Dante and/or MADI setup with H9000

[zengomi]

I’ve searched these forums and the internet in general, but I’ve yet to come across a detailed explanation of the hardware and software necessary to connect H9000 to computer via Dante and/or MADI (not ProTools)? For starters, to what could Eventide expansion cards connect? 

Background:  My goal is to have maximum use of H9000 in Ableton, Logic, and Luna. My audio interfaces are UAD x8p x3, with a Clarett OctoPre connected to one of them via ADAT. I prefer recording at 96kHz, but I’m still on the fence about the need for that. I mostly multitrack Eurorack but intend to expand to voice, guitar, etc. 

Hope I’ve conveyed my situation well enough. One more thing, I’ve ordered but haven’t received H9000.

Cheers

 

[John Baylies]

 A list of Dante-enabled products is available here: https://www.audinate.com/products/dante-enabled

There are many MADI-enabled products as well, but I have not been able to find a master list of them.

The RME Digiface Dante can send 32 channels of Dante and 32 channels of MADI from your H9000 to your computer via USB. https://www.rme-audio.com/digiface-dante.html

Are you using a mac or PC?

[zengomi]

Thank you, John. I use a 2019 iMac.

Is special software necessary when using Dante and/or MADI?

I’ve never created an aggregate device. I assume that would be necessary since my UAD audio interface is Thunderbolt based. First of all, I suppose I should have a go doing that with H9000’s USB I/O. 

I really appreciate any help with this. Hope it’s beneficial to other folks as well.

[zazula]

I moved from a MADI setup to DANTE and I definitely recommend DANTE over MADI.  It is much more flexible to route with standard networking equipment.

You’ll need to download the free DanteController software for MacOS.  You’ll also need some sort of DANTE interface.  I have a RedNet PCI card in an external PCI case connected to my 2013 Mac Pro.  It works great. If you just want to send DANTE to/from the H9000, that is all you’d need.  If you want to record analog audio, you’ll need some sort of A/D/A box.  I use the Lynx Aurora(n), but there are many to choose from.

In Logic, I can see all the DANTE channels and have mapped them to the 32 inputs on the H9000.  I can access any of them using an I/O plugin.

Something like this would get you the digital I/O to/from your computer:

https://www.rme-audio.de/digiface-dante.html

From there you could add A/D/A converters.  Or, get an all-in-one unit with either line level or mic pre’s.

[John Baylies]

> Is special software necessary when using Dante and/or MADI?

MADI interfaces come with their own software to handle the routing. RME's MADI interfaces use TotalMix. https://www.rme-audio.de/totalmix-fx.html

Dante interfaces all use Audinate's software to handle the routing: https://www.audinate.com/learning/technical-documentation

> I assume that would be necessary since my UAD audio interface is Thunderbolt based. First of all, I suppose I should have a go doing that with H9000's USB I/O.

It would be necessary, yes. Relevant threads include https://www.eventideaudio.com/comment/40779#comment-40779 and https://www.eventideaudio.com/community/forum/rackmount/issue-h9000-mac-aggregate-device I should make a FAQ about this….

[John Baylies]

Also, page 65 of the H9000 User Guide has instructions for setting up an aggregate device: https://www.eventideaudio.com/support/product/9106/manuals

[zengomi]

Thank you, zazula and John. Much to think through, but I’m optimistic that H9000, x8p, and iMac can work together.

 

[zengomi]

Report: H9000 arrived yesterday. Registered it. Ran LAN cable to network router and updated firmware. Ran USB cable to Thunderbolt 3 dock connected to iMac. Synced H9000 externally to Apollo x8p via word clock at 96kHz. Created aggregate device of 3 Apollo x3p and H9000. In Logic, made that aggregate device the preferred audio device. Based on the cannel count, H9000 shows up in Logic. So far, everything has gone very smoothly. Must now figure out routing for the current setup. Hoping the H9000 User Guide makes that clear.

Regarding Dante, compared with USB, what are the advantages other than 32/32 channel I/O?

 

[John Baylies]

> Regarding Dante, compared with USB, what are the advantages other than 32/32 channel I/O?

Dante is one way to route audio directly from one FX Chain to another. It also lets you route audio to/from any computer connected to your router via ethernet (as long as said computers have Dante Virtual Soundcard and/or Dante Via and/or a Dante interface). The Dante Controller User Guide has more information: https://dev.audinate.com/GA/dante-controller/userguide/webhelp/content/front_page.htm

[zengomi]

Thank you, John. Glad to know there is a way to interconnect FX Chains. Not sure that is enough to sway me to go with Dante, as I read somewhere that it’s a feature Eventide is considering implementing. As for networking multiple computers for audio work, that’s beyond even my imagined needs. 🙂

[John Baylies]

> I read somewhere that it's a feature Eventide is considering implementing.

