Onboard vs outboard-DMX or not

[lcrooks]

Hello, first post.

Well I've read until my mind is blown. I've been on the fence about this for over a year, finding this site confirmed it. I do a pretty big static now. I'd been reading computerchristmas.com and it was fairly intimidating. I'd also been reading dlite and lor, but didn't like the pricing. Plus I like to make things. 8)

On to the questions. Now I'm on the fence about controllers. Most of my display will be on the house. It's a 3 story victorian, by the time I cover it, I shouldn't be more than 30ft from the controller anywhere. With careful placement, better than that. What's the advantage/disadvantage of onboard vs outboard ssr, and what do you suggest? I figure between 64 and 128 to start with. I like dimming btw.

Also, is DMX the wave of the future here? It's been an industry standard for ages (I do audio, no lampie stuff though). Seems to me it would be useful.

Great site, well run. I moderate an audio board and know what kind of time it takes.

[RJ]

First Let me preface this with a statement:

I design stuff here so I have my own designs and therefore am of course biased on what I am about to say. I often will not answer questions down this road but let others do so. This being said I noticed you posted this many hours ago and one of the things about this forum we try to provide answers quickly for those that ask.

Ok,

Internal, External SSR's is a loaded question here. It's much like going to a redneck convention and declaring a chevy pickup is the best. Others will be adament that the Ford pickups are much better. When it comes to this it depends on you're likes and needs but this is my opinion, this is all it is.

I like onboard SSR's because it makes for a very neat and professional unit. The thought is the it is cheaper to run one cat5 cable out than it is to run four ext cords out. I agree under that case but in my case I find I rarely have four things that close together. If I have things close together it is more than four. Like a mega tree 64 channels, Arches 14 channels each, candy canes 10 ch for each drive
and they then are not close enough to simply plug in so I have to .. you guess it use ext cords for the last 5-10 ft or so. So I like 16 channel on board SSR units as I plop them down next to these groups in the quanity I need and plug them into one heavy ext cord and since I build my Lynx's with 15 ft cords on them I can then simple run this to the lights up to 30 foot around the unit.

I found this year using a mix of Lynx's(internal) and Grinches(ext) that had I used just Lynx's with the same setup I would of used less seperate ext cords since the internal unit had some distance it could cover. And in the end I would have had 10 cat 5 cables total in my yard.

I also feel you are less likely to be bothed by a code enforcment officer if all there is to see is a neat "Gray Box" he knows nothing about but looks like you bought it and extension cords in your yard hes sure you bought, than if you have receptical boxes all over the yard "he thinks he knows something about that he also knows you assembled" and thousands of feet of cat5 going everywhere (I ended up with 2700 foot of cat5) "hes not use to this in the yard" Many here will laugh at my thoughs on this and thats fine. But In the end it comes down to what works for you.

There is a valid argument that you have more flexibilty with little 4 channel receptical boxes you can place where you need and run a cat5 cable.

Cost wise cat5 and ends are cheaper than four ext cords if thats how you will lay out your setup.

DMX

Another loaded question, I think ( my Opinion only ) that DMX will be a bigger and bigger player here in the next year. It to me is a good move and I think now that DMX diy equipment has been built and shown to perform well for us with high channel count, it will catch on. The only roadblock is the cost of a good DMX dongle and even that may be resolved soon enough. Others my disagree on this as with all opinions but I would say it's a safe bet that DMX is not going to be just a fad in Diy christmas equipment.

Take all I've said as my opinion as that is all it is.

RJ

[DynamoBen]

I'm a big fan of placing the dimmers in a safe place and running inexpensive extension cords to the "lamps."

As far as DMX it seems to be gaining in popularity. Between the lynx, Grinch conversion, and the possibility that the Renard will accept DMX seems to be a good way to go. Besides that opens up possibilities that other protocols don’t offer, which is being able to control any DMX effect. (strobes, DJ lights, higher current consumer dimmers)

[Mudsculpter]

I have been here about a year now and have had a chance to evaluate a couple of different designs and if you are mainly staying close to the house. (many channels in a concentrated area) the built in ssr boards such as the REN-24 and REN-16 may be your best choice. Depending on the channel count you want you may want to choose 2 REN-24s per story. Otherwise if you have few channels distributed over a large area, the REN-64, or Grinch/595 + REN-C.

