Lake Controller 5.8 with 6.1 configured PLM

Michael John

Michael John

Junior
Jun 25, 2011
352
9
18
Sydney, Australia
eclipseaudio.com
Hi all,

Here's a cautionary tale from the weekend.

I had configured two PLM's to run my 3-way cabinets using the 6.1 Lake Controller. For Dante, I had channels 15 and 16 from a Yamaha MY16-AUD card in the mixing console routed to channels 1 & 2 of the PLM's "Dante Receiver Configuration" and each were routed to channels 1 & 2 of the PLM's "input configuration." This was FOH left and right.

FOH was working nicely and so I ran the 5.8 Lake Controller to check on the settings of the two Lake Contours that were running foldback. (v6 onwards doesn't talk to Dolby Lake products.) I thought I'd also try looking at one of the PLM's and as I brough the PLM modules onto the view, FOH sound stopped and the Lake Controller showed some Dante errors. The Dante Controller showed that the Dante routes from the MY card to the PLM's were gone, and since I didn't have analog fallback, I just got silence!!

I shut down the 5.8 Lake Controller, reconnected the routes using the Dante Controller, and the FOH sound came back. On we went. But something wasn't quite right. When I panned sources left, they came out of both L&R, and when panned right, silence.

I didn't have time to troubleshoot any further during soundcheck so I pulled the network plug out of the MY16-AUD card, patched analog to the PLM's and ran the event on analog. The stage inputs were all still analog.

Back at the workshop today I did some troubleshooting and found that when modules from a 6.1 configured PLM are viewed in v5.8, 5.8 blows away the Dante routing AND resets all the Dante patches on the PLM's "Input Configuration" page to ONLY use the 1st Dante channel from the "Dante Receiver Configuration." Hence I only got mono when I reconnected the Dante routes at the gig.

So.... if you do have to configure Dolby Lake products (which require v5.8 or earlier) on the same network as PLM's (configured using 6.1) and you value using Dante, DON'T view any 6.1 configured PLM modules in 5.8!!!

(Another 1st world problem!)

EDIT

The firmware and controller were as at 6.1 build 4. I haven't yet tried 6.1 build 5.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lake Controller 5.8 with 6.1 configured PLM

Hi Michael,


if feel with you ...figuring out those issues in a show situation is allways bad.
On the other hand, this is a normal behaviour because of different features in soft- & firmware versions.
Lake modules have allways been upward compatible but not backward compatible when new features were implemented.
From 5.8 to 6.1 the complete Dante side has been dramaticaly improoved and pushed forward.
Please keep in mind that all Lake hardware has a custom brooklyn module inside that enables Lab.gruppen and former Dolby to handle the Dante firmware themselfs and bundle it within the LC.


So what we have here to handle and match ist:


1. Lake frame firmware
2. Audinate custom Brooklynmodule firmware
3. Lake Controller Software


everytime a new feature is implemented a old module will be updated with these features loading them in a set of newer versions.
A more recent version of a module can NOT be opened by older versions of the LC ...module or system files






but, let' go thru your workflow (what it probaply was;)


1. opening LC v6.1


2. drag the online PLM modules with the firmware coresponding to LC v6.1 in the workspace
-> this included all new features and default settings to the module


3. loading a loadlibrary or own module file based upon v5.x
-> the module is updated with all the new features


4. setting up Dante routes and all the rest for your system


...if you save the module or system file now, you CAN't open it in v5.8 because its created with a more recent version.




5. close LC v6.1 and opening LC v5.8


6. draging the online PLM to the workspace will "downgrade" them to the v5.8 features and default settings
-> recalling a csm or csc file would give you a message and avoid this, but draging it manually will "downgrade"




I would suggest to use v5.8 and v6.1 in separate networks or VLANs with two computers running the LC, don't mix. it!
or buy LMs :)


Overall, what you experienced is a "normal" behaviour and hopefuly my word explained the background a bit for better understanding the module and firmware features and compatibility.


Regards
Bodo
 
Re: Lake Controller 5.8 with 6.1 configured PLM

Hi Bodo,

Bodo Felusch said:
everytime a new feature is implemented a old module will be updated with these features loading them in a set of newer versions.
A more recent version of a module can NOT be opened by older versions of the LC ...module or system files
Click to expand...
LC's do allow opening modules with newer firmware, even if one shouldn't, and there's currently no indication in the LC that the module might be "newer."