Indeed, but it's a toughie. In the meantime, I believe you can just use a single ADAT cable to connect the H9000's ADAT Input to its ADAT Output.

[zengomi]

Perhaps this should be a new thread.

I bought the Dante Expansion card and RME Digiface Dante. 

Both the card and Digiface Dante appear in Dante Controller. Dante Updater updated Digiface Dante, but the card falls under “Consult Manufacturer”. 

The above was done/occurs with a 2019 iMac under macOS 10.15.7.

I have a 2011 MacBook Pro running the last version of Catalina. The latest versions of Audio Controller and RME USB driver are installed. I guess I should have a go with that. But what is Eventide’s official update method?

Cheers

[zengomi]

First attempts using Dante via Digiface Dante and Logic I/O Utility went swimmingly. Latency as reported in the I/O plugin amounted to 3.5 ms @48kHz and a tad less @96kHz. Sent 2 mono tracks to 2 inputs into a reverb algorithm (mix at 40%) and bounced that down. 

Before doing the above, I tried using ADAT. Didn’t sound so nice. Latency was atrocious.

I’ll use headphones to compare the 48 and 96 recordings. 

[federicogh]

I also have a question about the Dante expansion card. I am currently using the H9000 as my only audio interface, both for recording analog signals (guitar voice etc.), as well as for running outboard effects in Cubase. However I am quickly running out of channels with USB, i.e. I have multiple stereo tracks that I am sending to the H9000 for processing and I am finding myself bumping against the 16 channels limit. Would the 32 channels available with Dante solve that? Also what other hardware is required (I am running windows)? I am assuming a Dante PCI card or something similar on the desktop side to talk to the Dante card in the H9000?

[Kamurah]

Maybe a little late for your info gathering…but it might be worth noting that using DVS as an ASIO ‘soundcard’ in your DAW actually has two types of latency to address.  There is ASIO latency….what we generally measure of in regards to latency on a PCIe, USB, or Thunderbolt interface, and then there is DANTE latency…which deals with the latency within the DANTE network.

DVS has settings for both, but the 4ms quoted above was only for ASIO latency settings, and did not include a DANTE network latency setting.

In my experience on both Macs and PCs, a DANTE PCIe card performs quite a bit better than DVS, at all ASIO settings.  Also, the PCIe card allows 32 sample ASIO with rock solid performance and the lowest round-trip-latency I have personally ever experienced.  If making a choice between DVS and the PCIe card, I would choose the latter every time, and personally I think the performance warrants the cost.  As always, your mileage may vary.

Just FYI to consider.

[tbskoglund]

zengomi wrote:

Thank you, John. Glad to know there is a way to interconnect FX Chains. Not sure that is enough to sway me to go with Dante, as I read somewhere that it's a feature Eventide is considering implementing. As for networking multiple computers for audio work, that's beyond even my imagined needs. 🙂

I've set up my H9k with my Apollo via ADAT which allows me to have each FX Chain as a Cue send in the UA Console app. From here I can bus each Cue to the next one, which is a pretty effective way to link FX Chains. If you're interested in this, email me at tskoglund @ eventide.com and I can send you instructions I've written for setting this up.

[zengomi]

John Baylies wrote:

> I read somewhere that it’s a feature Eventide is considering implementing.

Indeed, but it’s a toughie. In the meantime, I believe you can just use a single ADAT cable to connect the H9000’s ADAT Input to its ADAT Output.

 

Thanks, John. Very interesting. I’m guessing the sample rate must be 48kHz. I’ve been using 96kHz for years and have a perhaps irrational resistance to 48. 😉

[zengomi]

tbskoglund wrote:

zengomi wrote:

Thank you, John. Glad to know there is a way to interconnect FX Chains. Not sure that is enough to sway me to go with Dante, as I read somewhere that it’s a feature Eventide is considering implementing. As for networking multiple computers for audio work, that’s beyond even my imagined needs. 🙂

I’ve set up my H9k with my Apollo via ADAT which allows me to have each FX Chain as a Cue send in the UA Console app. From here I can bus each Cue to the next one, which is a pretty effective way to link FX Chains. If you’re interested in this, email me at tskoglund @ eventide.com and I can send you instructions I’ve written for setting this up.

Thank you, tbskoglund. Will send you an email.

