# Thoughts on this light... World's smallest RGB DMX light



## beardedbil (Jul 27, 2011)

To all members,
I am working on a haunted attraction project for a client and he desperatly wants to use these Precision DMX lights which are marketed as the worlds smallest RGB DMX light:

Precision DMX: RGB Theatrical Light

My question and potential problem is the way the light is manufactured. It shows only one DMX input on a 3.5mm TRS jack. When I spoke to the vendor he suggested using a headphone splitter to direct the DMX signal onto the next light for ease of wiring. Then we could use simple 1/8" headphone extensions to go from light to light. 

The website does show a setup diagram (seen below) using bare wires but he shows the signal T-ing at every light. It is my understanding that the DMX protocol does not allow this type of wiring. Am I completely wrong? I would think the headphone splitter would not work as well either.





When speaking to the vendor about this he said he did a lab test using headphone extensions as wire and it worked perfectly for the 5 lights he setup. We will be using over 75 lights between 2 universes of DMX which makes me worry. We will also be using a DMX splitter from Blizzard lighting to hopefully cut down on any errors and length of DMX legs . I am writing today to get the members feelings and thoughts on this light... Hope everyone is having a great day!
Best,
Bill Rod.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jul 27, 2011)

It will work until it won't. Your right in thinking dmx doesn't like being split like that.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## jfleenor (Jul 27, 2011)

Hey there Bill! I was pointed in this thread's direction [Thanks Dave!], and I got Milton to take a look at it for you. Here's his response:


> I have avoided Control Booth as I would spend all day doing nothing but that. As a consequence, I have no login. So, here's my response to this thread:
> 
> The use of a 3.5mm TRS connector and the cable typically associated with such connectors is definitely outside of the DMX512 and DMX512-A specifications. "T", "Y", and star wiring topologies are also not allowed. The fact that someone did a test with 5 fixtures and it "worked perfectly" is only because the tester is lucky and/or the test was performed over a very fairly short cables (under 25 feet). We have made DMX work perfectly over barbed wire laying on the ground, but if you try that over a 500 foot run, you will quickly discover why we always emphasize proper cable and connectors.
> 
> ...



I hope he was able to answer your questions. Have a great day!


----------



## beardedbil (Jul 27, 2011)

jfleenor said:


> Hey there Bill! I was pointed in this thread's direction [Thanks Dave!], and I got Milton to take a look at it for you. Here's his response:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope he was able to answer your questions. Have a great day!



Thank you very much for the response. I understand what you mean by using as many DMX splitters as possible. I doubt my client with go for that solution but that will always be an option I can present him. 

One thing my client did purchase was custom 3.5mm TRS to XLR cables. So that the pinout of the TRS matches that of a 3 pin dmx signal. Whether that makes this more stable of a system, I doubt it, but maybe it will help the slightest. I guess at this point I am going to cross my fingers and just hope it works, but in reality I am pretty sure running these lights over long distances will have issues.
Thank you again...
Best,
Bill Rod.


----------



## xander (Jul 27, 2011)

Personally, I would avoid using this product. Trying to get 75 of them all working flawlessly (all at the same time) might turn into a real nightmare. What exactly is the application that requires such a small unit? It's only 3 watts and has a 120deg beam angle. I can't imagine it is really going to accomplish what your client wants it to. You could probably get just about as much light out of something like LED tape. Is it possible to go a little bit larger in order to get a more appropriate product?

-Tim


----------



## beardedbil (Jul 27, 2011)

xander said:


> Personally, I would avoid using this product. Trying to get 75 of them all working flawlessly (all at the same time) might turn into a real nightmare. What exactly is the application that requires such a small unit? It's only 3 watts and has a 120deg beam angle. I can't imagine it is really going to accomplish what your client wants it to. You could probably get just about as much light out of something like LED tape. Is it possible to go a little bit larger in order to get a more appropriate product?
> 
> -Tim


 
Hi Tim,
My client likes it because it is so small making it easy to hide in the rafters or sometimes right above the customer as they walk through the haunted attraction. I advised against the product but he went ahead and purchased 75 of them anyways. I believed he really liked it as well because it offers a "flicker" setting, and he likes to make many fixtures flicker which is a pain to do through DMX, as we will be using an DMX playback module for the entire attraction. It basically needs to light small scenes in a walk through attraction. I wouldn't mind at all going larger for a more stable system, but I couldn't seem to locate anything within a similar price range, with similar or higher output... Do you know of anything?
Best,
Bill Rod.


----------



## beardedbil (Jul 27, 2011)

Also here is the diagram the vendor gave me, which made me very suspicious...


----------



## KGDJ (Jul 27, 2011)

I use the RGB Pinball from Blizzard Lighting and it has the 1/8" jacks for DMX. However, it has a seperate input and thru on it. I made a DMX to 1/8" adaptor and then just daisy chain them. 9 times out of 10, though, I just use the internal programs.

PinBall

It's stupid small too. About the size of a softball.


----------



## dj41354 (Jul 28, 2011)

another small LED fixture, The BrickBlaster PRO:
LED Fixtures | The Black Tank
4x4x4" cube, RGBW, 50W, 1200Lumens, adjustable beam angle (15 to 60degrees) $780MSRP


----------



## len (Jul 28, 2011)

Not a fan of yet another cable connection. It may be fine if you're using this in permanent installation, but for those of us who are going in and out of places on a regular basis, it'd be pretty low on my wish list just because of that.


----------



## chausman (Jul 28, 2011)

beardedbil said:


> Also here is the diagram the vendor gave me, which made me very suspicious...
> View attachment 5302


 
As far as I know, those splitters, wouldn't work like that. Unless it is some proprietary splitter, they split the male end, and send that to the female end. As in, having the same pin-out on each end. Not, having an in on one side and an out on the other.


----------



## derekleffew (Jul 28, 2011)

chausman said:


> As far as I know, those splitters, wouldn't work like that. Unless it is some proprietary splitter, they split the male end, and send that to the female end. As in, having the same pin-out on each end. Not, having an in on one side and an out on the other.


 
They're like these

Amazon.com: GLS Audio 6 Inch Patch Y Cable Cords - 1/4" TRS Male To Dual 1/4" TRS Female Cables - 6" Home Series Y-Cable Cord Splitter - 4 PACK: Electronics
and will work fine, unless/until they don't. Oh, and this:

> Splitting
> 
> Never split a DMX signal with a "wye" cable. Use a splitter device that buffers each line separately or daisy chain from device to device.
> 
> ...


 from Doug Fleenor Design - DMX Primer .


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 28, 2011)

We're talking here about putting spurs on the DMX line, not generally a wise move.
BUT we're talking about spurs that are 6 inches long, maybe 8 once you add everything up...
I'd hazard a guess that there is more than one DMX product out there that has a straight link between input and thru connectors and then a cable coming off that PCB to connect to the motherboard - is that not also a spur that's probably at least 8 inches long?

