Home› BSS User Forum › BSS Archive Threads› Discussion› London Architect with Soundweb London
Options

new x00 series of processors

ryanwwryanww Posts: 196
in London Architect with Soundweb London
Hello All,

I just saw that they released the new x00 series of processors a little bit ago. I see that the difference between the 800&320 and the 160&120 is the cobranet capability. What is the difference between the 800 and the 320 as well as the 160 and 120? Is it DSP or what? If so, how much DSP are we talking about.

Basically I have a system now that I need to replace. I have a Symetrix setup in a venue. It has a Cobralink (for cobranet I/O), 2 8x8 units and a 12 output unit. I am looking to replace it with a BSS London system. I am only needing an 8x8 and a 4in x 12out setup. Would I be better off getting a 800 and then a 160 or 120 to slave the extra ins and outs or 2 800's? It is running all of the processing for the PA as well as a few monitor boxes and delays.

Thanks!

Comments

  • Options
    rob birchrob birch Posts: 106
    The 800 has BLU-Link, CN and DSP.
    The 320 has BLU-Link and CN no DSP.
    The 160 has BLU-Link and DSP.
    The 120 has BLU-Link and no DSP.

    DSP capability is approx 4 time the current Soundweb London BLU80 / BLU16. So in real terms, a BLU80 running a configuration at 80% DSP will run at 17% DSP on the 800 and 160 units.

    You can download London Architect and set up the design offline to give a true indication of what your DSP usage will be.

    The advantage of the 160 and 120 units is that they are cheaper. But you have the option of using the CN of the 800 and 320 unit to allow cobranet from other manufacturers systems.
  • Options
    Dan LynchDan Lynch Posts: 472
    Is your CobraNet going anywhere other than between the boxes? It sounds like it's not.

    1) If you have CobraNet going somewhere else, then you want 160/120/320.
    2) If your CobraNet is used just to tie the devices together, then you want 160/120/120. You can use BLU link to send digital audio between the devices and #2 saves about 10% over #1.

    Dan
  • Options
    ryanwwryanww Posts: 196
    Heres basically how the system is set up.

    In the main venue, I have a PA which this would process. All of the audio inputs come in via 2 bundles from a Yamaha MY16-C card. It then comes in to the processor, it processes with DSP and then goes out analog. I have 8 automix inputs that are hardwired into the processor as well as a single automixed mic in another location.

    Around the campus, I have 3 other venues that have Symnet processors that basically just send out a stereo pair via cobranet to each other processor so that any room can get any other rooms audio feed for overflow or other music.

    I am thinking of possibly getting at least 1-800 and possibly another box which will depend on how much the current processing will take up. I downloaded the Architect software and am starting to port over the previous design. I will probably just use the blulink to bus audio between the 2 london processors so I guess its wether or not I want the additional cobranet I/O. And I have to see how much DSP the design will take up on an 800.

    Another question: When I put in an 800 in the design, it comes up with 4-8pair cobranet bundles. Is it locked to 4 receiving bundles or can I increase it if I use less audio channels. I technically have 5 bundles I need to bring into the system. 2 8 pairs from the console, 3 2pairs from 3 other venues. My other plan was to just use one of the other processors to pack all 3 bundles into a single bundle to send to this unit leaving 1 additional bundle.

    Thanks for the assistance!
  • Options
    ryanwwryanww Posts: 196
    I would also like to know if the feature that allows you to do naming on external cobranet bundles has been implemented. Its a neat feature that it auto names stuff.. but not if I can't! I do think it would be nice to add your own naming.. I was reading on another thread that inserting a summing filter or something like that will name it, but that seems stupid to have to do.

    Ryan
  • Options
    Dan LynchDan Lynch Posts: 472
    It sounds as though you're keeping the original gear in the remote venues, is that correct? I'm going to assume that you are. If not, most of this may be wrong.

    Because I'm lazy, I'm going to call your 4 venues Main Venue (Main), Remote Venue 1 (RV1), Remote Venue 2(RV2), and Remote Venue 3(RV3).

    First, you probably don't want an 800. Check the prices and you'll see why. An 800/120 combo is exactly the same features as a 160/320 combo, but the 160/320 is cheaper. The 800 will only make sense if you need DSP+CobraNet+BLU link all in one box. Usually you don't. So, if you only need 8x8 in Main, then get an 800. If you need the total of 12x20 that you originally mentioned, get a 160 and a 320.

    Soundweb London devices deal in 8 channel CobraNet bundles only. This doesn't actually matter to you though because you can ring the bundles without causing any problems. Ringing the bundles means using unicast bundles to make a loop. Less network traffic and simple to do. For example:
    Main transmits bundle 1000 to RV1
    RV1 transmits bundle 1001 to RV2
    RV2 transmits bundle 1002 to RV3
    RV3 transmits bundle 1003 to Main

    Each of those bundles contains exactly the same audio.
    Ch1&2 = L&R Main
    Ch3&4 = L&R RV1
    Ch5&6 = L&R RV2
    Ch7&8 = L&R RV3

    To do this, each venue just forwards on whatever it's receiving and adds it's own audio to the ring. The only difference from your current setup is that there will be two additional CobraNet hops in the audio from 1 to 3, from 2 to 1, and from 3 to 2. If we need to have the entire discussion about why that 10ms is completely irrelevant, we will. It's a lot simpler if you just trust me though.

    So your CobraNet enabled device at Main will be receiving 2 bundles from the console and 1 from the ring while transmitting 1 back to the ring. 3 bundles in, 1 bundle out. Easy, but don't forget that you can also send a bundle (or two) back to the MY16-C if you want to. If there's any need for it, you can have the audio from the three remote venues available to the console in Main.

    If I completely misunderstood your system, let me know and I'll try again.

    Dan
  • Options
    Martin BarbourMartin Barbour Posts: 60
    With regards to changing, or adding, names on the audio channels coming in to the BLU-320 / BLU-800 from non Soundweb London devices.....
    Insert an 8 channel Audio Coupler device immediatly after the CobraNet input bundle. This allows you to assign any name you like to the eight channels.
    A simple, more elegant route than the 'Summer' work around you mentioned...

    Cheers

    Mart
  • Options
    mupi2kmupi2k Posts: 40
    In fairness, the Audio coupler is a new feature, but sorely needed.

    I wish BSS would just let me name the outputs of some devices. In particular, Mixers, Matrix Switchers/Mixers, and crossovers should allow you to rename. This would allow you to rename your crossover outputs to something Sensible like \"L Main\" and \"R Main\" instead of \"Crossover1 Output2 L\" Which in turn makes the design easier to follow.
  • Options
    Dan LynchDan Lynch Posts: 472
    You're absolutely right that it would be very cool to be able to rename the outputs on processing objects. We identified that as a feature a long time ago. However, making outputs renamable would mean making changes to all of those processing objects. Each of those processing objects would need to be changed so that it would be able to store those output names. Then each of those processing objects would need to be tested to figure out if adding that ability had broken the processing object. At the same time, the control panel for every one of those processing objects would have to be changed and tested.

    On the other hand, the audio coupler was able to be created without needing to poke around inside processing objects that are already working and there was only one object and one control panel to test.

    Dan
This discussion has been closed.