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 => Lighting Forum => Topic started by: frank kayser on January 19, 2019, 01:24:15 pm

Title: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: frank kayser on January 19, 2019, 01:24:15 pm

Hi folks,I've had it with things like the Obey (and the like) DMX controller systems.  I want to go with a software solution.  I know those hardware controllers will do the job, but their programming and operation is far from intuitive, especially with different types of fixtures and modes.  Also, there will be assorted folks using the lights.  With scenes and chases programmed, maybe a button away.


So the basic question is USB or Ethernet?


Both will need some type of computer for control - QLC+ has custom version designed to run on a Raspberry Pi.  It can run multiple universes.  I do not believe there is USB-3 on the board; only USB-2.


I have WiFi and hardwired POE AF capable ethernet installed at the cafe with some unused drops on/near the stage.  10-12 lights max. for primarily music-performance stage.


I need a way to translate what comes out of the computer to DMX.  I know of USB and Ethernet/ARTNET devices.


Is one inherently "better" than the other?


Let's assume I would like to put room lights and artwork accent lights/dimmers on another universe or two in the future.


Would that make a difference in which type of interface to use?
Is one more reliable than the other?
Is one more flexible than the other?
Does one have a better data/refresh rate than the other?


How much traffic would be generated by the Artnet/Ethernet?  Running at gig speed hardwired on separate VLAN should help keep the public network, sound control network, and office network operating at speed.  Of course, USB does not have that issue.


I'm assuming capability is controlled exclusively by the software.


As far as software, I can run QLC+ on the MAC or Raspberry Pi - networked so control can be via iPad.  That would support both USB and Artner/Ethernet.
I could also use a product like Luminaire which runs natively on iPad which I believe would be Artnet/Ethernet alone.


Am I asking the right questions?


Thanks
frank
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Dave Garoutte on January 19, 2019, 03:07:44 pm
I've had good luck with the ENTTEC ODE (with Luminair), but it's only one universe.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Lyle Williams on January 19, 2019, 03:14:48 pm
Artnet has better compatibility.  Every bit of hardware just seems to work with every bit of artnet software.

USB is less fiddly.  There are just less bits to plug together.

Refresh rates are determined by the number of channels output and the bitrate of DMX.  It should be the same for all products, save the dodgey-est USB.

Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Debbie Dunkley on January 19, 2019, 04:22:05 pm
I've had good luck with the ENTTEC ODE (with Luminair), but it's only one universe.

Me too - been using this method for a while now and I get very few problems - most caused by wi-fi interference in high traffic areas - happens rarely though... I do NOT want to have to take my laptop to every show - just more to get damaged or lose.

I also have a DMX KING ODE which works just as well as the Enttec and is cheaper.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Jeff Lelko on January 19, 2019, 05:16:39 pm
Hi Frank, just to take a step back, is there a reason why you've chosen QLC+ or Luminair?  As far as USB vs Ethernet, to me, a lot of it comes down to use.  For multi-universe applications or situations where units accept ArtNET directly I'd vote for the networked solution, whereas for something simple I prefer USB.  You plug in the box and it works - very little to go wrong with those, and for bench-testing in the shop it's my preferable solution versus pulling out a full-sized console or setting up a computer usb -> ethernet adapter -> gateway -> DMX system.  The only catch is that you have to get the right USB interface for the software you plan to use, hence my question.  Hope this helps!
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: frank kayser on January 19, 2019, 10:50:25 pm
Hi Frank, just to take a step back, is there a reason why you've chosen QLC+ or Luminair?  As far as USB vs Ethernet, to me, a lot of it comes down to use.  For multi-universe applications or situations where units accept ArtNET directly I'd vote for the networked solution, whereas for something simple I prefer USB.  You plug in the box and it works - very little to go wrong with those, and for bench-testing in the shop it's my preferable solution versus pulling out a full-sized console or setting up a computer usb -> ethernet adapter -> gateway -> DMX system.  The only catch is that you have to get the right USB interface for the software you plan to use, hence my question.  Hope this helps!