I presumed that the vendor in quesion was suggesting the use of the rigid 1/8" double adapters, rather than a cable based Y per Derek's pics. Ultimately that's moot, both legs of that are the main DMX trunk, not the spur.

I'd probably be looking to break the system up into a few runs and isolate each one off but my gut reaction is that a run of 10 or 15 is probably going to behave OK. Wer'e not talking about vast distances from what I can gather.
You could use an actual data cable in lieu of the headphone cables - that will help things along, particularly for the trunk line between splitter and 1st fixture.


----------



## thrilltainment (Jul 30, 2011)

jfleenor said:


> Hey there Bill! I was pointed in this thread's direction [Thanks Dave!], and I got Milton to take a look at it for you. Here's his response:
> [...]
> I hope he was able to answer your questions. Have a great day!



Dear All,

I noticed this discussion about our product and wanted to comment. Indeed, the TRS plug that we use for DMX signal is non-standard. This was a design trade off we had to decide on in the early stages of product development. We had customers needing extremely compact lighting solutions with DMX control --- using an XLR cabling system was just too large for the design as a single XLR plug is about the size of the light fixture, let alone two plugs. In the applications that called for our product, distance wasn't as big of an issue as size.

That being said, we definitely understand the concern of signal degradation over splitting and longer distances. Therefore, we are developing signal repeaters that offers a DMX through output. These repeaters can be directly plugged into our Precision DMX lights to pass the DMX In signal to the light while repeating a pass-through signal for the DMX Out connection down to the next fixture. If trying to follow DMX standards (other than the plug form factor), each fixture would be attached to one of these repeaters --- but practically speaking, using a single repeater for several fixtures is quite reasonable.

I have included a video of us successfully controlling 32 individually addressed fixtures over 525ft of audio extension cable using only Y splitters.



We certainly appreciate any feedback the lighting community can offer us as we're continuously innovating to meet our customers' demands.

Sincerely,

Quan Gan
President, Darklight: Precision Lighting System


----------



## beardedbil (Jul 30, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> Dear All,
> 
> I noticed this discussion about our product and wanted to comment. Indeed, the TRS plug that we use for DMX signal is non-standard. This was a design trade off we had to decide on in the early stages of product development. We had customers needing extremely compact lighting solutions with DMX control --- using an XLR cabling system was just too large for the design as a single XLR plug is about the size of the light fixture, let alone two plugs. In the applications that called for our product, distance wasn't as big of an issue as size.
> 
> ...




Thank you to all who responded about my original post. There has been great insight and I appreciate Quan (the owner of Darklight systems and the light we are discussing) coming on here and re-assuring me about the Precision DMX light.

Chris15, your right I will be splitting the DMX legs into as few lights as possible. I have a 8output DMX splitter so I will run a few lights of each output to cut down on any signal errors and also isolate any problems that may exist in the system. From seeing Quan's video it does give me confidence that it will work with the audio extension cables and my 6in "y" cables, much like the ones pictured above.

I will be installing these lights in September and will be happy to report back how they work. My experience with Darklight Systems has been a good one and Quan seems to want to do whatever he can to make sure his system works, and works properly, and I really appreciate that.
Best,
Bill Rod.


----------



## KeeperoftheKeys (Jul 30, 2011)

- I hope I won't be strung up for this one, playing devils' advocate here -

Though on the one hand their wiring scheme does look really bad (and lets not even talk about the cabling recommendation), and gave me the same close to alergic reaction as most people above.
The Y-splits here are actually more like the 'normal' EIA-485 bus since every Y serves 1 fixture (which is in essence what also happens inside of any fixture), this is of course on the condition that you use no more then 1 fixture per Y and have 1 'bus' and that the tail from the fixture is not too long (no longer then 3 feet/1m IIRC).

Obviously obeying standards is important and situations with lots of different plugs and polarities for the same signal are just annoying for the users but DMX-512 does allow other plugs when the fixture is unable to accommodate full-size XLR plugs due to size restrictions.


----------



## derekleffew (Jul 30, 2011)

KeeperoftheKeys said:


> ... but DMX-512 does allow other plugs when the fixture is unable to accommodate full-size XLR plugs due to size restrictions.


Interesting. Would you show where in ANSI E1.11 - 2008 this is stated?


----------



## ScottT (Jul 30, 2011)

derekleffew said:


> Interesting. Would you show where in ANSI E1.11 - 2008 this is stated?


 
It's located here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMX-512#Connectors said:


> DMX512 1990 specifies that where connectors are used, the data link shall use five-pin XLR style electrical connectors (XLR-5), with female connectors used on transmitting (OUT) ports and male connectors on receiving ports. DMX512-A (E1.11) requires the use of an XLR-5 connector, unless there is insufficient physical space on the device, in which case an XLR-5 adapter shall be supplied. DMX512-A (E1.11-2008) allows the use of eight-pin modular (RJ-45) connectors for fixed installations where regular plugging and unplugging of equipment is not required.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jul 30, 2011)

But that requires that there be an XLR-5 Adapter meaning going from the device there should be a tail ending in the five pin XLR, for connection not substituting the connector for a different one.


----------



## ScottT (Jul 30, 2011)

DuckJordan said:


> But that requires that there be an XLR-5 Adapter meaning going from the device there should be a tail ending in the five pin XLR, for connection not substituting the connector for a different one.


 
I wasn't commenting on the original problem, only on derekleffew's request.


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 30, 2011)

Let's be blunt here.
DMX was designed in the days when it went from a console to a dimmer rack. Neither of those are terribly lean on real estate to accomodate XLR5 connectors...
There is no valid argument for using XLR3s but there is a very valid argument to use an alternate connector where the use of XLR5s would mean DOUBLING the size of the instrument.
Sure, Darklight could go and use a LEMO or the like for the input and the output, but at that point the connectros alone will bump the price up to like 4x it's current.

Strictly speaking, if Darklight supplied an adapter of XLR5 to 1/8" TRS, the unit would be compliant...

Maybe the standards committee needs to address the issue of small form factor dmx connectors more comprehensively in the next edition of the standard... 5 pin TiniQ does exist...


----------



## thrilltainment (Jul 31, 2011)

Chris15 said:


> Let's be blunt here.
> DMX was designed in the days when it went from a console to a dimmer rack. Neither of those are terribly lean on real estate to accomodate XLR5 connectors...
> There is no valid argument for using XLR3s but there is a very valid argument to use an alternate connector where the use of XLR5s would mean DOUBLING the size of the instrument.
> Sure, Darklight could go and use a LEMO or the like for the input and the output, but at that point the connectros alone will bump the price up to like 4x it's current.
> ...


 
Chris, your points are exactly what we considered during development. It is impractical for us to fit a 5 pin XLR into our system (let alone two: one in and one out) as the cable headers will outweigh the light fixture.


