Purchasing Controller from whom advice needed

[George Simmons]

Donny M. Carter wrote:

Now I really don't understand! :shock:

You have no one but yourself to blame.

[Ken Benedict]

Another suggestion to the Original Poster: buy Cat 5 or 5e cable, hopefully without boots on the ends. Makes them easier to connect and disconnect from the equipment.

Stay away from Cat 6 or 6e if you can because it's very stiff, especially in cold weather.

Just speaking from experience and have fun with your starter system.

[Guest guest]

Orville wrote:

And don't forget now that LOR would be internet based, now you going to have very SLOW shows because you're going to have to invest and put not only malware protection into your LOR firmware, but virus protection too. And I've seen these programs bring some computers to a crawl or even a standstill while they do their checking/cleaning.

I've heard some horror stories how some virii can literally destroy a computer motherboard or render a monitor completely useless.

Maybe I'd be safe because I don't run my show from a computer, but a DC-MP3 Showtime Director, so if LOR went the internet route with IP address and such, wouldn't that now render all these "director units" that some of us use totally useless if that WERE a requirement to establish and run your shows?

I'm with WB, if it ain't broke it don't need fixing.

And we like it just as it is, it works and it works fantastic. And LOR always looks at ways to improve the electronics, like with the new G3 Controllers a lot of store bought strings that require snubbers, well, now they don't need them.

But I don't see a need for complex network connections to make this work.

Many of us when we started in this had a hard enough time grasping how to get this too work and put on at least a somewhat passable show our first time, and if LOR went to that protocol, I'd wager many of the new folks that came in may have never gotten their show off the ground. I know I wouldn't, and I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in that thought.

As it is, LOR is not exactly plug and play, but neither is it really complex, it seems like it to a first time user, but within a few hours or a couple days and using it, you get the hang of it fairly quick. But this ISP route I think would be far too detrimental to this particular hobby just by the sheer number of new folks that came in last year in 2011. I'd say many of them NEVER would have even gotten a simple show off the ground if LOR were using what you're proposing they use.

Personally, if they want to add it, that's fine, but make it an option not a requirement for those that want to do it that way. Although I think you're going to find and from the current responses, most that use LOR software/hardware don't want it, nor do they see a need for it. And with those folks I agree.

Well, got too darn long winded again....but just had to put my thoughts into perspective on what I consider a bad idea.

Orville..you wouldn't necessarily be using the "internet" per se, rather, just IP networking protocols as opposed to RS-485.

My expectation is, devices will drive the evolution...there will likely be a point where RS-485 hits the wall, and you do need a faster/more versatile data/command handling protocol. Won't render 485 useless with what you are using now, it will just be another option to use, another tool in your toolbox, so to speak.

Working in the wireless telecom field for going on 30 years, I've watched networks evolve from landline based T-1 networks for interconnection, to all IP based..its nothing to be afraid of...its where we're headed...some technologies and applications sooner rather than later.

[Guest guest]

DonFL wrote:

Orville..you wouldn't necessarily be using the "internet" per se, rather, just IP networking protocols as opposed to RS-485.

My expectation is, devices will drive the evolution...there will likely be a point where RS-485 hits the wall, and you do need a faster/more versatile data/command handling protocol. Won't render 485 useless with what you are using now, it will just be another option to use, another tool in your toolbox, so to speak.

Working in the wireless telecom field for going on 30 years, I've watched networks evolve from landline based T-1 networks for interconnection, to all IP based..its nothing to be afraid of...its where we're headed...some technologies and applications sooner rather than later.

Don,
Maybe I'm missing the boat on this one {wouldn't be the first time, sure it's not the last!}

The way I was understanding it (and looks like others may have too) was this would be internet based. If not, and it being an option, I have no problem with that. But when I see things like IP or ISP, that usually too me, refers to internet protocols and why I was thinking the way I was.

Being an option alongside what we have would be fine, like said, my concern was if it's internet based, too me that would not be good and not something I'd want connected to my show.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Guest guest]

Ken Benedict wrote:

Another suggestion to the Original Poster: buy Cat 5 or 5e cable, hopefully without boots on the ends. Makes them easier to connect and disconnect from the equipment.

