Q-SYS Corner

[Leo Enticknap]

It boils down to what your contract with the customer says. Are you delivering ownership of your design for them to do what they like with thereafter, or just an in perpetuity license for them to use what you deliver, in the form that you deliver it? That needs to be agreed at the start of the project. If the former, install the core unlocked. If the latter, you can lock the core. Though I would prefer it if you could lock the "load from core and connect" function in Designer with a password in the core that is separate from the password for other core administration web UI functions.

I also use password-protected containers to protect bits of the schematic that could cause significant functionality damage if monkeyed with, and a separate password from all the others for the tuning container, so that I or the end user can give that to a "Dolby guy," to be sure that what he does won't affect anything else without us knowing about it.

[Steve Guttag]

Minor update of my surround delay calculator (Designer 8.4 does not take pity if you don't format your text correctly).

SurroundDelayCalculator200926.quc.zip

[Mike Babb]

I agree with Leo, it should be clear in the initial agreement...one of my biggest fears with this sort of thing is what happens in a year, two years, 5 years and beyond. Staff changes, ownership changes, technology changes, it's possible to lose the thread. I know of a building that changed hands recently, as well as the original designer working somewhere else, and the new person responsible is not Qsys certified. Certainly in that case it's not too far gone, but I remember more than once having to get in the back door method to EQ a CP500 with no idea who might have preceded me. My suggestion is leave it open, sell the design as is, save a full backup for yourself, give the owners a full backup, make sure they have your contact details for future revisions and service.

[Leo Enticknap]

There are pros and cons for both options. I think that if you leave it open and give the customer the option of modifying it in the future, or even using a copy of your design (possibly with minor modifications) at another site, it's justifiable to charge more for that than a "use as is" license with a locked down core delivered. It's similar to the difference between renting and buying a streaming video program on Amazon: the latter is more expensive. The reverse could happen as well: the customer could later hire someone who is able to create and modify Q-Sys designs, who might then effectively take future business away from you.

[Steve Guttag]

Mike,

I'm not too worried about losing the thread. What the customer is purchasing is a working sound (and possibly control and possibly video) system. If you deliver that at the end of the contract, the customer isn't harmed if it doesn't go beyond that anymore than if Dolby replaces a sound processor with a new one that does more features. You got what you paid for on day 1. If the customer is interested in Q-SYS with a significant eye toward its ability to roll with the times, then that needs to be factored into the contract to begin with. Furthermore, what if QSC decides to end-of-life Q-SYS in favor of Q-MCP (they did end of life Basis in favor of Q-SYS) so there is no implication of a perpetual, forever, platform. None of us know how long it will go. One of the things that QSC has always touted about it is that it uses off-the-shelf chip sets (Intel) and they control the software (based on Linux) so it is less dependent on others. Even if the Intel chipsets went away, one presumes that their software would roll with whatever hardware they end up going with. Note, QSC HAS discontinued support for hardware (COREs and, in particular touchpanels like the original TSC-8 and with 8.4.0, the TSC-3 is no longer supported). So, already, you are in a situation where if you want new features of current software, your legacy hardware may not be supported.

As for monetizing designs, I definitely think a multi-tier system can be set up:

1. It is like a canned processor, the core (and this would be true of all tiers) is locked and the user merely owns the hardware and the locked software doing what was delivered.
2. The user owns the hardware, the core is either unlocked or the user has the password. The user is given a limited/non-exclusive license to use the design as delivered (and specifically precluded from copying/duplicating/distributing the design or UCIs). Any changes done by others are not supported. Some proprietary components may be locked (you got this ultra-cool widget that makes miracles occur and you want to ensure it doesn't get used by anyone else, let alone in a bid against you!).
3. Like #2 but all components are limited licenses and anything locked the user has the key to. (you may find on some government contracts, this is a requirement).
4. The client owns the design in its entirety (you transfer the copyright of the design to the client for everything for which you created and may potentially have the copyright). This one should be very expensive because, essentially, the client could prevent you from using parts of that design in other projects for other clients. I don't think that is going to come up in cinemas, but you never know.

Keeping with the copyright thing and "sharing" of design elements. It is something that I've been struggling with. I think, for common things, like projector and server control. Hanging onto that stuff is going to be short lived as Jay's post above demonstrates...sooner or later it is going to be done by someone. Now, HOW you integrate a projector, server and...what was that other thing...oh yeah, the sound into the design (which is really what I think is covered in items 1-4 above) are the value-add that each company brings to the table. You might also "value-add" a common design and make it your own with features you noted it was lacking. If I supply you with a locked container that does magic stuff inside but all you get to see on the outside are the audio ins/outs and the control ins/outs...how is that any different than with hardware where you just get a board with a chip that does stuff...you don't get to go into the chip. Heck, if you know how to script and can turn your scripts into QPLUGX, it is like any other component...you just get to see what it shows. You don't get to peek inside.

Leo, you have a PM.

With respect to "others" tuning the room. I always maintain a copy of each system as I left it...so we can always get back to that. Even when I'm the "Dolby Guy" step 1 is to save a copy of the system as it was (regardless of brand) to ensure I can leave it as I found it. I also save a copy of whatever I do.

Inside of my Q-SYS designs, I tend to leave bread crumbs to lead a Dolby Guy to the Level and EQ:



Upon opening it, any competent Dolby Guy should be able to do what they need to:

[Steve Guttag]

It has come to my attention that some countries don't use the imperial measurement system and I got a request to update my Digital Cinema Surround Delay Calculator with a Feet/Meter option:

Screen Shot 2020-09-27 at 6.03.55 PM.png

It remains strictly a logic block based component so no licensing is required.

