Is it Converged AV or just Netcentric Design

Is it Converged AV or just a Netcentric Design?  What is the difference? Is there a difference?  The AV industry is currently awash with AoIP (Anything over IP) devices. Dante and AES67 are the go to options for audio; and video has H.264, Jpeg2000 and a number of proprietary based options.  All these protocols will work on standard network infrastructure, but is that our end game? Do we only want to deliver a Netcenric approach where we only replace AV matrix switches with network switches? Or do we want to disrupt to the traditional AV industry with solutions that utilises all that the enterprise network and IT systems have to offer?  The latter is what I consider to be a true converged approach.

To answer this question, we need to consider a few factors:

Resistance to change

By nature, we are afraid of what we do not know nor understand, hence our resistance to change. Around 500 BC a Greek named Heraclitus stated that “Change is the only constant in life”. Change is definitely not a new thing and as we have seen recently in the digital world, it has had a major impact on almost every aspect of our daily lives. Yet we still resist it!

So why is the AV industry so resistant to the change that a converged approach will bring?  I would say it is because we do not know any better.  AV is a technical domain yet there are no university level qualifications. In such a formal learning environment, a range of options both real and theoretical would be presented to allow us to consider, seek or design alternative approaches.  Our education and solutions are based on what technology and training is offered by the AV vendors. These vendors are in business to make money and must recoup their product development costs and maintain market share. This dictates the products and “education” they provide to the market. We are still designing AV systems the same way we did over 30 years ago.

Ok, before you dive for the comments section to defend the AV industry and your business model, please hear me out.

History of AV and IT

When IT professional describe a system, they will use an Enterprise Architectural Framework such as TOGAF to break the systems down into either Architectural Building Blocks (ABBs – Which is functionality that support the business/user requirements) or Solution Building Blocks (SBBs – which are products and components). If we go back in time 30 years to 1988, AMX Corp released the first touch panel based control systems, and if we were to describe those AV system as “IT Architecture” they would have the following SBBs.

In 1988 each SBB was a separate piece of equipment that would be chosen to meet with the user’s requirements. Jumping forward to today, we still have the same SBBs but they are now packaged as an “All-in-One” “Room in a Box” solution.

AV Architecture – 2018

Other than the physical packaging, we are still designing systems based on 1988 architecture.  It still has the same design limitations such as isolated systems, embedded custom code, limited support, no remote management and functionality that is physically wired into the AV system. There are some new SSBs such as wireless presentation and we have moved to digital video with HDMI. Although HDMI has its own problems with distance limitations and HDCP restrictions.

Currently the industry focus is on what I call “Netcentric AV”. We used codecs to transport signals via TCP/IP and off the shelf network infrastructure.

This approach simplifies installation and removes the expensive AV switching component.  It also removes some of the physically built in functionality as we are no longer bound by the number of inputs and outputs on a video matrix switcher and how they are physically connected. Audio has benefited from the almost wholesale acceptance of Dante.  This means that there is a wide selection of audio products with an inbuilt codec that provides a compatible transport protocol between different products from multiple vendors.

Maturity

Have we technically matured over the last 30 years and if so how much?  Let’s put that in to perspective and look at how, IT, our younger technology sibling has matured.  In 1988 IT networks consisted of peer to peer file or printer sharing via the Centronics printer port or token ring on coaxial cable for larger deployments.  The Macintosh IIx and IBM PC with an 80286, 3.5” floppy, 14” CGA monitor were the personal computers of choice with MS Dos and OS/2 as the operating system. Phone calls required a phone box and a pocket full of change and those holiday snaps took a week to get developed. Now take your smart phone out of your pocket and consider all it can do. Now again ask yourself how far AV has matured over the last 30 years?

Convergence is a major component that has driven IT maturity…. or is it the IT maturity that has driven convergence? The corporate graveyard is littered with multimillion dollar organisations such as Nokia, Kodak and Blockbuster who were directly impacted by convergences and technological advancements.  Another great product example is the PABX market, it no longer exists and has been replaced with VoIP. Arguably projectors may be heading to the same fate?

Integration, Interoperability and Scalability

AV systems are typically delivered in isolation (i.e. a rack of equipment that is installed in a space and built to deliver a certain functionality). When IT professionals design a system, they talk about interoperability and scalability. They design systems that leverage existing enterprise services and deployment templates. They ensure that systems are scalable to ensure they will meet the growing needs of the user. To support this, vendors deliver products that will operate with other products and services.  Imagine if a HP switch did not talk to a Cisco router?

User Requirements

One thing that should not change but I think has been over cooked in the past and overlooked now, is user requirements.  With the current SBBs we were limited to a block by block approach. Designs were dictated by the number of inputs and outputs of the AV switcher, DSP or all-in-one.  In large organisations our block by block approach is a room level solution consisting of a number of components. This would mean that the system often included unrequired functionality and or features.

