Possible LOR competition?

[lightzilla]

Sorry Orville I missed that. Did not mean to upset you.


Looks like Orville & I only like the idea of "auto sequencing" Like I said earlier I would like an "Auto Timing Marks" feature that does more than pick up the beats but voice and what not too.

How much would 10 songs cost to be sequenced by someone if you have 300+ channels? $1000.00 plus?

The software for "auto sequencing" might be $150.00, but if it was added into the Lor software then it would be cheaper yet.

Even if this feature was included in the Lor software that does not mean that you need to use it, it would be there for those who might want to use it. Likely out of curiosity folks might try it just to see want happens.

[Guest guest]

lightzilla wrote:

Sorry Orville I missed that. Did not mean to upset you.


Looks like Orville & I only like the idea of "auto sequencing" Like I said earlier I would like an "Auto Timing Marks" feature that does more than pick up the beats but voice and what not too.

How much would 10 songs cost to be sequenced by someone if you have 300+ channels? $1000.00 plus?

The software for "auto sequencing" might be $150.00, but if it was added into the Lor software then it would be cheaper yet.

Even if this feature was included in the Lor software that does not mean that you need to use it, it would be there for those who might want to use it. Likely out of curiosity folks might try it just to see want happens.

Naw, didn't upset me. Just pointed it out in case you did miss it, which you did. Hey everyone makes mistakes!

And I agree. I couldn't afford to pay for that many sequences, nor would I want to. I make all my sequences available to anyone that wants them for FREE.

I agree it should be able to do the timing marks as well as be set to use whatever means to generate the sequence based on frequency, pitch, vocals, etc.

I'd just like to have it so I can sequence some of those songs that are VERY LONG(like those that run 4 -6 minutes in length) and/or are a royal pain to do, then go back and edit the sequence to my flair.

And unlike the current wizards, the auto-sequencer would and could be set to sequence a select number of channels or ALL channels at once by setting freq, voice, pitch or any other criteria that makes music what it is for each channel.(similar to the way the LORVis plug in works with the Windows Media Player).

[Guest guest]

Tim Herberger wrote:

Orville wrote:

So to me, at least, this would be a valuable tool to use right alongside my own style of sequencing my display.

Others may still disagree, but think about this, how many times have we seen someone ask about "how do I start sequencing this particular song" or "I'm having real issues sequencing this song"? Plenty, so the "auto sequence generator" would be a big plus here, and why I think it would still be a viable tool to use, even for the seasoned sequencer.

Sure some may only use it and leave it at that, but I think those of us that enjoy sequencing, which I do, could use a little help from time to time on getting a difficult song sequenced. This is why I believe an auto sequence generator tool to be a valuable asset for a lot of folks

I don't think enough different colors were used above....

Sorry Tim, all the bristles fell out of my paint brush and I need to get to the art supply store to get another one to add more colors...

[George Simmons]

When I sequence, either for myself or for others, I'm looking at the big picture - the entire display. I see display elements working together to form an interwoven tapestry of light, color and motion - not just a bunch of lights blinking on and off. If blinking on and off is all that a person wants there's no need to invest any time or effort or money into LOR - all you have to do is buy one of those Mr. Microphone junk boxes and load up those six channels until it makes your eyes bleed.

When software is developed that can combine all the different elements of a display - arches, poles, mini trees, mega trees, spiral trees, house faces, pinwheels, starbursts, CCRs, etc - into one big cohesive picture then I MIGHT be interested in taking a look. But I have the feeling I'll be dead by then so I'm not too worried about the competition at this time.

Zilla - those people with hundreds of channels who order custom sequencing typically factor the cost of the sequencing into their display before they order their first controller. (With 300+ channels, a thousand bucks for sequencing would be less than either the cost of the controllers OR the cost of the lights.) A couple guys have even told me (no offense Dan) that they wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars on controllers and lights if there wasn't someone they could hire to do the sequencing for them.

[james campbell]

While doing research on light animationI did come across Revival, .But I still chose lor.