[lcrooks]

Thanks for the replies. Didn't know I was opening a can of worms. Very useful replies, makes my decision easier. I like the idea of 24 per floor.

Dmx and onboard. The dmx protocol seems too strong and refined to ignore.

Chevy btw. :lol:

[acewingman]

Personally I think a combination of external and internal SSRs is the way to go...For instance, my display for 2008 will have 3 leaping arches with 8 channels each which will use a Renard24 to control them as they will be located in close proximity. I will also have 7 raindeer with white, red, and green lights and a channel controlling each color which will use a Renard24...Also 7 red, green,white christmas trees......

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
...............A...................T
.............A...........R...........T
..........A..........R......R.........T
........A.........R............R.........T
..... A........R..................R.........T
....A............................................T
A=Arches, R=Raindeer, T=Tree, H=House

Now for my house, I will use external SSRs to control groups of 3 (red, green, white) C7 strands from each corner of the house and each window and around the garage.
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/12/36410510941.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7388151)
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/12/36410510934.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7388152)
As for the DMX....I do not see the point in spending $150.00 just to make a signal that will control something as simple as christmas lights that can be controlled from a standard serial port or parallel port.

If you are worried about the code enforcement truck rolling by then you will need to clean up your display with "gray boxes" as RJ stated and use standard electrical cords with proper connectors. You probably should do this anyway as I am sure burning down your house from an electrical fire is not desirable.

[DynamoBen]

...I do not see the point in spending $150.00 just to make a signal that will control something as simple as christmas lights...

One could make the same argument about everything we do ;)

[Mrplow123]

I agree with most everything that has been said here. Using controlers with onboard SSR's or external SSR's will depend on your layout and what you want to do. I personally have used only external SSR's the last 2 years. But when I ended up with 6 boxes (4 channels each) all in one place for my mega tree, I decided it was time to invest in a few controlers with built in SSR's. So next year, I will be using a mixture of external and built in SSR's to save time and money.

As far as DMX goes for what we do. It is a proven standard in the lighting industry, it has been around a while, and is not going anywhere. With that said, if you plan to use any comercially available lighting equipment, such as gobo's, dimer packs, or even a DMX controled snow machine, then you should go the with a DMX DIY controler. This way when you are ready to add one of the comercial DMX items, you just have to plug it in. But if you just plan to use DIY controlers to turn on and off your cheap Christmas lights, then why not just use the serial port? It works just as good for that. If you are just comparing 2 DIY controlers, such as the Ren-16 and the Lynx-16, does the Lynx really perform better? If it does, I doubt it is because of the DMX.

[DynamoBen]

If you are just comparing 2 DIY controlers, such as the Ren-16 and the Lynx-16, does the Lynx really perform better? If it does, I doubt it is because of the DMX.

This brings up a good point. DMX is just the communication method between your PC and the dimmers. The communication method of a controller / dimmer doesn't dictate how well it works.

[lcrooks]

I do have wholesale access to a bunch of dmx stuff. My main business is a rental yard, and we do party rentals. Through it I can get most of the special effects stuff, snow, flames, etc. Whether I ever do or not is another story, it ain't cheap.

Just seems to me to be more robust, using something that's been around for 20 yrs. I'll think about it some more.

But I'm pretty sure on the inboards. For my app, it will be easy to have the controllers in the house and run power out to each level. As I currently run my lights, each floor goes to a central location and from there to a heavy duty timer on a 20a circuit.

[RJ]

As for the DMX....I do not see the point in spending $150.00 just to make a signal that will control something as simple as christmas lights that can be controlled from a standard serial port or parallel port.

I think we can all see why I normally do not make comments on such thing. That said since I did and started this, I will answer to these and be done with it.

To this:
Yes it is great that with a serial port you can control the lights and I am glad we have this inexpensive way to handle it. Phil has given so much to this community. If this is the way you wish to do your lights feel free to do that I don't think any comment I made applied to this. It appears you take it be a threat to your way of doing things. This was a reply to a striaght question of

"Also, is DMX the wave of the future here? It's been an industry standard for ages (I do audio, no lampie stuff though). Seems to me it would be useful."