----------



## thrilltainment (Jul 31, 2011)

KeeperoftheKeys said:


> - I hope I won't be strung up for this one, playing devils' advocate here -
> 
> Though on the one hand their wiring scheme does look really bad (and lets not even talk about the cabling recommendation), and gave me the same close to alergic reaction as most people above.
> The Y-splits here are actually more like the 'normal' EIA-485 bus since every Y serves 1 fixture (which is in essence what also happens inside of any fixture), this is of course on the condition that you use no more then 1 fixture per Y and have 1 'bus' and that the tail from the fixture is not too long (no longer then 3 feet/1m IIRC).
> ...



Keeper,

The reason for using the TRS plug isn't necessarily for customers to go and use audio cable extensions and splitters to hook up the system (although practically speaking, they can up to certain distances --- as demonstrated in the lab video above). The real reason behind using TRS is simply to provide a plug and play adapter to the bare wire pigtails. This way if you want to swap out a fixture, the cabling (both power and signal) can remain intact and you can simply unplug the light. This feature is coherent with our entire product line.

Our official recommendation is using a single DMX bus and tapping the fixture signal wires into the bus by hard wiring:



There are many RGB fixtures out there without a pass-thru connection, and the many fixtures that DO have a DMX pass-thru are directly connecting each pin of the DMX out signal to the DMX in signal. You're right --- it's essentially what we're doing in the above diagram except the tapping in point is within the fixture.


----------



## SHARYNF (Jul 31, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> Keeper,
> 
> The reason for using the TRS plug isn't necessarily for customers to go and use audio cable extensions and splitters to hook up the system (although practically speaking, they can up to certain distances --- as demonstrated in the lab video above). The real reason behind using TRS is simply to provide a plug and play adapter to the bare wire pigtails. This way if you want to swap out a fixture, the cabling (both power and signal) can remain intact and you can simply unplug the light. This feature is coherent with our entire product line.
> 
> ...



My suggestion to avoid problems is to make up a cable that is part of your light that has both the power connection AND the In and out TRS connection, that way you control that part of the system, and them make SURE your customers use trs properly wired connectors. this would eliminate the customer getting some sort of Y adaptor Where difficulty is going to arise is IF you customer decides to use a dual 1/8 to single trs adaptor that is designed for two TS (MONO JACKS) then you are likely to short out the dmx connections. I agree if you look inside a lot of dmx fixtures in fact many of them (on the low end) simply loop the xlr ins and outs. Obviously you also want to make sure that there is NO way for the customer to plug the power 12v into the dmx connection

Sharyn


----------



## n1ist (Jul 31, 2011)

If there's space, I'd suggest a pair of RJ45 connectors on the fixture (or one and a 2-way splitter), for both data and power. CAT5 is at least 120R twisted pair, and this is commonly done in the animated (Christmas) lighting world.
/mike


----------



## thrilltainment (Jul 31, 2011)

Thanks Sharyn and Mike both for your input. RJ45 is an option we are considering for a future revision.

Mike --- when you suggested the dual RJ45 ports, you said to use them for both signal AND power? I assume you mean putting the power on pins 4 and 5 of the RJ-45? In terms of space, there's absolutely NO SPACE for RJ45 headers on the light fixture itself --- the only possibility is a dongle with those ports connected to the fixture cable. Cosmetically, it may look a bit awkward compared to our current design but I agree that it will at least follow DMX512 standard.

Does anyone see a potential problem assigning the undefined pins 4 and 5 of the RJ-45 cable to 12V power and ground? I guess there's the potential problem of a user accidentally taking our DMX RJ-45 cable (with power on pins 4/5) and accidentally plugging it into a computer or something...


Sharyn --- you're right about taking control of these potential variables. We will look into the option of a different cabling interface for the user.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jul 31, 2011)

It could happen but with a properly labeled unit that provides the power, it should be okay. you could have the power-supply/DMX receiver have the appropriate labels it should be perfectly fine since it would require them to take an Ethernet cable between the two. the most it could do is flip the internal breaker on the computers power supply. Since most computers run their networking devices off of 12 volt anyway.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 1, 2011)

DuckJordan said:


> It could happen but with a properly labeled unit that provides the power, it should be okay. you could have the power-supply/DMX receiver have the appropriate labels it should be perfectly fine since it would require them to take an Ethernet cable between the two. the most it could do is flip the internal breaker on the computers power supply. Since most computers run their networking devices off of 12 volt anyway.


 
The advantage of putting power inside the RJ45 cable is we now only have 1 jack to deal with instead of two. You could also potentially daisy chain the lights with a single cable that has both power and signal. However... the wires in the RJ45 cable isn't very low gauge --- over long runs and multiple fixtures, there will be significant voltage drop. So this connection method will be limited in distance and number of daisy chained fixtures.

Does anyone see a potential problem of the power on pins 4 and 5 causing interference with the DMX signal on the same cable?


----------



## shiben (Aug 1, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> The advantage of putting power inside the RJ45 cable is we now only have 1 jack to deal with instead of two. You could also potentially daisy chain the lights with a single cable that has both power and signal. However... the wires in the RJ45 cable isn't very low gauge --- over long runs and multiple fixtures, there will be significant voltage drop. So this connection method will be limited in distance and number of daisy chained fixtures.
> 
> Does anyone see a potential problem of the power on pins 4 and 5 causing interference with the DMX signal on the same cable?


 
I think a lot of networking devices already do it, and they send a lot of data on there... Also I believe that if its twisted pair the interference becomes moot? Been a while since I took E&M...


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 1, 2011)

shiben said:


> I think a lot of networking devices already do it, and they send a lot of data on there... Also I believe that if its twisted pair the interference becomes moot? Been a while since I took E&M...


 
Can you offer an example of such devices? I guess they are using pins 4 and 5 for power and ground... but which is power and which is ground? If this is something to consider, we want to pick the pinout that is compatible with the greatest number of 3rd party devices... would hate to have it in reverse and have some 3rd party device blow a fuse.


----------



## beardedbil (Aug 1, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> Can you offer an example of such devices? I guess they are using pins 4 and 5 for power and ground... but which is power and which is ground? If this is something to consider, we want to pick the pinout that is compatible with the greatest number of 3rd party devices... would hate to have it in reverse and have some 3rd party device blow a fuse.


 
Quan if you go the RJ45 route, we can then easily use RJ45 terminators as well which makes it a little easier to terminate than your current line up.
Best,
Bill Rod.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 1, 2011)

beardedbil said:


> Quan if you go the RJ45 route, we can then easily use RJ45 terminators as well which makes it a little easier to terminate than your current line up.
> Best,
> Bill Rod.


 
It would be nice to have power inside the RJ45 cable... i just found a spec called "Power over Ethernet" or PoE --- it requires 48V and only up to 15W, so we'll have to figure out how something like that can be used, this is likely a completely different system and setup than what we currently have.

For this current project, the devices will have to be 3.5mm TRS but I do have a backup solution using RJ45 cable (just for signal) if the signal doesn't seem reliable. I'll have that available to you as a backup option during installation.

