Return-Path: X-Processed-By: Virex 7 on prxy.net X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.6) with PIPE id 5049709; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:00:39 -0800 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.6 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #200 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:00:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on prxy.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, LONGWORDS autolearn=ham version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #200 1. Re: Toolbox: ATA vs. Pelican by "Paul Guncheon" 2. Re: Surtitles,,, again by Stan Pressner 3. Re: Toolbox: ATA vs. Pelican by Steve Larson 4. Re: Disco Balls by Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions 5. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by ". Mitch Hefter" 6. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Jerry Durand 7. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Richard Niederberg 8. Re: Flame Proof by "Michael Finney" 9. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions 10. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Stephen Litterst 11. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Jerry Durand 12. recommended practice for DMX512 over CAT5 by Jerry Durand 13. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 14. Re: Flame Proof by "Stephen E. Rees" 15. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Mark O'Brien 16. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Stephen Litterst 17. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Jerry Durand 18. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Stephen Litterst 19. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions 20. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions 21. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Mitch Hefter *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <003901c4cd72$2d7b7d10$0202a8c0 [at] MyLastPC> From: "Paul Guncheon" References: Subject: Re: Toolbox: ATA vs. Pelican Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:26:10 -1000 I have a Calzone (http://www.calzonecase.com) case that I use as a briefcase. I had it custom made to a 6" depth. because I got tired of having to sort and resort the contents all the time just to get the case closed... the same thing that annoys me about blow molded tool cases. What is it about manufacturers who design cases that require maps to show how the tools fit in it and have no additional space for anything but the tool itself and the original manufacturer supplied accessories? Laters, Paul "I think someone electrified the corridor," Tom said haltingly. ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: From: Stan Pressner Subject: Re: Surtitles,,, again Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:28:47 -0500 As someone who work in many of those European opera houses, I assure you that most of them are front projected, whether Frank can see evidence of it or not. Best, Stan Pressner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:15:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Toolbox: ATA vs. Pelican From: Steve Larson Message-ID: In-Reply-To: You dog! I get so ticked off when my calzones get crushed when I travel. Gotta get one. Steve on 11/18/04 8:26 AM, Paul Guncheon at paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > I have a calzone case ------------------------------ Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20041118104214.018b6768 [at] 212.86.129.164> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:59:00 -0500 From: Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions Subject: Re: Disco Balls In-Reply-To: >Our department is producing The Heidi Chronicles in December and is >interested in purchasing a disco ball for our production. Not to be >confused with a mirror ball, a disco ball has a light source inside an >opaque sphere that surrounds the light source. The opaque sphere has cut >out shapes that allows for the projection of various shapes of light into >the room as the fixture turns. Ideally, the cut out shapes would be five >pointed stars and crescent moons. > >We found a Color Sphere for sale with American DJ, but I'm concerned with >the quality of the engineering of the fixture. Their literature says the >fixture can be used for only ten minutes at a time with a ten minute cool >down time between uses. > >I'm also concerned with the amount of noise the fixture generates and the >brightness of the images projected. In general, Asian-manufactered dj lights are intended for use as special effects. A special effect, if left on for a long time, isn't very special. So these manufacturers don't go to the expense of designing cooling into their lights, since it would increase their cost for no practical use. It