AV over IP vs. Traditional AV – Which Delivers Better Performance?
You have more rooms to equip, more screens to feed, more content to move, and the old gear is starting to show its limits. Someone suggests “AV over IP.” Someone else says, “Stay with traditional hardware, it is safer.” Both sound reasonable. Both can move audio and video. The risk is choosing based on trend or assumption instead of what your project actually needs.
At a basic level, the difference is simple. Traditional AV uses fixed hardware routes, usually through matrix switchers and direct cabling. AV over IP sends audio and video over standard network infrastructure using encoders, decoders, and switches. One is built around physical paths. The other is built around your network. Neither is automatically better. The right choice depends on how far you need to send signals, how often your system changes, how many endpoints you support, and how you plan to grow.
How These Two Systems Differ At The Core
Both approaches deliver signals from source to destination, but they solve the problem in very different ways.
Traditional AV systems rely on dedicated switchers and point-to-point connections. Inputs and outputs are defined in hardware. Scaling up usually means adding more physical equipment, pulling more cable, or replacing the core switcher.
AV over IP systems distribute signals across your network. Encoders take audio and video from the source, convert them to IP packets, and send them over Ethernet. Decoders at each display or speaker location receive and convert them back. Routing becomes software-based instead of being locked into one chassis.
Here is a simple comparison.
| Feature | Traditional AV | AV over IP |
|---|---|---|
| Signal Path | Fixed hardware routes | Network-based routing over Ethernet |
| Scalability | Limited by matrix size and ports | Highly scalable with switches and endpoints |
| Cabling | HDMI, SDI, proprietary runs | Cat6/Cat7, fiber for long distances |
| Latency | Near-zero, hardware-based | Low, depends on design and compression |
| Flexibility | Static layouts | Dynamic, re-routable through software |
| Expansion Cost | Often requires major hardware upgrades | Add endpoints and switch capacity as needed |
Once you understand this core difference, the choice becomes a design question, not a buzzword decision.
Where AV Over IP Stands Out
Modern facilities rarely stay static. That is where AV over IP starts to make sense.
Scalability without rebuilding
AV over IP systems let you add new displays, cameras, or rooms by introducing encoders, decoders, and switch capacity, instead of replacing an entire matrix. This is useful for multi-room campuses, multi-site churches, corporate offices, and schools that expand over time.Efficient use of infrastructure
Most organizations already invest in solid network infrastructure. AV over IP takes advantage of that, running signals over structured cabling instead of separate point-to-point lines everywhere. With proper network design, this keeps things cleaner, more organized, and easier to manage.Centralized management
Routing becomes a matter of software. Operators can switch sources, push content to different rooms, or monitor endpoints from a central interface. For teams managing many spaces, this level of control is a practical advantage, not a luxury.Future-ready performance
Well-designed AV over IP platforms can support higher resolutions, evolving codecs, and flexible layouts. Instead of ripping out the core every few years, you adjust capacity and update firmware.
AV over IP is not magic. It still requires careful design, bandwidth planning, security considerations, and proper hardware selection. Used correctly, it offers agility that traditional systems were never built to match.
When Traditional AV Still Makes More Sense
Traditional AV has been trusted for decades for a reason. In some projects, it remains the better decision.
Low-latency, critical paths
If your environment demands extremely tight latency control, such as live production, IMAG for large stages, or broadcast-critical feeds, hardware-based switching still delivers predictable performance without relying on network conditions.Stable, single-purpose spaces
For a single auditorium, a fixed lecture hall, or a clear, limited set of sources and displays, a well-specified traditional AV system is straightforward, robust, and very effective. Once installed, it can run for years with minimal changes.Contained systems with limited IT support
If network infrastructure is weak, segmented, or heavily restricted, forcing AV traffic onto it may create more problems than it solves. In those cases, a dedicated traditional AV path avoids dependency on a shared network.
Key strengths of traditional AV in the right context:
Lower configuration complexity for small, fixed systems.
Proven reliability with direct, dedicated signal paths.
Minimal risk of performance shifts due to unrelated network traffic.
Traditional AV is not “old.” It is appropriate where needs are clear, contained, and unlikely to change significantly.
Cost, Complexity, And Practical Trade-offs
Choosing between AV over IP and traditional AV is not only about features. It is also about the real cost of change.
Traditional AV often has a higher upfront cost for the core switcher and specialized hardware, but it is simple to understand: defined inputs, defined outputs, reliable performance. Expansion, however, can be expensive and disruptive.
AV over IP can appear more cost-effective per endpoint, especially in larger or growing systems, but it demands correct planning. Network switches, QoS configuration, security policies, and endpoint management all need to be done properly. For organizations with solid IT teams or trusted integration partners, this is a strength, not a barrier.
The right choice balances:
How many rooms and endpoints you have.
How often your layout changes.
Whether you are adding streaming, overflow, or remote venues.
How strong your IT environment and support structure are.
Which Is Better For Your Project?
There is no single winner. The better approach is the one that aligns with how your space works now and how it will work three to five years from now.
AV over IP is usually better when:
You manage multiple rooms, buildings, or campuses.
You expect growth, layout changes, or frequent content changes.
You want centralized control, flexible routing, and easier expansion.
Your IT network and policies can support dedicated AV traffic.
Traditional AV is usually better when:
You have a focused, fixed environment with clear requirements.
Ultra-low latency and simplicity are more important than flexibility.
You prefer a self-contained system that does not rely on broader network design.
In many real-world projects, the strongest systems are hybrids. Core, latency-critical paths may use traditional routing, while distribution to multiple zones or buildings runs over IP. The architecture should follow the needs of the room, congregation, audience, or team, not the trend of the moment.
A partner that understands both models will not force you into one box. They will map your signal flow, workload, growth plans, and budget, then design a path that makes sense.
Conclusion
The AV over IP vs Traditional AV decision is not about chasing what feels new or clinging to what feels familiar. It is about matching the system to the scale, flexibility, and stability your environment demands. AV over IP offers powerful scalability, centralized control, and long-term adaptability for growing and distributed spaces. Traditional AV delivers predictable, low-latency performance for stable, single-site or mission-specific systems.
If your project needs a solution that is built around your real conditions, not assumptions, Epic Resource Group designs and engineers AV architectures that combine the right technologies for reliability, clarity, and growth, so your system serves you now and holds up when your needs expand.