Return-Path: X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP Lite Edition (www.messagepartners.com)! X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #413 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 03:00:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #413 1. Re: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution by "Nigel Worsley" 2. Re: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution by "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" 3. Re: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution by "Bill Nelson" 4. Re: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution by "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" 5. Re: Patch boxes by CB 6. Re: Patch boxes by CB 7. Re: Patch boxes by Sunil Rajan 8. Re: designer anniversaries for June by Seth Richardson 9. Question about Strand Lekos by Brian Aldous 10. Re: Strand 2212 and 2216 by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 11. Re: Making vinyl records by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 12. Re: Financial Software For The Country Apart Couple - Solution by "Michael Wade" 13. re Dead Cat Soap by "Don Taco" 14. Re: re Dead Cat Soap by "Bill Nelson" 15. Re: re Dead Cat Soap by "Andy Leviss" 16. Re: re Dead Cat Soap by "Bill Nelson" 17. Re: Making vinyl records by Brian Munroe *** 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: <218601c56514$42206de0$a174fea9 [at] Nigellaptop> From: "Nigel Worsley" References: Subject: Re: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 13:36:52 +0100 From: "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" > I'm writing the firmware for the receiving end so there's no problem there > -- it's an upcoming enhancement to the RC4 Wireless Dimming system. An > early version is already coded and working. More and more customers are > using our system to dim LEDs, and are looking for smoother fades at the low > end. Wouldn't it be easier to have an alternative dimmer law that gives a square rather than linear response? If your processor doesn't have the horsepower to do the maths on the fly, then just use a lookup table. This gives you that advantage of smooth fades without requiring a desk that has 16 bit support, and doesn't tie up any additional channels. Nigel Worsley ------------------------------ From: "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" Subject: RE: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:04:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20050530140427.OIGG25800.tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net [at] p3m866> > Wouldn't it be easier to have an alternative dimmer law that > gives a square rather than linear response? I had the same thought over the weekend -- thanks for validating it! We can take this approach one step further and let you build and upload unique curve tables to individual dimmers. In addition to modifying the dimmer response anyway you like (even invert it if you want!), you could also introduce attentuation to match various lighting devices with different battery packs. Thanks again! Jim www.theatrewireless.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <2988.64.28.54.185.1117465671.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References:

Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 08:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution From: "Bill Nelson" >> Wouldn't it be easier to have an alternative dimmer law that >> gives a square rather than linear response? > > I had the same thought over the weekend -- thanks for validating it! We > can > take this approach one step further and let you build and upload unique > curve tables to individual dimmers. In addition to modifying the dimmer > response anyway you like (even invert it if you want!), you could also > introduce attentuation to match various lighting devices with different > battery packs. I would suggest setting up a dimmer curve table - which is two dimensional. Have some non-modifiable curves, such as linear, square law, preheat, and diode. It is also nice to have a "non-dim" curve (on-off), but that could be handled elsewhere. Then have some more curves that can be user customized. If you have the coding space, allow an existing curve to be copies to one of the modifiable curves. For example, the user could copy the default diode curve as a starting point for further modification as a user defined curve. Bill ------------------------------ From: "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" Subject: RE: lighting console advice - ganging channels for 16-bit resolution Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:37:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20050530153713.CXFE27508.