doesn't necessarily mean that the fixture is poor quality. Some of these companies are now adding lights that they advertise as "continuous-duty", which presumably have heat-sinks and/or fans, and fewer interal moving parts. I know plenty of dj's who leave their lights on longer than the recommended 15-minutes-on/15-minutes-off duty cycle. As a result, lamps and motors seem to fail prematurely. But by prematurely I mean after months instead of years. If you want to leave this light on for half an hour for several rehearsals and performances, my guess is that won't be a problem. But I'd keep some spare lamps onhand. Hope this helps, Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look Solutions USA, Ltd. 114 W. Third St. Waynesboro, PA 17268 Toll-Free: 1-800-426-4189 Phone: 1-717-762-7490 Fax: 1-717-762-7366 Company Email: usa [at] looksolutions.com Personal Email: nk [at] looksolutions.com Web: www.looksolutions.com and www.fogspecs.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <53492.208.215.238.2.1100804424.squirrel [at] 208.215.238.2> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:00:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 From: ". Mitch Hefter" Reply-To: mitch.hefter [at] DesignRelief.com References: In-Reply-To: > From: Jerry Durand > Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX > Ditto on the cheers, now for it to show up on the ANSI page so > I can buy a copy ... Or through USITT. > Jerry Durand said Mitch Hefter wrote: >>NOTE - THE STANDARD DOES NOT ALLOW RJ45 CONNECTORS IN LIEU OF XLR-5. > Jerry Durand then said: > Actually, it apparently does (I don't have a copy of the new spec > yet, waiting for the "published" version), so long as the > connectors are not in some place where anyone could mistake them > for Ethernet. Makes sense to me. Remember, I chaired the task group and typed just about every word into the document. You cut and pasted too quickly. What I said was: "NOTE - THE STANDARD DOES NOT ALLOW RJ45 CONNECTORS IN LIEU OF XLR-5, except in very, very special circumstances. There are 5 very restrictive rules plus a separate clause that apply before an RJ-45 can be implemented. Otherwise, just XLR-5." (Yes I followed with a restatement of "no RJ-45a" - trying to drive home the point. Guess I need a bigger hammer.) Those very restrictive rules that allow it appear in clause 7.1.2. Don't plan on using RJ-45 except for very special circumstances. See more below. > I wonder if it would make sense for our future boxes > (especially the ones intended for permanent installations) > to just have RJ45 connectors on them with a BIG label > that this is not Ethernet? I don't believe that is a good idea. And for each place you use the RJ-45, you HAVE TO SUPPLY AN ADAPTER to the XLR-5 (yes - that's one of the restrictions). This is an interconnectivity standard. Use of an RJ-45 is an accommodation for very, very special circumstances, but in order to use the RJ-45, you (the manufacturer) have to provide for interface to the standard XLR-5 so users can connect to the system. > From: "John Vink" > Subject: RE: RJ-45 Pinout / DMX512 over Category 5 > Okay, humor me for a sec. I don't understand. You can use CAT5 > cable but not RJ-45 connectors. What then is the point of > using CAT5 cable? You are not suggesting that XLR connectors be soldered to CAT5 cable, are you? I must be missing something > here. Cost. Cat 5 and its successors are generally cheaper and more available than EIA-485 cables such as Belden #8132 or 9842. This study was really for the installed cable plant, not for portable cables, as RJ-45 connectors and "stock" patch cables are not intended for high numbers of connects/disconnects. . . . ------------------------------------- Mitch Hefter mitch.hefter [at] DesignRelief.com Office: Entertainment Technology / a Division of the Genlyte Group mhefter [at] genlyte.com +1-214/ 647-7880 x 7967 (Direct 214/ 647-7967) +1-214/ 647-4738 Fax http://www.etdimming.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041118114713.02a06570 [at] localhost> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:00:35 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: References:

