Members Pro Sound Guy Posted April 12, 2015 Members Share Posted April 12, 2015 "then it goes to some kind of distribution system in a room next to the stage and from there to the board. The Hotel had an AV company install the whole thing and the PA is used for the house sound, DJ's and band. The Board is run through their whole convoluted system through a bunch of BSS software, an ethernet routing system etc." Here is where your problem is in your description above. You can run CAT5 300ft with no issues. Get a CAT5 cable and run straight from the x32 to the first snake and the other snake is daisy chained to that. If you can get your hands on a Fluke network/cable tester then you could troubleshoot this whole issue a lot easier. You can hook the Fluke tester up and shoot a tone through the whole system or cables and find the issue. The first thing I would do is bypass EVERYTHING and go straight from the x32 to the snakes. Fluke Linkrunner http://www.stanleysupplyservices.com/fluke-networks-linkrunner-at-network-auto-tester/g/23764 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pro Sound Guy Posted April 12, 2015 Members Share Posted April 12, 2015 By the way..IMO giving everyone (musicians) that much control over the monitors is just asking for problems. What are people thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted April 13, 2015 Members Share Posted April 13, 2015 If it isn't your system, you are just stuck with it I guess. That really sucks. There shouldn't be any need for a distribution box. If you eliminate that you might have better success. I suspect that the cabling they used is UTP vs STP. If they did use STP, I would suspect they didn't use Ethercon connectors and ground the shield to the connectors. Is there anyone you could forward the link to that long thread outlining this issue and its solution? Unless they want all the acts in their venue to sound like crap, they should have some interest in fixing the problem...... the installer would be the best IMO since they should be able to convince him it is his fault with a letter from Behringer (which they would be happy to provide). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wesg Posted April 13, 2015 Members Share Posted April 13, 2015 In 1996, I was hired to troubleshoot a network at a local office. They had recently upgraded from a 10-base-2 (RG-58), Novell Netware 2, WordPerfect 5.1 to a 10-base-T (CAT 4 UTP), Windows for Workgroups, Microsoft Office setup, at the same time as they added half a dozen workstations in an adjacent building. Their consultant couldn't figure what was wrong, and was pointing at the electrician who ran the network wire. The electrician, of course, said he didn't know a damned about software, but the wire was fine. So I was called in as a favour to a third party. Fast-forward many hours of observation and software troubleshooting. I eventually discovered that the electrician had invented his own colour scheme for the UTP. (Andy is probably laughing now). He was using Panduit jacks that snap together with no special tools, and wired them the same as an RJ45 patch cable -- Blue, Blue/White, Green, Orange/White, Orange, Green/White, Brown, Brown/White. Which seems, okay, right? As long as the wires are the same at both ends? These Panduit wall jacks used connectors with the pins laid out pair 1, pair 2, pair 3, pair 4. So the correct wiring sequence would have been Blue, Blue/White, Green, Green/White, Orange, Orange/White, Brown, Brown/White. So Green/White and Orange/White were exchanged at each end, making it so the signal came out of the wall the exact same way it went in at the hub. Well, Andy, OneEng and a few other folks in this forum already know what the problem is. The problem is that this is unshielded twisted pair. The normal way CAT4/CAT5/etc is set up, pair 1 is reserved for telephone, pair 2 is ethernet transmit, pair 3 is ethernet receive, pair 4 reserved (usually for power over ethernet). What the electrician did was exchange one half of the balanced transmit/receive pairs with each other. Suddenly, we no longer have common-mode noise rejection (like in a mic cable), and we have crosstalk all over the place. So the network mostly works, until there is a noise source, or lots of data. Then, poooof! Network craps out for a few seconds. What's the moral of this story? Oh yeah. Networking has to be done right, and "right" starts at the physical layer. Which is a crap load way pickier these days than it was in 1996. By the way, that was my first experience with UTP. I asked my dad (a military lineman) for advice before troubleshooting this purported software problem. I'm glad I did - his advice was to hand me summary of the TIA/EIA 568A/568B spec describing CAT5 wiring and a sheet describing best wiring practices. I was familiar with BIX from telephone work, but the Panduit stuff was totally new to me. Wes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 14, 2015 Members Share Posted April 14, 2015 Bingo, and it will test ok with a typical ohm meter but since everything operates at high frequencies and an ohm meter can't differentiate between a paired conductor and a conductor that's not paired, it's the wrong tool for the job. And, at high frequencies physical common mode rejection of capacitively coupled signals is critical to the operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TimmyP Posted April 19, 2015 Members Share Posted April 19, 2015 Between Stage Boxes is about 15 feet. Connection from the stage to the board is I don't know. It first goes into a plug on stage' date=' then it goes to some kind of distribution system in a room next to the stage and from there to the board..