Stay away from Cat 6 or 6e if you can because it's very stiff, especially in cold weather.

Just speaking from experience and have fun with your starter system.

I was given that advice too, not use booted Cat5. Guess what, I'm using booted cat5.

Why?

First, yes, it's a little more difficult to press the tab and remove them from the cat5 jack, BUT, after I destroyed the tabs on several cat5 cables, breaking them off when taking the cables out of the controllers and down through the wires and out the cat5 feedthrough hole, they'd get hung or snagged on something and SNAP, broken off tab, and even though I'd try to press them down to keep from snapping the tab while removing them, sometimes the damage had already been done by the tab being pulled back by getting caught on a wire, the plastic insetsor some object in the controller, ended up making it weaker and eventually broke off, if it didn't snap off at that time.

With a booted cat5, I have never snapped another tab off when removing them. Much easier for me to get them in and out without damage.

And yes, I was being extremely careful to try and avoid breaking the tabs, but still broke too many of them, but by being booted I don't have to worry about them hanging or snagging on a wire or other object once I have them out of the jack.

So my preference is now the booted ones, less repair time having to fix the cat5 cable with a new connector after breaking a tab off.

But that's just my experience and my preference, your milage may be quite different.

NOTE: on some things like the LOR ELL's you can't use booted cat5 cable. But there are EXCEPTIONS to almost everything.

[George Simmons]

A broken tab on a cat 5 cable is a helluva lot easier to deal with than a comm connector pulled loose from the board.

[dgrant]

DonFL wrote:

Orville wrote:

And don't forget now that LOR would be internet based, now you going to have very SLOW shows because you're going to have to invest and put not only malware protection into your LOR firmware, but virus protection too.  And I've seen these programs bring some computers to a crawl or even a standstill while they do their checking/cleaning.

I've heard some horror stories how some virii can literally destroy a computer motherboard or render a monitor completely useless.

Maybe I'd be safe because I don't run my show from a computer, but a DC-MP3 Showtime Director, so if LOR went the internet route with IP address and such, wouldn't that now render all these "director units" that some of us use totally useless if that WERE a requirement to establish and run your shows?

I'm with WB, if it ain't broke it don't need fixing. 

And we like it just as it is, it works and it works fantastic.   And LOR always looks at ways to improve the electronics, like with the new G3 Controllers a lot of store bought strings that require snubbers, well, now they don't need them.

But I don't see a need for complex network connections to make this work.

Many of us when we started in this had a hard enough time grasping how to get this too work and put on at least a somewhat passable show our first time, and if LOR went to that protocol, I'd wager many of the new folks that came in may have never gotten their show off the ground.   I know I wouldn't, and I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in that thought.

As it is, LOR is not exactly plug and play, but neither is it really complex, it seems like it to a first time user, but within a few hours or a couple days and using it, you get the hang of it fairly quick.   But this ISP route I think would be far too detrimental to this particular hobby just by the sheer number of new folks that came in last year in 2011.   I'd say many of them NEVER would have even gotten a simple show off the ground if LOR were using what you're proposing they use.

Personally, if they want to add it, that's fine, but make it an option not a requirement for those that want to do it that way.   Although I think you're going to find and from the current responses, most that use LOR software/hardware don't want it, nor do they see a need for it.  And with those folks I agree.

Well, got too darn long winded again....but just had to put my thoughts into perspective on what I consider a bad idea.

 

 

Orville..you wouldn't necessarily be using the "internet" per se, rather, just IP networking protocols as opposed to RS-485.

My expectation is, devices will drive the evolution...there will likely be a point where RS-485 hits the wall, and you do need a faster/more versatile data/command handling protocol. Won't render 485 useless with what you are using now, it will just be another option to use, another tool in your toolbox, so to speak.

Working in the wireless telecom field for going on 30 years, I've watched networks evolve from landline based T-1 networks for interconnection, to all IP based..its nothing to be afraid of...its where we're headed...some technologies and applications sooner rather than later.