Now being part of this forum for a few months know I am very happy I did.!!!lor seems to have very good customer service and they stand behind their product. Many lor employees are part of this forum to give their time to help all of us. Revival may make noise in the future,still happyI went with lor:)

[Guest guest]

james campbell wrote:

While doing research on light animationI did come across Revival, .But I still chose lor.

Now being part of this forum for a few months know I am very happy I did.!!!lor seems to have very good customer service and they stand behind their product. Many lor employees are part of this forum to give their time to help all of us. Revival may make noise in the future,still happyI went with lor:)

I didn't know of anyone else that did "animated lighting" aside from those Mr. Christmas units, which I used for a few years before getting into LOR (thank you TAX refunds for that!).



Somehow I stumbled upon the Planet Christmas site first, and I knew there was a company that did this better than Mr. Christmas, but didn't really know about LOR or the others until I started reading the PC forums.

Then I finally made my way over here to the LOR forums once I got into the LOR products I purchased.

If I could go back, would I change anything any different? Absolutely not! I am extremely pleased with the LOR product line, their support, service and the fact they DO assist right here on their forums. Although, sure I would like to see things I'd like to use, but even as it stands LOR IS A#1 and as far as I am concerned will always be!

Now if I could just get a job so I could get hold of some of those neat CCR's and the new CCB's LOR is coming out with for my display.

Maybe I should stand on a street corner with a cardboard sign and solicit donations?:shock:


Sign would read:

I am a LOR Addict and need help!

Please contribute money for controllers, lights or other items for my display!

Thank You!

Anyone else want to give that a try?

[lightzilla]

George Simmons wrote:

When I sequence, either for myself or for others, I'm looking at the big picture - the entire display. I see display elements working together to form an interwoven tapestry of light, color and motion - not just a bunch of lights blinking on and off. If blinking on and off is all that a person wants there's no need to invest any time or effort or money into LOR - all you have to do is buy one of those Mr. Microphone junk boxes and load up those six channels until it makes your eyes bleed.

When software is developed that can combine all the different elements of a display - arches, poles, mini trees, mega trees, spiral trees, house faces, pinwheels, starbursts, CCRs, etc - into one big cohesive picture then I MIGHT be interested in taking a look. But I have the feeling I'll be dead by then so I'm not too worried about the competition at this time.

Zilla - those people with hundreds of channels who order custom sequencing typically factor the cost of the sequencing into their display before they order their first controller. (With 300+ channels, a thousand bucks for sequencing would be less than either the cost of the controllers OR the cost of the lights.) A couple guys have even told me (no offense Dan) that they wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars on controllers and lights if there wasn't someone they could hire to do the sequencing for them.

I guess, but there sure seems to be a number of folks that own the controllers and still get custom sequencing done after they own controllers.

I find it rather hard to believe that folks would not like an option in the Lor software that offered "automatic timing marks" that goes beyond the "Beat Wizard". Would it not be nice if voice was done too, or cymbals, or trumpet blasts etc. That tool would save time.

Lets face it, if it was in the Lor software you can still choose not to use that tool, it just that easy. There are a few tools I do not use now like that side bar that pops out if you cross that key. I choose not to use it, so people can choose not to use the "automatic sequencer or auto timing marks" if that is their desire.

LSP offers a Wii tool, but I am not going to use that option up this way and see some child freeze in his tracks. The Wii tool is a good option for folks in Florida where it does not drop to -30 Fahrenheit or colder like it does here every single year.

Also there would still be a large number of folks that would want custom sequencing done. I'm all for custom sequencing and there are folks out there that can afford it. I would like to offer custom sequencing on the side but since I took a different route in the music department well that custom sequencing idea is on the back burner.

[Greg Young]

Guys, not meaning to post the obvious - but don't forget that the LOR VU wizard can already do a lot of what you are looking for in an automated software.

Quite a few folks use it when sequencing voices/instruments, etc. Add that to the beat wizard and you have a fair amount of work done for you.

There is a little learning curve on the vu wizard, but it is worth playing with, and may give you a lot of what you are looking for!

Greg

[james campbell]

Orville wrote:

james campbell wrote:

While doing research on light animationI did come across Revival, .But I still chose lor.

