Video: AES67 Beyond the LAN

It can be tempting to treat a good quality WAN connection like a LAN. But even if it has a low ping time and doesn’t drop packets, when it comes to professional audio like AES67, you can help but unconver the differences. AES67 was designed for tranmission over short distances meaning extremely low latency and low jitter. However, there are ways to deal with this.

Nicolas Sturmel from Merging Technologies is working as part of the AES SC-02-12M working group which has been defining the best ways of working to enable easy use of AES67 on the WAN wince the summer. The aims of the group are to define what you should expect to work with AES67, how you can improve your network connection and give guidance to manufacturers on further features needed.

WANs come in a number of flavours, a fully controlled WAN like many larger broadacsters have which is fully controlled by them. Other WANs are operated on SLA by third parties which can provide less control but may present a reduced operating cost. The lowest cost is the internet.

He starts by outlining the fact that AES67 was written to expect short links on a private network that you can completely control which causes problems when using the WAN/internet with long-distance links on which your bandwidth or choice of protocols can be limited. If you’re contributing into the cloud, then you have an extra layer of complication on top of the WAN. Virtualised computers can offer another place where jitter and uncertain timing can enter.

Link

The good news is that you may not need to use AES67 over the WAN. If you need precise timing (for lip-sync for example) with PCM quality and low latencies from 250ms down to as a little as 5 milliseconds do you really need AES67 instead of using other protocols such as ACIP, he explains. The problem being that any ping on the internet, even to something fairly close, can easily have a varying round trip time of, say, 16 to 40ms. This means you’re guaranteed 8ms of delay, but any one packet could be as late as 20ms. This variation in timing is known as the Packet Delay Variation (PDV).

Not only do we need to find a way to transmit AES67, but also PTP. The Precise Time Protocol has ways of coping for jitter and delay, but these don’t work well on WAN links whether the delay in one direction may be different to the delay for a packet in the other direction. PTP also isn’t built to deal with the higher delay and jitter involved. PTP over WAN can be done and is a way to deliver a service but using a GPS receiver at each location is a much better solution only hampered by cost and one’s ability to see enough of the sky.

The internet can lose packets. Given a few hours, the internet will nearly always lose packets. To get around this problem, Nicolas looks at using FEC whereby you are constantly sending redundant data. FEC can send up to around 25% extra data so that if any is lost, the extra information sent can be leveraged to determine the lost values and reconstruct the stream. Whilst this is a solid approach, computing the FEC adds delay and the extra data being constantly sent adds a fixed uplift on your bandwidth need. For circuits that have very few issues, this can seem wasteful but having a fixed percentage can also be advantageous for circuits where a predictable bitrate is much more important. Nicolas also highlights that RIST, SRT or ST 2022-7 are other methods that can also work well. He talks about these longer in his talk with Andreas Hildrebrand

Nocals finishes by summarising that your solution will need to be sent over unicast IP, possibly in a tunnel, each end locked to a GNSS, high buffers to cope with jitter and, perhaps most importantly, the output of a workflow analysis to find out which tools you need to deploy to meet your actual needs.

Watch now!
Speaker

Nicolas Sturmel Nicolas Sturmel
Network Specialist,
Merging Technologies

Video: AES67/ST 2110-30 over WAN

Dealing with professional audio, it’s difficult to escape AES67 particularly as it’s embedded within the SMPTE ST 2110-30 standard. Now, with remote workflows prevalent, moving AES67 over the internet/WAN is needed more and more. This talk brings the good news that it’s certainly possible, but not without some challenges.

Speaking at the SMPTE technical conference, Nicolas Sturmel from Merging Technologies outlines the work being done within the AES SC-02-12M working group to define the best ways of working to enable easy use of AES67 on the WAn. He starts by outlining the fact that AES67 was written to expect short links on a private network that you can completely control which causes problems when using the WAN/internet with long-distance links on which your bandwidth or choice of protocols can be limited.