To which I replied:

"Another loaded question, I think ( my Opinion only ) that DMX will be a bigger and bigger player here in the next year. It to me is a good move and I think now that DMX diy equipment has been built and shown to perform well for us with high channel count, it will catch on. The only roadblock is the cost of a good DMX dongle and even that may be resolved soon enough. Others my disagree on this as with all opinions but I would say it's a safe bet that DMX is not going to be just a fad in Diy christmas equipment."

Read it again as I think we are tring to make it say stuff it does not. I no where here say that you must go DMX or that in the future everyone will be required to use DMX I said I don't think it is a fad and will play a bigger and bigger part of DIY controllers. Are any of you going to stand here and really say that I am wrong and it will play less and less a part? I think there are a number of people working on DMX equipment other than me right now (two I know of) and there is even talk of Renards running DMX. Since thats the case what would you like for me to say to him.. No DMX is dead we will never use it , Get real!

As to

[quote=Mrplow123]But if you just plan to use DIY controlers to turn on and off your cheap Christmas lights, then why not just use the serial port? It works just as good for that. If you are just comparing 2 DIY controlers, such as the Ren-16 and the Lynx-16, does the Lynx really perform better? If it does, I doubt it is because of the DMX.


Where did anyone talk about one dimmer being better than another in this? I don't see him comparing anything in hos post. If the Lynx is better? I have news for everyone. The Renard is better!

So is the Lynx and every other controller on this board. It is better for the person it meets their needs. This is not a contest! I am not competing with anyone here. If you simply meant that DMX does not make a controller better I partly agree. When one of us is runnig a large show (hundreds of channels) and have to limit the event timings or channel count on a port this is a limit anyway you look at it. When we have event drops do to the protocol speed this is a limitation. This does not make it bad but does give room to improve. I used DMX because it helps in that area as well as compatiblity with other equipment. It is still limited also as is everything but the limits are more in line with the size the shows are becoming. Look at the poll on how many lights. It is no longer a couple of people running large shows any longer. And they are not getting smaller. With cheap after xmas sales and Led's making power no longer much of a limit, the average show will get larger. Some here are running 5 usb to serial adapters. If you buy the ones I see you are talking almost as much as a DMX dongle. And we can make them cheaper. But first the need had to be there.

Again this is my opinion and everyone has a right to their own. I respect that.

RJ

[Mrplow123]

Where did anyone talk about one dimmer being better than another in this? I don't see him comparing anything in hos post. If the Lynx is better? I have news for everyone. The Renard is better!
RJ


No one in this thread said one was better then the other. But it is not a secret that most of the new members get the impresion that in order to have high channel count and reliability, they need to use DMX because that is what works for the big production companies. I think every DIY board design on this forum is great and has it's place. I was just trying to make it clear to people that the bigest advantage of a DMX based controler is to allow you to also use commercial DMX equipment. Not that going DMX is going to make it work better.

Lots of new members come onto this forum, and start reading. Many of them get all excited about using a DMX controler for one reason or the other. Some want a proven adopted standard. SOme want to be like the big boys. The majority of those people suddenly change their mind when they hear they need a $150 dongle to make it work. Which is not really that much money when you look at the big picture, try looking at the price of a DMX dimmer pack, or a Gobo. I think the number one turn off to DMX is the purchase of the dongle. That is why I say if you can use the serial port for free and and get the same results, why not do it.

If i were starting from scratch, I might go the DMX route as the initial investment. But I would not give up what i am currently using to convert over to it. I for one don't plan on buying any DMX equipment. I just can not justify the cost for my Christmas light display.

To each his own.

[P. Short]

Separate SSRs

One reason that some people prefer separate SSRs is that they are perceived to reduce cabling costs. These people do not want to place the controller outdoors, because they want it in a protected environment for reliability and/or ease of servicing. Once they make that decision, then it seems better if the SSRs are located remotely in order to reduce cable costs. It's usually a lot cheaper to run 100' of CAT5 than 400' of extension cables, and using shared-neutral power cables is not particularly well understood or accepted by a lot of people.

One side benefit of this approach (usually) is that it's inexpensive to keep a few spare SSRs around to replace anything that goes bad. In this case it makes sense to go with high channel-count designs. And, if a few non-standard SSRs are needed (for heavy or inductive loads, etc), it's easy to replace one of the normal SSR board with the unusual ones.