 

Finally, Someone who understands what I'm talking about

I was handling tens of thousands of data transactions per second, both acquisition and command via gigabyte network based communication with no outside world contact and trust me, when I was dealing with a product that costs $200M and up, each... this comm method works. Yes, I agree totally, things will evolve with time and the more complex the displays become, the faster the communicationn that will be needed to run them. For now, the RS485 is fine for the usual displays.

I was simply proposing that a faster comm method is right there, almost available whereas RS485 is limited to 64 devices on a single buss or can be seen as 64 controllers. No, I did not say channels...64 controllers which is 1024 channels. So no worries, I'm mot suggesting LOR go out and change what already works. No, since I've yet to create my first display, I do not...have the experience that you all have, but I learn fast and I learn from the best, which is all of you. I can only hope to measure up to your high standards one day.

[Gilrock]

Well back to the original question. I had someone tell me that WOW Lights had cheaper prices but when I checked it out they were the same. I think the difference you see is the starter package from WOW lights has the DIY controller and the starter package at LOR includes the PRO version of the controller.

[caniac]

Gilrock wrote:

Well back to the original question. I had someone tell me that WOW Lights had cheaper prices but when I checked it out they were the same. I think the difference you see is the starter package from WOW lights has the DIY controller and the starter package at LOR includes the PRO version of the controller.

haven't checked but does LOR include 5 free sequences? That was part of the reason I went with WOW Lights, my first year I was still trying to figure out the electrical side of things and knew I would have time to sequence. Went with 5 of my Christmas favorites.

[Gilrock]

caniac wrote:

Gilrock wrote:

Well back to the original question. I had someone tell me that WOW Lights had cheaper prices but when I checked it out they were the same. I think the difference you see is the starter package from WOW lights has the DIY controller and the starter package at LOR includes the PRO version of the controller.

haven't checked but does LOR include 5 free sequences? That was part of the reason I went with WOW Lights, my first year I was still trying to figure out the electrical side of things and knew I would have time to sequence. Went with 5 of my Christmas favorites.

I bought from LOR and no I didn't get any sequences. I'm really not sure I could use sequences created from someone else....unless they match up with the lights you have you will do just as much work fixing things. Grabbing the timing from the sequences might be useful. I ordered my software/controller on Dec 20th and sequenced 2 songs and wired everything up and ran my show on Dec 27th. Had my son sequence a 3rd song...you can checkout my shows if you look at my other posts.

After I sequenced my 2 songs from scratch I started looking around and I grabbed the free version of Jingle Bells from Holdman's site just to get an idea of how he does things. I thought I could use the timing from his sequence but I ended up not being happy with it and I ended up just using the output from the Beat Wizard instead. He just had a fixed grid of 0.05 for his timing and matches the beats as close as possible to the nearest square. What happens is you end up with different numbers of squares between the main beats every so often and it makes cutting and pasting sections a pain.

Anyways I think purchasing from either vendor is fine. Usually there is an agreement that distributors have to keep consistent pricing with special sales being the exception.

Gil

[Gilrock]

caniac wrote:

Gilrock wrote:

Well back to the original question. I had someone tell me that WOW Lights had cheaper prices but when I checked it out they were the same. I think the difference you see is the starter package from WOW lights has the DIY controller and the starter package at LOR includes the PRO version of the controller.

haven't checked but does LOR include 5 free sequences? That was part of the reason I went with WOW Lights, my first year I was still trying to figure out the electrical side of things and knew I would have time to sequence. Went with 5 of my Christmas favorites.

I just checked the WOW lights website and it doesn't look like you get sequences with the kit anymore:

"Package does not include sequences, which can be created with the included software. "

Gil

[caniac]

Gilrock wrote:

caniac wrote:

Gilrock wrote:

Well back to the original question. I had someone tell me that WOW Lights had cheaper prices but when I checked it out they were the same. I think the difference you see is the starter package from WOW lights has the DIY controller and the starter package at LOR includes the PRO version of the controller.

haven't checked but does LOR include 5 free sequences? That was part of the reason I went with WOW Lights, my first year I was still trying to figure out the electrical side of things and knew I would have time to sequence. Went with 5 of my Christmas favorites.