To start with, Nicolas urges anyone to check they actually need AES67 over the WAN to start with. Only if you need precise timing (for lip-sync for example) with PCM quality and low latencies from 250ms down to as a little as 5 milliseconds do you really need AES67 instead of using other protocols such as ACIP, he explains. The problem being that any ping on the internet, even to something fairly close, can easily take 16 to 40ms for the round trip. This means you’re guaranteed 8ms of delay, but any one packet could be as late as 20ms known as the Packet Delay Variation (PDV).

Link

Not only do we need to find a way to transmit AES67, but also PTP. The Precise Time Protocol has ways of coping for jitter and delay, but these don’t work well on WAN links whether the delay in one direction may be different to the delay for a packet in the other direction. PTP also isn’t built to deal with the higher delay and jitter involved. PTP over WAN can be done and is a way to deliver a service but using a GPS receiver at each location is a much better solution only hampered by cost and one’s ability to see enough of the sky.

The internet can lose packets. Given a few hours, the internet will nearly always lose packets. To get around this problem, Nicolas looks at using FEC whereby you are constantly sending redundant data. FEC can send up to around 25% extra data so that if any is lost, the extra information sent can be leveraged to determine the lost values and reconstruct the stream. Whilst this is a solid approach, computing the FEC adds delay and the extra data being constantly sent adds a fixed uplift on your bandwidth need. For circuits that have very few issues, this can seem wasteful but having a fixed percentage can also be advantageous for circuits where a predictable bitrate is much more important. Nicolas also highlights that RIST, SRT or ST 2022-7 are other methods that can also work well. He talks about these longer in his talk with Andreas Hildrebrand

Watch now!
Speaker

Nicolas Sturmel Nicolas Sturmel
Product Manager, Senior Technologist,
Merging Technologies

Video: RAVENNA AM824 & SMPTE ST 2110-31 Applications



Audio has a long heritage in IP compared to video, so there’s plenty of overlap and there are edge cases abound when working between RAVENNA, AES67 and SMPTE ST 2110-30 and -31. SMPTE’s 2110 suite of standards currently holds two methods of carrying audio including a way of carrying encoded audio such as Dolby AC4 and Dolby E.

RAVENNA Evangelist Andreas Hildebrand is joined by Dolby Labs architect James Cowdrey to discuss the compatibility of -30 and -31 with AES67 and how non-PCM data can be carried in -31 whether that be lightly compressed audio, object audio for immersive experiences or even just pure metadata.

Andreas starts by revising the key differences between AES67 and RAVENNA. The core of AES67 fits neatly within RAVENNA’s capabilities including the transport of up to 24-bit linear PCM with 48 samples per packet and up to 8 channels of 48kHz audio. RAVENNA offers more sample rates, more channels and adds discovery and redundancy with modes such as ‘MADI’ and ‘High performance’ which help constrain and select the relevant parameters.

SMPTE ST 2110-30 is based on AES67 but adds its own constraints such that any -30 stream can be received by an AES67 decoder, however, an AES67 sender needs to be aware of -30’s constraints for it to be correctly decoded by a -30 receiver. Andreas says that all AES67 senders now have this capability.


In contrast to 2110-30, 2110-31 is all about AES3 and the ability of AES3 to carry both linear PCM and non-PCM data. We look at the structure of the AES3 which contains audio blocks each of which has 192 Frames. These frames are split into 2, in the case of stereo, 64 in the case of MADI. Within each of these subframes, we finally find the preamble and the 24-bit data. Andreas explains how this is linked to AM824 and the SDP details needed.

James Cowdery leads the second part of today’s talk first talking about SMPTE ST 337 which details how to send non-PCM audio and data in an AES3 serial digital audio interface. It can carry AC-3, AC-4 for object audio delivering immersive audio experiences, Dolby E and also the metadata standards KLV and Serial ADM.

‘Why use Dolby E?’ asks James. Dolby E has a number of advantages although as bandwidth has become more available, it is increasingly replaced by uncompressed audio. However legacy workflows may now be reliant on IP infrastructure between the receiver and decoder, so it’s important to be able to carry it. Dolby E also packs a whole set of surround sound within a single data stream removing any problems of relative phase and can be carried over MPEG-2 transport streams so it still has plenty of flexibility and uses cases.

