The evolution of production switchers

Today’s switchers come with a dazzling array of capabilities.

What is in this article?:

It’s funny how our business reinvents itself on a regular basis. Even funnier still is how commodity IT technology has been in the forefront of switcher developments of late.

For decades, production switchers were rigid in their architecture. Each M/E bank fed into an internal router but cascaded together in a fixed structure. M/E 1 could not have M/E 3 as a source, though the reverse was possible. There is a simple reason for this: Analog switchers could accommodate only a fixed amount of delay, and cascading effects busses together lengthened the latency of the signal.

To accommodate this, fixed delays were inserted where appropriate in a switcher so that when cascaded, things still would work. In analog color composite systems, this was necessary to keep the color subcarrier in phase.

A game changer

In the late 1970s, Grass Valley introduced a switcher (Model 300) that, although still analog, broke that paradigm by using delay lines of various lengths to allow “infinite re-entry.” This was a game-changing innovation. It was complex and expensive, but it sustained the 300 as the premier switcher for many years. For years, there were “300 emulation modes” in some switchers to allow TDs who are reticent to change to do things in familiar ways, long after digital switchers killed the market for analog production switchers altogether.

Analog switchers were expensive for many reasons, but it is important to remember that they were truly a system. Replacing a single module might require extensive setup of the entire switcher for (especially) levels and phase. This meant that initial checkout and fine tuning in the factory was labor-intensive and required considerable time while electronics “cooked” together. Digital switchers can be produced one board at a time and don’t need to be checked and tuned as a system to anything like the precision necessary in the analog world.

Feature creep in digital switchers is often a matter of writing new code, though in some instances that code must be run in FPGA chips, which have extraordinary capabilities. Enabling features not purchased initially can be as simple as inserting a code to authorize your use, since it is not practical to deliver many versions of software with many combinations of features to users all over the world.

Discuss this Article 1

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 29, 2012

The problem with touch screens is you have to look at them to use them. If you have a modern car with a touch screen radio think about how you use it for a second. To operate any of the controls you have to take your eye off the road and look at the function your about to press. You can leave your finger on the button or feel for the control you require. The same is true for production switchers. The tactile buttons need to be there so we can concentrate on the incoming pictures looking for reactions or incidents.

In some ways the switchers are already very powerful programmable boxes and they keep improving. The touch screen is there for the functions that require programming or extra attention leaving the switch to the control panel.
The desk I am currently working has 30 keyers and the ability to use 10 M/Es so power will never be an issue. The problem will always be control in a live situation.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Broadcast Engineering ID
(optional)

Ads by Google

Watch Broadcast Engineering at NAB

Read the NAB blog for the latest show news

Why Go Digital

Newsletter Block - Editable

Subscribe to our newsletters and get regular updates on the technology that most interests you.

Download Smart Playout Center