ECG682 vs. ECG-P12S

The original text-based setup interface on the sandevices e680/e681 was very clunky, but I believe the new version with a gui is much better.

I have an e680 and a couple e681s - the main reason I went for those was so that I could assemble them as kits - I hadn't done a kit since high school, and didn't have much luck then, so thought I'd give it another go. They all worked well and have done so for 3 years.

The rest of my gear is j1sys gear - a couple pixad8s, 5-6 p2's, dr4 and a d4.

As someone else mentioned, they all seem to do the job well once setup - I haven't had an issue with either of these, and both Ed and Jim are great.

We certainly are being spoilt for choice though, especially with the pixlite controllers now available here in Oz too, which look like they are great boards.
 
Some of you might be interested to know that I use the E682 cards for theatrical shows as well. I just did a production of "Cats" and I love the E682 because I just pluged it straight into the lighting network for the building which uses an ETC Eos console, set the universes, and it's like magic! I don't need any extra hardware!

So my point is, whatever E1.31 spec the E682 uses, it's the same E1.31 spec that ETC uses in their professional consoles. :) So Jim did something right!

As for which one is better, I couldn't say, I've never used any other pixel controller, but I will say that I am a sandevices fan for life! I have 9 E682 cards currently and (+/-) 5 more coming next year. ;)
 
Jodenbach said:
[SIZE=78%]So my point is, whatever E1.31 spec the E682 uses, it's the same E1.31 spec that ETC uses in their professional consoles.[/SIZE] :) [SIZE=78%] So Jim did something right![/SIZE]
Click to expand...


As so many have found out, theres often a big gap between what "works" and what is actually standard though. Forutnatly on the receiver end its pretty easy to make something that will listen to e1.31 and have it work.
 
Well that is fortunate that it works as there really isn't a real standard yet... I just think it's cool that something that was designed for Christmas displays on peoples houses as a hobby can also be used in professional theatrical applications!

If I were to buy something like this that was designed for professional use I couldn't imagine the cost... at least $1000, probably $2000...

Even the E1.31 to DMX nodes are $1500 for 1 or 2 universes in the professional world... It's crazy expensive!
 
Jodenbach said:
Well that is fortunate that it works as there really isn't a real standard yet...
Click to expand...

There is a written formal standard for e1.31

ANSI E1.31 - 2009
Entertainment Technology – Lightweight streaming protocol for transport of DMX512 using ACN

ANSI E1.31 - 2009, Entertainment Technology – Lightweight streaming protocol for transport of DMX512 using ACN, describes a way of transporting DMX512-type data over Ethernet using ACN's (ANSI E1.17) Session Data Transport mechanism. The DMX512-type streaming data can be intermixed with random access data and high speed feedback in a flexible and scalable way on a network


and it can be downloaded from here
http://tsp.plasa.org/tsp/documents/published_docs.php
 
thanks for the link Fasteddy, that will be helpful in the future!
ya, but you never know if they are actually using the E1.31 standard or not though. ETC doesn't actually tell you that that is what they use. They call it ETC Net3... which really doesn't mean anything to anyone but them. all I know is ETC Net2 and Net3 don't work together... but Net3 does work with the E682 and I think that's fantastic.

and while I'm talking about lighting consoles...

I talked with Martin Canada to see if their lighting consoles output sACN directly and they said no and they likely won't, they have their own network protocol. Also, for interest, Grand MA (the most expensive lighting consoles available. >$90,000) don't use sACN either, they have their own proprietary protocol as well... although I believe you can buy a network adapter from them for some outrageous price haha I wish everyone would just get along and use the same protocol. haha keep dreaming they tell me.

Anyway, sorry this has gone off topic. If it comes up again, I will make a new thread. :)
 
Jodenbach said:
thanks for the link Fasteddy, that will be helpful in the future!
ya, but you never know if they are actually using the E1.31 standard or not though. ETC doesn't actually tell you that that is what they use. They call it ETC Net3... which really doesn't mean anything to anyone but them. all I know is ETC Net2 and Net3 don't work together... but Net3 does work with the E682 and I think that's fantastic.

and while I'm talking about lighting consoles...

I talked with Martin Canada to see if their lighting consoles output sACN directly and they said no and they likely won't, they have their own network protocol. Also, for interest, Grand MA (the most expensive lighting consoles available. >$90,000) don't use sACN either, they have their own proprietary protocol as well... although I believe you can buy a network adapter from them for some outrageous price haha I wish everyone would just get along and use the same protocol. haha keep dreaming they tell me.

Anyway, sorry this has gone off topic. If it comes up again, I will make a new thread. :)
Click to expand...

You will actually find that some of the big names are finally starting to come around to E1.31 with big name consoles supporting this with the Hog 4 Full Boar and the Chamsys MQ300 Pro just to name a few.

There currently seems to be a divide developing with in the industry between Art-Net and SACN (E1.31) with ESTA and PLASA both pushing the E1.31 standard. But as you already said there is a lot of other ones out there. Im wondering if it will eventually take traction within the commercial high end world which is now starting to show signs of some early adoption.

SACN (E1.31) is more scalable than Art-Net as E1.31 was designed to run with multicast.

It will be interesting to see where this heads in the next 24 months
 
I ran an E682 for 2013 Christmas. Was my first year to sequence and first year (of course) to go RGB; small start; four arches with 60 RGB in each arch. I had some struggles getting the E682 up & running properly. Most of my struggles were self inflicted; related to trying to get it up & running consistently on a wireless network--once I set it up properly with an Ethernet connection straight out of a "show computer" it worked flawlessly. Jim at SanDevices was extremely helpful and very patient with my initial ignorance struggles with setting up the controller and gave me LOTs of help getting it up & running. No problems whatsoever with the controller through one season. It has 16 "sockets" (discrete outputs) capable of controlling six universes. It is a very straightforward interface and I am not much a computer geek person! It was $109 for kit & $189 for assembled. I bought assembled for 2013 Christmas and plan to purchase the kit and try my hand at soldering for the upcoming 2014 Christmas season to drive a pixel mega tree.
 
DanJ said:
It has 16 "sockets" (discrete outputs) capable of controlling six universes.
Click to expand...

Because of this thread I decided to look more into the e682's and now plan on using two of them for my mega tree next year. I was under the impression that with the newest firmware the e682 can do up to 12 univereses (in unicast) upgraded from six.
 
This year was my first year with RGB and sequencing all together.. I decided on the e6804 and had initial problems but Jim replaced my board very promptly and I also purchased two additional e6804's (two for gutters and floods and one spare). My plan this year is to get an e682 for some yard stuff (tree and corocanes).. I felt the e6804 (e682 has same interface) was easy to program and setup. I do not have an elaborate setup but next year I plan to expand as much as I can. I give two thumbs up for the e682
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top