I bought from LOR and no I didn't get any sequences. I'm really not sure I could use sequences created from someone else....unless they match up with the lights you have you will do just as much work fixing things. Grabbing the timing from the sequences might be useful. I ordered my software/controller on Dec 20th and sequenced 2 songs and wired everything up and ran my show on Dec 27th. Had my son sequence a 3rd song...you can checkout my shows if you look at my other posts.

After I sequenced my 2 songs from scratch I started looking around and I grabbed the free version of Jingle Bells from Holdman's site just to get an idea of how he does things. I thought I could use the timing from his sequence but I ended up not being happy with it and I ended up just using the output from the Beat Wizard instead. He just had a fixed grid of 0.05 for his timing and matches the beats as close as possible to the nearest square. What happens is you end up with different numbers of squares between the main beats every so often and it makes cutting and pasting sections a pain.

Anyways I think purchasing from either vendor is fine. Usually there is an agreement that distributors have to keep consistent pricing with special sales being the exception.

Gil

In my case I ordered WOWLights 32 Channel Starter Kit, had planned on using mini-trees and a mega-tree from the start so this seemed like the best way to do that. The give you a channel layout but number of channels so you know how their sequences were designed. I substituted the props I used with some of their recommendations and made changes to the sequences where necessary. All in all for what I wanted to accomplish it got me up and going fast.

[PaulXmas]

gmacw wrote:

I ran 10 controllers (160 channels) this season on one network while also running 12 CCRs. All this was with the CAT5 cables , all ran flawlessly. So I don't think speed is an issue.

Really!!!???

I have 13 controllers and 4 CCR arches and I had major issues running them on one network.

Now I did use a lot of fades in my chases, so there was a lot of changes going on, too many commads for one network.

Split them up and they run fine !

Changing to IP would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Guest guest]

PaulXmas wrote:

gmacw wrote:

I ran 10 controllers (160 channels) this season on one network while also running 12 CCRs. All this was with the CAT5 cables , all ran flawlessly. So I don't think speed is an issue.

Really!!!???

I have 13 controllers and 4 CCR arches and I had major issues running them on one network.

Now I did use a lot of fades in my chases, so there was a lot of changes going on, too many commads for one network.

Split them up and they run fine !

Changing to IP would cause more problems than it would solve.

Interesting you think going to an IP based network would cause more problems than it would solve, as the type of issue you describe would likely be less of an issue.

Fact is, until LOR goes this direction, we're all talking vapor-ware and white board design, not anything concrete.

[plasmadrive]

After talking to LOR I come to find out that every network is good for about 500 channels.. at least wireless with ELLs, which is what I run to get the data out there to the lights from inside the house. You can run multiple networks and channels on the ELLs to deal with that, but you have to have USB to RS485 converters for every network.

In my shop I have tried running more then that wired without success. I tried 6 CCRs and that ain't happening either. I had to split them up so I had 3 and 3 or 4 and 2, but it would not run all six at one time off one network without serious issues. I think the limitation is the converter from USB to RS485 converter.. but I am not sure.. I am not an IT guy.

As for the RS485 vs. E-net.. there are a couple of other things I haven't seen discussed yet. First off, RS485 is more noise immune and has a much longer range then E-net. 1000 meters vs 100 meters. If you don't need the range or noise immunity it doesn't matter. RS485 is for sure slower but do we need that speed? I guess it depends on your display. With RGB pixels and so on coming into their own I am thinking that speed will be needed some day.

As well, I used to work for a company that did LED video walls and ran into all kinds of glitch issues running high pixel count on PCs with E-net. It wasn't all E-net issue, it was a PC issue. I think that is solved by using external controllers but not everyone has those or the need for that high of a pixel count.

I guess we shall see where this all goes in the future..

[caniac]

plasmadrive wrote:

After talking to LOR I come to find out that every network is good for about 500 channels.. at least wireless with ELLs, which is what I run to get the data out there to the lights from inside the house. You can run multiple networks and channels on the ELLs to deal with that, but you have to have USB to RS485 converters for every network.

