ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => Wireless and Communications => Topic started by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 08:58:35 am

Title: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 08:58:35 am
Having filed the Ubiquity Bullet in the garbage can (Apple Airport Express too...), I am on the hunt for something that WORKS. Spent many hours trying to get repeatable results to no avail.
Must  pack in a brief case reasonably well, dual band or 5 gig only (not an antenna farm device) not require an IT certification to set up and MUST work with Yamaha M7 and LS9 consoles and across other console brands.
I would really appreciate input from those who actually have a device that works with the Yamaha consoles .  "it should work" responses are not helpful.
For some reason, the older Yammys are quite fussy but seem to work fine on cheap OTC "routers"
I'm not too concerned with cheap...I want results. Must plug in and work every time I need it.
I'm fed up with dicking around with these devices every time I want to use them.
Yes, in case you have not figured it out...I'm frustrated  >:(

Suggestions welcomed. :)
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Cailen Waddell on May 12, 2017, 09:12:57 am
Having filed the Ubiquity Bullet in the garbage can (Apple Airport Express too...), I am on the hunt for something that WORKS. Spent many hours trying to get repeatable results to no avail.
Must  pack in a brief case reasonably well, dual band or 5 gig only (not an antenna farm device) not require an IT certification to set up and MUST work with Yamaha M7 and LS9 consoles and across other console brands.
I would really appreciate input from those who actually have a device that works with the Yamaha consoles .  "it should work" responses are not helpful.
For some reason, the older Yammys are quite fussy but seem to work fine on cheap OTC "routers"
I'm not too concerned with cheap...I want results. Must plug in and work every time I need it.
I'm fed up with dicking around with these devices every time I want to use them.
Yes, in case you have not figured it out...I'm frustrated  >:(

Suggestions welcomed. :)

I can get the exact model at work - but we use a netgear home/office router/wap and it works superbly.  We have them in 2 theaters and a mobile rig.  We use them with M7 and CL consoles

We do have success with airport expresses - but haven't used them with a Yamaha console so... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: BrianHenry on May 12, 2017, 09:41:36 am
I've been using a SOHO class Netgear router too in my mobile rig as well (for no other reason than I had it sitting around) and it has been flawless. About 20 shows so far. I'll look up the model but I don't know if it's in production anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 12, 2017, 10:00:55 am
We have several Netgear N600 WAPs, regular use with Yamaha consoles with no complaints. Dual band, small, etc.  The exact model # varies with the season, along with the cosmetics, but they've all been pretty solid.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2017, 10:55:19 am
N300 or N600 netgear we use on M7's
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Tim Weaver on May 12, 2017, 11:13:08 am
 Netgear seems to be pretty good kit. Everything at work is netgear.

That said, I've been using the Linksys/Cisco stuff for years without issue. Once set up, they just keep working and working.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2017, 11:45:51 am
I know you said you're pissed and only want what works and that others have used.

But I installed this at my parents house which is 3.5 acres in the attic for their wireless cameras and to have wifi everywhere. It's only 2.4GHz. But it covers to the road (easily +600ft) to my laptop.

No dropouts within 400ft of the house and that is with 3x 3-8mbps HD cameras.

Ubiquiti UAPOUTDOOR+US Unifi UAP-Outdoor+ Wireless Access Point 802.11 B/G/N
by Ubiquiti Networks
Link: http://a.co/idJbY29

They have an AC (2.4/5GHz) model and that is what I plan on getting for my system. That way it works even if I'm outdoors in a festival and want to walk around the crowd. I'm sure I could get away with their smaller non outdoor AP's, but I'd rather have the insane range and dial it down when not needed.

Combine with a cheapo netgear router. disable its wifi. Boom easy peasy.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 11:46:06 am
I can get the exact model at work - but we use a netgear home/office router/wap and it works superbly.  We have them in 2 theaters and a mobile rig.  We use them with M7 and CL consoles

We do have success with airport expresses - but haven't used them with a Yamaha console so... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The model # would be great!
Thanks :)
I will look at Netgear products.
Thanks for the replies.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 11:49:48 am
I know you said you're pissed and only want what works and that others have used.