Integrated SSRs

If you are willing (and able) to place your controllers close to the lights, then the equation changes. Here you save on connector costs and PCB area costs by having everything on one board. People going with this approach seem to prefer medium channel-count boards, for the reasons that others have mentioned previously.

Another Approach
Anyway, my preferred approach is slightly different. I prefer low channel-count boards with integrated SSRs, typically 4 channels per board, located as close to the lights as possible. I have several designs that I've built that use this approach, which so far I've kept these designs largely to myself. This is both for safety reasons (because the methods that I use to provide DC power are easy to screw up), and because the firmware is not particularly useful for teaching purposes.

--

Phil

[lcrooks]

and using shared-neutral power cables is not particularly well understood or accepted by a lot of people.
Phil

I saw that in the Wiki and was astonished. You better know what you're doing with that one. Not sure I'd have that posted publicly. It violates more codes than I'd care to name. Works, sure, but would be dangerous in the hands of those who don't understand how neutrals can become not neutral very quickly.

The rest of the analysis, thanks, very clear.

Oh and sorry, I didn't mean to start anything with my first post here.

[wbuehler]

I am just starting out and I have chosen to go DMX since it is a standard, I can use USB on the control PC and goes well with some RGB pixels that I purchased that are also DMX based.

Bill

[Matt]

Just a thought...

Has anyone thought of adding SSR output jacks to integrated SSR controllers (tke the Ren16 for example). That way, you can have some of the advantages of both types of controllers, and you can decide whether internal or external SSRs are the best on an (almost) channel-by-channel basis.

-Matt

[DynamoBen]

Lets not forget that there are two DMX dongle options. One is $150, the other is $60 ($45 w/o a case, $30 if you build it).

In fact as we speak RJ is looking into creating a dongle to help keep costs down.

[RJ]

Another Approach
Anyway, my preferred approach is slightly different. I prefer low channel-count boards with integrated SSRs, typically 4 channels per board, located as close to the lights as possible. I have several designs that I've built that use this approach, which so far I've kept these designs largely to myself. This is both for safety reasons (because the methods that I use to provide DC power are easy to screw up), and because the firmware is not particularly useful for teaching purposes.

--

Phil

Phil not only do I like the idea if it is cheap enough, I though I come up with it months ago until the air was let out when I was explianing it on the chat and brian and a few others told me you already had it. I had found the perfect chip for my setup to do it and thought I was on to an idea. So I figured it was either too expensive or something when you never released it. I am with you I could see benifits to it.

[P. Short]

The main reason that I've never released anything is that it has too many parts at AC line potential. Regardless of whether it is distributed in kit form or not, it's too risky to release when there are so many people out there without any electrical knowledge or electronic assembly knowledge who might potentially (pun intended?) try to build it.

--

Phil

[fkostyun]

I think another reason that people may be interested in going to DMX is that, a 24ch DMX controller that I have built will also work with software such as LOR and Animated lighting. I believe we will capture the more

Why am I going to DMX? Well, I am also starting to "acquire" some DMX devices (snow machines, fog machines, lighting effects) and I want to control those with vixen also, so progression of the lighting controls to DMX is just natural.

In regards to onboard / outboard. etc, I am starting to find that onboard is going to work better for me at this point in time. The CAT5 method worked WONDERFULLY for me for several years, however, as I continue to increase my display, I am starting to have 24+ channels in a small area, and this is where I'm finding that a integrated unit is nice to have. My thought for this year are to ditch all "control" boards / cat5, and create a 4 channel board / dimmer (DMX or Renard - not sure yet) that is similar to the SSRoz (in size also) and to use that for a few areas in the yard.

[holtm]

I used Ren8 for the outlining areas. I put the Ren8 board in the bottom of the box, with one RJ-45 connection to an external 4 channel SSR board and a 4 channel SSR board on the back of the duplex outlets connected to the Ren8 with cheaper straight pin connectors. This saved on the Cat5 and the extension cords.
For areas where the SSRs were concentrated (mega tree, and c9 roof twinkles) I hard wired the 4 channel SSRs so I had almost 0 connector costs. There are many options. I'm going to build some 24 channel controllers this year as I will have more higher count areas in 2008. Still undecided on on-board or outboard SSR as the display layout is not final. The nice thing about DIY is I can make my control equipment custom for my display.