ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: DMX versus "slave" mode  (Read 6679 times)

duane massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1585
Re: DMX versus "slave" mode
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2013, 11:04:04 am »

As always, it depends....
If you have plenty of room on your controller, individual addresses;
If you have a simple controller that is limited in the number of fixtures you can conveniently control, grouping fixtures makes sense;
If you have a lot of fixtures and only one DMX universe, grouping makes sense;
If you are using a controller, slave mode makes no sense;
If you don't know what you are doing, master/slave with no controller makes sense.
Logged
Duane Massey
Technician, musician, stubborn old guy
Houston, Texas

Dave Potter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Re: DMX versus "slave" mode
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2013, 12:05:58 pm »

Quote
I think the OP is interested in your methodology.  Are the pairs configured as a Master/Slave, or are each pair sharing a DMX address?  Personally, I solve this problem through addressing.
Naa.  I can guarantee that the OP was mostly concerned about the technical characteristics of how slave mode works.  In particular, whether slave mode was a standard sub set of DMX, and therefore if equipment from different manufacturers aught to work together without a controller.  It turns out, that its isn't and they won't.

I didn't ask if it was a good idea  ;)
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: DMX versus "slave" mode
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2013, 12:05:58 pm »


Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.117 seconds with 25 queries.