Bodo Felusch said:
6. draging the online PLM to the workspace will "downgrade" them to the v5.8 features and default settings
-> recalling a csm or csc file would give you a message and avoid this, but draging it manually will "downgrade"
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "downgrade." I'm fairly familiar with the module data structures used by both the LC and the DSP in code, but I'm not so familiar with the LC's process to display the modules. My understanding is that when the LC views a module, all it is doing is querying for parameters and displaying what it can. Hopefully it's not sending change commands to the PLM (or LM). If it is, then it may be worth designing out of the LC over time. If the PLM is changing its state in response to information query requests from the LC, then maybe the PLM can be made more robust.

In general, I think the ability to open newer firmware in older LC's is generous. :) Maybe the LC can discreetly indicate that the module has newer firmware than the LC knows about, so that a user knows not to change anything.

Bodo Felusch said:
I would suggest to use v5.8 and v6.1 in separate networks or VLANs with two computers running the LC, don't mix. it!
or buy LMs :)
Click to expand...

I guess I need to brush up on my networking knowledge. It would be nice to still use the same WAP.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lake Controller 5.8 with 6.1 configured PLM

Michael Smithers said:
In general, I think the ability to open newer firmware in older LC's is generous. :) Maybe the LC can discreetly indicate that the module has newer firmware than the LC knows about, so that a user knows not to change anything.
Click to expand...

this is exactly what the LC does when you try to recall a module or system created with a more recent version.
But if you drag a online frame module in the workspace you have to think about the firmware of the frame and the LC version ...as allways upward = ok, backward = not ok ...the frame has feature thats the LC don't know

OK let's think about it in a more real world example:

we want to bake a choclate cake. (module)
We have a recipe that we want to use (firmware)
In a kitchen with indrigends (LC) ....recipe and kitchen are a bit more complicated than in this modell:)

The recipe contains vanilla (v6.1 recipe)
But the firmware v5.8 does not contain the indrigent vanilla

If we recall the 6.1 recipe in a 5.8 kitchen, the chef says "not possible I don't have vanilla in stock"
But then the owner of the restaurant (you) comes in the kitchen and say "I don't care about vanilla! BAKE the fucking cake the president is in da house ...NOW!" ...that s what happens when you drag it in the workspace, the frame still have some features that the LC can't adress

does that make sence?

v5.8 and v6.1 in one network is not possible ....and this is good because the secondary controller communicates with the primary controller not with the frames directly. ...so we have the same issues.

If you want to carry only one access point there are some new products as the LANCom dual range, that can handle 2 SSIDs for two VLANs. then you can create two separate networks with one access point.
 
Re: Lake Controller 5.8 with 6.1 configured PLM

Bodo Felusch said:
this is exactly what the LC does when you try to recall a module or system created with a more recent version.
But if you drag a online frame module in the workspace you have to think about the firmware of the frame and the LC version ...as allways upward = ok, backward = not ok ...the frame has feature thats the LC don't know
Click to expand...

I'm referring to dragging an online frame onto the workspace. I had some helpful correspondence today with Kristian where we talked some potential future changes to help this situation.

Let's take this offline. PM me if you like.

Bodo Felusch said:
v5.8 and v6.1 in one network is not possible ....and this is good because the secondary controller communicates with the primary controller not with the frames directly. ...so we have the same issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why I didn't have the two controllers running at the same time.

Bodo Felusch said:
If you want to carry only one access point there are some new products as the LANCom dual range, that can handle 2 SSIDs for two VLANs. then you can create two separate networks with one access point.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll look into this.
 
Re: Lake Controller 5.8 with 6.1 configured PLM

Bodo Felusch said:
If you want to carry only one access point there are some new products as the LANCom dual range, that can handle 2 SSIDs for two VLANs. then you can create two separate networks with one access point.
Click to expand...

Michael and Bodo,
FYI, the free DD-WRT Firmware which runs on many consumer grade wireless routers can do this. No need to purchase something if your existing router is compatible with DD-WRT.
 
Using the access point with 2 SSiDs for LC 5.8 and 6.x it must be connected to two different VLANs with two seperate physical connections without mixing them up. If it only has one physical connection you must connect it to a tagged VLAN carrying both networks, in that case bare in mind, that it might become hard to filter out Dante multicast for the same port comming from the v6.1 net what would flood the access point. A "standard" router may not have these features.
 
Top Bottom