AVoIP and Adaptability

The first half of this decade reminded us that the quicker we can adapt, the better off we are. AV over IP-based systems aim to speed up this adaptability, making it easier for those charged with managing the tech to respond to how their organizations expand, contract, and evolve.

For Marcus Bengtsson, CTO at Original Syndicate, a communications infrastructure design and integration firm, systems designers should consider implementing an AVoIP backbone in every installation they oversee. He argued that it provides more flexibility, is more scalable, and (in many cases) less expensive than technology that runs on copper wires.

However, this isn’t a blanket argument. There are projects for which AVoIP may not be the best solution, not due to the technology, but because of the people charged with managing it.

“Traditional baseband video is relatively simple to understand: It’s very easy to troubleshoot, it’s very easy to install, and you know very easily when something is wrong,” Bengtsson explained. “The answer to whether AV over IP is a bad idea or a good idea is probably more down to what people in the organization will own the system long-term. Do they have the capabilities of actually troubleshooting or fixing a network that needs to be designed [for] AV over IP?”

Seth Warner, U.S. sales manager at PlexusAV, points to applications for auditoriums, classrooms, command and control centers, divisible spaces, enterprise campuses, houses of worship, training facilities—and any other environment in which sources and displays don’t reside in a single room—as ideal candidates for AVoIP. He said things get interesting when AV is considered part of the system infrastructure.

“Once AV becomes part of the network architecture, the system is no longer limited by fixed matrix switch sizes or rigid cable paths,” Warner noted. Instead, sources can be shared, and the reconfiguration of spaces, when necessary, is much easier. “A system can grow without tearing apart the original design.”

Like Bengtsson, Warner concedes that AVoIP isn’t always the best choice, especially for single-source, one-display spaces that don’t require remote management and won’t be expanding. “The mistake is assuming every AV problem needs a networked AV solution,” he explained. “Sometimes the smart design is the simplest design.” That said, Warner added that companies often miscalculate how quickly their needs will change or if they will eventually need to repurpose or even extend their capacity.

Networks and Segregation

Some applications require that sources move around from space to space; they’re not permanent fixtures in, say, one specific room. An AVoIP infrastructure makes this easy to manage, according to Joe da Silva, VP of marketing at Extron. “Regardless of the venue, configuring multiple CATx drops and network ports in a video VLAN enables simple reconfiguration of sources, encoders, decoders, displays, and spaces,” he said.

For example, both encoders and scaling decoders can live on mobile carts, with or without dedicated sources and displays, and be plugged into any RJ45 port residing on the AV network. He noted that the AES67 protocol lets AV pros achieve accurate, more efficient control and routing to amplifiers, DSPs, and speakers. Additionally, all of this can be setup for ease of use.

1G, 10G, 25G … 100G? While there may be a tendency to make things as fast as possible for upward scalability’s sake, adopting the most powerful tech is not always the wisest approach, according to Bengtsson. More powerful infrastructure may be more affordable, but its installation complexity remains significant—and it may be overkill.

Instead, AV designers and integrators should ask: What does this system need to do? And what audio/video quality is considered good enough? The trick is translating what this means to the end customer. "The challenge lies in quantifying quality in a sense that a person who isn’t necessarily equipped or skilled to do these things themselves has something to relate to,” Bengtsson said.

Brandon White, director of product development at Vanco International, explained that 10G systems are usually specified for larger systems or applications requiring low latency and/or higher resolutions, frame rates, and signal quality. However, there is a price: Switches, cabling, and general infrastructure tend to cost more.

“A 1G system is usually more cost effective and can be a very strong fit for many commercial AV applications,” White said. “Latency on 1G systems has also improved over time, with some solutions now offering very low latency compared to earlier generations.”

One of the first decisions AV designers, integrators, and their clients must make is whether to put AV assets on a converged AV/IT network or keep them separate. Leveraging an existing, converged network can save time as well as capital and operational expense, da Silva noted, but not all codecs behave well in a converged environment. He encourages AV pros to select purpose-built solutions, such as Extron’s PURE3 codec, which was specifically designed for AVoIP systems.

At Original Syndicate, Bengtsson advises segregating AV from IT, even if it does increase costs. He said it provides a clear delineation between who is responsible for what: The AV team oversees the AV communications network while IT oversees theirs, regardless of whether personnel are internal or outsourced. “If you can afford it, it’s always going to be beneficial from a performance point of view, from a long-term maintenance point of view and from an ownership point of view,” he added.

Scalability Considerations

Scalability Considerations Symetrix CEO Mark Graham argues that defining scalability can’t be reduced to counting endpoints. When a system is truly scalable, he explained, it can be expanded without major redesigns, performance compromises, more complex management requirements, and prohibitive costs.

While capacity scaling may make it easier to plan for the future, especially for large projects, organizations risk paying for capacity that they don’t use and locking themselves into an inflexible environment. On the other hand, incremental scaling by design is more adaptable to change, and better suited for phased deployments.

Graham noted that Symetrix’s Cognio platform was built with the latter in mind. “It allows systems to start with what is needed today and expand intelligently over time as requirements become clearer,” he said. “For AV professionals, that matters because most customers cannot define their ultimate system size on day one.”

While scalability should be considered for almost every project, Graham points out that AVoIP platforms should be equally “graceful” in their ability to scale up and scale down. He says this is important in IT-centric environments featuring centralized environments utilizing all-in -one solutions and room kits rather than more bespoke architectures.

“A system that’s truly scalable and incremental is going to completely remove the legacy boundary conditions that have kept those systems out of [these spaces] because they were just too expensive and complex to complete with a room kit,” Graham added. “You can come in and more specifically address customer needs very cost effectively and deliver higher performance.”

At PlexusAV, Warner acknowledged that when designed properly, software-driven AV significantly improves scalability—provided it is open. “If the software layer is closed, overly proprietary, difficult to integrate, or dependent on one manufacturer’s ecosystem, then scalability becomes conditional,” he argued.

While this may not matter right away, it complicates things for customers when they wish to make adjustments down the road. “[A software-driven system] should make the customer’s infrastructure more useful, more transparent, and more adaptable," Warner said. "The best software layer is not just a control surface; it is a bridge between AV, IT, operations, and future applications."

Changing the Matrix Switching Mindset

Designing for AV over IP requires AV professionals who grew up with traditional matrix switchers to think a bit differently. While they may be used to confining systems to a fixed number of inputs and outputs, AVoIP removes these limits. Extron’s Joe da Silva said the company’s NAV System is an example of this latter approach.

“Even with modular matrix products, you build the inputs and outputs in groups, up to the physical limitation of the matrix frame,” da Silva noted. “While these modular matrix configurations afford flexibility and higher bandwidth for switching uncompressed video signals, the tradeoff is understanding the maximum number of inputs and outputs a system might need over its lifetime.

“AV over IP system design trades this design mentality for one where you can add any number of inputs or outputs to a system by adding encoders or decoders,” he continued. “You can even scale your network switch infrastructure if you need more ports over time, delivering virtually unlimited scalability and range.”