Is IPMX replacing SMTE ST 2110? Let me jump right to the answer: no, not really. They address different application spaces, at least for now.
Let’s dive into this question as a thorough exercise. IPMX is “ST 2110 made easy (and possibly cheaper).”
The principal pain points for ST 2110 are:
- Control: in ST 2110, you have an essence for video, one or more essences for audio, and an essence for ancillary data. Each one of these requires a multicast address and a UDP port, and both senders and receivers need to be told what to use.
- Synchronisation: in ST 2110, all the essences in the network are synchronised using the Precision Time Protocol (PTP). This allows a receiver to mix and match essences; it can combine any video with any audio and any ancillary data. However, this requires a PTP infrastructure in the network, ingress frame syncs, and PTP-aware switches (which are more expensive).
- Cost: ST 2110 networks normally carry uncompressed baseband signals (although they can support compression schemes such as JPEG-XS). This typically dictates 10Gb/s or higher ports for connection in the switches. While cost is always going down, this is still somewhat of a pain point.
IPMX addresses the pain points as follows:
- Control: IPMX requires the use of NMOS for control. It is optional for ST 2110, but in practice, most ST 2110 deployments use NMOS to avoid the complexity of configuring a large number of addresses.
- Synchronisation: this is where IPMX shines. It removes the need for PTP, greatly simplifying the network, and allowing for the use of more cost-effective switches. You can still combine any video with any audio, but now the device is responsible for doing sample rate conversion (SRC) on the audio to match the rates. The audio quality impact can be minimised by using more sophisticated SRC algorithms.
- Cost: without the need for PTP, the cost of the switches goes down by a lot already. If you combine this with JPEG-XS, you can possibly use 1Gb/s ports. While this is also available in ST 2110, it is less common there.
ST 2110 is used in broadcast environments where quality is paramount, there are a lot of signals, the house is synchronised already. In such environments, it makes a lot of sense, because the Ethernet switches at the core are replacing very large audio and video routers. For such large installations, it also makes sense to have specialised IT personnel to run such a network. There are also some Pro-AV specific requirements, such as support for HDMI/HDCP, non-broadcast resolutions (for computer screens), and even USB transport.
IPMX will shine in the Pro-AV environment, where compression is more prevalent, budgets are smaller, and the networks need to be simpler to operate. For vendors, this is a much larger market than broadcast.
The cross-over will happen on smaller broadcast installations, such as local TV stations. These, by and large, have not adopted ST 2110 and still run an SDI infrastructure. IPMX creates an easy transition into an ST 2110 world.
It is important to note that, in the core, IPMX and ST 2110 are, by and large, essentially the same technology. It is not a competition for one to replace the other. A traditional broadcaster with an ST 2110 deployment does not need to “transition” to IPMX – strictly speaking, they are already running “IPMX” in PTP mode. What IPMX is doing is providing an “entry-level” ST 2110 for the smaller broadcasters and providing a vendor-agnostic open playing field as an option for the Pro-AV environment.
So, is IPMX replacing ST 2110? No, they are different aspects of the same fundamental technology, making it applicable to a larger set of applications.
