Control/Dimming Wireless DMX Options

[Chris Chapman]

Hey all. I'm looking at a fairly significant control upgrade next year, and one of the things I'm pondering is adding wireless DMX.

And pros/cons people have run into running City Theatrical ShowDMX vs. WDMX? I know that the WDMX stuff is the "unofficial" standard, but I aldo hear good things about ShowDMX option.

Thoughts?

(Looking at driving the gear with an Ion to replace our Express.)

 

[icewolf08]

The real question is: what do you want to do with it? If you don't have a specific application in mind for the wireless DMX then why do it? If you are just trying to replace some cables between your console and dimmers then it is probably not the best idea. If you often are building DMX controlled devices into moving scenery then it would make sense. In any case you might also explore the offerings at RC4-Magic Wireless DMX & Wireless Dimming, RC4 Wireless Dimming & Wireless Motion, RC5 High Security Wireless DMX

 

[NolaTek]

I've personally owned Doug Fleenor's Marconi WDMX system for about a year now and my confidence in it has grown considerably in that time. I've had 0 dropouts in signal in that time! That being said, I would still not yet recommend it as a full-scale replacement for a hard-wired DMX connection.

Wireless DMX is a great tool, but a lot more can go wrong with a wireless universe (power on receiver and transmitters, interference, etc.). You should be very aware of all of these problems and how they would apply to your situation/venue before you drop a bundle on it.

My recommendation definitely goes with WDMX and Doug Fleenor.

 

[Chris Chapman]

The application would be for Instruments hanging on my electrics: LED Par replacements and possibly movers, and then of course DMX controlled Gobo Rotaters, etc. None of my electrics have DMX breakouts, only power.

 

[icewolf08]

The application would be for Instruments hanging on my electrics: LED Par replacements and possibly movers, and then of course DMX controlled Gobo Rotaters, etc. None of my electrics have DMX breakouts, only power.

In this application you might be better off spec-ing your new system to include a network distribution point on your grid and a few 1- or 2-port Net3 Gateways. With a setup like this you are running Cat5 instead of DMX for most of the distance which would save some cost and then you can drop the nodes on your electrics as needed.

While there are many robust and proven wireless DMX options, using them for show critical devices when you don't NEED to just adds one more failure point that can be difficult to troubleshoot. I use my wireless system mostly for practicals and controlling devices built into moving units that cant trail a cable bundle. If the practicals didn't turn on it usually wouldn't be the end of the show however if you had a whole batten of MLs or LEDs that didn't work because of wireless issues, you might really mess up your show.

There are definite advantages to having a wireless DMX system around to use, but I wouldn't use it to replace hardwire runs in applications where a hardwire run can be made.

 

[bishopthomas]

I agree with the Wolf and prefer to stay with cables whenever possible. This goes for wired microphones, instruments, as well as DMX. However, I am actually looking into wireless units myself, but for a very specific purpose. I have been doing a lot of ballroom uplighting recently and sometimes there is no good path for a cable run. Even taping it down doesn't keep catering carts, chair dolleys, etc. from crushing it. A couple of guys I know are using the Elation wireless with decent results. He's an Elation dealer, so I'm not sure if he would have gone that route if he had paid full price.

 

[len]

I have been doing a lot of ballroom uplighting recently and sometimes there is no good path for a cable run. Even taping it down doesn't keep catering carts, chair dolleys, from crushing it.

Up and over. Or cable protectors, which I don't like using because they're a bigger trip hazard than cable is.

 

[bishopthomas]

Sometimes there is no up and over without either installing hooks or relying on gaff tape. I can't do the previous for obvious reasons and do not trust the latter to stay in place. Wireless DMX is more reliable than tape on a wall (and looks better too), plus many ballrooms will frown on the idea of taping the hell out of their wallpaper. Yeah, I know, but I'm sure you've tried to explain the benefits of gaff tape to a hotel ballroom manager without success. Yeah, cable ramps are way out. Besides the trip hazard, they look terrible and are not easy to push small wheeled carts over.

 

[NeroCaesar]

I had a bit of an odd ball question...

I planned on trying to use wireless dmx for a different use. DMX has 5 pins because they thought they would need it, and I have heard tales that you can run 2 DMX lines down one cable if you wire it correctly. If that is all true, do wireless dmx transfer 5 pins of information or 3pins? the reason I ask is because the project I need requires 4 pins of wireless digital data transfer.
Now right off the bat this may be a bad idea to try (due to data transfer rates and language issues ect), but I wanted to throw that first question out there.

I guess as I write this, I figure it is also worth asking... is there a 4 wireless transmitter out there?

 

[cpf]

Bad idea - any legit wireless DMX system will interpret the DMX at the transmitter, convert it to a protocol more suited to wireless transmission, then recreate the DMX at each endpoint. If the input isn't true DMX, the system won't work at all.

 

[RickR]

I had a bit of an odd ball question...

I planned on trying to use wireless dmx for a different use. DMX has 5 pins because they thought they would need it, and I have heard tales that you can run 2 DMX lines down one cable if you wire it correctly. If that is all true, do wireless dmx transfer 5 pins of information or 3pins? the reason I ask is because the project I need requires 4 pins of wireless digital data transfer.
Now right off the bat this may be a bad idea to try (due to data transfer rates and language issues ect), but I wanted to throw that first question out there.

I guess as I write this, I figure it is also worth asking... is there a 4 wireless transmitter out there?

Yes you can run dual DMX if everything is correct. I've seen companies offer a 2 universe Y for standard DMX cables and they wouldn't be hard to make yourself. The REAL reason DMX is 5 pin, is so you don't mix it up with sound equipment. Some equipment sends power down the other pair, and all sorts of other tricks have been tried. So one must be knowledgeable about your rig.