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net [at] p3m866> > I would suggest setting up a dimmer curve table - which is > two dimensional. Have some non-modifiable curves, such as > linear, square law, preheat, and diode. It is also nice to > have a "non-dim" curve (on-off), but that could be handled > elsewhere. Then have some more curves that can be user customized. Our users can already select switch mode (non-dim). When using battery power, it's best to avoid the high-current draw of a cold filament or stalled motor. We let you specify a low-level cut-off to deal with this. Preheating is counterproductive, but rarely a issue with small filament lamps. Dimmer curves could also address these issues, but the user-interface burden become a lot more arduous. > If you have the coding space, allow an existing curve to be > copies to one of the modifiable curves. For example, the user > could copy the default diode curve as a starting point for > further modification as a user defined curve. Each remote dimmer will have a single lookup table space. The source data for multiple tables will be stored and manipulated at the transmitter, then uploaded by the wireless link, just as we do now for other configuration data. The dimmers themselves have a 10-bit resolution, so the tables are mapping values in the range of 0 - 1024. Watch for this stuff, including a simple pc application for building dimmer curves, at LDI this year. Thanks again for the great suggestions!! Jim www.theatrewireless.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20050530104136.01707e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:41:36 From: CB Subject: Re: Patch boxes >I was >specifically thinking of a touring engineer using a house multipin >connector. It is just too risky the house is not wired the same as the >touring gear. (Sorry Andy and Chris) Apology accepted, but not required, thanks. Yeah, I don'nt know of ANY engineer that'd try to mate his fan-out on an existing house cable mass-connector. Even if they were the same manfacturer, and the same number of pins etc., its just so much easier (and less time consuming) to run your cable than it is to test and/or troubleshoot the house multi-core. House tie-ins and dry ines, no sweat, even house com. House mass-connectors, only in an EXTREME emergency, although I find it difficult to imagine the circumstances that'd bring that about and wouldn't shut down the show. Chris "Chris" Babbie Location Sound MON AZ Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment. Rates negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment... ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20050530104619.01707e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:46:19 From: CB Subject: Re: Patch boxes >Testing the circuits is usually much faster than routing >and securing your own multistrand cable. Ehm, no it isn't. If you're touring, you usually have a few snakes, and there are thirty to fifty channels on each. If it takes twenty seconds to check a channel, and ten minutes to run three snakes, all you need is one channel to be off and you've wasted everyone's time. If you have ten or fifteen channels running down your snake, it might be easier to test and patch, but I can't remember seeing a touring show with that few. Chris "Chris" Babbie Location Sound MON AZ Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment. Rates negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment... ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <37C44CF6-D140-11D9-B2FB-000A95BD64AC [at] earthlink.net> From: Sunil Rajan Subject: Re: Patch boxes Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:22:52 -0400 On May 30, 2005, at 6:00 AM, Stagecraft wrote: > From: Greg Bierly > Subject: Re: Patch boxes > Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 21:43:48 -0400 > >>> Even if the >>> heavens are in alignment the touring engineer likely wouldn't >>> consider >>> using houselines. ;-) > > NOTE my quote above. I apologize for the above generalization. I was > specifically thinking of a touring engineer using a house multipin > connector. It is just too risky the house is not wired the same as the > touring gear. I have come across many engineers that would not touch a > houseline period, but many have tied into a few here or there to > simplify everyones day. Bear in mind, the main reason that most touring folks don't use house lines is because the touring system isn't meant to interface with external/house gear! Be it wiring, or whatever, it's usually a risky proposition unless the house audio head (if there even IS one) has a clue and/or is used to interfacing with road shows. Chris Babbie's suggestions are good reference for most house crews, though I'm sure few if any will ever be informed enough to put them to use. BTW, any time I've ever tied into house lines (excluding Com) I've always used an in-line iso transformer (either a Sescom IL-19 or Masque ILT) as a precaution. Believe me, I would MUCH rather tie into house DRY lines for the spot booth, than have to lose upwards of an hour or two and however many stagehands it takes to run a spot booth mult! My 2 cents... Sunil Rajan Freelance Audio Mercenary ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:05:02 -0400 Subject: Re: designer anniversaries for June From: Seth Richardson In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <1BB70426-D146-11D9-BBB1-00050201851C [at] adelphia.net> On Sunday, May 29, 2005, at 07:38 PM, RICHARD FINKELSTEIN wrote: > June 17 > 96th anniversary of the birth of lighting designer, Abe Feder > June 27 > 96th Anniversary of the birth of lighting designer, Abe Feder