Wireless Networking

Steve Anderson

Steve Anderson

Freshman
May 2, 2011
52
0
6
Sydney, Australia
Hmmm... I've been using Ubiquiti stuff for almost 5 years and continue to recommend it... and this arrived this morning... looks interesting!

Maybe someone (Henry?) who knows the difference between Frequency Division Duplex and Time Division Duplex can chime in, because I haven't a clue.

Low latency, high throughput and synchronous (does that mean deterministic?) transmit; seems it is everything we would want.

Are we getting closer to wireless snakes? Dante and airFiber could prove a potent combination

airFiber | Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wireless Networking

24GHz would have to be line of sight wouldn't it?

Guessing too that directionality is very important. Wonder how it would go from a gently rocking and rolling barge to shore?
 
Re: Wireless Networking

Steve Anderson said:
24GHz would have to be line of sight wouldn't it?

Guessing too that directionality is very important. Wonder how it would go from a gently rocking and rolling barge to shore?
Click to expand...

33dBi antenna gain is a lot of directivity. 24GHz makes sense in order to have a lot of bandwidth, the wavelength is 10mm, just like a 34 kHz tone.

So it's line of sight, accurate positioning and a lot of bandwidth. I couldn't find any solid latency figure. Either I am blind or it just isn't there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wireless Networking

Rob Timmerman said:
With a 3.5 degree beam, probably not so well.
Click to expand...
Didn't notice that... posted just before running out the door.

Christian Tepfer said:
I couldn't find any solid latency figure. Either I am blind or it just isn't there.
Click to expand...
I couldn't see that either, and was wondering if anyone knew about the frequency and time division duplexing bits.

This from the datasheet
Advanced Design
airFiber uses patent-pending technology to virtually eliminate packet transmission latency. Conventional wireless standards impose a latency by having to receive a packet before a packet is transmitted. airFiber can transmit data synchronously without any wait time
Click to expand...

From the looks of it it's probably too directional and long-range to be of much use to us in audioville. Guess my jaw hit the floor when I saw the speed.
 
Re: Wireless Networking

Steve Anderson said:
Hmmm... I've been using Ubiquiti stuff for almost 5 years and continue to recommend it... and this arrived this morning... looks interesting!

Maybe someone (Henry?) who knows the difference between Frequency Division Duplex and Time Division Duplex can chime in, because I haven't a clue.
airFiber | Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
Click to expand...

Duplex means both ways, so Frequency Division Duplex means that each way is on a different frequency (and can both happen simultaneously)
Time Division Duplex sounds like back and forth take turns. which would obviously be bad for latency (unless it's still fast enough to do that time splitting and not slow things down)

Jason
 
Re: Wireless Networking

Bennett Prescott said:
More commonly known as "Not Duplex", as opposed to "Duplex".
Click to expand...

YMMD!

So what they call hybrid duplex is a micture of duplex and no duplex.

Regarding the narrow beam, there could be a near throw version for us.

First, I would like to know the exact latency. Maybe it's in the range of copper-fiber-conversion, maybe not. Low is very relative.
 
Re: Wireless Networking

Using the AirFiber system for a relatively short haul such as between FOH and stage is akin to using MSL-10s for near field monitors (or for you youngins', a 12 box line array). I'm not sure if their RF can be turned down enough so as not to saturate each other and kill the QoS. Maybe if placed behind a piece of scrim. Projected price is $3500.00 a pair.

Concerning FDD vs TDD, Jason Lavoie and Rob Timmerman are correct.
 
Top Bottom