Yes. That's correct.
Your post comes under the "should work" answer.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 12, 2017, 12:04:40 pm
I know you said you're pissed and only want what works and that others have used.

But I installed this at my parents house which is 3.5 acres in the attic for their wireless cameras and to have wifi everywhere. It's only 2.4GHz. But it covers to the road (easily +600ft) to my laptop.

No dropouts within 400ft of the house and that is with 3x 3-8mbps HD cameras.

Ubiquiti UAPOUTDOOR+US Unifi UAP-Outdoor+ Wireless Access Point 802.11 B/G/N
by Ubiquiti Networks
Link: http://a.co/idJbY29

You would not need the router for this application.  The 2.4Ghz only for the LR stuff is a non-starter.  We must use 5Ghz hence the interest in the bullet.


All that being said the Unifi UAP-AC-PRO is very solid and a real 802.3af powered device.



They have an AC (2.4/5GHz) model and that is what I plan on getting for my system. That way it works even if I'm outdoors in a festival and want to walk around the crowd. I'm sure I could get away with their smaller non outdoor AP's, but I'd rather have the insane range and dial it down when not needed.

Combine with a cheapo netgear router. disable its wifi. Boom easy peasy.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2017, 12:06:18 pm
Yes. That's correct.
Your post comes under the "should work" answer.

Which is why I gave the tried-and-true answer first.

That being said, this forum has a habit of pushing its posters to think/do outside of the boundaries of their original post.

Here's the exact list of what we're using where.
3x M7's WPN824NA, and WNR3500L N300
3x TF5  ASUS RT-ACRH13, UAP-AC-PRO-US
xr18 TL-WR841N
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Corey Scogin on May 12, 2017, 12:11:39 pm
Ubiquiti UAPOUTDOOR+US Unifi UAP-Outdoor+ Wireless Access Point 802.11 B/G/N
by Ubiquiti Networks
Link: http://a.co/idJbY29

This is what I use too. I use a velcro strap to mount it on a spare mic stand up high. The setup wasn't completely automatic but it was much easier than what I read over on the Bullet thread.

The UAP-AC-Pro that Scott mentioned is a good option too. The form factor just isn't as nice for mounting on something portable.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2017, 12:16:31 pm
You would not need the router for this application.  The 2.4Ghz only for the LR stuff is a non-starter.  We must use 5Ghz hence the interest in the bullet.

All that being said the Unifi UAP-AC-PRO is very solid and a real 802.3af powered device.
Why is 2.4 out of question? Unless you tell (more work) the AP to separate the 2.4/5 it will put the device on whichever band works best.

5.0 has LESS distance (all else being equal). Using 5.0 is for congested environments.

I did say get the AC variant so that you have the option of 2.4 and 5.0

I also disagree about the router not needed. I'd say many issues comes from trying to get AP's to work is because there isn't a router doing the decision making. Static IP's help even more.

No, I don't know much about networking. But what I do know is what I do WORKS every time (AP + router + device)
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:17:06 pm
I used (and still sometimes use) the venerable Linksys WRT-54GS. Flashed it with DD-WRT firmware so I could up the TX power to max. 100% reliable, works for a pretty good distance as long as the building isn't too crowded. (it's 2.4g only).

I upgraded to the Ubiquiti Nanostation M5 last year because I wanted a good 5GHZ AP with lots of range. Other than the baffling fact that you cannot use this device "out of the box" - it requires (to my non-IT brain) detailed and confusing configuration settings to be set before it actually works with your devices, since then it's been working great.

As you know, I use mostly Yamaha consoles.

Oh, I also have a tiny portable Linksys WRT-54GC which is great to throw in your carry-on. Works great for wireless access when you don't need to get further than the edge of the stage.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:22:27 pm
Using 5.0 is for congested environments.


Exactly!
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:24:36 pm
Which is why I gave the tried-and-true answer first.

That being said, this forum has a habit of pushing its posters to think/do outside of the boundaries of their original post.

Here's the exact list of what we're using where.
3x M7's WPN824NA, and WNR3500L N300
3x TF5  ASUS RT-ACRH13, UAP-AC-PRO-US
xr18 TL-WR841N
Now THAT's what I call a specific answer  :D
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:27:42 pm
Other than the baffling fact that you cannot use this device "out of the box" - it requires (to my non-IT brain) detailed and confusing configuration settings to be set before it actually works with your devices,
I think I have had enough of on the  Ubiquity product. ;)
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:30:46 pm
retracted
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Bob Charest on May 12, 2017, 12:31:21 pm
Yes. That's correct.
Your post comes under the "should work" answer.
Hi Keith,

As you likely remember from previous posts, my Ubiquiti bullet M5 works for us and has since I installed it.

I configured and tested the backup M5 that I bought, and it worked as well.

I don't understand why the brand of IP addressable mixer connected to the router would make any difference, so I've likely missed something.

With that said, I completely understand your frustration and your reaction - especially with Ubiquiti gear. Doc is minimal, and I don't want to go to a user group to get simple doc/operational questions answered.

I tried installing a couple of their PicoStations at home for APs -weird results then failure, then couldn't correctly upgrade firmware, etc.

Fortunately, I could return to Amazon, but, if not, it would've been the trash bin for those...

I am completely with you; Stuff has to work as configured every time or else it is useless junk.

Best regards,
Bob Charest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2017, 12:41:47 pm
I used (and still sometimes use) the venerable Linksys WRT-54GS.

Same here! :D Mine has the antenna chewed on (I think previous owner had a dog), I throw it on stage and run a cat5 to the board and to the xilica. Boom, instant network!
It's bogging down with 10 iThingies on it though :( so that's why I'm upgrading.

I did look up the N600 and I can get my hands on one locally. Thanks for that. :)

The whole camera install was the "it should work" reference. Not exactly console control.
I have had enough "out of the box" thinking with the Ubiquity product  ::)

No worries, and I get that. And you did state "No Maybes." Sorry if I jumped the gun a bit.

I was mainly trying to detail how it is streaming a constant 25Mbps with peaks around 50Mbps 24/7 with zero issues. And the minimal traffic that our controller apps contribute to a network wouldn't phase the setup. The setup was also painless (and I'm no IT guy).

That M5 Bullet thread...I agree that's confusing and painful, I wouldn't want to even try making that work.

Heck recently, they had to unplug everything (N600 + OutdoorAP + modem) to paint and I just plugged it all back in and without having to reconfigure any settings or login at all it all just 'worked' (It helped that I set static IP for the AP).

Anyways, sorry to de-rail your thread.

Hopefully the other answers help out.

Netgear all the way.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:44:36 pm

I don't understand why the brand of IP addressable mixer connected to the router would make any difference, so I've likely missed something.


Neither do I but I keep getting the "no wifi available" message with anything other than cheap 'routers" on the M7
When the Bullet did work, it was great, but not reliable.
I have launched $300 worth of equipment into the bin as the results are not worth the frustration. If they are out of sight, I won't be tempted to try again....and again...and again.
Can't tell you how many hours I have wasted on this.
Here is the deal...
When I turn the key on the car, I want the f#&* thing to start!
Same with WiFi remote control. All I should have to do is address the console(s) to the correct IP range.

This whole networking think hurts my head. At least Dante networks actually...well...WORK!
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2017, 12:53:02 pm
I have launched $300 worth of equipment into the bin as the results are not worth the frustration. If they are out of sight, I won't be tempted to try again....and again...and again.

I'll pay for shipping & some frustration compensation :P

This is what I use too. I use a velcro strap to mount it on a spare mic stand up high. The setup wasn't completely automatic but it was much easier than what I read over on the Bullet thread.

This is basically my plan to get/do. But it is for my A&H gear not Yamaha, so no halps to OP.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 12, 2017, 12:56:51 pm
Neither do I but I keep getting the "no wifi available" message with anything other than cheap 'routers" on the M7
Assuming that message is coming up on your iPad, that certainly is not related to the console you're using. If you're getting that message, you'd get it even without a console connected.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on May 12, 2017, 01:10:47 pm
Assuming that message is coming up on your iPad, that certainly is not related to the console you're using. If you're getting that message, you'd get it even without a console connected.

I agree.  This is an issue between your remote device and whatever router/WAP is in use, not the console.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Rob Spence on May 12, 2017, 02:17:39 pm
I use Netgear WNDR3700 units. They just work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 12, 2017, 02:51:44 pm
Assuming that message is coming up on your iPad, that certainly is not related to the console you're using. If you're getting that message, you'd get it even without a console connected.
I agree.  This is an issue between your remote device and whatever router/WAP is in use, not the console.

If you're getting a "No WiFi Available" message on StageMix when using static IPs and don't have other WiFi issues, then that can be because the DNS/Router info is left blank in the network config on the iPad.
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=161626.0 (http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=161626.0)
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 13, 2017, 08:13:00 am
Assuming that message is coming up on your iPad, that certainly is not related to the console you're using. If you're getting that message, you'd get it even without a console connected.
True.
To be more accurate, it's the Yamaha software that is throwing the code.
It's not "seeing" something it wants and no one I have talked to can elaborate as to what it is.
Doesn't happen on any other console software on the iPad.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 13, 2017, 10:24:21 am
True.
To be more accurate, it's the Yamaha software that is throwing the code.
It's not "seeing" something it wants and no one I have talked to can elaborate as to what it is.
Doesn't happen on any other console software on the iPad.

I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but just in case...

Aside from the TF series, which is a much newer design in terms of networking and user interface, Yamaha consoles w/ a network port pretty much have to be on the same subnet with the computer or iPad running remote control software. That's the basic problem with the Bullet, in that it has only one hardware port which is essentially the same as the "Internet" port on most small wifi routers. We use Netgear N600 wifi routers, and they have four local ports and one Internet port. Guess which port is always covered with a P-Touch label saying "don't use"?

We bought one of those Bullets a couple years back, and it's useful for some things but definitely not controlling Yamaha consoles.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Jean-Pierre Coetzee on May 13, 2017, 12:47:00 pm
I'm not sure if this is a terminology thing but I'm Perry sure that unless you have two correctly stop rioters linking the subnets nothing will communicate unless it's on the same subnet...

If your using a proper switch and not just a cheap one it could be that the Yamaha consoles just don't recognise IP traffic correctly and therefore the switch doesn't forward it correctly but I'm no IT pro so I could be misunderstanding things.

As far as I know ubiquity and a lot of higher end WAP devices have a lot more granular control of things, it could likely be a configuration setting that Yamaha hasn't address that is causing the incomparability.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 13, 2017, 12:52:59 pm
True.
To be more accurate, it's the Yamaha software that is throwing the code.
It's not "seeing" something it wants and no one I have talked to can elaborate as to what it is.
Doesn't happen on any other console software on the iPad.
Just checking, but you know that on the with the iPad Air 2 and up you have to set the M7 interface to 10meg instead of 100meg in the network settings, right?
Also, you are filling in the Router and DNS fields on your iPad if you're using Static IPs, correct? I never use static, I set my WAP to the 192.168.0.x subnet (default for Yamaha) and use DHCP. It's more convenient and works every time for me.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 13, 2017, 12:54:50 pm
I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but just in case...

Aside from the TF series, which is a much newer design in terms of networking and user interface, Yamaha consoles w/ a network port pretty much have to be on the same subnet with the computer or iPad running remote control software. That's the basic problem with the Bullet, in that it has only one hardware port which is essentially the same as the "Internet" port on most small wifi routers. We use Netgear N600 wifi routers, and they have four local ports and one Internet port. Guess which port is always covered with a P-Touch label saying "don't use"?