I don't foresee any major issues with your install because:
we've verified over 60 fixtures to work on a single DMX universe over 900ft (the video only shows 32 fixtures at 500+ft). Your setup will be multiple isolated busses with much shorter runs and less fixtures per run. Our setup condition uses over 900ft of unsheilded 3.5mm extension cable wrapped in loops... these are pretty bad conditions, and if we can verify in this condition, the haunt shouldn't be very difficult.


----------



## beardedbil (Aug 1, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> It would be nice to have power inside the RJ45 cable... i just found a spec called "Power over Ethernet" or PoE --- it requires 48V and only up to 15W, so we'll have to figure out how something like that can be used, this is likely a completely different system and setup than what we currently have.
> 
> For this current project, the devices will have to be 3.5mm TRS but I do have a backup solution using RJ45 cable (just for signal) if the signal doesn't seem reliable. I'll have that available to you as a backup option during installation.
> 
> ...



Oh I completely agree for this project we should be set with the TRS, I was just suggesting for future revisions on the light... 
Best,
Bill Rod.


----------



## xander (Aug 1, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> Our setup condition uses over 900ft of unsheilded 3.5mm extension cable wrapped in loops... these are pretty bad conditions, and if we can verify in this condition, the haunt shouldn't be very difficult.



If (which it sounds like it is) a short term project, yes, it will probably work out great. However, I would think seriously about the suggestions that have been thrown out in this thread. Regardless of connector type, the recommendation of using audio cable instead of data grade cable is, in my opinion, a bad idea for business because it will fail. Maybe not now. Maybe not in your shop test. Maybe not on this particular install. But it will when you get any significant number of hours of use in variety of venues. These units strike me as being used much more in a architectural/permanent install type of situation, where reliability is key, than in a theater where you generally have more access to the fixture and knowledgeable electricians around to fix it. 

My $.02
-Tim


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Aug 1, 2011)

Well, I'm just going to say that I think the idea of a tiny, DMX controllable, hide-a-way RGB LED lighting unit is a great idea. I for one support companies who try new and creative ideas instead of just copying other makers models.

That said, I would like to see a more "professional" product in the future. I think the idea of combined 12v power and DMX signal for the next model is a good idea. (ColorKinetics uses a power supply and a 4 pin cable don't they? Why not go that route if one is already using a non standard, that is, not five-pin XLR DMX connector?)

thrilltainment, while I can see what you are trying to get at, the short and simple answer is that using a wye cable with DMX signal, instead of a signal splitter, is neither approved nor recommended, and is, no matter what the reasonings (be they cost, 'so n so does it' or 'well it works for me' ) a gamble.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 2, 2011)

Please excuse the crudeness of the drawing, but would everyone feel better about this type of cabling system? The only difference between this and what we currently have is we split the signal off for you instead of having you use audio splitters and that we're using RJ45 ports instead of audio ports. So this should be DMX512 compliant...



advantage: we're using DMX compliant cabling...
disadvantage: much bulkier tail


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 2, 2011)

xander said:


> If (which it sounds like it is) a short term project, yes, it will probably work out great. However, I would think seriously about the suggestions that have been thrown out in this thread. Regardless of connector type, the recommendation of using audio cable instead of data grade cable is, in my opinion, a bad idea for business because it will fail. Maybe not now. Maybe not in your shop test. Maybe not on this particular install. But it will when you get any significant number of hours of use in variety of venues. These units strike me as being used much more in a architectural/permanent install type of situation, where reliability is key, than in a theater where you generally have more access to the fixture and knowledgeable electricians around to fix it.
> 
> My $.02
> -Tim


 
We agree that audio cable is non-compliant and we would never recommend it for permanent installations either. Our system comes with a pigtail connector which splits off into 3 wires --- it is the user's decision on what type of cabling should be used for the install. We recommend data cable with hardwired connections to our 3 signal wires. The 3.5mm TRS form factor was intended for convenience of removing the fixture for temporary installations, it wasn't intended to guide the user into using audio cable for extensions (although there isn't anything stopping them). Some of our customers make custom shielded cables with 3.5mm adapters at the end.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 2, 2011)

gafftapegreenia said:


> Well, I'm just going to say that I think the idea of a tiny, DMX controllable, hide-a-way RGB LED lighting unit is a great idea. I for one support companies who try new and creative ideas instead of just copying other makers models.
> 
> That said, I would like to see a more "professional" product in the future. I think the idea of combined 12v power and DMX signal for the next model is a good idea. (ColorKinetics uses a power supply and a 4 pin cable don't they? Why not go that route if one is already using a non standard, that is, not five-pin XLR DMX connector?)
> 
> thrilltainment, while I can see what you are trying to get at, the short and simple answer is that using a wye cable with DMX signal, instead of a signal splitter, is neither approved nor recommended, and is, no matter what the reasonings (be they cost, 'so n so does it' or 'well it works for me' ) a gamble.


 
we will be working on higher end and higher output models that have some of the features mentioned in this thread --- I am grateful that Bill has posted this question and the forum is able to offer some insight into the needs of the lighting industry. We are a new company (established spring 2010) and have lots to learn, research, and develop. thanks for your valuable input! we'll put it to good use =)


----------



## traxman25 (Aug 2, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> Please excuse the crudeness of the drawing, but would everyone feel better about this type of cabling system? The only difference between this and what we currently have is we split the signal off for you instead of having you use audio splitters and that we're using RJ45 ports instead of audio ports. So this should be DMX512 compliant...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In reality the tail wouldn't be much larger that it already is. By the time you factor in the end user having to add in their own TRS adapters and splitters, and the power connections that are already there, providing one simple tail that has all of it integrated works out significantly easier for the end user. It will also be a much cleaner install.


----------



## Les (Aug 2, 2011)

I think it's great how thrilltainment is actively listening to the suggestions posted here, rather than endlessly defending his product. He could easily claim that it's "just fine the way it is". This is how great products are developed --- by listening to customers/potential users.


----------



## SanTai (Aug 2, 2011)

I've got another possible solution to suggest:

Since you are already supplying power too the xlr/trs adapter, you could with a few resistors impedance match the different kinds of cable which will adress the problem mentioned here about reflections. However this will comes at a cost, it will lower the signal level but that could be addressed with a simple amplifier since you've got power.

Please not that this will not solve the high characteristic capacitance problem that could be that case with audio cable, that could be solved with recommending a specific cable that meets that criteria.


This way of doing it is not following the standard, but done right it would avoid all that which you want to avoid with following the standard.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 2, 2011)

SanTai said:


> I've got another possible solution to suggest:
> 
> Since you are already supplying power too the xlr/trs adapter, you could with a few resistors impedance match the different kinds of cable which will adress the problem mentioned here about reflections. However this will comes at a cost, it will lower the signal level but that could be addressed with a simple amplifier since you've got power.
> 
> ...