Enttec is like saying Kleenex for a tissue, or making a Xerox copy.  So when talking ArtNET over Ethernet, Enttec ODE becomes the go-to, or the generic clone of that interface.  Thanks for relaying the positives Dave, Lyle, and Debbie.


To Jeff's question as to how I got here, and the choices I've made (actually still under consideration), probably need to fill in some of my experiences.


[Editorial] As for DMX512 protocol in general, it looks like complete anarchy - the wild west - as far as any standardization. None comes to mind.  As a manufacturer, do what you want, and don't worry about anything that goes before.   Even within the same brand, there is no consistency in what channels/values do what.  The DMX pile of spaghetti can be cleaned up quickly and easily with software.  [/Editorial]


As for QLC+ and Luminaire, QLC+ had my fixtures already defined, and had reasonable tutorials on line. A year or two I started looking at QLC+ and Lightkey on the Mac, Vibro and Osram on the iPad.  I did not wish to put money into Luminaire.  My patience grew short futzing with Lightkey, and Osram using an Enttec ODE.  Fixture definitions were a problem, as was setting both to run over my "test" network at home.  Without decent fixture definitions, that made it hard to sort out the rest. Literally, chasing my tail.  The need for this type of lighting control vanished, and so did my curiosity, and desire to work on the project.


So we got some new lights for the cafe - some hex-par from ADJ and ADJ Megabar RGBA units. I really was hoping by staying within the ADJ brand, thinking most of the basic RGBA and dimmer would be on the same channels.  Nope.  Add that strobe was on solid at 255, and dark at zero  added a useless channel (for me) to get basically nothing done. Gee, if the strobe was ON at zero, and dark at 255... Well, it wasn't.  Dimmer and strobe were on different channels, dashing my hopes of simply using the six visible sliders to do something like dimmer, R,G,B,A,W.  HA!


I priced out DMXKing interface and realized I was within $50 of what the current HW controller was.


So I started looking at software. QLC+ was already on the Mac, and had my fixtures, and those decent video tutorials.  And could be made "user friendly" for others that may wish to light the stage during the day.  So I dragged out the Enttec ODE, blow off the dust, and began to assemble a proof of concept.


As for Luminaire, that seems to be the "go to" software here on PSW for iPad control.  I haven't actually looked at anything iPad yet... Still on the MAC Proof of concept.


Still chewing on the other points you've made.  Put in the above-the-shoulders mixer and see what comes out.


thanks
frank
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Jeff Lelko on January 19, 2019, 11:53:03 pm
[Editorial] As for DMX512 protocol in general, it looks like complete anarchy - the wild west - as far as any standardization. None comes to mind.  As a manufacturer, do what you want, and don't worry about anything that goes before.   Even within the same brand, there is no consistency in what channels/values do what.  The DMX pile of spaghetti can be cleaned up quickly and easily with software.  [/Editorial]

I can see where you're coming from, but looks can be deceiving.  DMX is actually very standardized.  You can read the basic Wikipedia page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMX512) if you're curious about the details of the protocol, and Doug Fleenor's website has some good white paper articles as well.  As far as attribute assignment goes, yes, there's no standard to that.  When you think about it, DMX devices vary so greatly that any standardization would end up being a waste of data.  The attributes of a moving light will differ from an LED Par, which will differ still from various effect lights.  A good example would be my Elation Sniper Pros - while they have some industry-standard attributes such as pan/tilt/shutter/CMY, they also have several attributes that are specific to just that fixture.  Heck, I've even built a DMX doorbell!  As you point out, the software end of a lighting controller can help to clean this up drastically and make things easier to use, especially as attributes get more complex.

The reason I mention this is because DMX is DMX.  It doesn't matter if it's coming out your computer's USB port or if it's first traveling through an Ethernet protocol.  So long as the device outputs protocol-compliant DMX, how you get there is largely irrelevant.  That said, secondary factors such as reliability, complexity, and software/controller compatibility are what usually drive the decision for me barring applications with large numbers of complex fixtures.   

Having your fixtures already defined in the software is a good start, so I can see how that led you to where you are right now.  Most software will allow you to make your own fixtures, so not having them included shouldn't be a dealbreaker.  For the platforms I'm proficient on I can usually make a fixture profile in about 10 minutes so long as the unit's manual correctly defines the DMX attributes, so doing this isn't a big deal. 

Luminaire has the unique advantage of being able to run off a tablet exclusively.  I know Debbie and others use this and have more experience than I do, and thus can better answer questions but since you're a fixed installation I don't know if you'd really be able to take advantage of it in that regard.  Most other software controllers can be remote controlled via a tablet - they just can't be run exclusively from one.  I'd almost think the opposite would be desirable - set up a Mac Mini somewhere to "host" your controller and then just wifi in with a tablet when you want to make adjustments or run a show.  Several controllers also allow for additional control options such as a small panel installed on a wall somewhere convenient for your staff or visiting performers to use the system.  Definitely lots to consider.

QLC+ is okay, though it doesn't have the same support and pedigree that other options like MagicQ, Onyx, Nomad, etc. have.  That probably doesn't matter so much for your application, but just more food for thought.   

I can definitely understand your frustration with the ADJ fixture channels not lining up with each other.  You can imagine the additional frustration when units of the same make/model have different firmware installed and thus behave differently even amongst themselves!  In your case, that's unfortunately where the smaller hardware controllers start to show their limitations.  Any software solution (and "medium" level hardware board) should be able to be set up so that your 6 faders do dimmer, R, G, B, A, W even if the fixtures don't have those attributes mapped in the same order. 

I don't know if any of this really answers any questions, but hopefully it gives you more to think about!
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: frank kayser on January 20, 2019, 06:53:11 am


I can see where you're coming from, but looks can be deceiving.  DMX is actually very standardized.  You can read the basic Wikipedia page here if you're curious about the details of the protocol, and Doug Fleenor's website has some good white paper articles as well.  As far as attribute assignment goes, yes, there's no standard to that.  When you think about it, DMX devices vary so greatly that any standardization would end up being a waste of data.  The attributes of a moving light will differ from an LED Par, which will differ still from various effect lights.  A good example would be my Elation Sniper Pros - while they have some industry-standard attributes such as pan/tilt/shutter/CMY, they also have several attributes that are specific to just that fixture.  Heck, I've even built a DMX doorbell!  As you point out, the software end of a lighting controller can help to clean this up drastically and make things easier to use, especially as attributes get more complex.


The reason I mention this is because DMX is DMX.  It doesn't matter if it's coming out your computer's USB port or if it's first traveling through an Ethernet protocol.  So long as the device outputs protocol-compliant DMX, how you get there is largely irrelevant.  That said, secondary factors such as reliability, complexity, and software/controller compatibility are what usually drive the decision for me barring applications with large numbers of complex fixtures.   


Having your fixtures already defined in the software is a good start, so I can see how that led you to where you are right now.  Most software will allow you to make your own fixtures, so not having them included shouldn't be a dealbreaker.  For the platforms I'm proficient on I can usually make a fixture profile in about 10 minutes so long as the unit's manual correctly defines the DMX attributes, so doing this isn't a big deal.
Thanks, Jeff.  You're right. DMX is DMX.  It is a industry-standard and the protocol itself is well defined.  Absolutely amazing things are done using the protocol.


