Installs Whirlwind ES4 "Digital" snake

[sdauditorium]

To meet the needs of additional wired mic inputs on stage that we required for our new sound system, one of the bids spec'd a Whirlwind ES4 receiver/transmitter with 16 inputs using Cat5 cable between the two units. The literature seems to suggest that you need to have the receiver as well which would then use XLR cables to run from the receiver outputs to the control surface. It can be configured to run with various protocols, so my thought was to go with Dante or Cobranet instead of EtherSound. Is there any reason that I'm failing to notice which would prevent me from only running the transmitter directly into our LS9 with a MY16-CII (CobraNet) or DANTE-MY16-AUD expansion card and circumvent the receiver?

This is what I'd prefer to do and then just run a few extra network cable drops to possible mix positions throughout the house instead of worrying about fanouts with straight XLR connections.

ES4 Snake manual (very limited): http://whirlwindusa.com/media/uploads/es4_manual.pdf

 

[Footer]

Your exactly right. Get the right card, otherwise your going to hit more latency and that could lead to issues down the line. Ideally you want all your inputs to have the same amount of latency.

The only real issue I see with that option is that there is no way to control the headamp from the console, you have to use a laptop or something like that instead.

 

[sdauditorium]

That's what I was hoping to hear. The other alternative I was looking at was just running analog lines (approx. 20) from stage back to the booth and picking up an external 8-channel preamp or two (PreSonus or FocusRite) which would allow me to control head amp easier, but the flexibility seems a little less with patch points.

 

[museav]

I'd contact Yamaha and ask them, they may say it works without preamp control from the cconsole, works with preamp control from the console or suggest an alternative that would provide the additional inputs with preamp control from the console.

 

[sdauditorium]

Assuming the snake works as thought (I'm going to call Tech at Yamaha, BTW), does the flexibility of multiple network drops and control surface tie-ins around the facility with the Whirlwind beat the universality and cost savings of just running analog lines when looking to gain additional mic inputs on stage and the pit? I'm torn between the two.

 

[Footer]

Assuming the snake works as thought (I'm going to call Tech at Yamaha, BTW), does the flexibility of multiple network drops and control surface tie-ins around the facility with the Whirlwind beat the universality and cost savings of just running analog lines when looking to gain additional mic inputs on stage and the pit? I'm torn between the two.

Personally, I still like pulling copper if you can. It will always work. You don't need power on the other end. And... your not tied to a specific system. If cost is not a factor, run the copper and install a patch panel.

 

[Chris15]

What about using a Yamaha RIO 1608-D and a Dante card in the console - keeps it in Yamaha land the whole way and I would guess that there is probably a remote head amp control facility built in...

 

[MNicolai]

What about using a Yamaha RIO 1608-D and a Dante card in the console - keeps it in Yamaha land the whole way and I would guess that there is probably a remote head amp control facility built in...

The short answer is, it costs more to do a Rio1608 than an ES4. Personally, I'd recommend all Yamaha all the time. If something goes awry, you have fewer potential parties to get on the phone for troubleshooting. If you have several different manufacturers involved in the same troubleshooting process, everyone suspects the fault is on someone else to the disbenefit of the customer.

Another factor is that not all manufacturers play by the same rules. Our Yamaha rep was telling is about a weird issue where an unnamed manufacturer's Dante I/O box would force a patch upon the console. The Yamaha guy would blow out the patch and try to do a custom Dante patch, and the IO box would keep overwriting it. The unnamed manufacturer's product was compromising the entirety of the system by forcing its patch upon the console.

I wouldn't worry about those kinds of issues with Whirlwind. Both Whirlwind and Yamaha make quality products, but it is a factor to take into consideration when integrating products by multiple manufacturers into the same signal flow.

For whatever it's worth, we have a client with an M7CL, a Cobranet card, and Dante card that's been having issues. So much going on in that integration that it took awhile to narrow the problem down, but the issue ended up going all the way down the rabbit hole into Audinate's court (developer of Dante) and appears to be an issue in the Dante firmware best we can tell.

Digital's excellent when it works, but anybody who lets on that it works flawlessly all the time is lying through their teeth. If/when it doesn't work, you want as few potential points of fault as is possible, and as few involved manufacturers as possible. Makes troubleshooting infinitely smoother (but still potentially a real pain in the butt depending on the nature of the problem).

 

[AudJ]

I would go with the card. We had a similar spec, and was informed the reason they did the spec the other way was a cost saving measure. I have no idea if that is true.

I also thought it would be nice to be able to move the board to various locations without a lot of cables. We ended up not going digital, primarily because in the meanwhile, we filled up all 32 channels on our LS9, and reserved the digital expansion for when we ultimately need to start using channels 33-64.

In the meanwhile, there have been several students trained on the board, now permanently installed in our remodeled booth. The student operators allow me to roam with my iPad. I can fix cues during rehearsals on the spot, without relying on the ear of the board operator. (It works better if the board operator saves each cue before progressing.)

I have a more freedom, and it gave me a better budget to spend on speakers because we were able to re-use some existing copper.

 

[museav]

Assuming the snake works as thought (I'm going to call Tech at Yamaha, BTW), does the flexibility of multiple network drops and control surface tie-ins around the facility with the Whirlwind beat the universality and cost savings of just running analog lines when looking to gain additional mic inputs on stage and the pit? I'm torn between the two.

You might want to first differentiate between a generic digital snake and remote mixer I/O. A digital snake is much more simply a cabling solution while remote mixer inputs are typically a more integrated mixing system solution.

A generic digital snake is really just a way to get audio signals from one point to another. You typically have a a box at the stage and a matching box at the FoH/mixer end with analog and/or AES audio in and out of the boxes and the signals between them transmitted digitally over UTP/STP or fiber cable. It really can be a simple replacement for analog connectivity but with one critical difference in that since the snake transmits line level audio, the box at the stage usually includes any related microphone preamps. That may be important in some applications as a digital snake may only support control and monitoring of those remote preamps from the preamps themselves or via dedicated software and not allow the mixer to directly control those preamps. A similar issue relates to signal routing as any routing or assignments within the digital snake are often separate from any mixer routing or assignments. Some digital snake and mixer manufacturers have worked ether to provide some level of remote control and monitoring from certain mixers but you may want to check what is possible with the specific combination you plan to use. Also note that your mixer still needs to support the actual inputs and outputs associated with the digital snake.

Remote mixer I/O is typically a more integrated approach between the mixer and digital snake but thus often also requires directly compatible systems and devices. Being able to control and monitor signal routing and assignments, preamps, etc. for the remote I/O boxes from the mixer can be very powerful but the mixer and remote devices have to support that functionality.

Both digital snakes and remote I/O do add a level of setup and complexity to any system. It theoretically may be simply a matter of unplugging a box at one location at the stage and moving it to another location but it is not always so simple in practice, especially when you get into more complex networked solutions.

 

[TimmyP1955]

Option 1: Go with a Rio box and the needed card. With console+remote control stage boxes becoming much more affordable, the Whirlwind will soon be a white elephant IMHO.

Option 2: Sell the LS9 while it's still worth something, and get an X32, Allen & Heath, or Soundcraft system. Or a Midas Pro series if you have the budget.