AVB is a set of standards.
MILAN is a subset of AVB.
IEEE1722 is a standard part of MILAN and AVB.
AM824 is a media format within IEEE1722.

So basically you are peeling a big onion. And then, you're comparing it... to an apple (MADI).

To keep the answer short: you can make it dependent on the infrastructure (available cabling/switches). MADI is for fewer channels more 'responsive' since it is a point-to-point protocol - almost instant plug and play. AVB shines when it comes to more complex environments with remote control, and you should use AAF whenever possible because it is more efficient (less traffic passing through the network).

I read here: https://audiomediainternational.com/202 … -dohrmann/ that AVB does sound better than AES3, which is quite similar to MADI. I would leave that judgement up to the end users since such statements are difficult to verify. From a technological standpoint I do not expect audible differences between MADI and AVB.

Best regards,
Max

I wouldn't expect any difference. Why ?

For me AVB / MADI / AES / ADAT is about transport of digital data and only a question of how many channels (bandwidth) over which type of medium (copper, optical).

If we talk about sound / precision, this happens at the A/D and D/A conversion point and is a summary of precise clock, good converters and well designed circuits.

Same with USB2, USB3, Firewire, Thunderbolt ... does any of these sound better ? No. Its also only transport of digital data over the usual available digital computer interfaces and more a question of bandwidth, how many channels you want to transport and availability (e.g. thunderbolt is still rare).

Steadyclock compensates jitter nicely.
And now look at devices like the ADI-2 Pro FS / DAC FS.
D/A conversion is completely indepenend from transport, because the D/A Conversion happens with it's own internal FS clock.