Part of the learning curve of creating a fixture is the language.  Having to do this first thing out of the box is not ideal.  Seeing how a fixture is defined in the light fixture creator makes the light bulb go on, so to speak.  Making one after that is no big deal.  Have to get some type of toe hold, though.
Quote
<snip>
I can definitely understand your frustration with the ADJ fixture channels not lining up with each other.  You can imagine the additional frustration when units of the same make/model have different firmware installed and thus behave differently even amongst themselves!  In your case, that's unfortunately where the smaller hardware controllers start to show their limitations.  Any software solution (and "medium" level hardware board) should be able to be set up so that your 6 faders do dimmer, R, G, B, A, W even if the fixtures don't have those attributes mapped in the same order. 
I hear you.  This is what I was calling DMX the wild west for.  I fail to see why a manufacturer would create a chip with the channel/value definitions, and then later substitute a chip with different mappings.  I guess I just can't wrap my head around that logic (or lack thereof).  Someone has to make that chip, and one would think they would look to prior art and not reinvent the wheel every single time it comes around.  I suspect volume sellers like ADJ and Chauvet would spec the same mapping across same brand/model so they are not quite so frustrating to the end user.  Trying to map across models with differing functions... Well, I'll leave that one there.
Quote
Luminaire has the unique advantage of being able to run off a tablet exclusively.  I know Debbie and others use this and have more experience than I do, and thus can better answer questions but since you're a fixed installation I don't know if you'd really be able to take advantage of it in that regard.
Which begs the question, now that the modern iPad can multitask, can the same iPad run Luminaire and the sound control software from Yamaha, A&H, Behringer, etc? Should I run both together?
Quote
Most other software controllers can be remote controlled via a tablet - they just can't be run exclusively from one.  I'd almost think the opposite would be desirable - set up a Mac Mini somewhere to "host" your controller and then just wifi in with a tablet when you want to make adjustments or run a show.  Several controllers also allow for additional control options such as a small panel installed on a wall somewhere convenient for your staff or visiting performers to use the system.  Definitely lots to consider.
One thing I found is that QLC+ has a version optimized for a Raspberry Pi, controlled through a thin-client web interface. Getting all that to work (little experience with Linux) would be its own challenge. A Mac Mini surely would be more familiar ground.  Cost-wise between the two, I could presumably run it on a Windows Stick PC, too. https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2482277,00.asp.
Quote
QLC+ is okay, though it doesn't have the same support and pedigree that other options like MagicQ, Onyx, Nomad, etc. have.  That probably doesn't matter so much for your application, but just more food for thought.   


I don't know if any of this really answers any questions, but hopefully it gives you more to think about!


I'll look into MagicQ, Onyx, and Nomad while I'm looking around.  I'll agree that QLC+ may not have the pedigree, but it seems that there are regular upgrades and new features, also with what appears a vibrant user forum base.  Call for help?  Uhhh... can't say!


Lots of good info, Jeff.  Thanks much.
frank

Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Dave Garoutte on January 20, 2019, 02:42:55 pm
I do simple lighting for my shows.  No movers.
I'm currently using Luminair3.
I've used Obey type controllers (Too much desk space) as well as Martin MPC with an M-touch( way too steep learning curve).
This is perfect for my needs.

The thing I really like about it is that you can completely ignore dmx channels that you aren't going to use.
You can build custom fixture profiles as well as edit what you have.

On my Colorado Solo1 setup, I only use two virtual faders; one for the zoom and one to control color and intensity.
The fixture requires a dimmer channel, but I have assigned a permanently full on invisible address in the color fader.
This brings the 9 dmx channels of the fixture down to 2 faders in the software.
This simplifies my interface a LOT.

Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Steve Garris on January 20, 2019, 03:22:36 pm
I do simple lighting for my shows.  No movers.
I'm currently using Luminair3.
I've used Obey type controllers (Too much desk space) as well as Martin MPC with an M-touch( way too steep learning curve).
This is perfect for my needs.

The thing I really like about it is that you can completely ignore dmx channels that you aren't going to use.
You can build custom fixture profiles as well as edit what you have.