Its strength can bring fragility and one way which you can destroy a Dolby E feed is by switching between two videos containing Dolby E in the middle of the data rather than waiting for the gap between packets which is called the guardband. Dolby E needs to be aligned to the video so that you can crossfade and switch between videos without breaking the audio. James makes the point that one reason to use -31 and not -30 to carry Dolby E, or any other non-PCM data, is that -30 assumes that a sample rate converter can be used and so there is usually little control over when an SRC is brought in to use. A sample rate converter, of course, would destroy any non-PCM data.

RAVENNA 824 and 2110-31 gateways will preserver the line position of Dolby data. Can support Dolby E transport can therefore be supported by a vendor without Dolby support. James notes that your Dolby E packets need to be 125 microseconds to achieve packet-level switching without missing a guardband and corrupting data.

Immersive audio requires metadata. sADM is an open specification for metadata interchange, the aim of which is to help interoperability between vendors. sADM metadata can be embedded in SDI, transported uncompressed as SMPTE 302 in MPEG-2 Transport Streams and for 2110, is carried in -31. It’s based on XML description of metadata from the Audio Definition Model and James advises using the GZip compression mode to reduce the bitrate as it can be sent per-frame. An alternative metadata standard is SMPTE ST 336 which is an open format providing a binary payload which makes it a lower-latency method for sending Metadata. These methods of sending metadata made sense in the past, but now, with SMPTE ST 2110 having its own section for metadata essences, we see 2110-41 taking shape to allow data like this to be carried on its own.

Watch now!
Speakers

James Cowdery James Cowdery
Senior Staff Architect
Dolby Laboratories
Andreas Hildebrand Andreas Hildebrand
RAVENNA Evangelist,
ALC NetworX

Video: AES67 over WAN

Deeply embedded in the audio industry and adopted into SMPTE ST 2110, AES67 workflows surround us. Increasingly our workflows are in multiple locations so moving AES67 on the WAN and the internet is essential. If networks were always perfect, this would be easy but as that’s not the case, this RAVENNA talk examines what the problems are and how to solve them.

Andreas Hildebrand introduces the video with an examination of how the WAN, whether that’s a company’s managed wide area network or the internet at large, is different from a LAN. Typical issues are packet loss, varying latency meaning the packets arrive with jitter, lack of PTP and multicast. With this in mind, Nicolas Sturmel from Merging Technologies takes the reins to examine the solutions.

Nicolas explains the typically EBU Tech 3326 (also known as ACIP) is used for WAN contribution which specifies how a sender and receiver communicate and the codecs to be used. Although PCM is available, many codecs such as AptX are also prescribed for use. Nicolas says that ACIP is great for most applications but if you need low-latency, precise timing and PCM-quality staying AES67 may be the best policy, even over the WAN.

Having identified your AES6-over-WAN workflow, the question is how to pull it off. Nicolas looks at three methods, one is FEC whereby you are constantly sending redundant data. FEC can send up to around 25% extra data so that if any is lost, the extra information sent can be leveraged to determine the lost values and reconstruct the stream. This is can work well but requires sending this extra data constantly therefore putting up your bandwidth. It can also only deal with certain losses requiring them to be of a short duration.

Instead of FEC, you can use RIST, SRT or a similar re-transmission technology. These will actively recover any lost packets and have the benefit that you only transmit more data when you have lost data. Lastly, he mentions SMPTE ST 2022-7 which uses two paths of identical data to cover losses in any one of them. Although this is 100% extra data, the benefit is that it can deal with any type of loss including a complete path failure which neither of the others can do. It is, however possible to combine FEC or RIST with a 2022-7 workflow so you can have two levels of protection.

Timing over the WAN is not ideal as PTP loses accuracy over long-latency links and it assumes symmetry. On the internet, it’s possible to get links where the latency is longer in one direction than the other. An easy, though potentially costly, workaround for distributing PTP over the WAN is to use GPS, GLONASS or similar to synchronise grandmaster clocks at each location.

Watch now!
Speakers

Nicolas Sturmel Nicolas Sturmel
Product Manager & Senior Technologist
Merging Technologies
Andreas Hildebrand Andreas Hildebrand
RAVENNA Evangelist,
ALCNetworx