Anybody else note this...? hmmmm When was Abe Feder born? Seth ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: From: Brian Aldous Subject: Question about Strand Lekos Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:16:46 -0400 Been following this thread with the knowledge that I have such a diagram, but no access to it until next semester begins. Sorry. However, we always divided the units into two groups: shorter barrels, with either 4.5" or 6x9 lens trains and longer with either 6x12 or 16 lens trains. The 6x12 lens trains only resolve to sharpness when held about 1/2 " in front of the shorter barrel units. The bigger problem with these units is changing lamps - student electricians have a tendency to slide the lamp housing all the way in, when the exact position depends on the MOL of the lamp in use. With the current 575w lamps, that is actually about 3/4" back. On the plus side, these units are the easiest to tune of any leko I've ever used, have heavy shutters which resist heat warping and (unlike Sc4's) the shutters are all in separate planes and don't crash into each other. They are well worth maintaining & keeping in service. BA Brian Aldous Lighting Design brian [at] tany.com ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <7f.5f26a64f.2fccdb05 [at] aol.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:09:25 EDT Subject: Re: Strand 2212 and 2216 In a message dated 5/29/05 4:12:45 AM W. Europe Daylight Time, bpmunroe [at] gmail.com writes: << > > Specifically, at 16", 12" and 9", probably. A fun experiment, actually! I seem to recall from my college days (SUNY Purchase, '91) a jig that would hold lenses at different heights off the bench and shine a light thru the lense. The height that resulted in a sharp focus point on the bench would indicate the lense dimension. >> I'm not knocking modern educational techniques. (Strike that: I am!) But, at the age of 13, given a light source, a lens holder of some sort, and a tape measure, I could have done that. Four years later, I could have measured the curvature of the lens with a spherometer, and calculated it, although it was a bit laborious. Fresnel lenses are harder, as they are less precise. Empirical methods are probably the only answer. ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1c2.29a6a351.2fccdb0c [at] aol.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:09:32 EDT Subject: Re: Making vinyl records In a message dated 5/29/05 6:49:55 PM W. Europe Daylight Time, jdurand [at] interstellar.com writes: << ALWAYS check that wires are REALLY dead, even if you can see there isn't a fuse in the socket. >> I second this advice. My tool kit contains a device called a Voltstick. It may have other names. It's a gadget about the size of a pen-torch, with a PTFE tip, and a metal handle. It runs off an AA cell, and lights up bright red when held near a live circuit. It is very sensitive. It will light on the supply side of a blown fuse, but not on the dead one, as a rule. I never work on wiring without using it to check, after having verifired it on a known live circuit. While my constitution tolerates electric shocks, I prefer to avoid them. ------------------------------ From: "Michael Wade" Subject: RE: Financial Software For The Country Apart Couple - Solution Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 22:47:22 -0400 Message-ID: <000901c5658b$1532afb0$6502a8c0 [at] MikesLaptop> In-Reply-To: Thanks for all of the advice on this little issue - Here is the solution that I came to with a number of trips to the tech support chat room: Once we sorted out the operating system typo (thanks Steve!) I then figured out that the web entry downloads did not work with the Macintosh versions... and after a little more work I figured out that Quicken 04 Basic for Windows does not support the web entry downloads either. Yikes. After upgrading my Windows version everything is now working, a country apart. Thanks again for the help. Mike Wade Daedalus Design and Production ------------------------------ Message-ID: <00cb01c5658e$6d40c590$e28aaa43 [at] DonTaco> From: "Don Taco" References: Subject: re Dead Cat Soap Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 20:11:21 -0700 Here's a question your collective experience and knowledge probably knows more about than I'll ever need to know, in the unsophisticated under-equipped box I work in most of the time... If I yank out the (probably 1960's, hand-me-down, failing) 8 foot T-12 fluorescent fixtures in the basement and put in modern 4x4' T-8 electronic ballast fixtures in their place, will I be moving in the direction of more possible interference, or less possible interference, with other systems? These lights are rarely on during a performance, they aren't near any of the sound or light system wiring, and we have no sophisticated modern lighting or sound equipment, so it probably doesn't matter, but I can't help but be curious whether they are more or less likely to cause interference, (in general). Thanks! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3051.64.28.52.232.1117509404.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References:

Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 20:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: re Dead Cat Soap From: "Bill Nelson" > under-equipped box I work in most of the time... If I yank out the > (probably 1960's, hand-me-down, failing) 8 foot T-12 fluorescent fixtures > in > the basement and put in modern 4x4' T-8 electronic ballast fixtures in > their > place, will I be moving in the direction of more possible interference, or > less possible interference, with other systems? > These lights are rarely on during a performance, they aren't near any of > the sound or light system wiring, and we have no sophisticated modern > lighting or sound equipment, so it probably doesn't matter, but I can't > help > but be curious whether they are more or less likely to cause interference, > (in general). The electronic ballasts do create rf noise (more than the old style fluorescent fixtures), but I would not expect them to affect the hard wired sound and lighting equipment. There could be interference if using wireless microphones, but most are now FM - which is fairly immune to impulse/static type noise. If interference occurs, the solution is easy. As you mentioned, just turn them off. We need upgraded lighting in the basement. When replacing the existing fixtures, we might want to place them at right angles to the current orientation - and up between the joists. This would provide some amount of protection to the lamps, but would create more shadows. Bill ------------------------------ From: "Andy Leviss" Subject: RE: re Dead Cat Soap Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 20:34:32 -0400 Organization: Duck's Echo Sound Message-ID: <000501c56578$8b87a250$a19afea9 [at] AndyLeviss> In-Reply-To: Bill Nelson wrote: > The electronic ballasts do create rf noise (more than the old > style fluorescent fixtures), but I would not expect them to > affect the hard wired sound and lighting equipment. Actually, they could. A disturbing amount of audio gear currently manufactured has a design flaw known as the "Pin 1 Problem", wherein pin 1 of the audio inputs is connected first to the circuit board and then, via a trace on same, to the chassis, rather than directly to the chassis. This makes the gear VERY susceptible to RF interference, since any RF that gets into the shield of the input cable can be injected right into the audio signal, where it wouldn't were the device properly wired (this is simplifying quite a bit). --Andy http://OneFromTheRoad.com Tools, Toys, and Tales for the Theatrical Technician -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 5/27/2005 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3067.64.28.52.232.1117510939.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References:

Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 20:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: re Dead Cat Soap From: "Bill Nelson" > Bill Nelson wrote: >> The electronic ballasts do create rf noise (more than the old >> style fluorescent fixtures), but I would not expect them to >> affect the hard wired sound and lighting equipment. > > Actually, they could. A disturbing amount of audio gear currently > manufactured has a design flaw known as the "Pin 1 Problem", wherein pin > 1 of the audio inputs is connected first to the circuit board and then, > via a trace on same, to the chassis, rather than directly to the > chassis. This makes the gear VERY susceptible to RF interference, since > any RF that gets into the shield of the input cable can be injected > right into the audio signal, where it wouldn't were the device properly > wired (this is simplifying quite a bit). Hm, the small amount of resistance in the trace could be a problem if the interference were strong enough. Depending on the equipment, lifting the ground might not be a solution. RF noise on the shield should stay on the outside, given good cable. But there could be some coupling from the board ground to one of the signal traces. I wonder why the manufacturers do not fix this - it is simple and inexpensive to do. Bill ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:32:00 -0400 From: Brian Munroe Reply-To: Brian Munroe Subject: Re: Making vinyl records In-Reply-To: References: On 5/30/05, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: > I second this advice. My tool kit contains a device called a Voltstick. I= t > may have other names. It's a gadget about the size of a pen-torch, with a= PTFE > tip, and a metal handle. It runs off an AA cell, and lights up bright red= when > held near a live circuit. >=20 > It is very sensitive. It will light on the supply side of a blown fuse, b= ut > not on the dead one, as a rule. I never work on wiring without using it t= o > check, after having verifired it on a known live circuit. While my consti= tution > tolerates electric shocks, I prefer to avoid them. >=20 Let me third this advice, and emphasize Frank's point about verfiying the voltstick on a working circuit. It is always a good idea to check your circuit testers, meters, etc and verify that they are functioning properly before you use them to protect your life. Brian Munroe bpmunroe [at] gmail.com ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #413 *****************************