I was wondering when a page 2 would be started for this thread --- it was take quite a white to load the first page, lol =)

After looking at all the possible suggestions here, we will be prototyping a cable with a PCB attached to the end with 2 RJ45 ports (DMX in and DMX out) and a 12V DC in. There will be 2 added items to the PCB: an LED power indicator and a switch to connect or disconnect a 120ohm resistor for line termination. I'll keep everyone posted on the progress --- I hope this solution (although it may not look as nice as the smaller TRS connectors) will make everyone more at ease with our product configuration. Please let us know otherwise, if this configuration still does not follow DMX512 standards.


----------



## DuckJordan (Aug 2, 2011)

It sound great and actually as long as your trying to require users to use a data rated cable its within guidelines to me. Personally I'd much rather see an RJ45 than a TRS for dmx control. Also the Idea of adding a switchable termination on the devices makes it a convenient device. If I had the budget I'd probably purchase a set of 20 of these new models.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 2, 2011)

Les said:


> I think it's great how thrilltainment is actively listening to the suggestions posted here, rather than endlessly defending his product. He could easily claim that it's "just fine the way it is". This is how great products are developed --- by listening to customers/potential users.


 
this forum has certainly offered us a lot of insight --- us engineers often need to take a step back and look at the big picture of the application instead of just the product itself. thanks for your appreciation =)


----------



## xander (Aug 2, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> After looking at all the possible suggestions here, we will be prototyping a cable with a PCB attached to the end with 2 RJ45 ports (DMX in and DMX out) and a 12V DC in. There will be 2 added items to the PCB: an LED power indicator and a switch to connect or disconnect a 120ohm resistor for line termination. I'll keep everyone posted on the progress --- I hope this solution (although it may not look as nice as the smaller TRS connectors) will make everyone more at ease with our product configuration. Please let us know otherwise, if this configuration still does not follow DMX512 standards.


Personally, I do not think RJ45 connectors are the right choice if you are planning on marketing the product to the theater/event industry. If you are only marketing to the architectural sector, then I would say "ok". My concerns are as follows: The use of category cable for data transmission is only compliant with ANSI E1.11 - 2008 if the cable is run in a conduit or similar to provide shielding. As I said, for permanent installs, I think this is fine because the standard is much more likely to be followed. However, for the more temporary industry, by providing only RJ45 receptacles, the likelihood of consumers using Radio Shack "ethernet" cables soars. I would say Ethercon connectors, perhaps? But then you are at the same form factor as a XLR5, and then the question becomes why not just use that? 

Because I don't have the smarts to come up with some brand new brilliant idea about how to solve this, I think maybe the best way to approach this would be to take a play from Color Kinetics and use the XLR4. Add a tail to the instrument so that the connector doesn't interfere with its size. Yes, daisy chaining is nicer, but the ColorBlasts aren't having any trouble selling. Make it compatible with existing accessory PSUs (e.g. ChromaQ, Rosco, DFD, etc.), and there ya go. People already have all the necessary infrastructure to pop these right into their inventory.

But I am just thinking out loud.

-Tim


----------



## shiben (Aug 2, 2011)

xander said:


> Personally, I do not think RJ45 connectors are the right choice if you are planning on marketing the product to the theater/event industry. If you are only marketing to the architectural sector, then I would say "ok". My concerns are as follows: The use of category cable for data transmission is only compliant with ANSI E1.11 - 2008 if the cable is run in a conduit or similar to provide shielding. As I said, for permanent installs, I think this is fine because the standard is much more likely to be followed. However, for the more temporary industry, by providing only RJ45 receptacles, the likelihood of consumers using Radio Shack "ethernet" cables soars. I would say Ethercon connectors, perhaps? But then you are at the same form factor as a XLR5, and then the question becomes why not just use that?
> 
> Because I don't have the smarts to come up with some brand new brilliant idea about how to solve this, I think maybe the best way to approach this would be to take a play from Color Kinetics and use the XLR4. Add a tail to the instrument so that the connector doesn't interfere with its size. Yes, daisy chaining is nicer, but the ColorBlasts aren't having any trouble selling. Make it compatible with existing accessory PSUs (e.g. ChromaQ, Rosco, DFD, etc.), and there ya go. People already have all the necessary infrastructure to pop these right into their inventory.
> 
> ...


 
Actually thats a really good idea. Then the consumer wouldnt have to buy new cables, and your power and data is all taken care of... Only issue I can think of is you really will want a daisy chain function of some sort on there, and also thinking out loud, If I wanted to put 20 of these near each other, thats a ton of cable and XLR connectors that I now need to tape up/deal with...


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Aug 2, 2011)

Xander, thats essentially what I was trying to get at. Go with a tried and true format. If it had a single power supply with 5 pin XLR for DMX in and out that could power say, a dozen of these little fixtures with a single cable to each fixture, I think it'd be great.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 3, 2011)

The XLR 4 format seems feasible because of the combination of power and signal. Does anyone know the specifications of the signals in the XLR4 cable? Is it simply passing the XLR5's data DMX + and DMX - to the XLR4 wire or does some processing occur?

If anyone has one of these Chroma Q power supplies and wouldn't mind testing for connectivity between XLR5's pins 1/2/3 and the XLR4 pins 1/2/3 I would greatly appreciate it.

Excuse the crude drawing again, but how would everyone feel about this type of cable assembly?




This will most likely have to be a complete revision of the fixture because it is a 24V system.


----------



## soundlight (Aug 3, 2011)

I still like the daisy chain idea. If you look inside a lot of DMX fixtures they're just taking a tap off of the line as these do with the split cable. I do like the idea of a more industry standard connector, though. I don't like the part about a mini TRS not being locking. That could be a real issue. I do like the part about carrying power on the line. I think that with RJ45 you would be able to carry power and data on the line for a certain number of these fixtures (12? 20? 30? Depends on power draw.) and make the cable runs much easier if there were a bunch in a row. I absolutely despise that the CB12s require a home run per fixture. They still sell because they were the right product in the right place at the right time, not at all because they're the best tool for the job. Home runs on those things can really suck.

So - RJ45, daisy chain, carrying power + data. Not exactly sure how you'd do it with the size of the fixture (which I do think is wonderful) but this is something to consider, I think.


----------



## xander (Aug 3, 2011)

This hits the same snag as your original design with the wye-ing of the data cable.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 3, 2011)

xander said:


> This hits the same snag as your original design with the wye-ing of the data cable.


 
like soundlight has mentioned, most DMX fixtures ARE simply tapping into the main line. They simply do it within the fixture where we have a cable doing it outside of the fixture. The non-compliant Y that should worry people are ones where you have multiple fixtures hanging off of each branch of the Y --- and over longer distances. The Y split here is only at most 20 inches long and dedicated to a single receiver. If you think about it, just about every single pass-thru DMX unit is a mini-Y split.


----------



## beardedbil (Aug 3, 2011)

Hey Quan,
I hope my original post has helped and not thrown you for a loop. I only want to see your products get better and have more uses for more venues. I to enjoy that you are on here and actually listening to the needs of possible users. If there is a revision to the light I hope to run it for a test drive some day.

