Bill, you had me until you compared yourself to apple. I DISPISE apple with all my being. Apple is a greedy, evil company that I hope to live long enough to watch fail. I will now have to sell my fb3 and buy an ether dream DAC with lsx.
Senior Member
Bill, you had me until you compared yourself to apple. I DISPISE apple with all my being. Apple is a greedy, evil company that I hope to live long enough to watch fail. I will now have to sell my fb3 and buy an ether dream DAC with lsx.
Senior Member
Sounds like things could change then Bill!
If performance increases through proprietary technology are worth the risks, then I am quite excited...... I haven't even got my CT6800s up and running yet
Do all Pangolin products work with Macs?
Keith
Jr. Woodchuckington Janitor III, Esq.
No pangolin products work natively with OSX, but they do work with bootcamp or within a vm environment such as vmware or parallels.. an LD2k would not work (of course), but LD2k.net and FB3 does.
Originally Posted by Galvonaut
Sounds like things could change then Bill!
If performance increases through proprietary technology are worth the risks, then I am quite excited...... I haven't even got my CT6800s up and running yet
Do all Pangolin products work with Macs?
Keith
suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Senior Member
Oh!
That's strange, I'm sure I saw QS on a mac in one of the Pangolin videos. Is Pangolin likely to create OSX versions of it's software? I'm fed up with Win!
Keith
Jr. Woodchuckington Janitor III, Esq.
do you envision those protocols being publicly documented?
- - - Updated - - -Hehe, to quote the people who occupied Wall Street, "we are the 99%"Everyone else will always have options (in this case, analog input which isn't going away any time soon since industrial scanning applications need it too).
Bill
i'm sure you did... and i'm sure it was either running in a vm or a native windows environment via bootcamp.
suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Senior Member
I once learned about 'limits and fits', and tolerances. Cars built from parts made in Germany to fit parts made in the US, etc. Standard practise. The operative point being standardisation. So long as parts like RAM, or scanners, or PCI busses, or lasers, are all based on some consensus itself based on good science and engineering, then there's no need for relying on only one supplier. If the industries involved are made up of firms who can't trust each other enough to make and use standards wisely, then most people will lose out.
The electronic music industry became so strongly unified with MIDI when it was made an open standard (royalty free, not restricted by patent) by its inventor SCI, and it caused an explosion in variety of instruments and controllers too. Aiming to control a line entirely from source to finished product, software, hardware, everything, will only work if it creates such a standard, but then it's like a child, reared to be as good at something as it can be. The next stage is to give it freedom, not to lock it in a room. Otherwise, why bother?
I have no idea if Bill wants Pangolin to be like Apple in every detail, but I doubt it. From what I read, he just wants things to work extremely well. But in the end that is a judgement call that usually only gets settled once a standard is opened to a wide non-proprietary user and manufacturing base, so even if he comes up with a Pangolin equivalent to SCI's MIDI, guarding it jealously wouldn't help, and I suspect that's not what he has in mind.
Senior Member
I don't see why not, depending on how it's implemented.
At the end of the day the direct communication should be contained in the software.
So it shouldn't matter to the amps if the control signal comes from a DAC conversion or direct from the software. As I see it, those with DAC's should be able to use the amps via the DAC with the control signal undergoing the traditional conversion (provided analogue inputs are maintained). Those who run Pangolin software should be able to talk to them directly without DAC's.
This to me is a game changer and every other scanner manufacturer might as well pack up and go home!
Imagine how much cheaper laser software might now become if you no longer need a DAC and how much cheaper it will be to run multi-projector set ups as a result, if all that's needed is an ILDA cable to each projector and a single distribution box on the pc.
Also, it's going to be very difficult to see why with 506's being forecast as being so cheap, why Chinese manufacturers would fit anything other than Pangolin 506's if they can do away with DAC's and thus make software packages much cheaper as well (well by the trade cost of the DAC at least). It looks like the days of moans about having to buy a FB3 for each projector could be over....
Last edited by White-Light; 02-02-2014 at 03:38.
Senior Member
Wow, a Digital to Analog Converter conversion?
I just hope it's designed onto a quality PCB board; if so, I'll go to the ATM machine and get the cash for one right away.
- There is no such word as "can't" -
- 60% of the time it works every time -
Senior Member
That would definitely be bootcam or VM Fusion (which I run) - And whilst it's very stable, I still prefer not to go through a virtual environment. It took me ages to get audio working in Livepro as Mac OS doesn't natively support passing audio from one application to another.
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite - Paul Dirac
Senior Member
So when are these 506 going to be avaliable?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote