|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: QSYS Corner
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-12-2019 01:09 PM
It would appear that there is starting to be some QSYS discussions (by at least some of us) that probably should have its own topic rather than hijacking others so lets start it here.
Below is a response from another thread:
quote:
It seems to me there are the highly automated multiplex operations that benefit from the automation and then there are the multi-use, specialty venues that Steve and I often deal with. I feel I can provide greater flexibility and ease of use. I also find that from a remote support perspective I can "dial-in" and using the tools available in designer troubleshoot many things and add whatever unique feature may be needed for a one off show where in the past it would not have been worth the effort ($).
It still blows me away that I can sit in Boston and make lights go up and down, masking open and close, movies start etc... on the other side of the country. Granted these things can be done without Q-Sys but I think Q-Sys makes it much easier.
We used to use a lot of Crestron and Symetrix DSP's and the cost and complexity of programming for Crestron is insane. The investment to get stated in Q-Sys is orders of magnitude less.
I'm definitely torn between the redundancy of each theatre is an island versus the unlimited "playground" that is a QSYS type system. That is, you can do most anything (sound and even automation wise) with it. From a cost-effective standpoint, the more screen/core you do the lower your cost/screen, to the point that it is CHEAPER to use QSYS over traditional Cinema Processor topology. It wires faster, troubleshoots easier, sounds as good or more often better.
The complexity is really location dependent. it can be brain-dead simple or, if need be very sophisticated.
I'd like to see a repository of basic designs such that if you want the functionality of a CP750, JSD60 and the like, you can start with that and merely build from there. Any by start with that I mean, I can make the user interface look EXACTLY like those...no extra education involved.
Sean and I already belong to a "sharing" group where plug-ins/user-controls are shared about (things that talk to 3rd party devices like dimmers or microphone systems). Control companies already do a lot of this (like Crestron, AMX and Extron) but then you are bringing in another layer that may not be necessary. At the moment, a good Crestron or AMX programmer is going to be able to do more than QSYS and Extron can certainly get you up and going on a decent control system faster than most any of them but I think QSYS could catch up there and get it to the point where it is a serious competitor to them.
If anyone wants to see an awesome user interface design, check out this thread:
http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f16/t002591/p2.html
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-13-2019 04:17 AM
Well, now I'm here in the Q-Sys Corner, what's there on offer? I hope the coffee is at least still warm? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You're not the only one torn between "centralization" and "containerization". It's obvious that centralization offers cost-benefits, as it minimizes overhead and it often also simplifies operation.
Now, we're talking cinema here, we're not talking about potential life-threatening situations if stuff fails, so we may be overthinking it... Although, what happens, for example, you're going to hook up your fire alarm to said system? Even though there will probably still be a primary alarm system, you're potentially creating some kind of liability here.
What I've learned from my work for the theme park industry, especially from those who do have the budget to not cut corners everywhere, is that they like "containerized systems", because they learned from past mistakes. If possible, build the same attraction twice or even 3 times and make sure their control systems can operate independently. Now, those systems may seem inherently more complex than cinema systems, but keep in mind that in the last 15-or-so years, we've added a lot of layers of complexity onto what now constitutes the cinema experience. What one was a mostly mechanical operation often featuring decades old equipment is nowadays a high-tech IT operation...
Getting back at "containerization", you see the same discussion nowadays with e.g. power plants. We used to build large behemoths of power plants, like nuclear power plants with 1.5 MW electrical output per reactor. While such large behemoths are a pretty economical choice, you're also facing problems when something goes wrong. If such a large power plant goes off-line, you're immediately looking at a gap of 1.5 MW to fill. Now, plats that can provide such power, if available, are never able to supply this kind of power at once, so we rely on a lot of smaller plants that can increase their output or fire immediately if such a thing happens. It's only because nowadays we're operating massively synchronized, pan-international grids that we can, mostly, handle the impact of one or two large power generating units going off-line.
So, it's not really surprising that many people think the solution is to try to abandon those behemoth power generating stations in the future and replace them by smaller, more distributed units.
So, although I personally like the idea of centralization, the potential reduction of overhead that comes with it, etc., there still is that little voice nagging at you... The fact that you're building "giant castles" that can come crushing down after a small earthquake, even though everybody assumed the design was safe. Meanwhile, if you'd had built 10 separate villas, probably 8 out of 10 would still be standing after the earthquake.