At 11:00 AM 11/18/2004, you wrote: > > From: Jerry Durand > > Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX > > Ditto on the cheers, now for it to show up on the ANSI page so > > I can buy a copy ... > >Or through USITT. Of course, when a search for it turns up an order page. :) > > Jerry Durand said Mitch Hefter wrote: > >>NOTE - THE STANDARD DOES NOT ALLOW RJ45 CONNECTORS IN LIEU OF XLR-5. > > > Jerry Durand then said: > > Actually, it apparently does (I don't have a copy of the new spec > > yet, waiting for the "published" version), so long as the > > connectors are not in some place where anyone could mistake them > > for Ethernet. Makes sense to me. > >Remember, I chaired the task group and typed just about every word into >the document. I actually didn't check who wrote the message when I replied. >Those very restrictive rules that allow it appear in clause 7.1.2. Don't >plan on using RJ-45 except for very special circumstances. See more >below. I can see already that is going to be violated a lot. > > I wonder if it would make sense for our future boxes > > (especially the ones intended for permanent installations) > > to just have RJ45 connectors on them with a BIG label > > that this is not Ethernet? > >I don't believe that is a good idea. And for each place you use the >RJ-45, you HAVE TO SUPPLY AN ADAPTER to the XLR-5 (yes - that's one of the >restrictions). This is an interconnectivity standard. Use of an RJ-45 is >an accommodation for very, very special circumstances, but in order to use >the RJ-45, you (the manufacturer) have to provide for interface to the >standard XLR-5 so users can connect to the system. So, if I provide a pigtail CAT5 wire (or with our new isolator/splitter pigtail twisted pairs) then it's ok, but if I provide an RJ45 connector I have to give the user an adaptor to XLR-5 that they don't need? We're starting to sell a lot into the architectural market which is using DMX512 more (for things like RGB LED fixtures). There isn't an XLR to be found in the entire installation, but there is CAT5 everywhere. >Cost. Cat 5 and its successors are generally cheaper and more available >than EIA-485 cables such as Belden #8132 or 9842. This study was really >for the installed cable plant, not for portable cables, as RJ-45 >connectors and "stock" patch cables are not intended for high numbers of >connects/disconnects. While the RJ series of connectors was never intended for heavy use, pretty much every telephone has one on it and they get plugged/unplugged a LOT more than just at installation. When the tab breaks off the cable, you toss it and get a new cable since they're cheap. I've seen the same thing with RJ-45 for networks and predict that at least patch panels will be RJ-45 based. This does raise the problem with getting inter-plugged with networks, and I don't have a good answer for that other than the patch connections being in controlled (locked) areas. I won't recommend using keyed RJ connectors since that hasn't worked out all that well in telecom use, I can't see where it would work in day to day theatre use. On a brighter note, it is common to use RJ-14 connectors for RS-232 lines and I've seen computer keyboards use them, too. So, maybe there isn't THAT much problem keeping things plugged in the right holes. ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ Cc: mitch.hefter [at] DesignRelief.com Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:41:19 -0800 Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 Message-ID: <20041118.124124.3828.0.ladesigners [at] juno.com> From: Richard Niederberg And from an engineering point of view, what is wrong with a properly labeled RJ-45 in an XLR [or other, yet to be ANSI-standardized,] shell? I have been seeing these 'XLR/RJ45' jacks in recently refurbished installations, at trade shows, and in patchbays. I do not recall seeing the particular restriction [no RJ-45s] during the comment period in the documents that I analyzed and commented upon in a timely manner. Please appreciate the fact that I can buy unlimited numbers of RJ45 to RJ45 CAT5e six foot patch cables at the local 99cent store for instrument-to-instrument 'daisy chaining'. This also allows the critical 'last 5 feet' of a long cable run, which arguably receives the majority of the pulling and flexing, et cetera, to be almost as disposable as the plastic color media in the instruments. I have never been promoter of planned obsolescence, but if we can let AMX go away, why not let manufacturers lower their production costs while letting a tech go down to Fry's and buy inexpensive punch-down solderless rackmount patchbays cheaply? I have a hard time believing that the MTBF would be so low as to make it risky to unpatch/repatch a few times a year in a teaching/training institution. If the restriction only applied to equipment used on the road, I could go with it. /s/ Richard > Remember, I chaired the task group and typed just about > every word into the document. > You cut and pasted too quickly. What I said was: > "NOTE - THE STANDARD DOES NOT ALLOW RJ45 > CONNECTORS IN LIEU OF XLR-5, except in very, very > special circumstances. There are 5 very restrictive rules plus > a separate clause that apply before an RJ-45 can be > implemented. Otherwise, just XLR-5." > Mitch Hefter mitch.hefter [at] DesignRelief.com ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Flame Proof Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:20:09 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Michael Finney" On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 Patrick McCreary wrote: <> <> I thought you'd enjoy the "flame spread" anecdote, Patrick! It makes a lot more sense that you were specifically addressing the carpet, although I'm still unlikely to get a variance in most of my installations. For stage or special event applications, there's probably a much higher possibility of that. I must confess to also being frightened of the thought of using some of the pressure-treated plywood products out there as a flooring surface. Depending on what the wood is pressure-treated *with* I'd suspect that there was a decent chance of the wood out-gassing some pretty nasty byproducts just before combustion - not to mention there being a good chance that the products of combustion would be even more toxic than your garden variety smoke. I know that a lot of the pressure-treated wood products that we use in exterior ride applications (like big wooden coasters) are evil enough that we have to treat them as hazardous waste when disposing of them. And there are some legendary stories among a couple of the park systems about people salvaging lumber discarded from wooden coaster construction and using it in bonfires...with pretty nasty results (and I can attest that at least one of the stories was true). Glad to hear that your original spec is reappearing in the space... Don't you all just love fire? Wasn't life easier when we didn't actually *know* any of this stuff? I think I'll go hide all of my hazmat books....(Really, just kidding!) Seriously though - somebody *has* nicked my copy of "Hazardous Materials in the Arts", and I can't for the life of me remember who wrote it. And Google has failed me. Any recommendations from the all-knowing list for replacement resources specifically addressing hazardous materials in the arts that my designers won't suffer brain-lock while reading? Apparently "Behavior of Polymer Coatings in High Temperature Environments" didn't prove to be the page-turner for them that I'd hoped....("no, we can't put the fiberglass figures within the flame, and here's why..."). Thanks, oh great and wise ones! Michael Finney Thinkwell Design & Production mfinney [at] thinkwelldesign.com =20 http://www.thinkwelldesign.com =20 ------------------------------ Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20041118172158.017ca410 [at] 212.86.129.164> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:47:24 -0500 From: Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: I am totally against the use of any connector other than XLR-5 for DMX. I only see one connector being used for 120VAC. I only see one connector being used for low-impedance microphones. I only see one connector being used for USB, only one on single-line telephones, only one on products that plug into automobile convenience outlets. Non-standard DMX connectors are an expense, not a moneysaver as some manufacturers purport, because I must find/buy/make an adapter every time I encounter one. It's an absolute PITA! Sorry for the rant. As you can tell, I feel strongly about the subject. Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look Solutions USA, Ltd. 114 W. Third St. Waynesboro, PA 17268 Toll-Free: 1-800-426-4189 Phone: 1-717-762-7490 Fax: 1-717-762-7366 Company Email: usa [at] looksolutions.com Personal Email: nk [at] looksolutions.com Web: www.looksolutions.com and www.fogspecs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:03:10 -0500 From: Stephen Litterst Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 Message-id: <419D2A2E.BB2B3EB2 [at] ithaca.edu> Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts References: Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions wrote: > > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > I am totally against the use of any connector other than XLR-5 for DMX. > > I only see one connector being used for 120VAC. Now Nathan, I'm sure you get around more than that! I count four different connectors for 120VAC in my building. And that's without thinking very hard. And of course I have countless adapters to allow me to interchange equipment. But I agree with the basic point. Keep it simple. Steve Litterst -- Stephen C. Litterst Technical Supervisor Ithaca College Dept. of Theatre Arts 607/274-3947 slitterst [at] ithaca.edu ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041118145603.038afd48 [at] localhost> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:03:48 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: References: At 02:47 PM 11/18/2004, Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions wrote: >I am totally against the use of any connector other than XLR-5 for DMX. > >I only see one connector being used for 120VAC. You haven't seen twist-lock, 20A (one pin turned sideways), stage-pins, etc.? >I only see one connector being used for low-impedance microphones. XLR-3, 1/4" phone jack, 1/8" phone jack... >I only see one connector being used for USB, Standard and several different mini-USB varieties...and that's just in my office here. >only one on single-line telephones, Yes, and the RJ-11 plug is used for both analog and digital phones, smoke may come out if you mix them up. >only one on products that plug into automobile convenience outlets. That one's pretty standard. >Non-standard DMX connectors are an expense, not a moneysaver as some >manufacturers purport, because I must find/buy/make an adapter every time >I encounter one. It's an absolute PITA! I agree it would be nice IF everyone used the right connector. Looked at the DMX connector on moving lights and DJ equipment lately? Been surprised by power on pins 4&5? I didn't say it was a good idea to use RJ-45 connectors, I said it was inevitable that they WOULD be used. >Sorry for the rant. As you can tell, I feel strongly about the subject. I feel strongly about trying to make systems that work. I try to never use two of the same connector format on the same product UNLESS they are for exactly the same use (like two serial ports). Oh yes, 9-pin RS-232 ports. Invented because IBM couldn't fit two 25 pin connectors on one bracket. And then Apple used 9-pin for RS-422 serial. Yep, that's standard. And, as I mentioned before, RJ-11/14 jacks have been used for YEARS (decades?) for RS-232. ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041118150522.038af598 [at] localhost> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:20:05 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: recommended practice for DMX512 over CAT5 I assume this isn't in the DMX512 spec, but the Recommended Practice should at least mention wire handling when installing the CAT5. Since this is at such low speed (compared to GigE), people can save money on installations by not having to follow the new CAT5 installation handling rules. Mainly things like discarding any wire that's been kinked, pulled, or "crushed" with a weight of more than 25 pounds. If they don't know they can skip those rules, then the installers may think they're dealing with GigE and charge accordingly (I honestly don't know how GigE can work in the real world with all those restrictions). You might also consider adding (if not already specified) labeling requirements for wires/jacks in the (supposedly) very rare cases where RJ-45 jacks and standard punch-down blocks are used. A standard telecom thing is to label any wire pair that ISN'T POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) with a brightly colored label at every punch-down block. In this case, require something like an orange label 2" x 2" with "DMX512 do not attach to network" or some such on it. I'm looking forward to getting a copy of the new spec when it's out. I always try to follow specs to the letter when I can, but not all things are possible or practical (you'd be surprised what's called out in some specs that just isn't physically possible). Thanks for all the hard work in revising the specification, I know how hard that is (I assisted in writing one of the MIL-883 specs a LONG time ago as well as specs for all the systems I design). ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <19e.2bac5dc9.2ece8c17 [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:36:55 EST Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In a message dated 18/11/04 22:48:15 GMT Standard Time, nk [at] looksolutions.com writes: > I am totally against the use of any connector other than XLR-5 for DMX. > > I only see one connector being used for 120VAC. I only see one connector > being used for low-impedance microphones. I only see one connector being > used for USB, only one on single-line telephones, only one on products that > plug into automobile convenience outlets. > > Non-standard DMX connectors are an expense, not a moneysaver as some > manufacturers purport, because I must find/buy/make an adapter every time I > encounter one. It's an absolute PITA! > > Sorry for the rant. As you can tell, I feel strongly about the subject. I have to agree with Nathan. XLR connectors are universal, robust, and well designed. Some brands less so than others, but, on the other hand, you used to be able to get them with the suffix SC. This meant steel case, and they were alleget to be proof against a tank! Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-ID: <419D490C.7030900 [at] fredonia.