s even made its way to portable SR and touring. If I have a system controller/matrixer/DSP, equalizers, amp control and console control they should all be able to at least share the same wire. And preferably on a hunk of light transporting several audio tracks as well. The most egregious offenders are the multinational conglomerates of the pro audio biz, or the Walmarts as I like to call them. In marketing and in public they portend to have the exact right product in every part of the line to be a one stop solution. In private they realize that the designers will design solutions where they might not be able to offer an appropriate tool. I’m not Pollyanna (or Nomi Malone) enough to to think these companies will abandon better than a decade of work in some cases, to support some digital tree hugging, utopian society where the specs are free and interoperable. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
Instead, acknowledge that your products will be used with others and may need to coexist on a network with other products. Stop using antiquated interfaces. There are very few reasons (if any, really) at this point to use anything but IP over ethernet. Maybe USB at the local device level while not crippling or not offering at minimum of 100BaseT port. That should really be GB ethernet I’ll cut some slack to support a 10 year old standard. I should be able to run my entire network control topology on a single segment of CAT6, from a mid level host computer controlled by an entry level tablet. Better if I could do it down fiber and include a bunch or audio along for the ride. Make sure your clients are as thin as they can be and don’t hog the host machine or the networks resources. Those apps should be optimized for minimal latency and maximum graphics response for real time events like meter movements.
Those are all pretty realistic suggestions. Those that design and build those sorts of products are likely saying “well no shit Sherlock”. Here is the part that some of them kats may not like. Either build or support third parties who wish to make devices that bridge and interoperate disparate pro audio control and audio transport networks. That alone will be more advantageous to pro audio networking in the long run. The reason the Internet got to where it is today is due to one thing. And that thing is…wait for it… interoperability. In the realm of pro audio networking interoperatbility is far and few between.
To channel Fred Rogers…
“Can you say interoperability?”
“I knew you could…”
February 10th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Sorta-kinda-on the same short bus… as UTP becomes more and more ubiquitous for audio-related interconnects, I am reminded on a daily basis that the RJ connector was really not designed to be abused like this. The ethercon variant is a good first step, but more hardware manufacturers need to adopt it, because adapting is a royal pain in the butt.
February 14th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
My first comment is simply: if they can’t get an RS-232 connection right (IOW: why is a null modem cable needed??), how can they be expected to get Ethernet working?
Second: 100-BaseT is probably fine for device control, although the cost of GB interface components is dropping all the time. A gigabit switch does a nice job of isolating 100-BaseT from the 1000-BaseT “backbone.”
Third: USB is wrong for anything that may not live withing 15 meters of a host computer. Hacks such as USB-to-Cat5 converters are expensive and unreliable.
Fourth: Do fiber. It should be cheap. The GB controllers talk to fiber or copper. Just use the appropriate PHY and connector hardware. None of this is rocket science. Just be careful with the connectors.
Maybe none of the big audio players wanted to sign Broadcom’s NDA?