[John Baylies]

zengomi wrote:

what is Eventide's official update method?

https://www.eventideaudio.com/support/downloads/dante-firmware-updates-h9000-expansion-card

[jbamberg]

zengomi wrote:

Perhaps this should be a new thread.

I bought the Dante Expansion card and RME Digiface Dante. 

Both the card and Digiface Dante appear in Dante Controller. Dante Updater updated Digiface Dante, but the card falls under "Consult Manufacturer". 

The above was done/occurs with a 2019 iMac under macOS 10.15.7.

I have a 2011 MacBook Pro running the last version of Catalina. The latest versions of Audio Controller and RME USB driver are installed. I guess I should have a go with that. But what is Eventide's official update method?

Cheers

Audinate recently made the change to require firmware updates to be performed using their web services.  We need to upload the firmware to their servers so that Dante Updater can find it and install it.  I read recently that they are planning to add the option to install firmware from a local file (which is how updates used to be done), but I don't know if this has been released yet.

So, I guess the answer to your question is that our official update method needs to be updated to be consistent with the way Audinate is doing things nowadays.  I will update this thread when we've posted our firmware to the Audinate servers.

[zengomi]

John Baylies wrote:

zengomi wrote:

what is Eventide’s official update method?

https://www.eventideaudio.com/support/downloads/dante-firmware-updates-h9000-expansion-card

 

Thanks. I tried that method. The Dante version of Dante Expansion Board after the update is 4.0.9.1. Whereas in the case of Digiface Dante it is 4.2.0.28. Does Eventide need to update its firmware?

Incidentally, in the case of the Digiface, in order for the updated Dante version to display in Dante Controller, I had to remove and reinsert the USB cable. 

 

 

[zengomi]

jbamberg wrote:

Audinate recently made the change to require firmware updates to be performed using their web services.  We need to upload the firmware to their servers so that Dante Updater can find it and install it.  I read recently that they are planning to add the option to install firmware from a local file (which is how updates used to be done), but I don’t know if this has been released yet.

So, I guess the answer to your question is that our official update method needs to be updated to be consistent with the way Audinate is doing things nowadays.  I will update this thread when we’ve posted our firmware to the Audinate servers.

Thanks. Doesn’t the bold sentence above refer to the process described in the link John Baylies provided? 

[jbamberg]

zengomi wrote:

Thanks. Doesn't the bold sentence above refer to the process described in the link John Baylies provided? 

Indeed it does.

[John Baylies]

zengomi wrote:

The Dante version of Dante Expansion Board after the update is 4.0.9.1. Whereas in the case of Digiface Dante it is 4.2.0.28. Does Eventide need to update its firmware?

No, 4.0.9.1 is the most up-to-date version number for the Dante expansion board.

[zengomi]

John Baylies wrote:

zengomi wrote:

The Dante version of Dante Expansion Board after the update is 4.0.9.1. Whereas in the case of Digiface Dante it is 4.2.0.28. Does Eventide need to update its firmware?

No, 4.0.9.1 is the most up-to-date version number for the Dante expansion board.

Great. Thanks for the reassurance.

NB. I’m working my way through the Dante Controller manual. Oddly exciting.

[joeydego]

zengomi wrote:

First attempts using Dante via Digiface Dante and Logic I/O Utility went swimmingly. Latency as reported in the I/O plugin amounted to 3.5 ms @48kHz and a tad less @96kHz. Sent 2 mono tracks to 2 inputs into a reverb algorithm (mix at 40%) and bounced that down. 

Before doing the above, I tried using ADAT. Didn’t sound so nice. Latency was atrocious.

I’ll use headphones to compare the 48 and 96 recordings. 

This is odd. My Adat latency in and out of studio one is reported never above 200 samples at 48k (Thats less than 5ms). It’s often only 30 samples on most of the algos I gravitate to. 

[zengomi]

joeydego wrote:

zengomi wrote:

First attempts using Dante via Digiface Dante and Logic I/O Utility went swimmingly. Latency as reported in the I/O plugin amounted to 3.5 ms @48kHz and a tad less @96kHz. Sent 2 mono tracks to 2 inputs into a reverb algorithm (mix at 40%) and bounced that down. 

Before doing the above, I tried using ADAT. Didn’t sound so nice. Latency was atrocious.

I’ll use headphones to compare the 48 and 96 recordings. 

This is odd. My Adat latency in and out of studio one is reported never above 200 samples at 48k (Thats less than 5ms). It’s often only 30 samples on most of the algos I gravitate to. 

Are you using ADAT in send/return fashion from within Studio One? How do you determine latency in Studio One? 

 

[joeydego]

zengomi wrote:

joeydego wrote:

zengomi wrote:

First attempts using Dante via Digiface Dante and Logic I/O Utility went swimmingly. Latency as reported in the I/O plugin amounted to 3.5 ms @48kHz and a tad less @96kHz. Sent 2 mono tracks to 2 inputs into a reverb algorithm (mix at 40%) and bounced that down. 

Before doing the above, I tried using ADAT. Didn’t sound so nice. Latency was atrocious.

I’ll use headphones to compare the 48 and 96 recordings. 

This is odd. My Adat latency in and out of studio one is reported never above 200 samples at 48k (Thats less than 5ms). It’s often only 30 samples on most of the algos I gravitate to. 

Are you using ADAT in send/return fashion from within Studio One? How do you determine latency in Studio One? 

 

When you use pipeline it pings your external hardware and gives you a number. Pipeline will sync everything up if you hit the auto button. Analog is behind around 130 samples while ADAT is typically 30 or so. That’s for one algo and some algos are a little more. When you string them together it goes up but not by double.

[zengomi]

joeydego wrote:

zengomi wrote:

joeydego wrote:

zengomi wrote:

First attempts using Dante via Digiface Dante and Logic I/O Utility went swimmingly. Latency as reported in the I/O plugin amounted to 3.5 ms @48kHz and a tad less @96kHz. Sent 2 mono tracks to 2 inputs into a reverb algorithm (mix at 40%) and bounced that down. 

Before doing the above, I tried using ADAT. Didn’t sound so nice. Latency was atrocious.

I’ll use headphones to compare the 48 and 96 recordings. 

This is odd. My Adat latency in and out of studio one is reported never above 200 samples at 48k (Thats less than 5ms). It’s often only 30 samples on most of the algos I gravitate to. 

Are you using ADAT in send/return fashion from within Studio One? How do you determine latency in Studio One? 

 

When you use pipeline it pings your external hardware and gives you a number. Pipeline will sync everything up if you hit the auto button. Analog is behind around 130 samples while ADAT is typically 30 or so. That’s for one algo and some algos are a little more. When you string them together it goes up but not by double.

Thanks for the explanation! I hadn’t paid much attention to Studio One. Poking around, I found one video about Pipeline when using a UAD interface that clarified why my previous trial use of H9000 ADAT in Logic sounded bad. I should have muted the ADAT channel in UAD’s Console app. The result was a normal-sounding signal. The round trip latency dropped to 21 samples, which is in line with what you reported.

Regarding 48 vs 96, I think I should compare mixes that involve a lot of tracks and fx. 

 

[joeydego]

zengomi wrote:

joeydego wrote:

zengomi wrote:

joeydego wrote:

zengomi wrote:

First attempts using Dante via Digiface Dante and Logic I/O Utility went swimmingly. Latency as reported in the I/O plugin amounted to 3.5 ms @48kHz and a tad less @96kHz. Sent 2 mono tracks to 2 inputs into a reverb algorithm (mix at 40%) and bounced that down. 

Before doing the above, I tried using ADAT. Didn’t sound so nice. Latency was atrocious.

I’ll use headphones to compare the 48 and 96 recordings. 

This is odd. My Adat latency in and out of studio one is reported never above 200 samples at 48k (Thats less than 5ms). It’s often only 30 samples on most of the algos I gravitate to. 

Are you using ADAT in send/return fashion from within Studio One? How do you determine latency in Studio One? 

 

When you use pipeline it pings your external hardware and gives you a number. Pipeline will sync everything up if you hit the auto button. Analog is behind around 130 samples while ADAT is typically 30 or so. That’s for one algo and some algos are a little more. When you string them together it goes up but not by double.

Thanks for the explanation! I hadn’t paid much attention to Studio One. Poking around, I found one video about Pipeline when using a UAD interface that clarified why my previous trial use of H9000 ADAT in Logic sounded bad. I should have muted the ADAT channel in UAD’s Console app. The result was a normal-sounding signal. The round trip latency dropped to 21 samples, which is in line with what you reported.

Regarding 48 vs 96, I think I should compare mixes that involve a lot of tracks and fx. 

 

 

Hi there, glad you got it sorted. I too use A UAD Apollo and keep console muted, especially everything having anything to do with my Eventide, Also, mute any sends to the FX channel if you’re bussing. Ive seen some really wonky numbers that way, too. I actually made a Studio One Macro which I split up into 2 separate macros. With one macro I can populate 8 stereo FX channels with pipeline properly routed using all my ADAT and Analog IO for the session. Then I made macros giving me 4 stereo channels of each. Saves a LOT of time. As I populate an algorithm the first thing I do is ping it so I dont forget. Everything lines up perfect. This workflow took some time and really took learning pipeline and S1 better. 

