www.autopatch.com

Crestron is cool we use it too.. Audio access will also do everything you are asking for but is about the same price as crestron if just doing thier hard buttons..B&K is by far the best affordably because of its sheer power.However for an all in one solution with Video Distibution 6 Source, Stackable up to 36 Zones with 4 Subzones per unit. Russound has a new unit called CAV6.6 .They offer the piece with 6 keypads at only 3999.00 Retail. It will ship in June and you can pretty much pick it up anywhere Distributors are a plenty for Russound.Great software is shipping soon after as well as a 2nd phase Ive seen prelim., that will network to P.C.s Which would allow you to interface with any Zone and control it without leaving your Computer. The sub zones are a-bus which are cheap and easy to use. So check it out..[Link: russound.com]


THXRick

THXRick

Come join the dark side !

Dave

May I suggest you investigate using a system like BSS Soundweb. These are 8in, 8 out DSP units that you can network together uning cat5. You can make a matrix as big as you like. I have made networks of over 100 units but you only need a few to do what you want.

This is what commerical installations use, you can have mixing, audio ducking for auto prioritising audio signals, any amount of equalisation, delays, matrixing etc.

You can control it with Creston as well as adding closed contacts or pots to its control ports.

Check it out at bssaudio.co.uk

Roland

Roland

That's good advise Roland, I prefer the Biamp Audia product over the BSS Soundweb, but generally the same idea. Nice stuff.

I get a kick out of buying a box for a couple thousand dollars that does absolutly nothing when you open the box.

In my experience the biamp stuff isn't nearly as stable. The software is still pretty buggy.

It also has a limitation/feature. When you design a system using multiple boxes it automatically decides which DSP unit does the processing for each element. This theoreticlly makes programming easier but if one box fails you might lose your whole system. With soundweb you have proper distributed processing so if one box or the network fails, everything else keeps working.

There are ways of 'forcing' the DSP layout but why bother?

Audia is also much more expensive. Especially now the new non-networked Soundwebs are available for the smaller setups.

But I think the Audia sounds much better...Plus, the new Audia's are out now too. The dedicated room boxes etc.

We'll have to agree to differ.

The specification of the two audio units we are discussing is far superior to the audio quality of anything Crestron make and probably better than any of the source material being used in anyone's home anyway. These really are high end professional audio units.

I would still be interested in your comments about how Audia networks could be made as resiliant as Soundweb.

Roland

As resiliant as Soundweb...guess I don't know what you mean. As you say, you can allocate the DSP blocks to a specific unit if you want with Audia. Although, Audia's method is generally better because you essentially have more DSP power to work with before you 'use it all up'. Plus, using CobraNet, a standard 100baseT switch is all you need. And, how often have you had a CAT5 cable go 'bad'? Another advantage is the you can use EXISTING LAN networks to distribute audio, meaning from any location on the LAN you can monitor, adjust, and control any Audia (with a Static IP of course)

BSS:
'The network uses simple Category 5 cabling, and is capable of passing 8 channels of 48kHz digital audio plus control data bi-directionally between Soundweb units.'

AUDIA:
'Each Audia device can simultaneously send and receive 4 bundles with up to 8 audio channels in each bundle. This gives us a maximum of 64 channels of CobraNet through an Audia unit (32in/32out.) 24 bit @ 48khz'


In all reality, these two products, and the MediaMatrix etc are very simillar. It comes down to what you personally like, and the intentions of the system.

I really don't think they are similar. But you are right, it depends on what you want to do as to which one to use.

Cobranet based networks make good use of cable bandwidth but have a very large propogation delay. If you are doing multiple 'hops' you can lose tens of milliseconds. This is why Cobranet is never used for broadcast as the sound is out of sync with the pictures!

BSS Soundweb makes appalling use of bandwidth in comparison but its propogation delay is microseconds. Needing multiple channels in Soundweb needs more cabling - until the new version comes out...

I would not advise using an existing lan and running Cobranet down it. You should have a dedicated lan for audio without the possibility of other data getting in the way. Peak Audio do not recommend other data on the network. Even Media Matrix has seperate data ports to get you to run data an alternative route.

Its good that Cobranet is a 'standard'. However I have been in situations where I have tried to connect two manufacturers equipment together and neither will guarantee that it will work. In reality it probably will, but if it doesn't, you are on your own. Neither manufacturer will support it so it being an open standard is less compelling until the Cobranet licencees sort out this support issue.

I agree the way multiple Audia devices appear as one whole system is neat, but this carries the risk of phasing problems in your design. If audio is sent from one DSP and back again, with the propogation delay this entails, this can cause problems. It also makes it difficult to switch off bits of your system as you might accidently switch off audio in areas you wanted to retain.

This whole category of equipment is changing all the time. All of them currently have severe flaws. Most of these flaws will dissappear when they all have massively faster networks and much more DSP.

Lets wait a couple of years.

Good idea, but they are cool products none the less.