If you need to send more than one type of data look into WIFI. Standard ethernet equipment is fairly inexpensive and most data types can be converted to go over TCP/IP.

 

[icewolf08]

Yes you can run dual DMX if everything is correct. I've seen companies offer a 2 universe Y for standard DMX cables and they wouldn't be hard to make yourself. The REAL reason DMX is 5 pin, is so you don't mix it up with sound equipment. Some equipment sends power down the other pair, and all sorts of other tricks have been tried. So one must be knowledgeable about your rig.

If you need to send more than one type of data look into WIFI. Standard ethernet equipment is fairly inexpensive and most data types can be converted to go over TCP/IP.

Actually, the real reason that DMX is 5-pin is because that is what is outlined in the DMX-512 standard as set forth ESTA and ANSI. Pins four and five are reserved for future use and any use of these pins currently would not conform to the standard.

Can you send DMX down those two lines? Yes. However, even reputable companies that manufacture and ship DMX cable don't always connect all five pins, it saves a lot of time and cost, and at this point in time we will probably never officially use those last two pins. For that matter some companies only use single twisted pair cable to cut costs even further.

Oh and using pins four and five for power is extremely inadvisable. The conductors in standard DMX cable are designed for data, not power. This is why scroller cable has one small gauge pair for data and one larger gauge pair for power.

As mentioned, most wireless DMX devices translate the data stream into a proprietary format that is then decoded again at the receiver. These devices are designed to work with the RS-485 protocol that DMX is based on. Most of them probably ignore pins four and five as there is no reason to transmit superfluous data. This is besides the fact that if you don't feed them a recognizable signal, they won't be able to do anything with it.

Since we don't know what exactly you are trying to do, it is hard to give suggestions, but if you can take whatever data you are trying to send and transmit it using standard TCP/IP protocols, it will be much simpler and less expensive to get the wireless hardware needed for transmission.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Erik456]

I use City Theatrical's ShowDMX and love it. I have one transmitter backstage on my data rack, and three receivers FOH in box booms and balcony rail. I have played some huge houses, with no direct sightlines between transmitter and receiver, and have not had any dropouts. Once in a blue moon I will notice a slight lag in my color scrollers, but its not a huge issue.

 

[tyler.martin]

I had a bit of an odd ball question...

I planned on trying to use wireless dmx for a different use. DMX has 5 pins because they thought they would need it, and I have heard tales that you can run 2 DMX lines down one cable if you wire it correctly. If that is all true, do wireless dmx transfer 5 pins of information or 3pins? the reason I ask is because the project I need requires 4 pins of wireless digital data transfer.
Now right off the bat this may be a bad idea to try (due to data transfer rates and language issues ect), but I wanted to throw that first question out there.

I guess as I write this, I figure it is also worth asking... is there a 4 wireless transmitter out there?

What do you mean 4 wire? Are you meaning 2 separate universes? If so, then no this will not work. All of the Wireless DMX systems I have used (ShowDMX, WDMX, RC4) take in the data from 1 universe of DMX, process it and use Xbee's or some other 2.4GHz system to transmit the information, and reprocess it into a DMX stream. For 2 universes you will need 2 transmitters, one for each universe.

I recently built some props that light up with RGB LED tape, and I purchased 2 sets of Chauvet D-FI, for small devices there havent been any problems, but once I tried a 24 Channel device i noticed serious lag between commands and the actual excecution on the fixture.

All of my experiences with ShowDMX have been great. The rodent company uses them on most of their trucks for devices that need to be controlled weather they are foggers or LED's. We had 3 transmitters, all transmitting 1 universe, and close to 30 recievers on different trucks, props and drops. Never had any issues with lag, or with being powered on and off endlessly during the shows.

RickR - Transmitting regular DMX over Wifi is generally not a good idea either. Ethernet and TCP/IP rely on packet transmitting, and DMX doesnt like being broken up into the packet sizes that are used for TCP/IP transmission. sACN and Artnet can be transmitted over Wifi, but I would err on the side of caution with doing anything show critical with a setup like that as ACN and Artnet both transmit a large amount of information, and Wifi can be really unstable with consumer grade gear.

I have to shut off my Show Control wireless router during shows, once the audience gets into the house the number of smartphones that scan and hit the router trying to connect even when it has a WPA password lags down the router processor greatly, and I notice a large amount of packet drop between devices.

 

[techieman33]

I have to shut off my Show Control wireless router during shows, once the audience gets into the house the number of smartphones that scan and hit the router trying to connect even when it has a WPA password lags down the router processor greatly, and I notice a large amount of packet drop between devices.

To fix that you need to shut off your ssid broadcast. Without the broadcast phones don't know it's there so they can't try to connect to it. Then when you want someone to have access just give them the router name and password so they can connect manually.

 

[tyler.martin]

To fix that you need to shut off your ssid broadcast. Without the broadcast phones don't know it's there so they can't try to connect to it. Then when you want someone to have access just give them the router name and password so they can connect manually.

Not neccessarily... Even if a SSID is not broadcast, some devices can still query the router. We have "hidden" network for our ticket scanners, my blackberry will pickup that network and display "Unknown Network". On our tablet pc we run netshark to monitor network traffic while running StudioMix, and it will still display all the network information.


Microsoft has even said hiding the SSID doesnt make a network more secure.
Non-broadcast Wireless Networks with Microsoft Windows

 

[DuckJordan]

no but it does make it less likely to be connected to, if a device is working properly it will not see the non-broadcasted SSID. Although that doesn't stop phones from seeing it, just the user.