We bought one of those Bullets a couple years back, and it's useful for some things but definitely not controlling Yamaha consoles.
That's why I bought the NanoStation. It has 2 ports and works as a DHCP server too. Seems to me the Bullet is meant to be used with a router.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 13, 2017, 02:05:04 pm
That's why I bought the NanoStation. It has 2 ports and works as a DHCP server too. Seems to me the Bullet is meant to be used with a router.

The Bullet is basically meant to send the Internet to a big antenna. We've been asked to do that a couple times, and the Bullet works pretty well in that role.  The difficulty is that Yamaha really didn't design the M7/CL generation consoles to work over a real network, hence the requirement to include a MAC address in the configuration.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 13, 2017, 02:09:59 pm
The Bullet is basically meant to send the Internet to a big antenna. We've been asked to do that a couple times, and the Bullet works pretty well in that role.  The difficulty is that Yamaha really didn't design the M7/CL generation consoles to work over a real network, hence the requirement to include a MAC address in the configuration.
The CL/QL editor and StageMix apps don't require a MAC address.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 13, 2017, 05:49:02 pm
Why is 2.4 out of question? Unless you tell (more work) the AP to separate the 2.4/5 it will put the device on whichever band works best.

5.0 has LESS distance (all else being equal). Using 5.0 is for congested environments.

I did say get the AC variant so that you have the option of 2.4 and 5.0

I also disagree about the router not needed. I'd say many issues comes from trying to get AP's to work is because there isn't a router doing the decision making. Static IP's help even more.

No, I don't know much about networking. But what I do know is what I do WORKS every time (AP + router + device)

It's always a crowded RF environment.  I just consider 2.4 unusable and move on. 

What decision making WRT the router?  I don't understand that statement.  Routers route.  If the wireless only contains 1 network why would you need a router?  Where would it forward packets too. 

Routers don't touch packets that are on the same LAN as a connected interface to the router.  That's why the subnet mask exists.

I suggest you go back to the wonderful network primer here on the site and review basic networking.

Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 14, 2017, 02:09:31 pm
The CL/QL editor and StageMix apps don't require a MAC address.

It's probably still in there somewhere, just not where you have to input it manually.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 14, 2017, 02:17:59 pm
It's probably still in there somewhere, just not where you have to input it manually.
I'm curious as to what this indicates to you. i.e. the difference between that and something that was, as you say, designed to "work over a real network"? I have no problem connecting to my consoles over a network, but I'm sure you mean something else.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 14, 2017, 06:49:38 pm
I'm curious as to what this indicates to you. i.e. the difference between that and something that was, as you say, designed to "work over a real network"? I have no problem connecting to my consoles over a network, but I'm sure you mean something else.

The MAC address isn't supposed to matter or need to be visible over a large network (ie things on more than one subnet). That Yamaha made it part of how they control the console means that you're basically stuck with the console and the controller on the same subnet where the MAC can be seen.  I don't think they've changed that issue, I think that they've just finessed the setup in the software to hide the MAC address from the user. The controller software can get the MAC address after it's made contact using the IP address.

There are a lot of different protocols that can be used over Ethernet, but not all of them are "Internet capable".  For whatever reason Yamaha chose to use protocol(s) that are really only usable over a subnet, not the Internet.  That limits the particular hardware that you can use to control a Yamaha console to that which will support those local-only protocols.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 15, 2017, 10:34:10 am
Why is 2.4 out of question? Unless you tell (more work) the AP to separate the 2.4/5 it will put the device on whichever band works best.

5.0 has LESS distance (all else being equal). Using 5.0 is for congested environments.

I did say get the AC variant so that you have the option of 2.4 and 5.0

I also disagree about the router not needed. I'd say many issues comes from trying to get AP's to work is because there isn't a router doing the decision making. Static IP's help even more.

No, I don't know much about networking. But what I do know is what I do WORKS every time (AP + router + device)

It's always a crowded RF environment.  I just consider 2.4 unusable and move on. 

What decision making WRT the router?  I don't understand that statement.  Routers route.  If the wireless only contains 1 network why would you need a router?  Where would it forward packets too. 

Routers don't touch packets that are on the same LAN as a connected interface to the router.  That's why the subnet mask exists.

I suggest you go back to the wonderful network primer here on the site and review basic networking.

I wasn't clear, and I should have been.

For the typical end user who just wants something to WORK, let the router/switch/wifi combo unit do ALL of the decision making for you, EXCEPT: static IP the device (mixer) and control (tablet/iPad). This would be the most typical user environment, mixer + store bought router + control device.

In the slightly more desirable (supposedly more range) and advanced (more setup) configuration where an AP is utilized. Do the same as above, except: turn off wifi on router, & ensure AP is static IP.

While sure you can hookup an AP directly to the mixer and hope for things to workout, I really haven't had success without DHCP (router) going (even though static IP's are being used).

Using switch only and assigning static IP's is a fantastic way to slow you down. Do static for the devices that require 100% reliability and be done).

If you have insane amounts of time, sure, by all means ensure that each IP is in a range, use the switch, disable whatever stuff you want on the router, etc.

For the typical user (me/Keith?/lounge level) keeping things simple is usually both less hassle to setup/configure and easier.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 15, 2017, 10:45:17 am
The CL/QL editor and StageMix apps don't require a MAC address.
It's probably still in there somewhere, just not where you have to input it manually.
The MAC address isn't supposed to matter or need to be visible over a large network (ie things on more than one subnet). That Yamaha made it part of how they control the console means that you're basically stuck with the console and the controller on the same subnet where the MAC can be seen.  I don't think they've changed that issue, I think that they've just finessed the setup in the software to hide the MAC address from the user. The controller software can get the MAC address after it's made contact using the IP address.

You don't need to know (or use) the console's MAC address to communicate with the CL/QL. My software connects just fine only knowing the console's IP address.

Quote
There are a lot of different protocols that can be used over Ethernet, but not all of them are "Internet capable".  For whatever reason Yamaha chose to use protocol(s) that are really only usable over a subnet, not the Internet.  That limits the particular hardware that you can use to control a Yamaha console to that which will support those local-only protocols.

I've never tried communicating with a Yamaha desk over the internet, but it would be an interesting experiment. I would expect it would work with the CL/QL.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 15, 2017, 01:05:39 pm
You don't need to know (or use) the console's MAC address to communicate with the CL/QL. My software connects just fine only knowing the console's IP address.

Software: Hi, whoever is on IP address 192.168.0.128, are you a CL5?
CL5: Yes, I am!  Here's my MAC address so we can really talk to each other, AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF.
Software: Thanks, glad to get those boring formalities out of the way.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 15, 2017, 01:29:25 pm
Software: Hi, whoever is on IP address 192.168.0.128, are you a CL5?
CL5: Yes, I am!  Here's my MAC address so we can really talk to each other, AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF.
Software: Thanks, glad to get those boring formalities out of the way.
You misunderstand. My software (the software I wrote) does no such handshaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 15, 2017, 03:27:03 pm
You misunderstand. My software (the software I wrote) does no such handshaking.

Never mind, then!   :P

Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 16, 2017, 01:40:07 am
Never mind, then!   :P
So do you now feel it likely that the CL/QL WILL work on a "real" network after all?
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Scott Helmke on May 16, 2017, 12:25:14 pm
So do you now feel it likely that the CL/QL WILL work on a "real" network after all?

I'm still skeptical, actually. Easy networking has generally not been something Yamaha is good at, though the TF series is way better in that regard. 

What environment do you write your software in, and how does it hook into the console?
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Andrew Broughton on May 16, 2017, 12:28:56 pm
I'm still skeptical, actually. Easy networking has generally not been something Yamaha is good at, though the TF series is way better in that regard. 

What environment do you write your software in, and how does it hook into the console?
Probably not good to derail this topic even further. Click on my sig if you're interested.
Title: Re: recommendation for WAP
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 16, 2017, 06:39:37 pm
Probably not good to derail this topic even further. Click on my sig if you're interested.
Too late  ;)