On my Colorado Solo1 setup, I only use two virtual faders; one for the zoom and one to control color and intensity.
The fixture requires a dimmer channel, but I have assigned a permanently full on invisible address in the color fader.
This brings the 9 dmx channels of the fixture down to 2 faders in the software.
This simplifies my interface a LOT.

Same here. I use a lot of cheap, Chinese fixtures, so I just create my own profiles, leaving out any unused channels within each fixture. We do have movers though, and so far I've been satisfied with the movement generators in Luminair3. I use the DMX 1 Pro from DMX King, a dedicated Airport Express, and the Donner wireless DMX units which also act as a DMX splitter.

The worst thing about Luminair is the documentation. There's a ton of stuff you just have to learn by messing around with the app.

Edit: Forgot to mention - I looked in to running both Luminair3 and my mixer software on the same iPad. In the end I decided it would be too risky having to wait for the programs to come up when switching between the two. So I use 2 iPads when I'm running lights. I use a mini for Luminair and strap it on my arm if I need to be completely mobile all night.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: frank kayser on January 20, 2019, 04:09:08 pm

I do simple lighting for my shows.  No movers.I'm currently using Luminair3.I've used Obey type controllers (Too much desk space) as well as Martin MPC with an M-touch( way too steep learning curve).This is perfect for my needs.The thing I really like about it is that you can completely ignore dmx channels that you aren't going to use.You can build custom fixture profiles as well as edit what you have.On my Colorado Solo1 setup, I only use two virtual faders; one for the zoom and one to control color and intensity.The fixture requires a dimmer channel, but I have assigned a permanently full on invisible address in the color fader.This brings the 9 dmx channels of the fixture down to 2 faders in the software.This simplifies my interface a LOT.

Thanks for that, Dave,
The "ignore the DMX functionality of software is what drew me to dump the hardware.  Two virtual faders.  That's the ticket. I need the KISS (keep it super simple ;) ) on this project for when I'm not there. (and for my own piece of mind)


Same here. I use a lot of cheap, Chinese fixtures, so I just create my own profiles, leaving out any unused channels within each fixture. We do have movers though, and so far I've been satisfied with the movement generators in Luminair3. I use the DMX 1 Pro from DMX King, a dedicated Airport Express, and the Donner wireless DMX units which also act as a DMX splitter.

The worst thing about Luminair is the documentation. There's a ton of stuff you just have to learn by messing around with the app.

Yeah.  I didn't see much of anything besides marketing on the site.  Popular enough, folks have helped others through it.

Edit: Forgot to mention - I looked in to running both Luminair3 and my mixer software on the same iPad. In the end I decided it would be too risky having to wait for the programs to come up when switching between the two. So I use 2 iPads when I'm running lights. I use a mini for Luminair and strap it on my arm if I need to be completely mobile all night.

Well, the iPad Maxi (12.?") claims to be able to put two apps up on the screen at the same time.  Still...
As for the my just-as-fast 10.5 PRO, as you, I'd worry about app switching time.  Moreso, however, trying to get this old brain to multitask a multitasking tablet.  Functionally, the two iPad setup may work. The question still is whether I could keep up. ???
The final piece of this is whether I can run Luminair3 on an iPad gen 3...


As for the Donner DMX WiFi... I've had the WiCicle from Blizzard for a couple years, matching them with Chauvet lights.  Wasn't happy, so I got some Blizzard WiCicle-ready lights, and was not all that happy with that setup, either.


Maybe it is how I want to use them. I WiCicle to the first fixture in a line, then daisychain to a number of subsequent fixtures.  I may have one standing alone with WiCicle.  That's the one that's always seems  problematic. All DMX addresses are unique and properly spaced.


Trying to be too fancy too soon in the process.  I've got to get back to basics...


Thanks everyone!
frank
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Debbie Dunkley on January 20, 2019, 04:32:05 pm
Same here. I use a lot of cheap, Chinese fixtures, so I just create my own profiles, leaving out any unused channels within each fixture. We do have movers though, and so far I've been satisfied with the movement generators in Luminair3. I use the DMX 1 Pro from DMX King, a dedicated Airport Express, and the Donner wireless DMX units which also act as a DMX splitter.