Now being part of this forum for a few months know I am very happy I did.!!!lor seems to have very good customer service and they stand behind their product. Many lor employees are part of this forum to give their time to help all of us. Revival may make noise in the future,still happyI went with lor:)

I didn't know of anyone else that did "animated lighting" aside from those Mr. Christmas units, which I used for a few years before getting into LOR (thank you TAX refunds for that!).



Somehow I stumbled upon the Planet Christmas site first, and I knew there was a company that did this better than Mr. Christmas, but didn't really know about LOR or the others until I started reading the PC forums.

Then I finally made my way over here to the LOR forums once I got into the LOR products I purchased.

If I could go back, would I change anything any different? Absolutely not! I am extremely pleased with the LOR product line, their support, service and the fact they DO assist right here on their forums. Although, sure I would like to see things I'd like to use, but even as it stands LOR IS A#1 and as far as I am concerned will always be!

Now if I could just get a job so I could get hold of some of those neat CCR's and the new CCB's LOR is coming out with for my display.

Maybe I should stand on a street corner with a cardboard sign and solicit donations?:shock:


Sign would read:

I am a LOR Addict and need help!

Please contribute money for controllers, lights or other items for my display!

Thank You!

Anyone else want to give that a try?

That would not be as unbelievable as some signs you see at your exit ramp

[Don]

lightzilla wrote:

I find it rather hard to believe that folks would not like an option in the Lor software that offered "automatic timing marks" that goes beyond the "Beat Wizard". Would it not be nice if voice was done too, or cymbals, or trumpet blasts etc. That tool would save time.

When you consider the programming that goes into just the Beat Wizard, you start to realize how good of a piece of software it really is. I did some looking around and happened upon an document that talks about the mathematical algorithms in beat detection (Download the PDF).

I don't think it's a matter of LOR not offering a tool that you describe. I think it's related to several aspects including, but not limited to, programmer resources, knowledge needed, and the fact that no matter how good it is, it probably wouldn't be good enough. (In the end, they are still 'just' computers.)

[Cray Augsburg]

"Automated sequencing" is a "feature" that I, personally, would not find useful. Of course, I don't care if it is there -- I can opt not to use it. But . . . I would sure hate to see good programming time going into its development that could otherwise be used to add/fix features I DO want and would use.

It really comes down to what each of us wants to see and do with LOR. I got into this because I have always wanted a way to control the Christmas lights -- to do something more than a static display (not that there is anything wrong with that -- I just wanted more). The key part of this sentence is that I wanted to control the lights.

My first exposure to animated Christmas lights was when I received an email with Holdman's display of Amazing Grace. I couldn't believe it -- someone was doing exactly what I wanted to do. I couldn't stop talking about it. A few days later finally came across info about LOR on the web. I knew I had to have it. The wife and I happened to be at Home Depot a week or so later. We saw the Mr. Christmas setup. She said "Go ahead and buy it." I wouldn't, because it isn't what I wanted. I would sure hate to have spent a bunch of money on it that I could be spending on what I really wanted. (See a pattern with this and what I wrote in the first paragraph?)

Thinking about what George wrote, when I sequence I am considering each element alone AND how it will interact with all the other elements. My satisfaction comes from the work I put into making the whole thing come together, as well as seeing how others react to it. Now I don't necessarily see myself as a "great" sequencer. But in the end, what I produce is mine, good or bad.

I can see how it might be interesting for some to "see what the computer comes up with." But that isn't why I am here. And I wouldn't want to see it at the expense of other features.

Just a few of my thoughts on the subject.

[james campbell]

I think I would use The auto animator in certain places in some songs.Then I would do my own in others.I believe you don't knock it till you try it. I agree that I like the sequence to be my own thats why I enjoy doing this, but some songs can get tough to come up with new ideas to put into your display.

[George Simmons]

james campbell wrote:

... but some songs can get tough to come up with new ideas to put into your display.

My recommendation would be to just avoid those songs for now. The world is full of music waiting to be sequenced, and you probably have favorite tunes of all types, not necessarily just Christmas music, that you've thought once or twice "Man - this would look good set to music"... Choose a few of those songs, even if they're not going to be in your display, and do them just for the heck of it.