In my shop I have tried running more then that wired without success. I tried 6 CCRs and that ain't happening either. I had to split them up so I had 3 and 3 or 4 and 2, but it would not run all six at one time off one network without serious issues. I think the limitation is the converter from USB to RS485 converter.. but I am not sure.. I am not an IT guy.

As for the RS485 vs. E-net.. there are a couple of other things I haven't seen discussed yet. First off, RS485 is more noise immune and has a much longer range then E-net. 1000 meters vs 100 meters. If you don't need the range or noise immunity it doesn't matter. RS485 is for sure slower but do we need that speed? I guess it depends on your display. With RGB pixels and so on coming into their own I am thinking that speed will be needed some day.

As well, I used to work for a company that did LED video walls and ran into all kinds of glitch issues running high pixel count on PCs with E-net. It wasn't all E-net issue, it was a PC issue. I think that is solved by using external controllers but not everyone has those or the need for that high of a pixel count.

I guess we shall see where this all goes in the future..

Great post and thanks, this makes it easier to understand.

[Guest wbottomley]

plasmadrive wrote:

After talking to LOR I come to find out that every network is good for about 500 channels.. at least wireless with ELLs, which is what I run to get the data out there to the lights from inside the house.  You can run multiple networks and channels on the ELLs to deal with that, but you have to have USB to RS485 converters for every network.

In my shop I have tried running more then that wired without success. I tried 6 CCRs and that ain't happening either.  I had to split them up so I had 3 and 3 or 4 and 2, but it would not run all six at one time off one network without serious issues.  I think the limitation is the converter from USB to RS485 converter.. but I am not sure.. I am not an IT guy. 

As for the RS485 vs. E-net.. there are a couple of other things I haven't seen discussed yet.  First off, RS485 is more noise immune and has a much longer range then E-net.  1000 meters vs 100 meters.  If you don't need the range or noise immunity it doesn't matter.  RS485 is for sure slower but do we need that speed?  I guess it depends on your display. With RGB pixels and so on coming into their own I am thinking that speed will be needed some day. 

As well, I used to work for a company that did LED video walls and ran into all kinds of glitch issues running high pixel count on PCs with E-net.  It wasn't all E-net issue, it was a PC issue.  I think that is solved by using external controllers but not everyone has those or the need for that high of a pixel count. 

I guess we shall see where this all goes in the future..

Humm.... that's interesting. I'm running over 700 on one network and pushing that number up to 800 next year. I've had no problems here.

[plasmadrive]

Using the ELLs I can control 3 of the CCRs reliably. That leaves me room for a few more channels if I want to use them for controllers. That is per LOR.

Now I have connected 6 CCRs here in my shop on one cable connection directly to the Controllers for the CCRs.. I can't get reliable operation until I get down to 4 CCRs.

Now you got me wondering why..

[Don]

plasmadrive wrote:

Using the ELLs I can control 3 of the CCRs reliably.  That leaves me room for a few more channels if I want to use them for controllers.  That is per LOR.

Now I have connected 6 CCRs here in my shop on one cable connection directly to the Controllers for the CCRs.. I can't get reliable operation until I get down to 4 CCRs. 

Now you got me wondering why..

CCR's are going to use more bandwidth (on the network) than controllers. (Someone correct if I'm wrong here) but the CCR's are really 150 channels 50 Red, 50 Green and 50 Blue. 6 CCR's equal 900 channels. If you do a fade up in white, you are sending 900 commands at each step of the fade. Things get real busy, real quick.

[plasmadrive]

Ok.. just ran another test.. The ELLs won't do 4 CCRs.. that is just too much data for them. 3 works fine not 4. LOR is right about that.

Now, interestingly enough since you chimed in about your channel count it got me wondering why mine is all screwed up with more then 4 CCRs at a time and your high channel count worked. I think I may have found the issue... I have an "iffy" cable connecting the 4th and 5th CCR together. That is why the data is flakey on the 5th and 6th CCR which led me to my conclusion, WHICH WAS COMPLETELY WRONG! I have replaced it and they seem to be working fine all together now.

I am glad you chimed in.. now that I replaced that cable all 6 are working off one network!

Sorry if I confused anyone..