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:14:52 -0500 From: "Stephen E. Rees" Reply-To: Rees [at] fredonia.edu Subject: Re: Flame Proof References: Michael, Will this help? Artist Beware, Michael McCann, Watson-Guptill, 1979. also Stage Fright-Health and Safety in the Theater, Monona Rossol, Allworth Press, 1991 HTH, Steve Michael Finney wrote: > Seriously though - somebody *has* nicked my copy of "Hazardous Materials > in the Arts", and I can't for the life of me remember who wrote it. And > Google has failed me. [snipped ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <62B98092-39CE-11D9-99E1-000393897332 [at] email.arizona.edu> Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu (Mark O'Brien) From: Mark O'Brien Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:57:36 -0700 Loren has found some RJ-45 that look like XLR's They look pretty bulletproof. Mark O'Brien Opera Technical Director University of Arizona, School of Music Tucson, AZ 520/621-7025 520/591-1803 Mobile On Nov 18, 2004, at 4:36 PM, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: > I have to agree with Nathan. XLR connectors are universal, robust, and > well > designed. Some brands less so than others, but, on the other hand, you > used to > be able to get them with the suffix SC. This meant steel case, and > they were > alleget to be proof against a tank! > > Frank Wood ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:24:56 -0500 From: Stephen Litterst Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 Message-id: <419D5978.5B9F0D4B [at] ithaca.edu> Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts References: Mark O'Brien wrote: > --------------------------------------------------- > > Loren has found some RJ-45 that look like XLR's They look pretty > bulletproof. Neutrik's EtherCon series. They make both a panel mount female and a cable mount male. Pretty darn robust. Steve L. -- Stephen C. Litterst Technical Supervisor Ithaca College Dept. of Theatre Arts 607/274-3947 slitterst [at] ithaca.edu ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041118182346.038a8678 [at] localhost> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:27:58 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: References: At 05:57 PM 11/18/2004, you wrote: >Loren has found some RJ-45 that look like XLR's They look pretty >bulletproof. I would NOT recommend using the ruggedized RJ-45 connectors for road use, stick with the XLR-5. But, for connections where people are going to use RJ-45 (next generation of DJ equip?) I wouldn't think they're that prone to failure. Pretty much all of us with laptop computers have an RJ-11 connector on them (same series, different number of pins). How many times have you plugged phone lines in and out? More than you would changing shows every couple of months? Still reliable? Reliability case closed. ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:33:39 -0500 From: Stephen Litterst Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 Message-id: <419D5B83.389777CC [at] ithaca.edu> Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts References: Jerry Durand wrote: > --------------------------------------------------- > I would NOT recommend using the ruggedized RJ-45 connectors for road use, > stick with the XLR-5. But, for connections where people are going to use > RJ-45 (next generation of DJ equip?) I wouldn't think they're that prone to > failure. I'm starting to move to the ruggedized RJ-45 for purely selfish reasons. If all my ethernet connections in the theatre are the XLR style, then people can't steal my cables for use at home. Yet storebought cables can still be used if I find myself in a pinch. Steve L. -- Stephen C. Litterst Technical Supervisor Ithaca College Dept. of Theatre Arts 607/274-3947 slitterst [at] ithaca.edu ------------------------------ Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20041118214717.018c0c88 [at] 212.86.129.164> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:05:20 -0500 From: Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: References: >>I am totally against the use of any connector other than XLR-5 for DMX. >> >>I only see one connector being used for 120VAC. > >You haven't seen twist-lock, 20A (one pin turned sideways), stage-pins, etc.? Duh, well I guess that wasn't a very good example. However, I think it's fair to say that the plug and the socket it's intended to be connected with will still mate. >>I only see one connector being used for low-impedance microphones. > >XLR-3, 1/4" phone jack, 1/8" phone jack... 1/4" and 1/8" are only high-impedance (I think). Yes you're right, there are as many examples for non-standard connectors as for standard, if not more. Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look Solutions USA, Ltd. 114 W. Third St. Waynesboro, PA 17268 Toll-Free: 1-800-426-4189 Phone: 1-717-762-7490 Fax: 1-717-762-7366 Company Email: usa [at] looksolutions.com Personal Email: nk [at] looksolutions.com Web: www.looksolutions.com and www.fogspecs.