Convergence has many advantages but we are not having the correct conversation.  Instead we are posturing over latency and bandwidth. Let’s take latency, if you can’t see the original content and you are not using a mouse to interact with it, will 200-300ms have an impact on the presentation?  Or if the latency is so small that you need to take a picture of a running clock just to see it, then will 40ms make a difference to final outcome? The answer is generally “no” but we must remember it depends on what the user requires. There will be instances where (approximately) zero latency and little or no compression is a requirement and, in those situations, we must select the correct solution. 

Regardless of the underlying technology, we must ensure that we deliver first and foremost on what users require.  We need to ensure that we don’t over deliver and impact on their return on investment.  Currently we are limited in what we can design and deliver.  

Convergence – The End Game

TCP/IP based devices allow us to design systems that are more plug and play oriented. We can create standard deployment AV Building Blocks (AVBB) that represent a particular function e.g. a source input, display or audio component.  By combining these smaller building blocks with centrally deployed and managed control and DSP platforms, we can now approach AV design and deployment in a way never previously considered. We can already program a centrally managed control systems to deploy a tailored user interface based on a feature check list. This would allow for functionality to be added by the tick of a box, no more custom embedded code. We can now deploy AVBB to deliver the exact functionality required by the user. More importantly it can be done as required, at any time during the life of the installation, without a major rework.

Interoperability and integration are key foundations that we need to encourage between all parties.  Instead discussing 1G vs. 10G or the amount of latency, we should be asking why my display device from vendor A can’t talk directly to any source device from vendor B whilst processing audio with a DSP from vendors C and be managed and controlled by vendor D.

We see Dante and SDVoE heading in the correct direction in this regard, but we still have a number of gaps.  Time will close some of these gaps e.g. 10Gb networks are not ubiquitous especially when you look at existing enterprises. In a few years they may be, but we need a 1G solution now and in many cases the image delivered by a 1G solution may exceed the user’s requirements. Remember we don’t have to build a complete 4k system just because one component requires it and with plug and play we can upgrade at any time as the requirements change.  

So, what could a Converged AV solution look like?   Integration and interoperability… All sources and displays could natively talk to each other with a standards based protocol. The control system, via an API, could talk to the room booking system, security (access control), Active Directory, time tabling, course content and any service you require now or in the future.

Converged AV will have a major impact on the way we will design and deploy AV systems but in reality, this is minor when you compare it to the impact it will have on the user and the business.  User impacts will include:

• Defining their personal experience and requirements so that the experience is “their experience” in every space, not the experience that we dictate.
• Having a personalised interface in every space that has been tailored to the user’s personal preferences and the requirements of the meeting.
• No need for an interface at all. With the use of AI we can design rooms that are predictive and respond to the users actions and needs without the use of a physical interface.
• Interact with all forms of content and application directly via the AV system.
• Seamlessly share content from user’s device, local storage or cloud-based services. Soft codecs and APIs would allow for streaming and screen sharing.
• Shared content directly with other user’s devices allowing them to collaborate or mark up their comments on their copy of the content.

  The business will benefit from the following:

• BIG DATA and analytics. “What gets measured gets done”. Allow data to drive your design and business decisions.
• Centrally deployed assets such as control and DSP servers are cheaper and easier to maintain and deploy.
• The configuration, management and monitoring for all devices can be done from a single platform (pane of glass).
• Improve network security as all firmware and patches for all field devices are centrally managed.
• Content capture can be server based. No requirement to purchase expensive appliances that can only capture the content from the room they are installed in.
• Features and functionality can be added and removed to suit the changing needs of the business. Think Software Defined AV (SDAV)
• Fleet management can be better planed. Common APIs means we are no longer bound to a particular vendors product and can select the best product to suit the application.
• Lifecycle works can be done incrementally i.e replace only the component that has reached end of life, or failed, without a full system replacement.

There are many reasons why we need to adopt a converged approach, one of which is that our users have changed and expect an experience we currently cannot deliver. In many ways this is our iPhone moment and it won’t be long before we are reflecting and commenting in disbelief about how we used to deliver AV. 

I have been a long-time advocate of Converged AV and have been lobbying vendors, clients or anyone that would listen since 2012.  I have also designed large scale converged solutions to run on existing enterprise networks. The advancements that have occurred over the last 2 years have been amazing and Converged AV solutions are a reality now, BUT we still have a long way to go. Part of the reason I have written this paper is to promote some awareness and hopefully start a greater discussion on what is possible with the vendors and users.  As history has shown, Ethernet has not lost a war yet, so we have two options before us. One is to go down the path that history has shown or spend a year or two going off on a tangent only to then find ourselves at the same destination.

My original question was “Is it Converged AV or just Netcentric Design?”.  I believe that the answer to that question is “Netcentric design forms the foundation that a Converged AV solution is built upon. It is critical that we build a robust standards based foundation to support the functionality and benefits that Converged AV will bring.  After all, it is these components that will excite our users and shape the future of AV.”  

Author

Dean McFadden

Director

Learning by Experience