So, sufficient badly chosen metaphors for today, let's kick at that final open door: Murphy's simplified law of misery: Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.
quote: Steve Guttag
Control companies already do a lot of this (like Crestron, AMX and Extron) but then you are bringing in another layer that may not be necessary. At the moment, a good Crestron or AMX programmer is going to be able to do more than QSYS and Extron can certainly get you up and going on a decent control system faster than most any of them but I think QSYS could catch up there and get it to the point where it is a serious competitor to them.
I've mentioned Alcorn McBride show controllers in the past, as my favorite brand of "show controller". There isn't any real plugin from Q-Sys yet (and I guess it's not something Alcorn McBride would put their efforts in), but you can control Q-Sys from your show controller.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-13-2019 06:51 AM
One thing about QSYS is that you don't have to depend on others to create a plug-in..just make one yourself. They recently added a new Block Controller to aid in doing such things without learning LUA (its scripting language).
That said, I've been asked (multiple times) what plug-ins they should make for the cinema industry. So I see QSC working making QSYS more flexible and easier to use in a cinema environment.
And yes, many other control systems have QSYS drivers of some sort. There is a site (not traditional cinema but had film projection and then DCinema) where I had an Extron Touchlink controller. They needed their microphone and conventional A/V audio updated and I plopped a CORE 110 in and the Touchlink controls it so the user interface didn't change at all (aside from new screens for the touchpanels). The integration is very seamless.
Remember, on the redundancy too, it isn't like having a spare tire, it is like having a spare car. You are VERY heavily backed up.
Note, the CORE110c and DCIO-H, price wise, while more than a CP750, is less than either the Ovation or AP25 (or most of the film sound processors of our prior era). So you could certainly do separate systems for all screens. And, via AES67, you can still stream audio around the complex as desired.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-13-2019 06:06 PM
quote: Sean McKinnon
You may be interested to know Marcel that there are theme parks utilizing a Q-Sys platform. The extent I am not too sure it may just be background music but there is a definitely at least one large theme park operator using them.
In a theme park, distributing audio is a big challenge. You've got all the different areas to cover, with their own audio loops, special effects that need to be mixed in, but you also want to have PA and emergency broadcast systems to be able to use the same infrastructure. Then there are the little things that can drive you mad, like avoiding echo on a street filled with speakers by using narrowly timed echo delays.
Then consider the nastiness that involves transporting analog audio from a central playout location to loads of different speakers: You're facing signal loss, interference and tons of ground loops.
So, Q-Sys is certainly something that fits in this street pretty well and also a primary reason why some of those "big operators" have been using CobraNet for more than 15 years now.
CobraNet had the possibility to become something similar than Q-Sys, but they never realized the potential. Fortunately, QSC offers Q-Sys to CobraNet bridge interfaces.
quote: Steve Guttag
But yeah...going down on two COREs and two networks AT THE SAME TIME is really really bad luck! If you are really worried about the DCIO-H (the thing that would still not be backed up)...buy one for the complex; they are cheaper than most any cinema processor and if you set up your design with dynamic pairing, you could have management make the switch in a couple of minutes (just plug it in).
QSC, now with their feet steadily between the door, should consider teaming up with e.g. Barco or GDC. If they could offer a direct playout to Q-Sys in their IMBs, you wouldn't even need the DCIO-H. Although they would lose their sales on that part, they could recover parts of it via a licensing fee. It would also be a strong competitor to "Atmos Connect".
Combined with either a DTS:X plugin for your Q-Sys Cores or as an optional upgrade for your IMB, it could be THE solution to bring Multi-Dimensional audio to more rooms on a budget.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-14-2019 07:06 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
CobraNet had the possibility to become something similar than Q-Sys, but they never realized the potential. Fortunately, QSC offers Q-Sys to CobraNet bridge interfaces.
Cobranet was awesome and very, very reliable (I've never had a failure with it with either RANE or QSC products). There maybe a reason for the similarities between the two. I believe they came from the same people (I may have my history wrong but I think the same Boulder, CO people developed both...as well as the Media Matrix for Peavey). There is a reason that QSYS remains in Boulder, CO and not Costa Mesa (QSC's home).