The more adept and comfortable you become, the easier those more difficult songs will become, and all at once you'll realize you're doing them just fine. And while I've seen some amazing jobs that people have done with 16 channels, that IS a limiting factor in so much as there ARE just so many things you can do. As your display grows and you have more channels and yard elements to work with you'll also find it becomes easier.

Even when automatic sequencing one day becomes a reality, (and I'm with Cray in that I hope LOR doesn't waste a single dollar developing it at the expense of something else that is useful to the rest of us today) I predict there will still be a significant difference between "computer" generated sequences and those that spring from a creative mind.

[james campbell]

George Simmons wrote:

james campbell wrote:

... but some songs can get tough to come up with new ideas to put into your display.

My recommendation would be to just avoid those songs for now. The world is full of music waiting to be sequenced, and you probably have favorite tunes of all types, not necessarily just Christmas music, that you've thought once or twice "Man - this would look good set to music"... Choose a few of those songs, even if they're not going to be in your display, and do them just for the heck of it.

The more adept and comfortable you become, the easier those more difficult songs will become, and all at once you'll realize you're doing them just fine. And while I've seen some amazing jobs that people have done with 16 channels, that IS a limiting factor in so much as there ARE just so many things you can do. As your display grows and you have more channels and yard elements to work with you'll also find it becomes easier.

Even when automatic sequencing one day becomes a reality, (and I'm with Cray in that I hope LOR doesn't waste a single dollar developing it at the expense of something else that is useful to the rest of us today) I predict there will still be a significant difference between "computer" generated sequences and those that spring from a creative mind.

I can't agree with you more.I am sequencing for 32 channels in because I will get one at athe summer sale,but the same issue. I find myself thinking things are redunant. I am very happy with the 15 or so songs I have completed. I try to say that is enough but as you said ther is alot of great music out there. This is something you can not learn to do overnight.Still loving the process;)

[ChuckHutchings]

Having seen videos of Clay's display I can't believe any of you are against an "auto-sequence" feature for LOR.

Just sayin'

[mnkyboy]

[Cray Augsburg]

ChuckHutchings wrote:

Having seen videos of Clay's display I can't believe any of you are against an "auto-sequence" feature for LOR.

Just sayin'

Do you mean "Clay" (whoever that is)?

Or do you mean "Cray"?

[ChuckHutchings]

Cray Augsburg wrote:

ChuckHutchings wrote:

Having seen videos of Clay's display I can't believe any of you are against an "auto-sequence" feature for LOR.

Just sayin'

Do you mean "Clay" (whoever that is)?

Or do you mean "Cray"?

 

I meant "Clay". That's "Orville's" name. Try to keep up with current events.

[Cray Augsburg]

Thanks, Chuck. Didn't know Orville's name was Clay. Ah well . . . I always seem to be a day late and a $ short.

[mnkyboy]

OK.. my .02... I can see a place for the lighting enthusiast, that maybe purchased a mr christmas and has outgrown it to maybe a 16 to 32 channel setup.. and still wants a pretty much "plug and play" display, and not going to grow off that ammount, but still enjoys a higher end display. I can see an auto sequencer used in malls, and other events when "random" flashing and patterns would still work and the watching audience really would not have a clue...

But once you get past the threashold of 48+ channels with specific designed elements, IMHO you will have to go to custom sequencing that may require certain patterns to make that element really pop... an auto sequencer has no way of knowing if its an arch or megatree, or just shrub with lights on it... and would never work in a display like mine and many others where we can change the colors of virtually every element..

For a real autosequencer to work it would have to be able to really chop up the audio spectrum up into at least 31 or more freqency bands, with some serious digital sound processing, then work into creating a good visual output to the channels for on off/fades/ramps. It would have to be a indivisual hardware based item also, not in the sequencing software...That is why I stated up to 32 channels..I am not saying it cannot be done, but i'll put money on most "auto sequencers" out currently are "midi" based, not DSP based and like others have said are glorified "color organs".


Again my .02.. which of course due to the devalue of the dollar ain't worth that word Dale Jr used.