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20041118220546.018b18d0 [at] 212.86.129.164> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:12:35 -0500 From: Nathan Kahn/Look Solutions Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: References: At 09:24 PM 11/18/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Neutrik's EtherCon series. They make both a panel mount female and a >cable mount male. Pretty darn robust. They look impressive in the adverts, I'm sure they work well. But not so well that they'll mate with the XLR-5 connectors on my gear! :-) If people want to use non-standard connectors, fine, more power to them. As long as they carry adapters for the times they want to plug into one of my outputs. And as long as they understand I'm not going to buy their controllers. Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look Solutions USA, Ltd. 114 W. Third St. Waynesboro, PA 17268 Toll-Free: 1-800-426-4189 Phone: 1-717-762-7490 Fax: 1-717-762-7366 Company Email: usa [at] looksolutions.com Personal Email: nk [at] looksolutions.com Web: www.looksolutions.com and www.fogspecs.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.2.20041118212253.01ff25f8 [at] mail.DesignRelief.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:08:44 -0600 Cc: ladesigners [at] juno.com (Richard Niederberg) From: Mitch Hefter Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: <20041118.124124.3828.0.ladesigners [at] juno.com> References: <20041118.124124.3828.0.ladesigners [at] juno.com> At 02:41 PM 11/18/2004, Richard Niederberg wrote: >And from an engineering point of view, what is wrong with a >properly labeled RJ-45 in an XLR [or other, yet to be ANSI-standardized,] > shell? Ease of Interconnectivity. I would suspect that in the low light environments we experience in theatre, sometimes a label will not be enough. From the Foreword to the E1.11 standard: "This Standard is intended to provide for interoperability at both communication and mechanical levels with controllers made by different manufacturers" >I have been seeing these 'XLR/RJ45' jacks in recently >refurbished installations, at trade shows, and in patchbays. I do not >recall seeing the particular restriction [no RJ-45s] during the comment >period in the documents that I analyzed and commented upon in a timely >manner. The restrictive language was in the first drafts and all Public Reviews. There were no comments on this subject after the first public review (then, it was a comment for a slight lessening of the restriction, which was accepted in principle). The subject was exhaustively debated in Task Group and Working Group meetings. >Please appreciate the fact that I can buy unlimited numbers of >RJ45 to RJ45 CAT5e six foot patch cables at the local 99cent store for >instrument-to-instrument 'daisy chaining'. This also allows the critical >'last 5 feet' of a long cable run, which arguably receives the majority >of the pulling and flexing, et cetera, to be almost as disposable as the >plastic color media in the instruments. I do appreciate it. However, the consensus standard is XLR-5. RJ-45 was added to deal with the fact that some equipment is getting so small that the XLR "footprint" is too big. Use in restricted access patch panels is allowed. >I have never been promoter of planned obsolescence, but if we can let AMX >go away, >why not let manufacturers lower their production costs while letting a >tech go down >to Fry's and buy inexpensive punch-down solderless rackmount patchbays >cheaply? Understood, but when some manufacturers went with XLR-3s -- not compliant with the standard from 1986 -- they saved money. But the users paid (and continue to) for adapters and interconnectivity headaches. So, RJ-45s are OK if XLR's won't fit (along with some other restrictions), but the manufacturers must also supply adapters. > I have a hard time believing that the MTBF would be so low as >to make it risky to unpatch/repatch a few times a year in a >teaching/training institution. If the restriction only applied to >equipment used on the road, I could go with it. > /s/ Richard You're right, it probably wouldn't be a problem in such a location. Just have those adapters for rental equipment and touring shows. You also don't have to adopt the standard - it is voluntary. Just remember Thank you, . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mitch Hefter mitch.hefter [at] DesignRelief.com ESTA / USITT DMX512 Revision (ANSI E1.11) Task Group Chair USITT Engineering Vice-Commissioner, DMX512 Subcommittee Chair Office: Entertainment Technology / a Division of the Genlyte Group mhefter [at] genlyte.com +1-214/ 647-7880 x 7967 (Direct Line 214/ 647-7967) +1-214/ 647-4738 Fax http://www.etdimming.com http://www.lolcontrols.com http://www.vari-lite.com http://www.genlyte.com ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #200 *****************************