In sadder news, the Cobranet Bridge card is out of production. Last I checked, they have inventory but once they are gone, they are gone. I think that you have those installed systems, at first, where you need to bridge the gap but once those people have their bridge, you aren't going to be getting many new systems needing such things. It isn't like Dante where QSYS and Dante are coexisting, for the moment. In fact QSC and Audinate have made some sort of deal that I don't have all of the details on.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
QSC, now with their feet steadily between the door, should consider teaming up with e.g. Barco or GDC. If they could offer a direct playout to Q-Sys in their IMBs, you wouldn't even need the DCIO-H.
A couple of things there. First, they now have their own IMB that has QLAN on board and can decode DTS-X and I would presume, with proper licensing Dolby Atmos but perhaps with the new SMPTE standards, they could decode an Atmos mix and not be able to call it Atmos (like Dolby Stereo with an Ultra Stereo sound processor in the 80s/90s).
I could see getting GDC on board for licensing a QLAN output though I would think they are going to try and develop their own market for their own IMB first. Barco is a much smaller slice of the pie and they have their own sound processor for their own competing format (though again with the SMPTE standards coming into place, immersive should be getting more uniform in its delivery and decoding methods).
If it were me, I probably wouldn't be eager to license it just yet while I have a new product coming out that could be killed off if it doesn't represent enough of a difference between other products out there.
As for the DCIO-H, it is more than a mere AES audio intake. It handles HDMI audio (both DTS and Dolby), Mic input, stereo line input, monitor output (both line and amplified), HI/VI output (analog line), GPIO including relay outputs to drive things like dimmers or, god forbid, masking/curtains. It is a catch all for each screen in a complex. It also has a front panel knob and button for creating a fader and mute.
Note, Dolby's IMS3000 can connect directly to the QLAN already since it is AES67 though without the redundant QLAN-B.
As for decoding DTS-X in QSYS...it exists, actually in the form of an MDA player. It can support up to 128 outputs. I've seen an example of a design with it. It looked a bit scary.
I suspect that server based decoding will be the norm though.
I see QSYS having potential all over cinema, not just in immersive audio (Which I don't think appeals to beyond 5-10% of the movie going public, at least not willing to pay more for it). It makes system install easier, faster, troubleshooting also is easier/faster. Oh, and it sounds REALLY GOOD too. If you use QSC speakers, they provide intrinsic correction so your sound is essentially flat, out of the box. If you like other brands of speakers, develop your own speaker files (as I have done on several).
Develop your own user control interface (UCI) and have whatever cinema processor/monitor features you want and clone them on each installation. Sure, there is more overhead on the first one but then it is a matter of cloning.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 02-14-2019 09:39 AM
The trouble with the IMB/server internal decoding is the limited choices. I acknowledge that the QSC CMS-5000 has an impressive feature set, but, as with e.g. the CP850, one would prefer to combine any server (system) with any MDA renderer. Only very few current IMBs/IMS have the processing power or I/O modularity to add MDA rendering per software only.
You would think that there is a market for an MDA renderer module that can e.g. be hooked between any server (as it is now possible with most servers supporting ATMOS), and e.g. a suitable QSYS core (or other processor with the necessary I/O). All this MDA renderer would need to have is a few Ethernet ports (and, of course, an SPB certification...) Of course, wishful thinking towards the idea that SMPTE object based audio will bring costs down, and modular systems would add to that because more options mean more competition.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-14-2019 10:08 AM
Sean,
My bet is that they will tell you to use the GPI on the back to create up to a 6-button panel for format selection...of course if you are making such things it is adding to the cost and time of installation. Perhaps if a company like Odyssey saw a demand they could fab something up (it would be just switches and a cat cable.
An advantage of them doing it is the ability to perhaps have status LEDs to give confidence on the format selected.
BTW...I agree with you but I'm sure the cost of reving the metal work and fiberglass will be the hurdle in getting it implemented unless enough demand/orders for such at thing justify it.
Carsten, I really think that there isn't a big enough market to justify anyone making an external renderer and going through the DCI compliance testing. What will be left is that smallest of small slivers of people that are not served by the IMS3000, CP850, SX4000, CMS5000 (and probably the SR1000 but I don't recall what its final capabilities will be) ICMP.
I also don't think DTS-X is necessarily gong to take the industry by storm. I think a product like the CMS5000 might get its foot in the door but I, personally, like the holistic approach that Dolby has done with Atmos and, even then, I don't think it applies to more than 10-20 percent of the movie going public and probably 5-10% of the movies made. I think a 7.1 sound track covers such a large area of movies and people and is essentially free over a 5.1 that it will continue to become a defacto standard for things beyond 5.1
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic