Home / Blog /
AV Over IP Vs Traditional AV

AV Over IP Vs Traditional AV

Technology continues to evolve, and so does the way we share sound and visuals. The debate about AV over IP vs traditional AV, and which one is better, isn’t just for techies - it’s something for anyone interested in AV to consider. Choosing between these two really depends on the needs of the user. 

For people who look for flexibility, easy upgrades, and network-based control, AV over IP generally stands out as the convenient choice. If you require a handy configuration, traditional AV is better suited for you. Both work well in their own domain and have their own functionality. Just one leans on modern networks, the other on solid cables. 

Understanding how they function and what each does best helps you choose the option that fits your setup.

What Is AV Over IP?

AV over IP, also known as Audio-Visual over Internet Protocol, is a method for transmitting video and sound over the same type of network used by computers. It skips the maze of cables and goes straight over Ethernet, which feels cleaner and easier to manage. You simply connect it to the network, and it functions seamlessly. No special wiring or mess, just a flexible setup that can grow when you need it to.

What Is Traditional AV?

Traditional AV systems rely on dedicated wiring, such as HDMI, VGA, or SDI, to connect sources directly to displays or speakers. The links are tangible and reliable, but they often restrict the distance a connection can reach, the number of devices that can be linked, and the flexibility of reconfiguring the system.

Comparison Table of AV Over IP and Traditional AV

Feature AV Over IP Traditional AV
Signal Reach Works over long distances using standard network cables; easy to link multiple rooms or buildings. Limited by cable length; longer runs need boosters or extenders.
Interoperability Can mix devices from different brands if they follow open standards. Often locked to specific hardware types or connectors.
Bandwidth Use Depends on network capacity; heavy use can affect speed if the network is weak. Each cable carries its own signal, ensuring consistent usage.
Infrastructure Uses the same network that handles IT data, cutting down on extra wiring. Needs separate AV cabling and equipment for each connection.
Latency A slight delay may appear if the network isn’t optimized, but it is often unnoticeable. Instant signal flow with almost zero lag.
Upgrade Path Easy to update or expand through software or add network devices. Major upgrades often require new cabling or hardware replacements.

AV Over IP vs. Traditional AV: Which One Should You Choose?

Choosing between AV over IP and traditional AV depends on how your system will be used, managed, and expanded. Now, let’s compare key features. These attributes show where one option overtakes the other.

1. Audio/Visual Control

With traditional AV, each source routes to a fixed display. Change means reconnecting cables or installing new hardware. That approach is stable, but it locks you in. AV over IP flips that model. One network lets you route any source to any screen through software, often with just a few clicks. This means dynamic spaces, meeting rooms, auditoriums, and multi-zone campuses can get real-time flexibility. For operations that require frequent changes, the network model prevails.

  • Which is Better?

The choice depends on the need for flexibility and the ability to make quick adjustments. For environments with high flexibility and frequent changes, a network-based system may be more effective.

2. Scalability

While traditional AV systems are suitable for small installations, they encounter limitations as the number of displays or devices increases. Long cable runs, signal degradation, and escalating costs become issues. 

AV over IP is engineered for scalability. Your network backbone remains the same, while you simply add encoders or decoders as needed. Want another display across campus? No new major wiring is required; simply plug in. When expansion is a goal, AV over IP offers clearer potential.

  • Which is Better?

If future growth and ease of scaling are important, a network-based approach provides more straightforward expansion. However, for smaller, fixed setups, traditional systems might still suffice.

3. Remote Management

In conventional AV setups, if a display goes offline, someone has to go on-site. Physical switches means manual checks, which can create delays and increase costs. A network-based AV over IP platform enables administrators to remotely monitor devices, send updates, modify layouts, and resolve issues from a distance. For campuses, multi-location companies, or venues managing many zones, remote oversight is a major benefit.

  • Which is Better?

The advantage depends on the need for remote oversight. If managing multiple locations or spaces from one point is essential, a network-based solution offers greater control and efficiency.

4. Customizing Limitations

Traditional systems often lock you into the layout for which they were designed. Changing the space or adding new zones may require rewiring or adjustments to the hardware.

AV over IP brings freedom. You can redistribute sources, mix zones, and repurpose screens with minimal physical change. That flexibility gives design teams and operators space to evolve the system rather than being locked into yesterday’s map.

  • Which is Better?

For environments where adaptability and room redesigns are a frequent need, AV over IP offers much more flexibility. However, in long-term setups, traditional AV might not require the same level of flexibility.

5. Affordability

At first glance, a fixed-cable traditional AV setup might cost less, with its straightforward hardware and installations. Yet when you factor in future upgrades, rewiring, and labor for reconfigurations, the price rises. While network-based AV over IP may require a more robust infrastructure, it still utilizes conventional IT cabling, less specialized hardware, and fewer labor-intensive modifications. Ultimately, it often proves to be the more cost-effective option, particularly in mid-to-large-scale or future-growth-oriented installations.

  • Which is Better?

The initial cost of traditional AV may be lower. Still, when considering long-term growth and reconfigurations, network-based AV could offer a more cost-effective solution for projects with future scalability in mind.

Conclusion

There is no universal answer to which system is better, but based on the needs of the user, one setup can stand out. If your audio-visual system stays simple, with a few screens and fixed connections, a traditional AV setup may serve you well. But if you anticipate growth, frequent layout changes, remote oversight, or a network-centric infrastructure, AV over IP is clearly the smarter investment. 

With networked systems becoming the backbone of modern facilities, the question is about future-proofing. And in that regard, both AV over IP and Traditional AV position you ahead according to your requirement. For more details about both sound setups, you can visit Titan AVL. We offer a comprehensive range of audio-visual systems.

Other Blogs
How Does Sound Masking Work?

Learn how sound masking works, from emitters to tuning. Discover how it reduces noise, improves privacy, and creates calmer, more focused spaces.

Read More
How Much Does Projection Mapping Cost

Discover how much projection mapping costs in 2025. Explore average prices, key factors, and cost breakdowns for small, mid, and large-scale projects.

Read More
How long does soundproofing last?

Soundproofing lasts 20–30 years with proper care. Learn what affects its lifespan, from materials and moisture to installation and upkeep.

Read More