SurroundDelayCalculator200927.zip

[Mike Babb]

Hi Steve, my example isn't really about Qsys, more about locking down a system vs leaving it open with backups. We all know technology will change, perhaps at an ever increasing rate, and we all know there could be turnover in staff and ownership, both on the service company side and exhibitor side. I applaud designing in a path forward.

[Elia Orselli]

Inside of my Q-SYS designs, I tend to leave bread crumbs to lead a Dolby Guy to the Level and EQ...

Unfortunately image links are broken

[Steve Guttag]

Elia...the images still show on my browser. Anyone else not seeing the images?

Mike...there is the never ending issue...locking down a system so it isn't casually altered by someone that "thinks" they can do a better job yet lacks the training/equipment and also doesn't get a cinema is tuned to reproduce what was recorded, not what a personal preference may be, at the cinema side...and allowing for legitimate retunings as part of a screening, or routine maintenance or changes in equipment subsequent to the initial set up. Once upon a time, putting little Phillips head screws into an EQ cover was enough to thwart the casual tinkerer. In fact, I once got chastised for putting them back in...to which I thought..."It worked!"

I have not locked down my Q-SYS systems because in order to get into them, you have to have the program and be on the network to get into them. Those are big enough hurdles to keep the casual tinkerer out. I do keep backups of every file and every iteration of every file. So even a scorched Earth type disgruntled person wouldn't have much of a lasting effect. If a customer decided to go with a different company, that company can continue the tradition (or not). Our obligation would be over at that point anyway.

However, with Core-Manager and the concept of web-UCIs, one is having to expose the core a bit to the user and that person is unknown and no longer needs anything but a browser to create mischief. From a support standpoint, I have no interest in fixing such stuff. This is what has me thinking of having a lock to prevent casual tinkerers.

[Mike Babb]

Steve, agreed regarding hurdles and casual tinkerers and agreed regarding scorched earthers

[Marcel Birgelen]

Steve: I can't see the images either. Maybe it's a permission problem with the forum software, so you may be able to see it, but we cannot.

This is the URL for the bigger/bottom one you posted:

http://www.film-tech.com/vbb/filedat...46&type=medium

If I open that link in a new tab, I'm getting an almost blank page with just the following message:

Invalid File Specified

Hi Steve, my example isn't really about Qsys, more about locking down a system vs leaving it open with backups. We all know technology will change, perhaps at an ever increasing rate, and we all know there could be turnover in staff and ownership, both on the service company side and exhibitor side. I applaud designing in a path forward.

Compared to Steve, I'm just a Q-Sys rookie, mostly still exploring all the cool stuff you can do with the system.

My "concern" isn't so much the "scorched earthers" as you call them, they have always been a problem, no matter what the platform. They usually shoot themselves in the foot and you have a clear excuse why you're spending so many hours trying to reverse-engineer what the previous guy left. One thing is for sure, that customer will surely not return to that guy.

But my "concern" is more the Q-Sys platform itself. As cool and powerful as it is, it's currently driven by a single company and I'm always a little bit cautious for walled gardens. While I haven't done anything yet with Q-Sys that couldn't have been done with other vendor's hardware, there might come a point where the complexity or integration is such, that QSC is the only vendor that fits the bill. While QSC seems to be a stable company at this point in time, history shows that nothing is guaranteed.

Despite this, I continue to learn and invest time and resources in Q-Sys, because I think this is the way the future of sound (and video) looks like. It would just be great to see stuff be based on a more open infrastructure, that isn't tied to a single vendor. But yeah, Utopia is still quite a few (light) years away.

[Steve Guttag]

The image links disappeared for me too. I'm betting it was a matter of my browser's cache rolling over before they went away for me.

As for Q-SYS' stability. First, even if QSC were to go under tomorrow...you'd still have what you presently have, just like any other sound processor or control platform. They do encourage outside developers to make plugins and there are companies that sell such things out there. If QSC or Q-SYS were to end, what would stop, most immediately, would be new hardware development. Do realize, that the top end Q-SYS core is a Dell server. Q-SYS is primarily a software platform. QSC, traditionally an amplifier company, is where the they put off-the-shelf hardware (Intel boards) with their software that normally ends up using their traditional hardware...amplifiers.

I have no doubt that Q-SYS' day will come to an end. They guys that developed Q-SYS also developed Media Matrix...which in one form or another is still going and is quite long-in-the-tooth.

Let me see if I can repost those images in the next post. Something must have gone haywire there. I'm going to blame Adam Martin!

[Steve Guttag]

How I steer the ""Dolby Guy" to the tuning section:

Screen Shot 2020-09-29 at 10.03.54 AM.png

And then when s/he opens that up, they get what I consider a relatively intuitive level/EQ configuration.

Screen Shot 2020-09-29 at 10.04.35 AM.png

I am considering incorporating a Dolby Guy EQ though with graphic EQs for the parametric challenged and to use a router to switch between the Dolby Guy level/EQ and house level/EQ. What i don't want to do, however, is devote a lot of DSP resources to graphic EQs that will, mostly never be used. So, perhaps, 1-4 per complex that would be assignable so you could have a primary house and overflow house. It adds to the complexity of things and, as such, can become a point of failure/frustration...particularly for infrequently used items.

[Harold Hallikainen]

Don't know if this is the issue, but images do not show up here until you are logged in.

[Sean McKinnon]

I like that a lot Steve! Q-Sys is so efficient with DSP resources you could probably add a graphic eq set to each screen without maxing out.