Aes67Edit
AES67 is an interoperability standard for high-performance audio over IP networks. Published by the Audio Engineering Society (AES), the standard sets a vendor-agnostic baseline that enables equipment from different manufacturers to carry, synchronize, and play back audio streams across IP networks. It is widely regarded in professional audio as a pragmatic solution for mixing devices from multiple brands without being locked into a single ecosystem.
The aim of AES67 is not to replace proprietary technologies but to create a common ground that makes cross-vendor interoperability feasible. In practice, devices that implement AES67 can exchange streams using a shared set of rules for transport, clocking, and session discovery, while still offering vendor-specific control interfaces, features, and optimizations. This approach aligns with a market-oriented preference for competition and choice, reducing switching costs for broadcasters, venues, and integrators who need to assemble systems from multiple manufacturers.
AES67 has become a cornerstone in modern IP-based audio infrastructures, particularly in broadcasting and live sound. It is frequently discussed in the context of larger IP-media architectures and is often integrated with SMPTE standards to form end-to-end solutions for program delivery. Its prominence is reinforced by broad industry adoption and by the fact that several major ecosystem players have aligned their products to be AES67-compatible, facilitating interoperability across brands and networks. This alignment is a practical expression of the broader movement toward open, interoperable standards in professional media networks.
History
AES67 emerged from industry efforts to standardize how audio over IP should work across different vendor implementations. The goal was to avoid fragmentation that could come from competing, closed systems. The standard was introduced in the early 2010s and has since undergone revisions to clarify and expand its guidance. The revisions address practical interoperability aspects, such as clock synchronization, session discovery, and transport behavior, to reflect real-world network conditions and deployment scenarios. The standard's development was driven by a mix of broadcasters, manufacturers, and engineers who prioritized reliability, efficiency, and the ability to mix equipment from multiple suppliers on the same network.
In the broader ecosystem, AES67 is frequently discussed alongside other open-standards efforts in professional audio, and it is commonly referenced in the context of SMPTE-based IP workflows and the push toward IP-based production and distribution pipelines. The relationship with other standards and vendor ecosystems has shaped how AES67 is implemented in modern facilities and how it evolves over time.
Technical framework
AES67 defines a practical, minimum set of characteristics that enable interoperable audio over IP while leaving room for vendor-specific enhancements. Key elements include:
Transport and timing: AES67 relies on established transport and timing mechanisms, notably the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) over UDP for audio streams and the IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) for clock synchronization. This combination provides synchronized, low-latency delivery of multichannel audio across networks. See also IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol and Real-time Transport Protocol.
Audio formats and sampling: The standard supports common professional audio formats and sample rates used in live production and broadcast, such as linear PCM with high bit depths and a range of sample rates. The emphasis is on compatibility and fidelity rather than locking to a single codec or encoding path. See also Audio over IP for broader context on how these formats fit into networked audio architectures.
Session discovery and description: AES67 specifies how audio streams can be discovered and described on an IP network so equipment from different vendors can locate and use streams without bespoke bridging. In practice, many networks employ protocols and mechanisms for session announcements and discovery that align with AES67 concepts. See also Session Description Protocol and Service Location Protocol.
Channel and stream organization: The standard covers how channels are organized and addressed within streams to support multi-channel workflows common in broadcast and live sound. This enables engineers to design scalable trees of interconnections across switched or routed networks.
Interoperability with other ecosystems: While AES67 defines the baseline for intervendor compatibility, it does not force all vendors to abandon proprietary extensions. In many installations, AES67 is used as the transport and clocking backbone, with additional vendor-specific features layered on top. See also Dante (networked audio) and Ravenna for examples of widely adopted ecosystems that embrace AES67 compatibility.
Adoption and interoperability
The practical impact of AES67 is most visible in how it enables cross-brand interoperability in real-world facilities. Broadcasters, live venues, and post-production houses often prefer equipment that can interoperate with other vendors, reducing lock-in and enabling more flexible staffing and procurement. In practice, AES67 has found a strong foothold in:
Broadcast facilities that rely on IP-based workflows and SMPTE standards for program delivery. The compatibility layer provided by AES67 helps ensure that streams can be shared between devices from different manufacturers without custom bridges.
Large venues and OB vans that need scalable, modular systems. Audio networks designed around AES67 can mix devices from multiple vendors while keeping timing and synchronization coherent across the network.
Networks adopting SMPTE 2110, where AES67 serves as the audio component. The alignment between AES67 and SMPTE 2110-30 has helped facilities transition to IP-based production without ripping out existing equipment. See also SMPTE 2110.
Industry players have repeatedly emphasized that AES67 lowers total ownership costs by expanding purchasing options and enabling more competitive bids for system integrators. Where a broadcast or live-sound operation once faced a choice between wholly proprietary ecosystems, AES67-friendly environments allow teams to source from multiple vendors that meet the same baseline requirements. See also Audinate for the company behind the widely deployed Dante ecosystem, which has incorporated AES67 interoperability in its product lines, and ALC NetworX for the Ravenna approach that also aims to be AES67-compatible.
Controversies and debates
Like any industry-standard effort with broad adoption, AES67 has sparked discussion about trade-offs, scope, and the pace of change. From a market-driven perspective, several themes emerge:
Interoperability versus feature depth: AES67 provides a pragmatic interoperability layer, but some users contend that the baseline does not capture every operational nuance of vendor-specific ecosystems. Proponents argue that a robust baseline that favors cross-brand streaming is preferable to a fragmented market with bespoke bridges. Critics sometimes claim that essential workflow controls or proprietary performance enhancements require additional layers beyond AES67. This tension underscores the ongoing balance between open interop and advanced, brand-specific features.
Discovery and control separation: AES67 concentrates on transport, timing, and stream description, while device control and management are often handled by separate protocols and vendor applications (for example, AES70 in some cases). Supporters of a lean standard say this modular approach keeps networks flexible and avoids over-constraining vendors; critics worry that a lack of unified control standards can complicate operations and troubleshooting. See also AES70 for the device-control dimension.
Security and reliability on IP networks: Moving professional audio onto IP networks raises concerns about security, QoS, and network reliability. The market response is to deploy best-practice IT network configurations, segmentation, and QoS policies, with AES67 treated as one component of a broader, risk-managed architecture. This reflects a general industry preference for solutions that are market-tested and scalable rather than bureaucratic mandates.
Market structure and vendor dynamics: Some observers worry that industry giants with deep pockets and well-established ecosystems can influence standard interpretation and roadmaps, potentially limiting true competition. Proponents counter that open baselines like AES67 empower smaller players and integrators by lowering barriers to entry and enabling bid competition. In any case, the standard’s developers emphasize openness, ongoing revision, and broad participation from manufacturers and users alike.
Woke criticisms and the conservative case for openness: Critics sometimes argue that openness can lead to governance challenges or insufficient protection for intellectual property. Supporters of open, market-driven standards respond that clear baselines reduce customer risk, spur innovation, and keep prices fair by enabling competition. They contend that concerns about “shared standards” overshadow the practical benefits of interoperability, reliability, and the ability to source equipment from multiple vendors without costly bridging solutions.