OT: My employer wants to switch to the dark side
mcotton
Posts: 38
My employer wants us to switch teams, mainly for the adagio product, and I am looking for opinions for the guys who have worked with both or independently program both. I have my own AMX equipment and have spend a lot of non-work hours so I am not excited about changing over. This also put me in a weird spot because I modules and ACE certification I want to finish.
Can anyone offer help/tips/advice for my situation?
Can anyone offer help/tips/advice for my situation?
0
Comments
Otherwise if you just want a job, regardless of what you're programming, stick with your team.
One argument to be made is if he's spent quite a bit of time & money having you learn AMX, why would he want to reinvent the wheel? There are ALWAYS other products out there than can substitute others without having to switch teams.
Good luck!
You need to fully understand where your boss is coming from. What is the business reason for wanting to switch? Keep your emotions out of it and create a business solution for him that presents the facts. Do some basic cost benefit analysis and show him a reason to stay with AMX. While I doubt it, you may find that his reasoning is correct. You can then choose to accept it or find "another team."
FWIW.
I need some speech schooling.....hmmmmph.
I don't think some experience with AMX and some experience with Cre$tron adds up to ACE/CAIP experience. I was hoping someone could give me an idea of how much carries over between the two.
If you can think in code, it's easier to get to the finish line with AMX. If you're not a code-head, you may get there more quickly with the other guys.
It might have something to do with everyone using the term "switching teams" to deal with manufacturers, employers, thought processes, and probably what side you sleep on by the time we're done...
Back on topic, I agree with everyone so far.
Kevin D.
Having done some Craptron, I'd have to agree to some of the sentiments given here. From a programmer's standpoint, AMX is just way more flexible in the end.
I would venture a guess that there's more to your story than meets the eye. I can only assume which brands your company carries. I would guess if you're doing AMX you also probably have access to things like Niles, Elan, etc...
I also know a few companies around that do both Crapton and AMX at the same time. It seems a little odd that they'd throw in the towel on one and move to the other simply because of availablitly of a fairly low-end whole-house audio box.
I would encourage your boss to stick with AMX and maybe do Cre$tron on the "side". This way you keep your AMX discount, your AMX knowledge, etc
Is your boss looking for your opinion, or is this an executive order?
The ultimate goal is to have a consistent upgrade path from whole home audio all the way up to full automation.
I'm worried about knowing a little of both and not excelling in either.
This is up for discussion. Thanks to everyone (and AMX) for their responses.
Well, I don't work for you company but...
i'm not sure how this qualifies Cre$tron or disqualifies AMX. If having the same brand name on every peice of gear is the qualifier, then I would run and not walk from this solution.
No one company can possibly excel at all the things needed to do a fully integrated system. (AMX included) I know sales people love to keep things all the same. But that's just not reality. I like the flexibility of being able to give the client the best there is of any given component. I would hate to force the client down some path early on in that regard. It's not good for the end result and it's not good for the long-term care of the client.
To me it's analogous to saying, "I really would like to sell Goodyear tires. I think we should become a Jeep dealer."
I'm going to use that line with my boss.
I hate to sell a customer a basic system and when they upgrade it gets pulled out and replaced with another system. The upgrade process would, in theory, be easier to just add on extra pieces. For example, we sell the speakercraft mzc and mode keypads. If they want to later do automation, we pull out speakercraft and replace it with an ipod dock, audio switcher, amps, NI-xxxx and touchscreens. The original system is 'wasted' and this has been a hurdle with customers.
What are other people using? We have tried home logic, elan and speakercraft. Who makes the most AMX-friendly entry system?
Your responses are appreciated.
We've had real good results integrating Elan. We've sorta created what I'd call a 'Clam Shell' over the Elan system. The Elan runs strictly the house audio distribution system and the AMX runs everything else. We've used the S12 for this setup.
Imerge S3000 or Imerge MS5000 with the latest version of the Xiva module. Cover art browsing, full text search functionality, nice quick comms. If you've not seen an Imerge S3000 before you're still going to recognise it...Those boys at Cr*ptron really must hate actually making things
We use it with Autopatch (as was) switching with DSP and either Speakercraft or ADA multichannel amps. It's a lovely base system
Do you use Ole/Ole XL keypads? I ran into the logical problem of finding sources (ipod dock, audio server, xm) that would put meta-data on a keypad and later on the touchscreen.
We'll typically put AMX touch panels in the more used rooms and go to Elan in the lesser used rooms (guest beds/baths, etc...)
And that's just the start.
I'm a practising AMX and ******** programmer. I work with devices from both companies on a day to day basis. From a dispassionate standpoint, I can relate the following (from a programmer's point of view):
* Support. My local arm of the AMX worldwide empire provide excellent, nay EXCELLENT, support which is readily available. They have extremely broad and complete technical knowledge and have access to those in the know at AMX HQ which they can and do exercise if needed. My local arm of the Cr-st--n empire don't tend to have a great deal more technical insight than we have available inhouse. In certain areas we have more knowledge. Generally, we're asked to submit a support ticket on Cr-st--n's website for assistance. It takes an average of 7 days to receive a response and oft enough, longer.
AMX: 1 - Cr-st--n: 0
* Documentation. AMX tends to have concise yet comprehensive documentation available. Cr-st--n has muddled and confusing documentation, with a good smattering of erroneous information.
AMX: 2 - Cr-st--n: 0
* Capability. I have AMX systems which are controlling 50 odd serial devices in a polled manner and also dealing with a host of IR and IP controlled devices, all from a single controller (with additional cards in ICSNET frames). Cr-st--n's current generation control systems struggle to parse responses from 5 serially controlled devices.
AMX: 3 - Cr-st--n: 0
* Robustness (ignoring wireless comms with touchpanels). If you're not careful in how you program Cr-st--n control systems one of three things will happen: they will reboot sporadically, portions of the programming will go zombie on you from time to time and stop functioning, or they will be too busy doing other things and ignore events which are being generated. I think I've managed to lock up a NetLinx master once due to a programming fault which was just that, a fault.
AMX: 4 - Cr-st--n: 0
* Quality control. Hardware, comparable. AMX software / programming modules, pretty good on the whole. Cr-st--n software / programming modules, pretty bad on the whole.
AMX: 5 - Cr-st--n: 0
* Price. Cr-st--n, pretty expensive. AMX, more expensive.
AMX: 5 - Cr-st--n: 1
Does the money saved on Cr-st--n stuff to win cheaper jobs balance the staff hours dealing with all the problems you're likely to encounter? Not by a long shot IMNSHO.
Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of Cr-st--n's hardware are fantastic devices. Sadly the tools and operating environments they give us to work with are not great. Just in the way that good tools can turn an average device into a great device, poor tools tend to turn good devices into painful devices to deal with in Cr-st--n's case.
That's my two cents worth. Just for the record, I have no affiliation with either company other than working for a company who is a dealer for both company's products (that said, slabs of beer can be sent to....).
We are in the business of providing customised systems integration for our clients. We benefit from internationally agreed protocols to allow devices from different manufacturers to communicate. We can offer our clients the best current solution for their needs and budget safe in the knowledge that it can be altered, expanded, modernised at anytime.
If a manufacturer introduced a new product with only a proprietary communications bus and tried to sell it in this industry, they would have a hard time of it. That business concept belongs back in the early 80's when every manufacturer had their own better solution, yet the big C is relentlessly pursuing client lock-in to their products at the expense of cross compatibility.
The big C is actively targeting contractor?s sales staff with massive discount structures and promises of a single solution, but we'd do well to remember what are clients are coming to us for.
/rant
It's what you need to do to get to a finished, working system that makes all the difference. And on that count, AMX is far ahead if you are doing custom work. If you are selling cookie-cutter, standard template systems, C is probably ahead (which is why a lot of companies prefer it, you can slap together a standard package system pretty quickly with little to no programming experience). But I'm a custom installer, and rarely have even two jobs that remotely resemble each other, let alone a package I can hand out to anyone.
ANd Jim raises a very good point: the proprietary network model C has been gravitating towards is simply bad news. It will step on all your standard stuff (I've seen it in action) and cause you other issues. Pure wireless G is tricky enough with all the non-networked stuff interfering without adding a whole other netrwork on the same general frequency range.
I don't want to sound like a cre$tron fanboy, but most of your points are just wrong.
I have to agree with point 1 about the service, however, service here in Europe is pretty good. I call them, and get someone on the phone immediatly.
Point 2: I like cre$trons documentation. A netlinx is shipped with one sheet of paper, while a cre$tron controller is packed with much more. I don't need it, but some people might
Point 3: Depends on your cre$tron / amx programming skills
Point 4: Agreed
Point 5: Are you kidding me? We have had a thread about how bad AMX modules are... Cre$tron modules can be editing, try that with an AMX module...
Point 6: Could be
I too prefer AMX over Cre$tron but keep it fair
Even further OT, why don't you control the MZC with the installed AMX system? We're doing this with some success (the protocol is not documented well and it is fairly complex) on both AMX and ******** systems. The MODEs or NKPs still only do distributed audio, while the touchpanels control AV and distributed audio.
That said, I don't think this would qualify as anything-friendly. It took a good few days of programming and testing to write the mess of a module I have now. As it stands, Speakercraft MZC can't even do standalone distributed audio well.
Regarding the original question? I prefer writing AMX, but our company jumped ship and swam to better waters after lack of support (both sales and technical) and failing hardware. (That said, the first-line support for Cres here is absolutely awful. As in, will lie to look smart awful. With AMX, I just got "I don't know" rather than made up answers.) I used to think Netlinx was quirky until I started writing some SIMPL+ modules... I'm still glad when there's days I am servicing an AMX system, though - unless it's a call for yet another dead NI.
Are you kidding me? AMX documentation and resources are certainly not on par with what other programming resources provide. Simpl Windows documentation is very good. I'll give you this though, SIMPL+ documentation is just about garbage, and is full of misinformation. They'll show examples that aren't possible with the language, as well as most samples not really being clear. I've also received word that this won't be changed any time soon.
I've had a far, far different experience. I've had nearly a dozen new NIs fail in less than a one year period (out of only ~40 or so I dealt with during this time). I haven't had ANY competition's controllers fail yet. AMX's software modules are absolute garbage, and any time I use them, I can nearly guarantee a system won't work due to bugs or flaws that I can't fix. Cres's modules tend to be well written, although a number do have small bugs - but as I can edit the source or module, I can fix them. And when the newest firmwares were released for the MVP-8400s earlier in the year, I upgraded with the instruction of AMX due to panel disconnect issues. Doing this, I discovered a fairly serious bug where channel feedback wasn't being used by the panel. The bug fix wasn't so bad, but as I was the first to discover and report it and AMX couldn't help me with downgrading the panels, the customer went without a working system for a few days. Rich people without their toys aren't fun to deal with. Oh, and the NI controllers needing to be RMAed after firmware upgrades fail (again, as specified as a step to complete when calling tech support)? I've had many fail this way too. I've yet to have ANY competitor's gear fail from a firmware upgrade (one CEN-IDOC had a failed upgrade, but it has a bootloader that fails over to allow you to try upgrading firmware again).
All this said? I wish AMX's support was there, and their touchpanels could be extended upon, because working on and using G4 vs's Cres's totally inconsistent lineup is like driving a new car to driving a smoking beater with different colored panels. I prefer programming AMX, but the touchpanels are the really bothersome part to me.
I'll comment on your comments since those points are some fairly good things to ponder. I do an extensive amount of programming for both AMX and C.
1) Support - Agreed - I'm based in Dallas and I know almost 100% of the tech support at AMX on a first name basis. The support isn't even a comparison. If there happens to be a hardware issue I can drive to AMX in less than an hour and get a replacement while ordering something from the east coast can take a couple of weeks - if it's in stock. The C guys support is absolute crap PLUS they want you to pay a $1000 per year fee (they call it CAIP certification) to get support that is offerred for free from AMX. So if you're an independent programmer do you want free support or do you want to have to pay $1000 a year for it?
Advantage: AMX
2) Documents....can't say. I rarely even think about opening a manual from either, so that could be a huge edge in favor of one or the other, but I wouldn't know.
Advantage: none
3) Capability - I think AMX blows the C guys out of the water again. I think that for a tiny straight-forward system that is mainly IR and where a button press does a single function I could write a "C" program faster than AMX and it would work fine. But with anything with a moderate degree of complexity, intense serial control, complex logic, multiple masters, AMX is leaps and bounds more powerful. Throw in systems with non-linear processing, complex timing, syncing events to video (where is that "c guy" SMPTE card again?) - forget about it.
Advantage: AMX
4) Robustness - not sure what criteria we should evaluate here. But I know I've pulled my hair out many times over trying to get a quick media system to pass video. Too many points of failure and the hardware guys can't test without the software working and I can't test software until the hardware is perfect.
Advantage: none
5) Quality control - on this I would say that the last thing the manufacturer should do before shipping a product is make sure the firmware is up to date. When is the last time you've received hardware from "C" and HAVEN'T had to update firmware before you even started to load code. I usually have to quote a half day extra time onsite just to update the firmware.
Talking about modules though - I pretty much never use AMX modules. I don't think they know the meaning of clean, efficient, fast running code. If I want to bog down a system and kill the overall speed of the system throw in a few AMX modules and it's done. And if you want to edit a module to cut out some of the overhead and crap that's in the module that you don't need....oh yeah - you need source code for that. But that being said C's aren't much better. At least with C's I can open it up and edit it if needed. With both I pretty much write all of my own modules/macros and try not to use the manufacturer's unless I'm stuck and in a hurry and have no choice.
Advantage: AMX based on at least having up to date firmware when a product is shipped
6) Price: Depends on the system. Granted AMX does not have the switcher/processor combinations that "C" does, so I'll give the nod to "C" in the ultra cheap systems because even the cheapest AMX system combined with a switcher costs more than the combo processor/switchers from "C". But how much of your business is targeted to that type of system? Maybe AMX needs to focus more effort in that area, but if you have $10K or more in control hardware, too many other factors come into play to focus just on cost and depending on customer preferences either one might come out to be cheaper.
Advantage: none
For anyone who hasn't been on the business side of a larger company, this is what it's all about. Not what you know, but who you know and what they will do for you. Most small business start on someone's personal passion for doing something in a way that he thinks is best. However, if he wants to grow beyond some certain level, it is inevitable that some of his personal directives will have to be compromised.
If the business owner that we speak of in this thread compromises some of his product quality for the sake of more profit, and is able to sustain it, he has made a wise business decision. However, if the business owner knows full well that the product will suffer, he had made a poor personal decision. Time will tell how smart his decisions are and from where they come.
I'm confident that my boss is making a business choice based on the merit of each product offering. I haven't been able to effectively articulate the pros/cons of Cre$tron and this is why I started this thread.
There is still the open question of what is the best product to compete with Adagio that I can propose as an alternative.
Adagio AMS or AES:
How about a Netlinx master and a Denon 38xx AV receiver? Good RS-232 control is available and it has multiple zones.
Adagio AAS:
AMX MAXX system (MAXX is MUCH more powerful than the AAS). If you only want a single room output an Escient is a good equivalent.
Adagio AADS:
AMX Mi series distributed audio
Of course both have all the little accessories and keypads that go with them. So AMX has all of the things the "C" guys do, but they don't give it a catchy name like "Adagio". I would like to see a system - either real or made up with all of these components (main theater that needs a receiver, distributed audio system with in-room keypads, media server, etc, etc) and find out which one stacks up better in both price and performance. Anyone care to throw out a spec - a real system would be ideal - and then we'll put together 2 complete solutions along with prices to see how they compare?
Basically for every Adagio piece that "C" has AMX can offer an equivalent - in some cases like the MAXX AMX is far superior. So while your boss may THINK that he is making a decision based on offerring the best solution my guess is that "C" has done a better job with the marketing spin of their products to make people think they are getting something better I like that AMX sticks with what they do best and they don't try to offer everything. I'm sure you've heard the expression - jack of all trades, master of none. I like that AMX has devoted so much focus on control systems. If I want a nice AV receiver at a good price I'll go to Yahama or Denon who have been making receivers for years. Why would I go to a control system company to buy an AV receiver? AMX wanted to get into the switcher business so rather than going to a lesser known foreign company and making a deal to slap their name on a product AMX went out and bought one of the major players in the market. I'm sure you get my drift...I'm anxious now to spec out the 2 systems to see how it compares.
mcotton - can you tell us about one of the systems that your company has done lately using "C"?
Don't forget about Onkyo. Have you seen their protocol?... Nice!
To get back on topic - there are definitely solutions out there to use instead of Adagio. Some businesses fall into the mind game of trying to sell the Adagio because it's not readily available in retail chains and try to convince the end user that because of limited distribution it is more high end.
Some businesses that sell "C" will try to sell EVERYTHING in the entire system "C" because they aren't dealers for most mainstream products. I have a client in Dallas that's like that now - he sells ENTIRE systems including swithcer, amp, input plates with as much "C" as possible. I asked him why and he said that he isn't a dealer for anything else and he can buy a "C" switcher direct for cheaper than he can buy an extron or autopatch through someone else and pay their markup. He even used their crappy amps because he can't buy QSC, TOA, Crown or anything else direct. I think if "C" sold projectors he would buy that from them also. It has nothing to do with quality or finding the best product for a customer's needs - it's just about money.