The worst thing about Luminair is the documentation. There's a ton of stuff you just have to learn by messing around with the app.

Edit: Forgot to mention - I looked in to running both Luminair3 and my mixer software on the same iPad. In the end I decided it would be too risky having to wait for the programs to come up when switching between the two. So I use 2 iPads when I'm running lights. I use a mini for Luminair and strap it on my arm if I need to be completely mobile all night.

copy cat!!  ;)
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: frank kayser on January 20, 2019, 11:26:41 pm
copy cat!!  ;)


Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery!
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Paul G. OBrien on January 21, 2019, 09:40:58 am
Maybe it is how I want to use them. I WiCicle to the first fixture in a line, then daisychain to a number of subsequent fixtures.  I may have one standing alone with WiCicle.  That's the one that's always seems  problematic.
Are all the fixtures set to slave mode? They should be. When set to master you may get wireless control to work for a while but you will find they will randomly start doing their own thing and ignore the controller.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Mal Brown on January 21, 2019, 09:58:36 am
I used Donner last season.  4 trees and a couple of movers on sticks.  first on the tree got the receiver and daisy chained to the rest via cable.  Worked great.  My fixtures were set to specific dmx addresses.  No Master and Slave going on.

Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Taylor Hall on January 21, 2019, 10:40:57 am
Going back to the original question, Unless you have a high channel count in your fixture string (movers and other special FX fixtures love to gobble them up) there's not much reason to make the jump to ARTNet unless you're 100% sold on being able to utilize the data drops by the stage. Both the DMX and ARTNet protocols are rock solid and more than capable to running the setup you've described with no risk of traffic saturation.

An added layer of complexity (and cost) with ARTNet is that you need a device on either end of the ethernet run to both encode and then decode the DMX signal being transmitted unless the fixtures at the other end natively support ARTNet. With a standard wired or wireless DMX signal, you'd only need the encoder (ENTTEC, DMXKing, etc) connected via USB on the workstation running the lighting software.

I'm a firm supporter of QLC+, as far as free software goes you can't beat it, and even some paid programs and apps fall short of what it can do. The other great thing about using desktop software is that you can make use of physical control surfaces (Korg NANO, Akai MPC, etc) to manipulate sliders, buttons and knobs for a less daunting approach to just "using the computer". QLC also has the ability to be started in a "locked" mode where the show file can't be edited and only the virtual console is accessible. Very convenient for keeping meddlesome fingers out of places they shouldn't be once things are set.

I've played around a bit with both D-Fi and WiFly with less than stellar results. Random dropouts/desyncs and other connection issues that shouldn't exist for a $150+ product. I've gotten way better performance out of $30 Donner dongles and I can use them with whatever fixtures I want. Paying a premium for fixtures that belong to a big box wireless protocol whose performance is lackluster at best just doesn't make sense to me. Then again, we also only use the wireless setups in unique situations where cable runs aren't possible or we have a quick set/strike demand.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Dave Garoutte on January 21, 2019, 12:19:49 pm


As for the Donner DMX WiFi... I've had the WiCicle from Blizzard for a couple years, matching them with Chauvet lights.  Wasn't happy, so I got some Blizzard WiCicle-ready lights, and was not all that happy with that setup, either.

Maybe it is how I want to use them. I WiCicle to the first fixture in a line, then daisychain to a number of subsequent fixtures.  I may have one standing alone with WiCicle.  That's the one that's always seems  problematic. All DMX addresses are unique and properly spaced.

Thanks everyone!
frank


Are you terminating?

I've had good luck with Chauvet DFi stuff.
Tx to two Rx on trees and a bunch of Freedom Par uplights around a big ballroom.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Steve Garris on January 21, 2019, 01:18:52 pm


[/font]


As for the Donner DMX WiFi... I've had the WiCicle from Blizzard for a couple years, matching them with Chauvet lights.  Wasn't happy, so I got some Blizzard WiCicle-ready lights, and was not all that happy with that setup, either.


frank

[/quote]

The Donner's have worked flawlessly. I use 6 rechargeable receivers on a system of 2 trees per side, 2 sweepers, 2 focusable movers, 24 led pars, and 6 mini wash movers total. We use short cables to tie the nearby things together. I don't even use a terminator, but it has worked flawlessly for every show.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Taylor Hall on January 21, 2019, 03:30:41 pm
Are you terminating?

I've had good luck with Chauvet DFi stuff.
Tx to two Rx on trees and a bunch of Freedom Par uplights around a big ballroom.
Always, regardless of chain length. They seemed to have the most problems in the area they should accel at most, scattered single fixture placement around a room. I don't know whether this is a fault of the Tx in the hub or the Rx on the fixtures themselves. Swapped over to the Donner units and worked flawlessly.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Mike Karseboom on January 26, 2019, 04:57:49 pm
I run Luminair and X32-mix simultaneously on a 16gig iPad2 with no issues.  There is a setting on Luminair to let it run in the background.


But performance wise this setup  is far from optimum.  Switching from X32-mix to Luminair generally does not take any "refresh" time.  However Luminair itself is somewhat slow and "laggy" on this low spec iPad.


Switching from Luminair to X32-mix seems to always require a few seconds for X32-Mix to refresh itself.  The same refresh actually seems to be required any time you switch away from X32-Mix.  It is like it completely drops it's connection any time it is not in the foreground.  However, X32-mix seems to perform fast enough as long as it is in the foreground, even on the beater iPad2.


This setup seems reasonably satisfactory if you are doing minimal changes with the lights and just keep it on X32-mix.


So if you want quick access and better performance, use 2x iPads and get better specs. With a moderate number fixtures, scenes, and efx running, it seems to take at least something as fast as the Ipad air2 for Luminair to give crisp response.


I would like to hear comments from anyone that is running these app's side by side on something like an iPad Pro 12".
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: David Mason on August 15, 2019, 08:13:38 am
Sorry to revive this post, but I too was looking at both options of either a USB or Ethernet - DMX option.  The Enttec DMX or possibly the Pro Mk2 (for 2 universes)

I currently have a small set up for theatre workshops, with 8 LED fixtures, I use Qlab for sound on a macbook pro.  I was looking at a couple of options either

1) Qlab to control lights as well

2) seperate software for lights such as Lightkey or perhaps an ipad based one such as Luminair

The ideal situation would be that I can essentially control sound and lights all by myself with only one pair of hands..lol

Lighting wise, it would be easier for getting in and out of venues by having as little cable work as possible, so I looked at the donner transmitter/recievers, which I think I should be able to have 1 for each bar of lights (the rest daisy chain cabled) and then I can transmit the cues from the back of the room.

Any suggestions would be most helpful
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Debbie Dunkley on August 15, 2019, 08:29:30 am
Sorry to revive this post, but I too was looking at both options of either a USB or Ethernet - DMX option.  The Enttec DMX or possibly the Pro Mk2 (for 2 universes)

I currently have a small set up for theatre workshops, with 8 LED fixtures, I use Qlab for sound on a macbook pro.  I was looking at a couple of options either

1) Qlab to control lights as well

2) seperate software for lights such as Lightkey or perhaps an ipad based one such as Luminair

The ideal situation would be that I can essentially control sound and lights all by myself with only one pair of hands..lol

Lighting wise, it would be easier for getting in and out of venues by having as little cable work as possible, so I looked at the donner transmitter/recievers, which I think I should be able to have 1 for each bar of lights (the rest daisy chain cabled) and then I can transmit the cues from the back of the room.

Any suggestions would be most helpful

Heads up - You will need to change your display name to your real name as per forum rules disclosed to you when you joined before anyone can respond.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: David Mason on August 15, 2019, 08:57:58 am
Heads up - You will need to change your display name to your real name as per forum rules disclosed to you when you joined before anyone can respond.

Done, thanks
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Debbie Dunkley on August 15, 2019, 09:09:49 am
Done, thanks

Hi David and welcome.

I regularly run sound and lights at shows ( mainly live band work) from 2 iPads - 1 for each. I also sing backing through a wireless headset so I know controlling 2 iPads with one pair of hands can be done quite easily. I have 4 PARs per tripod - 2 tripods.
The use of Luminair will require a separate art net dongle - either DMX King or Enttec.
The Donner style TX/RX system works quite well according to some forum members. I do own a set but rarely use them- I would rather have the trees wired as it takes very little time. As I am already using the lights wirelessly through a router, I don't want to introduce any more points of possible failure so I stick to cables.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: David Mason on August 15, 2019, 09:28:38 am
Hi David and welcome.

I regularly run sound and lights at shows ( mainly live band work) from 2 iPads - 1 for each. I also sing backing through a wireless headset so I know controlling 2 iPads with one pair of hands can be done quite easily. I have 4 PARs per tripod - 2 tripods.
The use of Luminair will require a separate art net dongle - either DMX King or Enttec.
The Donner style TX/RX system works quite well according to some forum members. I do own a set but rarely use them- I would rather have the trees wired as it takes very little time. As I am already using the lights wirelessly through a router, I don't want to introduce any more points of possible failure so I stick to cables.

Thanks for info, am I right in thinking you have your router setup next to the lighting with your artnet dongle and then your ipad wifi linked to the router?  I guess the extra money saved from buying donners would go towards the Enttec ode or similar
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Debbie Dunkley on August 15, 2019, 09:43:46 am
Thanks for info, am I right in thinking you have your router setup next to the lighting with your artnet dongle and then your ipad wifi linked to the router?  I guess the extra money saved from buying donners would go towards the Enttec ode or similar

Yes. I have the router on stage set up nice and high on a boom mic stand so I get good line of sight, light trees are on either side of stage so not too far from router.
The dongle is in a rack next to the router and connected to a DMX splitter (not necessary though).
IPad is wirelessly connected to my network through router. Lights connected to splitter. Works great.
The DMX King is quite bit cheaper than the Enttec - both work and are reliable.
There is an Enttec office quite close to me and I received excellent customer service from them when I needed help setting it up first time. I haven't had to contact DMX King.
Title: Re: DMX control - USB vs Ethernet
Post by: Steve Garris on August 15, 2019, 01:29:38 pm
Sorry to revive this post, but I too was looking at both options of either a USB or Ethernet - DMX option.  The Enttec DMX or possibly the Pro Mk2 (for 2 universes)

I currently have a small set up for theatre workshops, with 8 LED fixtures, I use Qlab for sound on a macbook pro.  I was looking at a couple of options either

1) Qlab to control lights as well

2) seperate software for lights such as Lightkey or perhaps an ipad based one such as Luminair

The ideal situation would be that I can essentially control sound and lights all by myself with only one pair of hands..lol

Lighting wise, it would be easier for getting in and out of venues by having as little cable work as possible, so I looked at the donner transmitter/recievers, which I think I should be able to have 1 for each bar of lights (the rest daisy chain cabled) and then I can transmit the cues from the back of the room.

Any suggestions would be most helpful

I do the same as Debbie, mixing sound on an iPad and Luminair3 on an iPad mini. I have both iPad's velcro'd to a clipboard, so I can walk the room and mix while also running lights. I use Apple Airport Express routers for both sound & lights. I don't place the light router up high, I just set it on the stage next to the dongle (DMXKing). I use the Donner transmitters/receivers on each tree of lights, up to 6 of them at a time, with excellent results.