I do like the idea of running power and data over the same line (XLR4), makes my life easier when installing... not sure if its possible or practical though...
Best,
Bill Rod.
Dark Tech Effects
DARK TECH EFFECTS


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 3, 2011)

soundlight said:


> I still like the daisy chain idea. If you look inside a lot of DMX fixtures they're just taking a tap off of the line as these do with the split cable. I do like the idea of a more industry standard connector, though. I don't like the part about a mini TRS not being locking. That could be a real issue. I do like the part about carrying power on the line. I think that with RJ45 you would be able to carry power and data on the line for a certain number of these fixtures (12? 20? 30? Depends on power draw.) and make the cable runs much easier if there were a bunch in a row. I absolutely despise that the CB12s require a home run per fixture. They still sell because they were the right product in the right place at the right time, not at all because they're the best tool for the job. Home runs on those things can really suck.
> 
> So - RJ45, daisy chain, carrying power + data. Not exactly sure how you'd do it with the size of the fixture (which I do think is wonderful) but this is something to consider, I think.


 

the problem with RJ45 carrying power is that the wires are simply too thin. Although there are Power over Ethernet solutions (PoE), they require 48 volts running at most at 350mA over 2 pairs of wires. (pins 4 and 5 positive, pins 7 and 8 ground). That's a max of ~16Watts ---- not much power even for these small fixtures, you can run only 5 at most, plus all the added circuitry to lower the voltage.

XLR4 has the specifications for more current through the cables.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 3, 2011)

beardedbil said:


> Hey Quan,
> I hope my original post has helped and not thrown you for a loop. I only want to see your products get better and have more uses for more venues. I to enjoy that you are on here and actually listening to the needs of possible users. If there is a revision to the light I hope to run it for a test drive some day.
> 
> I do like the idea of running power and data over the same line, makes my life easier when installing... not sure if its possible or practical though...
> ...


 

Thanks for checking in Bill =)

It's quite interesting because our product pertains to multiple industries. We started out with haunted attraction lighting where they simply need 12V and plug and play features. Most haunted attractions don't really need all the complex controls of theatrical lighting, they just set them to a certain setting and leave it (for the most part). Cost is also another issue for them --- many of them build their own LED fixtures for a few dollars, so making a product that's nearing $100 is already on the high end for haunted attractions.

This forum has brought insight from a completely different industry that requires higher end products and are probably willing to pay more for it as fixtures in this industry can range from a few hundred to several thousand a piece. I believe the input here has given us a lot of ideas for future products that will cater to the professional theatrical lighting industry --- probably with higher powered outputs as well. We'll probably come out with a pro series in the near future that will keep the innovative edge but also bring in features that can cater to more industrial situations.

- Quan


----------



## xander (Aug 3, 2011)

thrilltainment said:


> like soundlight has mentioned, most DMX fixtures ARE simply tapping into the main line. They simply do it within the fixture where we have a cable doing it outside of the fixture. The non-compliant Y that should worry people are ones where you have multiple fixtures hanging off of each branch of the Y --- and over longer distances. The Y split here is only at most 20 inches long and dedicated to a single receiver. If you think about it, just about every single pass-thru DMX unit is a mini-Y split.


I know this. However, in instruments, the tapped leg is usually shorter, say like 8". Is there a big difference between 8" and 20"? I don't know. Probably not. I'm not an expert. But figuring that out should be a priority.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 3, 2011)

xander said:


> I know this. However, in instruments, the tapped leg is usually shorter, say like 8". Is there a big difference between 8" and 20"? I don't know. Probably not. I'm not an expert. But figuring that out should be a priority.


 
This difference is insignificant. People only worry about reflections when the cable is several hundred feet long or more --- a difference of 12" per fixture x at most 32 fixtures per universe is only adding at most 32 feet into the entire system, which is likely to be an order of magnitude longer. W can build in a switch that connects a terminating resistor onto the line and be user selectable if found necessary.

This is also experimentally verified, we had as many as 64 fixtures on a universe using our current fixtures with TRS extensions, the cable was unshielded, put in loops, and run over 900ft long, if you count the "Y" legs, that's another 64ft of potentially un-kosher cabling. The proposal with XLR4 will be using shielded cable with the proper impedance which should work just as well, if not better.

I guess to completely satisfy your worry, such a fixture would need a terminated signal repeater built into it. However, that also means if there is no power to this particular fixture, the subsequent systems will not be receiving DMX signal.


----------



## Beans45601 (Aug 3, 2011)

Les said:


> I think it's great how thrilltainment is actively listening to the suggestions posted here, rather than endlessly defending his product. He could easily claim that it's "just fine the way it is". This is how great products are developed --- by listening to customers/potential users.



I agree. This is wonderful to see, thanks!


----------



## KeeperoftheKeys (Aug 4, 2011)

If I remember correctly the documentation I read said that the 'Y' branch inside the fixture could be up to about a meter (3 feet), so a 20" 'Y' branchof per fixture would be acceptable.

As far as the plug you are choosing goes, I hope that the initial conversion unit where you receive the DMX signal and put the power on the line will feature normal XLR5 plugs (IN and THRU and that the unit will basically be a buffer/splitter so that the 'branch' of LEDs is isolated and if the main-bus uses the second pair (I forget what mode it was called but basically you can use the second pair so that you can use the DMX-line in full-duplex as of E1.11-2004 optionally) that won't be interfered with by the LED branch only using the main pair.
The design with the simple M-F XLR4 is really nice and compact which I think fits your bill exactly.

Also if your units are good enough and present a low enough load to the signal you'll be able to fit more than 32 on one line, as far as I understand quality transceivers these days present about a quarter of the 'units of load' that are defined for EIA-485.


----------



## thesigma (Aug 4, 2011)

Keep in mind that the XLR-4 is commonly used in the video industry as a power connector for 12VDC, so you may wish to stick with the standard pinning for those which I believe is pin 1 ground and pin 4 +12V. I assume you would then be using pin one also for the DMX line Shield? or will it be unshielded, which in theory should be fine. Personally I would use an RJ 45 for power and data ala PoE, use the same pins for power as PoE and require a home run for each light, back to a splitter box that actively splits out to the lights and accepts a XLR-5 in and thru for standard DMX lines. Does this push cost up...well yes some. however cat 5 is cheap, and compliant, and so is that method of splitting. OR just have that box do all the DMX and send only the voltage to power the leds to the fixture.....I could see a fixture now that is only slightly larger than an RJ45 jack. 

Personally I like the XLR-5 because with the exception of some stereo mics, I have not encountered much else that uses it. The XLR-3 invites one to use improper cables, and the same may be true for the XLR-4 (any you would encounter would either be for r dc power or some proprietary interface, neither of which are likely to be the correct type of cable and in the dc power case may only have pins 1 and 4 wired. anyway just some things I would consider.

on a side note, I know a lot of fixtures use the internal y- connection for the DMX thru, but I thought I read that the spec calls for all thru's to be actively regenerated? maybe this changed in a later revision of the spec....




KeeperoftheKeys said:


> If I remember correctly the documentation I read said that the 'Y' branch inside the fixture could be up to about a meter (3 feet), so a 20" 'Y' branchof per fixture would be acceptable.
> 
> As far as the plug you are choosing goes, I hope that the initial conversion unit where you receive the DMX signal and put the power on the line will feature normal XLR5 plugs (IN and THRU and that the unit will basically be a buffer/splitter so that the 'branch' of LEDs is isolated and if the main-bus uses the second pair (I forget what mode it was called but basically you can use the second pair so that you can use the DMX-line in full-duplex as of E1.11-2004 optionally) that won't be interfered with by the LED branch only using the main pair.
> The design with the simple M-F XLR4 is really nice and compact which I think fits your bill exactly.
> ...


----------



## shiben (Aug 4, 2011)

thesigma said:


> Keep in mind that the XLR-4 is commonly used in the video industry as a power connector for 12VDC, so you may wish to stick with the standard pinning for those which I believe is pin 1 ground and pin 4 +12V. I assume you would then be using pin one also for the DMX line Shield? or will it be unshielded, which in theory should be fine. Personally I would use an RJ 45 for power and data ala PoE, use the same pins for power as PoE and require a home run for each light, back to a splitter box that actively splits out to the lights and accepts a XLR-5 in and thru for standard DMX lines. Does this push cost up...well yes some. however cat 5 is cheap, and compliant, and so is that method of splitting. OR just have that box do all the DMX and send only the voltage to power the leds to the fixture.....I could see a fixture now that is only slightly larger than an RJ45 jack.
> 
> Personally I like the XLR-5 because with the exception of some stereo mics, I have not encountered much else that uses it. The XLR-3 invites one to use improper cables, and the same may be true for the XLR-4 (any you would encounter would either be for r dc power or some proprietary interface, neither of which are likely to be the correct type of cable and in the dc power case may only have pins 1 and 4 wired. anyway just some things I would consider.
> 
> on a side note, I know a lot of fixtures use the internal y- connection for the DMX thru, but I thought I read that the spec calls for all thru's to be actively regenerated? maybe this changed in a later revision of the spec....


 
XLR 4 is used widely in the theater as a cable to send both power and data to scrollers, i cues, and pretty much any other DMX accessory that is not self powered. Most theatres have a lot of this around, and if the device is compatible with an Apollo, Rosco or other brand PSU, then you can be pretty sure that people will have plenty of cable for it.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 4, 2011)

thesigma said:


> on a side note, I know a lot of fixtures use the internal y- connection for the DMX thru, but I thought I read that the spec calls for all thru's to be actively regenerated? maybe this changed in a later revision of the spec....


 
the spec doesn't call out for active regeneration --- if it did, then if some fixture was powered off or broken, all subsequent fixtures down the line would lose signal. the THRU for almost any receiver is simply Y splitting the IN connection. That's also why you need a terminating resistor at the of the line over long runs to avoid reflections, because the signal is connected from the DMX transmitter all the way THRU to the last fixture.


----------



## KeeperoftheKeys (Aug 5, 2011)

thesigma said:


> Keep in mind that the XLR-4 is commonly used in the video industry as a power connector for 12VDC, so you may wish to stick with the standard pinning for those which I believe is pin 1 ground and pin 4 +12V. I assume you would then be using pin one also for the DMX line Shield? or will it be unshielded, which in theory should be fine. Personally I would use an RJ 45 for power and data ala PoE, use the same pins for power as PoE and require a home run for each light, back to a splitter box that actively splits out to the lights and accepts a XLR-5 in and thru for standard DMX lines. Does this push cost up...well yes some. however cat 5 is cheap, and compliant, and so is that method of splitting. OR just have that box do all the DMX and send only the voltage to power the leds to the fixture.....I could see a fixture now that is only slightly larger than an RJ45 jack.
> 
> Personally I like the XLR-5 because with the exception of some stereo mics, I have not encountered much else that uses it. The XLR-3 invites one to use improper cables, and the same may be true for the XLR-4 (any you would encounter would either be for r dc power or some proprietary interface, neither of which are likely to be the correct type of cable and in the dc power case may only have pins 1 and 4 wired. anyway just some things I would consider.
> 
> on a side note, I know a lot of fixtures use the internal y- connection for the DMX thru, but I thought I read that the spec calls for all thru's to be actively regenerated? maybe this changed in a later revision of the spec....



XLR-5 may be (almost) exclusively lighting (except for the stereo mics you mention) but it is absolutely forbidden to use the second pair to carry power (unless you can fit your power needs in the voltage/current levels provided by an EIA-485 signal).

If you would use it to carry power then you'd have the same problem that you sketch with XLR-4, while XLR-4 as mentioned before is also used a lot for strollers (clearcom headsets also use them, but I don't recall anyone ever using an extension for the headset they extend the box usually).


----------



## thesigma (Aug 5, 2011)

Ddin't mean to imply that I would have power on an XLR5, though as I reread it I can see how you thought that, sorry.

RTS intercomms also use XLR4 and 5 for headsets(opposite gender to clear com though), 5 for stereo of course or Binaural (2 different channels, 1 in each ear).

anyway, for power and signal, I'd go RJ-45 and Cat 5, even tough it does limit the ability to daisy chain the lights.

Thanks,


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 5, 2011)

Power over Ethernet (PoE) is more or less out of the question as it handles at most 25 watts, most likely single fixture we design for theatrical use will take up at least 5 watts... so completely redesigning the system for PoE where only a 5 light daisy chain just doesn't seem worthwhile. XLR4 on the other hand is capable with a lot more power, and as many have mentioned, there are plenty of power supplies in the industry that support it... we may choose this route.

OR... we can just make the next theatrical fixture like most fixtures you find on the market: we supply a XLR5 (or XLR3) signal in and thru connection (it will still be Y split like the image above... but as we discussed, it is DMX compliant because the split is only per fixture and kept short) and a 12V DC connection, and we give you a 12V AC adapter... so connectivity wise, it's the same as 90% of standalone DMX fixtures, it's only a smaller light.


----------



## thrilltainment (Aug 5, 2011)

one other thing I forgot to mention about this product --- it was originally designed for set decor in dark settings (such as haunted attractions or dark rides) where the size and low power of the fixture is more important than its brightness and durability of plugs. I'd imagine for most road shows and theatrical uses, this light just isn't bright enough. So for this particular product, if we took out the requirement for super durable headers that may be run over a few times by crew members and considered it ony for permanent installations --- I don't see any reliability issues when the customer is hard wiring the system with RJ45 or similarly shielded cable (I recommended the TRS extensions to Bill because he wanted to speed up his install, otherwise I would be recommending hard wiring). Sure it will take longer to install than simply plugging it in, but most lights fixtures for decor purposes simply has bare wires coming off the fixture which requires hard wiring anyway.

I believe the comments given in this thread are very valuable when we use it for a new product designed more for theatrical use and we consider all the different scenarios of road shows, portability, ease of connectivity, durability, etc, etc... we will be attending LDI this year and looking at more products that are available in this market before we finalize on a plan for a future theatrical product.


----------



## n1ist (Aug 7, 2011)

If you use connectors that are normally found in theater, I would follow the standard pinouts (or at least design it so no harm would occur if you plug it in with other devices. For RJ45, that means signal on 1/2 with ground on 7/8. For XLR4, pick one of the pinouts that scrollers use (unfortunately, there are different and incompatible standards here) and watch out for the standard 24v supply. As mentioned. XLR5 is mainly used for DMX and that doesn't allow power, and XLR3 doesn't have enough pins and is common for both data and sound.

In the animated Christmas lighting world (and likely the Halloween world) the most common connector is the RJ45, either using the 1/2 pair for DMX(Lynx and family, standard DMX) or the 4/5 pair for RS485 (Renard, LOR) mainly for reduced cabling costs (lots of cables when you get hundreds or thousands of channels of control).
/mike


----------



## TimMiller (Aug 8, 2011)

If I were designing a light for touring and entertainment I would put XLR3 and 5 on it. I would have a built in power supply to prevent people from losing them or plugging in the wrong one. Also the plug in power supplys take up lots of room on power strips if you were to use them and are not very easy to secure to battons. I personally hate xlr4 because not every place sells it when you get into a bind. Also having to run every fixture back to the power supply like someone mentioned is a terrible idea due to the massive amount of cabling involved and the long distances theaters usually require. RJ45 is nice but you are limited to your power. If you went with a built in power supply you could also have rj45 in and out. I would also make it where you could address each fixture directly from the fixture and not have to carry along some type of dongle to do it. Also I like when fixtures especially LEDs have power lights on them. I also like it when fixtures have a dmx light on them so you can track down problems quickly.


----------



## DuckJordan (Aug 8, 2011)

While that is great for a theater fixture this isn't their main market. Please read the thread before posting. It just adds clutter.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottT (Aug 8, 2011)

I believe the name of this new product should be the [noparse]ControlBooth.com[/noparse] light.

Please?


----------



## xander (Aug 8, 2011)

TimMiller said:


> If I were designing a light for touring and entertainment I would put XLR3 and 5 on it. I would have a built in power supply to prevent people from losing them or plugging in the wrong one. Also the plug in power supplys take up lots of room on power strips if you were to use them and are not very easy to secure to battons. I personally hate xlr4 because not every place sells it when you get into a bind. Also having to run every fixture back to the power supply like someone mentioned is a terrible idea due to the massive amount of cabling involved and the long distances theaters usually require. RJ45 is nice but you are limited to your power. If you went with a built in power supply you could also have rj45 in and out. I would also make it where you could address each fixture directly from the fixture and not have to carry along some type of dongle to do it. Also I like when fixtures especially LEDs have power lights on them. I also like it when fixtures have a dmx light on them so you can track down problems quickly.


You've just listed every standard LED "PAR" light on the market and quintupled the size of the fixture being discussed.


----------



## TimMiller (Aug 9, 2011)

That's what I would expect out of a touring light. Now install is a different world. I would install a removable terminal block on the back of each fixture. You can use a 5 position and make pins 1&2 power then 3-5 dmx. For daisy chaining fixtures you just screw in 2 sets of cable. The fewer connectors in an install the better. I would put a little power led on the back of every fixture to simplify troubleshooting. Also not having to buy any connectors really cuts down on the budget. Next I would make a powersupply that can be mounted on the wall so you can daisy chain power through the units. If you wanted you could have several circuits supplying power depending upon how many units they have and as another addition the powersupply could have a built in data splitter. I would also make the cabinet that houses the powersupply and possibly splitter modular so you could add onto the system and to make replacing components easier.


----------



## thesigma (Aug 9, 2011)

TimMiller said:


> If you wanted you could have several circuits supplying power depending upon how many units they have and as another addition the powersupply could have a built in data splitter. I would also make the cabinet that houses the powersupply and possibly splitter modular so you could add onto the system and to make replacing components easier.


 

Pretty much what I described earlier, except I suggested Cat5 with RJ45's, cheap, readily availible, and quick to swap.


----------



## TimMiller (Aug 10, 2011)

With a terminal strip you are not limited to wire awg. You can find strips that will accommodate anything. You can't put 18 guage wire into a rj45 connector.


----------



## thesigma (Aug 10, 2011)

TimMiller said:


> With a terminal strip you are not limited to wire awg. You can find strips that will accommodate anything. You can't put 18 guage wire into a rj45 connector.


 
This is true but if you are running a home run back to a power supply/data splitter, it should suffice for such a small light, and again, is dirt cheap. And since this is the "worlds Smallest RGB DMX light" we are talking about, an RJ45 would be much smaller than any 5 position trminal strip I have ever seen. using RJ45/Cat5 you could probably chain 4-5 fixtures, depending on current draw, however two rj45's are about tghe size of a 5 pin terminal block, so.....in a daisy chain your solution would allow more fixtures with a higher gauge wire, for sure. however, is there any 18 AWG 5 conductor cable that is DMX compliant? or are we now running a data and power cable? I'm sure you could find some cable that might work siamese cable or a cable designed for AMX/Crestron touch panels perhaps....this gets costly though.

I've got to say honestly I don't like any of the solutions, Glad I don't really have a need for a light that small. Honestly, it seems like the original solution works fine so maybe they should just stick with it. Though Cat 5 is spec compliant for dmx data, perhaps not if you are also sending power on it? It's not defined in the spec, but you could do it on the spare pairs. at least the cable is twisted pair and the proper impedance.


----------



## dvsDave (Aug 10, 2011)

I've been following this thread with interest and I just found an interesting article that might be worth looking into: A Spec Tweak Will Make USB Capable of Charging Laptops


----------



## KeeperoftheKeys (Aug 11, 2011)

//negative-mode
USB only goes up to 5m (15').

You'd need some logic in the fixture to inform the USB controller about the power needs, and 100W is only @ 20V or possibly even slightly more.

//end-negative-mode


----------



## beardedbil (Sep 28, 2011)

I just wanted to chime in here quickly and let you know my experience with installing/programming almost 75 of these small RGB lights. First off, Quan, the creator of this light, was nice enough to travel out to our install location to make sure everything went smoothly. That is first rate customer service in my book!

Secondly, I was actually surprised how quickly and easily the lights went up and were wired together. We ended up using around 7 different legs of DMX to control the whole haunted attraction. The lights worked perfectly from the get go and have some great features that you just do not find in other less expensive LED DMX lights, such as flicker (candle effect or other), color macros, etc.

Another great feature is the lights will hold the last look if the DMX signal drops out. Overall I was very satisfied with the way the lights operated and now have confidence that even though the pigtails on the lights are not standard procedure, they do work quite well and we had no problems controlling any of the fixtures. Quan makes a great product and is a great guy! I would definitely recommend doing business with Darklight.
Best,
Bill Rod.
Dark Tech Effects
DARK TECH EFFECTS


----------