[/quote'] I'm surprised it works at all. AES50 must not be run through anything that is not specifically meant for AES50. I don't think anyone but Behringer and Midas make such devices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wesg Posted April 19, 2015 Members Share Posted April 19, 2015 I don't know anything about AES50 specifically, but I do know. Ethernet can go into exponential backoff when collisions are detected in a hub; switches always introduce latency, and a busy switch can drop packets. None of these things would be very good for live audio. Wikipedia says AES50 is a Layer 1 protocol - that means it's not even built on ethernet -- which is packet-switched -- but lives BELOW that. Sending AES50 into anything like a switch might just kill it outright. I guess it depends how much SuperMAC looks like ethernet frames. It's also possible that you are running AES51 which is encapsulated, IIUC, in ethernet frames. But, for reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph - I wouldn't want to. Wes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 19, 2015 Members Share Posted April 19, 2015 Precisely why I made the comments that I did. It's a form of "proprietary" network like protocol that is not compatible with other "network" equipment and protocols. Too bad the OP doesn't recognize the knowledge base of the resources here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted April 19, 2015 Members Share Posted April 19, 2015 While understanding the problem is difficult, the cure is quite simple ..... replace the cables with the right ones .... and don't go through any switches, routers, repeaters, etc..... just connect point to point and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 19, 2015 Members Share Posted April 19, 2015 Agreed, getting folks to even identify the problem is becoming the bigger challenge. If the problem can't be identified, or the identified problem accepted as a problem, there won't ever be an agreeable solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted April 20, 2015 Author Members Share Posted April 20, 2015 WHAT? Why are you slagging me like that man? I COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY RECOGNIZE THE KNOWLEDGE BASE HERE...Thanks for pointing me to the other thread on PSW. I have been in touch with Behringer directly on the issue and the party I work for is working towards getting the AV company who put the system in to recognize they don't know what the hell they are talking about and hopefully the hotel will force them to change it. Guys...That's ALL I CAN DO! With your help, I pointed out the issues to those above me...They will either fix it as per my and the other soundman's recommendations or not. That's that and it's FUBAR now but documented on our end so if it goes tits up and they don't fix it, it's not on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dbMontana Posted April 20, 2015 Members Share Posted April 20, 2015 Agreed' date=' getting folks to even identify the problem is becoming the bigger challenge. If the problem can't be identified, or the identified problem accepted as a problem, there won't ever be an agreeable solution.[/quote'] Axiom: A well defined problem is 50% solved. Corrolary: A poorly defined problem has an infinite number of solutions. ...or possibly none in this case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wesg Posted April 20, 2015 Members Share Posted April 20, 2015 Wow, db. That's actually brilliant. Wes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 20, 2015 Members Share Posted April 20, 2015 Yes,I like that too. I am working on bringing a new DSP solution to life, mixed surface mount and through hole, and I can't emphasize how important it is to follow all the rules regarding any application implementation. When you follow the rules, you eliminate many if not most of the possibilities for failure points, making troubleshooting and debugging much more efficient. In my case, I missed one connection on schematic capture that transferred to the PCB. I knew it had to be something simple, all the complicated stuff strictly followed the rules so it had to be a mistake rather than a misapplication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted April 20, 2015 Members Share Posted April 20, 2015 Yes,I like that too. I am working on bringing a new DSP solution to life, mixed surface mount and through hole, and I can't emphasize how important it is to follow all the rules regarding any application implementation. When you follow the rules, you eliminate many if not most of the possibilities for failure points, making troubleshooting and debugging much more efficient. In my case, I missed one connection on schematic capture that transferred to the PCB. I knew it had to be something simple, all the complicated stuff strictly followed the rules so it had to be a mistake rather than a misapplication. Didn't you get one of those little lines on the layout showing a non-routed trace? Not that I am a layout expert by any means. Schematic capture .... sure, layout ..... thank God there are people who actually like doing that job and do it well FWIW, there are new adhesives and posted connectors we have been using in the place of through hole connectors. I am not a huge fan of the idea, but I allowed a few hundred boards to be built with them. I am watching them to see if there is an increase in warranty using them instead of through hole parts. To the OP, it sounds like you have done everything you can do to help remedy the situation. Good luck. As I understand it, the systems that have this issue have a truly awful noise in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 21, 2015 Members Share Posted April 21, 2015 No ratlines because the netlist on the schematic capture itself was wrong. A connection that I thought was made on schematic capture was not in fact made. You can be sure I am double-checking this now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted April 22, 2015 Members Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) No ratlines because the netlist on the schematic capture itself was wrong. A connection that I thought was made on schematic capture was not in fact made. You can be sure I am double-checking this now! Ahh. That I have done. If you setup your schematic parts with properties that require them to be connected, you at least get a list of errors/warnings that some things aren't connected ..... that forces you to make sure you did all of them on purpose That is how I fixed this issue within our organization anyway. Whatcha usin for schematic capture Andy? Edited April 22, 2015 by OneEng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 22, 2015 Members Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) My problem was that it looked like 2 nodes were connected and I didn't bother to verify that the nets all had the same name. Live and learn. I just started using diptrace last year. Edited April 22, 2015 by agedhorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hanif jackson Posted July 1, 2021 Members Share Posted July 1, 2021 The first 8 input Stop working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dookietwo Posted July 1, 2021 Members Share Posted July 1, 2021 17 hours ago, Hanif jackson said: The first 8 input Stop working Hanif. This post is 6 years old. Maybe you should start a new thread? Could we get a few more details? Desk, Digital Stage Box ( A S16? ) Have you double checked your routing? Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.