Wireless DMX conundrum

[timsabre]

is there some different type of DMX for different lights? they're booth standard 3 pin xlr style.. any help gratefully received. I'm way confused

 

It's not clear from your post what you are trying to do.

If you are trying to link lights in master slave mode, read post #2 above... master/slave comms is usually proprietary to the manufacturer, not standard DMX, so the wireless DMX boards won't work.

 

If you are using with a DMX controller then I don't know

[boatman]

.

.

they're booth standard 3 pin xlr style..

.

.

 

No they aren't. There is no standard for DMX on 3-pin XLR as USITT DMX512-A specifies 5-pin XLR connectors. Various manufactures have different ways of wiring the 3-pin XLR connector although they all seem to have agreed that pin 1 should be the screen.

 

Have you tried a crossover cable between the wireless receiver and the first fixture?

[timsabre]

There is no standard for DMX on 3-pin XLR as USITT DMX512-A specifies 5-pin XLR connectors. Various manufactures have different ways of wiring the 3-pin XLR connector although they all seem to have agreed that pin 1 should be the screen.

 

Weeeellll... unless he's using historic disco tat (and he says they are LED pars so newish) then everything is standard these days with pin 3 hot. Unless you've come across something wired differently...

[J Pearce]

Is the DMX speed from the wireless kit full speed, but the controller and cans a slower speed?

 

This would explain the movers working on both, but the cans only on the wire.

[rocklander]

wow.. thanks for all the responses.

I'm happy to admit my understanding is, well.. nil .. I'm pretty handy with a soldering iron and some basic logic, and that's kind of where it ends.

 

what some of you are saying re speed is piquing my interest for troubleshooting, but I'm not sure how I'll actually solve it (if at all).

 

so I probably should detail out what I've done so far.

 

firstly - I have 6 7x10 par puck style cheapie lights ex china. they have words all over them that say DMX in and out, but is it the same DMX as might be acceptable by the wireless? I'm guessing not.

I don't use a traditional DMX board, have only ever used the first can (set to sound) as my master, then DMX cabled them up but wanted to go wireless for ease of set up (bass player has wired them up once or twice not quite right and just trying to make it easier on him of they're all just set to 'go'.

I have fabricated my own version of a DMX controller.. I purchased some of the DMX boards that are the brains of these light and shoehorned them into a hammond style stompbox. one is set to strobe, one to music (and I threw in a sensitivity pot on the mic because out of the box these lights are WAY too sensitive for a pub band). the stomp box has DMX socket (inverse of the way we usually use XLR for audio) and that goes to the first light, and on from there - and the bass player can jump on the stomp to alternate between strobe and music .. pretty simple needs us guys, heh.

that's my normal setup. all work perfectly with DMX cable.

I also own a couple of moving head units

 

so I got the wireless boards to integrate into these internally. wired up one into my 'console' (stomp box) paralleling the DMX out. I tested and the LED on the board is indicating that it is TX fine, plus if I manually connect a DMX lead, all works as before (for testing purposes).

the receiver on the first PAR indicates that it is receiving signal, but the PAR does not show any lights working.. it's not understanding the signal or perhaps the signal it is being sent is bad info.

I wondered if maybe my wiring was bad so went out and bought the external style wireless units (with an external PSU) but the situation is identical

 

so here's the tests with the external because they have the least of 'my' input to maybe screw things up.

 

test 1

PAR to PAR. master on sound, slave DMX A001. Cable - works

 

test 2

PAR to PAR. master on sound, slave DMX A001. wireless - fails

 

test 3

moving head to moving head, master on sound, slave on DMXA001 - cable works

 

test 4

moving head to moving head, master on sound, slave on DMXA001. wireless - WORKS! .. huh?

 

test 5

'my' console to PAR. console as master, PAR set to DMX A001 slave. Cable - works

 

test 6

'my' console to PAR. console as master, PAR set to DMX A001 slave. wireless - fails

 

test 7

moving head to PAR. MH Master and PAR set to DMX A001 - wired - works

 

test 8

moving head to PAR. MH Master and PAR set to DMX A001 - wireless - sorta works - wat? the moving head obviously sends signals that the PAR is not ready to receive (like 'spin' and guff I guess) so it interprets it as odd stuff and gives a faded colour..

 

all this suggests that my problem is the signal being transmitted .. because it received 'something' ... just gotta figure out how I fix it (if at all possible)

 

 

my stomp DMX pic is below if anyone is interested...

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u160/rocklander/DMX-stomp_zpsdyefqf4q.jpg

[cedd]

And that there is your problem.

 

Let me see if my understanding is correct;

You have the guts of some of your lights which you've put inside a stompbox. These are set to master mode and are set to different settings depending on what effect you want that pedal to do. You then have a wireless transmitter going to your LED pars which each have wireless receivers.

 

The problem you have here is that, despite the labels on the pars, you're not actually sending proper DMX from your master devices. You're sending their own control protocol, which may be similar to, but probably isn't, DMX. Of course it all works with cables because that's how it's designed to work, and copper wire is just copper wire. But your wireless transmitters and receivers are built to ONLY send what they recognise as DMX. They may well have the correct LED's lit, but this is probably just because the wireless link is established. I doubt if the receiver is capable of replicating on its' output what the receiver sees on its' input. Wireless links aren't like a piece of wire without the wire - they're each designed to transport the very specific signals that they're built for.

 

Best bet, buy a proper DMX foot controller, set proper DMX addresses on your fixtures rather than just setting them to slave, and then it should all just work.

[rocklander]

And that there is your problem.

 

Let me see if my understanding is correct;

You have the guts of some of your lights which you've put inside a stompbox. These are set to master mode and are set to different settings depending on what effect you want that pedal to do. You then have a wireless transmitter going to your LED pars which each have wireless receivers.

 

The problem you have here is that, despite the labels on the pars, you're not actually sending proper DMX from your master devices. You're sending their own control protocol, which may be similar to, but probably isn't, DMX. Of course it all works with cables because that's how it's designed to work, and copper wire is just copper wire. But your wireless transmitters and receivers are built to ONLY send what they recognise as DMX. They may well have the correct LED's lit, but this is probably just because the wireless link is established. I doubt if the receiver is capable of replicating on its' output what the receiver sees on its' input. Wireless links aren't like a piece of wire without the wire - they're each designed to transport the very specific signals that they're built for.

 

Best bet, buy a proper DMX foot controller, set proper DMX addresses on your fixtures rather than just setting them to slave, and then it should all just work.

 

thanks heaps for the explanation. makes total sense. I assumed if it said "DMX"on it that it should be, but it's not unusual for the cheapo places to make false claims eh.

 

I looked at some proper foot controllers but they're overly complex for my needs and because of that take up too much (precious) stage real estate.. all good. I can just go with wired for the forseeable and maybe use these wireless ones for the moving heads (and I'm looking to buy some more moving head soon too so may be handy there).

 

really appreciate the clarity of the explanation... cheers for that.

[david.elsbury]

I think you still don't understand... They *are* DMX compatible so the label is not incorrect or misleading. But that refers to control from an external controller.

 

The protocol tha they use to talk to each other for master-slave mode is not DMX.

 

That's why it's not being transmitted by these dongles.

 

Have you looked at DMXIS by Enttec as a possible solution? I believe they have s foot controller option

[rocklander]

I think you still don't understand... They *are* DMX compatible so the label is not incorrect or misleading. But that refers to control from an external controller.

 

The protocol tha they use to talk to each other for master-slave mode is not DMX.

 

That's why it's not being transmitted by these dongles.

 

Have you looked at DMXIS by Enttec as a possible solution? I believe they have s foot controller option

 

okay.. so they can receive DMX, but not able to xmit... again, thanks.

I'll check those out thanks :-)

[rocklander]

I think you still don't understand... They *are* DMX compatible so the label is not incorrect or misleading. But that refers to control from an external controller.

 

The protocol tha they use to talk to each other for master-slave mode is not DMX.

 

That's why it's not being transmitted by these dongles.

 

Have you looked at DMXIS by Enttec as a possible solution? I believe they have s foot controller option

 

okay.. so they can receive DMX, but not able to xmit... again, thanks.

I'll check those out thanks :-)

 

so I found a proper DMX unit and tested it on my lights. turns out it receives all colours except red... that was on direct cable (didn't get to trying the wireless).

weird. so even a real DMX doesn't work for me on these lights.

[warrenstuart]

This is a very interesting read as I spent hours and hours earlier in the year tring to get wireless DMX boards to work master - slave with my ADJ mega tri par profile plus flat pars and came to the same conclusion that master - slave protocol isn't the same as DMX protocol and the wireless boards therefore aren't compatible.

I've since purchased a small ADJ DMX controller really just to experiment with using the wireless boards but with holidays and wedding season haven't had chance to test it yet but fingers crossed it will work.

 

Warren

[alistermorton]

I think you still don't understand... They *are* DMX compatible so the label is not incorrect or misleading. But that refers to control from an external controller.

 

The protocol tha they use to talk to each other for master-slave mode is not DMX.

 

That's why it's not being transmitted by these dongles.

 

Have you looked at DMXIS by Enttec as a possible solution? I believe they have s foot controller option

 

okay.. so they can receive DMX, but not able to xmit... again, thanks.

I'll check those out thanks :-)

 

so I found a proper DMX unit and tested it on my lights. turns out it receives all colours except red... that was on direct cable (didn't get to trying the wireless).

weird. so even a real DMX doesn't work for me on these lights.

 

That's ... interesting. What controller did you use and how were the fixtures addressed?

[rocklander]

 

 

so I found a proper DMX unit and tested it on my lights. turns out it receives all colours except red... that was on direct cable (didn't get to trying the wireless).

weird. so even a real DMX doesn't work for me on these lights.

 

That's ... interesting. What controller did you use and how were the fixtures addressed?

 

my posts thus far hopefully illustrate my ignorance so I'll reinforce that by saying that I do not know what 'fuxture addressing' actually is.. sorry.

the item is this:

http://www.jaycar.co.nz/PA-%26-Party-Equipment/Party-Lighting%2C-Effects-%26-Accessories/PA-Party-Lighting-Accessories/5-Channel-DMX-LED-Light-Controller/p/SL3423

 

I saw the price and thought it'd be worth a crack if I could open it up and parallel a pair momentary spst footswitches out to a foot pedal (across the 'sound' and 'strobe' options), but when I plugged it in to test in the store it was actualy the guy who noticed RED hadn't come on (in the 'sound' function). unplugged and used it as sound on the par itself and red comes up.

we saw like a 'blank' ever so often so am wondering if the cans' interpret red as blank? ..ubt yes.. seems I should stick with my wired setup for now and I'll use the wireless for the moving head I have (and a couple more on the way too). shame, but the price of these cans,. it's prolly not worth investing too much more into them, heh. its more cos I like to nut out a problem if/when I can. heh

[david.elsbury]

Where in NZ are you?

[Don Allen]

If you are trying to get led pars going with DMX and the colours dont match up, try moving your DMX start address up or down by 1 as a quick check. Sometimes the DMX chart in the handbooks is not correct, sometimes my I make a mistake creating a profile for the fixture and the quickest test is to change the fixture DMX address.

 

I fyou are trying to gel fixtures working and it seems to be a timing problem, see if you cam borrow a DMX merge as the one I have can change the DMX timing, which is usefull for the odd fixture that does not want to work. Probably not practical for your setup.

 

Have you contacted the supplier of the led pars ? as sometimes they are interested in feedback to improve their product, but most sellers are not, regretfully, they are just salespersons.