Routing question.

M32 and X32 Digital Consoles
User avatar
GaryH
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:19 pm

Re: Routing question.

Post by GaryH »

@KMaxwell @pvannatto I was thinking a bit more on this today and sort of remember what my original issue was when using a DL32 to a FOH X/M32 and my attempt to alter it by going through the 'other' Rack port to the FOH X32 and thus completing a loop: X32A to DL32A DL32B to Rack A Rack B to X32 B. My thinking at the time was, hey use the Rack B port and bypass the shift and the ch restriction business altogether, go straight to the X32 via port B. But the FOH mixer still has to use them in some constructive way and the sources often end up the same essentially.

As you know the DL imparts a 32 ch shift upstream toward the FOH from its A port. By default routing with these connections (as an example) results in the Rack sending aes50a out 1-8 and aes50a out 9-16 to FOH and it being seen there as aes50a in 33-48 (due to the shift). Again by default routing, this is the Rack's "out 1-8 and out 9-16" assignments. The default aes50b out 1-8 and out 9-16 from the Rack is also the very same thing: 'out 1-8' and 'out 9-16' So at the FOH X32 mixer, aes50a in 33-48 and aes50b in 1-16 are the same thing. The bidirectional process is also happening from FOH X32. 2 routing menus (aes50a and B) potentially sending identical X32 sources to 2 places on a single device (eventually the Rack) You can see a somewhat similar example of the phenomenon by connecting port A and pot B together on one mixer and try adjusting preamps and different routing chores by A and B. Strange things occur. Going out A and coming in B in a loop even a long convoluted one does some odd things. Can you catch some or even all of them and fix them?...probably so, but why? as daisy chaining them avoids all of it. If it was just simple sharing of the DL32 preamps by 2 mixers why not connect via the B port too, but anything slightly exotic could get sticky. Just my personal experience but perhaps yours will be totally different! I don't know if anyone remembers Per Sovik from long ago in the old forum. He did a lot of experimentation with this aes50 looping business and I'm still trying to digest his take on it all :-) I only know I created issues in so doing on my devices, the exact causes of them I am not 100% certain. Stay away from a loop though and it should be just fine.
User avatar
pvannatto
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:48 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Routing question.

Post by pvannatto »

Hey @GaryH , I hear what you say and I am totally in agreement that the better way to do the interconnectivity is by daisy chaining the X32 Rack in the middle between the FOH and stageboxes. There is much more flexibility, less chance of signal duplication and one less AES50 cable. But I've come to the conclusion that some are determined to do it the harder way, simply because it "looks" simpler.

IMHO, Music-Tribe have made some serious design mistakes, including the Producer (with no scribbles), this DL32/S32 AES50 port configuration, etc. But what Kevin was asking if it would work, can indeed work, as long as the inputs and outputs are strategically chosen on each console. Any potential looping would occur if there is a faulty input assignment.
Paul Vannatto
Global Moderator
User avatar
GaryH
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:19 pm

Re: Routing question.

Post by GaryH »

@pvannatto I can only say in my case (a long while back) disconnecting the loop fixed the problems I was seeing. The routing in one direction worked as intended (via the Rack A and DL B port path) if there was a routing issue it would have been what I did trough the Rack’s B port to the X32 B port and of course that's totally possible, or something else :-) At the time it was more of a “What happens if” kind of thing rather than "I HAVE to solve this" one, so I didn’t really investigate it much further, I just didn’t use a loop there and the issues went away. In Kevins case it just adds another level of complication easily avoided. He has that added S16 in his chain also, 4 things in a loop as opposed to the 3 I had tested. I will also say if anyone can get it working that way it would be you!
KMaxwell
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:42 am

Re: Routing question.

Post by KMaxwell »

Well as of now the WING is not in consideration, maybe next year. Also it looks like we won’t be needing the SD16. The changeover is going well. I was part of the people who installed the present system a couple of years ago and I am surprised at how much I didn’t remember. It could be because I wasn’t doing that part of the install. One of the 2 EtherCon cables is on the opposite side of the stage as the rack. It is a jack on the face of a stage piece. I don’t remember if that is a home run or not and I can’t find a junction point. So the reason I mention that is we are back down to only one EtherCon cable to the Rack.

I hooked things up for testing purposes with the X32 (at FOH) using AES50a to the DL32 AES50a (on stage) then the X32Rack (monitor console) AES50a to DL32 AES50b. I was surprised to see on the X32 at FOH in the connected devices window AES50a both the DL32 and the X32Rack. Nothing on the AES50b. I then reverted back to the way it has been working for them.

I could switch the whole thing over this week but they need training and familiarization with the new IEM mixing method. And some of that would most likely be worked out in a rehearsal but there isn’t a rehearsal this week.

More work to do today. I thought I had posted this last night but I guess I didn’t. I am glad I write in MS Word and copy and paste, most of the time.
User avatar
pvannatto
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:48 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Routing question.

Post by pvannatto »

@KMaxwell , glad to hear that you got it all worked out and using the daisy chain method with the X32 Rack in the middle.
Paul Vannatto
Global Moderator
KMaxwell
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:42 am

Re: Routing question.

Post by KMaxwell »

I'm not using the X32Rack in the middle.
User avatar
GaryH
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:19 pm

Re: Routing question.

Post by GaryH »

@KMaxwell You would see it only on A, because the Rack’s path back to FOH is via the A port of the DL which is connected to the FOH A port. You won’t see anything on B unless you use the B port of the FOH X32 to connect it. Without the loop and just sharing the DL inputs should work fine. You can fine tune it later.
KMaxwell
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:42 am

Re: Routing question.

Post by KMaxwell »

The second EtherCon cable seems as best I can tell to be a home run from a jack on stage right to the FOH X32. It is presently hooked up to one of the SD16 stage boxes. I am thinking of at least temporarily just use that SD16 for the Ultranet ports on it, I most likely wouldn’t use any of the other inputs or outputs. I would also be using the Ultranet port on the Midas DL32 to feed the P16-D which will feed a few other P16s on stage left. I have no plans to use the X32Rack to feed any P16m unless it is just being used as a headphone amp for someone’s Monitor Mix Bus.
User avatar
GaryH
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:19 pm

Re: Routing question.

Post by GaryH »

@KMaxwell

It sounds to me like the SD16 on port B could be really useful for you. The X32A to DL32A and DL32B to RackA on one side Then the X32B to that SD16A on the other. You have potentially 4 P16 “zones” that way which is very very powerful. All 4 zones capable of sending different P16M mixes.

On this topic be aware that the DL32 ultranet port is FIXED to send aes50a 33-48. As long as you use the default X32 routing, aes50a 33-48 is set to Ultranet 1-8 and 9-16 which means it has the exact same sources as the X32 ultranet port does BUT if aes50a 33-48 has been set for something else any p16m’s connected to the DL32 ultranet port would have those sources output instead. Makes it a super flexible P16M or IQ speaker system option…or a head scratcher when something else unexpected is heard there.

Also the Rack’s ultranet port is controlled by the Racks ultranet out routing menu NOT the X32’s.

The SD16 if on X32 port B would be controlled by the X32 aes50B output 33-48 routing which is also by default set to P16 1-8 and p16 9-16 BUT it too could change.

All this to say IF you are expecting the P16M’s everywhere connected in your setup to be the SAME sources, double check your X32 aes50a and aes50b 33-48 routing settings and make sure they are set for ultranet 1-8 and ultranet 9-16. IF you do want other mixes you have a ton of options! The Rack however will always control its own ultranet port by its own ultranet routing menu.
KMaxwell
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:42 am

Re: Routing question.

Post by KMaxwell »

@GaryH You are either a very early riser or you stay up really late.

Thank you for the heads up on the source (out 33-48) that by default is the Ultranet outputs. I am trying to wrap my head around the capabilities. As I said I won’t be using the X32Rack for full P16m usage. Because with the limit of 16 inputs I have had to use Mix Bus sends as subgroups of things like all of the drum channels as one Mix Bus to the. I don’t want to lose any Mix Bus sends from the X32Rack. I want to be able to use them for Monitor sends if possible. Not that I will need 16 of them but if I convert everyone to having the flexibility of their own (all channels available) mix I could see maybe needing 12 mixes for IEMs on stage. And then I might lose a couple for effects sends. Although I am told no one is using the effect returns (as a Mix Bus) that they get now in the P16m. But I want to be prepared just in case.

If I understand it correctly from the X32 FOH AES50b (to the stage right SD16) I can use the “User Out” to pick other outputs that will show up on that P16 Ultranet port. I just tried play with that and I don’t see how to change the tap point in the user out. But at the moment I can’t see what I would want to send that would be different then the Ultranet output on AES50a. I am sure that something will come to me.

If and this is a big IF I wanted to not use the SD16 is there a length restriction of how long a cable one can use for Ultranet? I am thinking since I have an EtherCon cable running to an EtherCon wall jack (mounted in the stage) stage right (the run is at most 100feet) If I take the EtherCon shell off and plug the shielded cable directly into the X32FOH EtherCon and If I used an EtherCon cable from the jack on stage can I just plug that directly into a P16m or the P16-D. Just looking at all the options because the SD16s may get used in a different venue sometime next year.
Post Reply

Return to “M/X32 Consoles”