[zengomi]

joeydego wrote:

Hi there, glad you got it sorted. I too use A UAD Apollo and keep console muted, especially everything having anything to do with my Eventide, Also, mute any sends to the FX channel if you’re bussing. Ive seen some really wonky numbers that way, too. I actually made a Studio One Macro which I split up into 2 separate macros. With one macro I can populate 8 stereo FX channels with pipeline properly routed using all my ADAT and Analog IO for the session. Then I made macros giving me 4 stereo channels of each. Saves a LOT of time. As I populate an algorithm the first thing I do is ping it so I dont forget. Everything lines up perfect. This workflow took some time and really took learning pipeline and S1 better. 

Macros are a good idea!

[cyborgssc]

federicogh wrote:

I also have a question about the Dante expansion card. I am currently using the H9000 as my only audio interface, both for recording analog signals (guitar voice etc.), as well as for running outboard effects in Cubase. However I am quickly running out of channels with USB, i.e. I have multiple stereo tracks that I am sending to the H9000 for processing and I am finding myself bumping against the 16 channels limit. Would the 32 channels available with Dante solve that? Also what other hardware is required (I am running windows)? I am assuming a Dante PCI card or something similar on the desktop side to talk to the Dante card in the H9000?

You can do it with Dante Virtual Soundcard and the Ethernet port on your computer, but that method has added latency. I use the Focusrite Dante PCIeR card as my primary audio interface for 128 channels at low latency.

[chriscarter]

cyborgssc wrote:

You can do it with Dante Virtual Soundcard and the Ethernet port on your computer, but that method has added latency. I use the Focusrite Dante PCIeR card as my primary audio interface for 128 channels at low latency.

There’s a massive price difference between the two methods (virtual DVS vs PCIe hardware) – what sort of latency figures are they, is the PCIeR card option noticeably lower than using DVS?

[cyborgssc]

chriscarter wrote:

There’s a massive price difference between the two methods (virtual DVS vs PCIe hardware) – what sort of latency figures are they, is the PCIeR card option noticeably lower than using DVS?

Yes, it’s pretty easy to run at 64 sample latency with the PCIeR card. Minimum latency with DVS is 4ms – maybe it will be OK for your usecase.

I have not used DVS in any real-time round-trip setting though – my primary experience is using it for multitrack recording from a live mixing board. Actually, we also use DVS for the audio of my church’s video stream. In that case, the DVS latency is an advantage, since we have to delay anyway to wait for the video to be in sync.

[chriscarter]

cyborgssc wrote:

chriscarter wrote:

There’s a massive price difference between the two methods (virtual DVS vs PCIe hardware) – what sort of latency figures are they, is the PCIeR card option noticeably lower than using DVS?

Yes, it’s pretty easy to run at 64 sample latency with the PCIeR card. Minimum latency with DVS is 4ms – maybe it will be OK for your usecase.

I have not used DVS in any real-time round-trip setting though – my primary experience is using it for multitrack recording from a live mixing board. Actually, we also use DVS for the audio of my church’s video stream. In that case, the DVS latency is an advantage, since we have to delay anyway to wait for the video to be in sync.

Thanks, that’s good to know…

what type of computer are you using your PCIeR card on – Mac or PC?

[chriscarter]

Kamurah wrote:

Maybe a little late for your info gathering…but it might be worth noting that using DVS as an ASIO ‘soundcard’ in your DAW actually has two types of latency to address.  There is ASIO latency….what we generally measure of in regards to latency on a PCIe, USB, or Thunderbolt interface, and then there is DANTE latency…which deals with the latency within the DANTE network.DVS has settings for both, but the 4ms quoted above was only for ASIO latency settings, and did not include a DANTE network latency setting.In my experience on both Macs and PCs, a DANTE PCIe card performs quite a bit better than DVS, at all ASIO settings.  Also, the PCIe card allows 32 sample ASIO with rock solid performance and the lowest round-trip-latency I have personally ever experienced.  If making a choice between DVS and the PCIe card, I would choose the latter every time, and personally I think the performance warrants the cost.  As always, your mileage may vary.Just FYI to consider.

Thanks for the update… being Mac based and using Core Audio ASIO latency won’t be an issue for me but nevertheless I will at some point get a Dante PCIe card to use via TB3.

[Author]

Posts