Home AMX User Forum AMX Control Products

MET-ECOM-D

Mounting the MET-ECOM-D:
MOUNTING

?The MET-ECOM is installed in one of two ways:
- 4 screws for hard surface mounting
- 2 expansion clips for pressure mounting
Ok, I got the 4 screws which are about 1/4" long machine screws that look to be 4/32 thread. Are we supposed to drill and tap this hard surface. I would consider a "hard surface" to be some sort of wood and on occasion some sort of stone. So I not about to drill and tap wood or stone so unless the hard surface they're reffering to is metal what am I do do wwith the 4 screws, throw them away since they're useless.

Included hardware:
?Installation Kit- includes front mount flange, 4 installation screws (#4-40 x 3.12), 2 Phoenix connectors (female, 3.5mm) and a Ferrite clip
Ok the thread is a 4/40 and not standard to any US electrical devices. The 2nd way they say it can be installed is with 2 expansion clips for pressure mounting. So why don't they supply them? There's a heck of a better chance of using these then the 4 screws they supply so how about scrapping the 4 useless screws and giving us the 2 expansion clips? Makes sense.

But I need to mount these in stone so the expansion clips won't work either. I could always use masonry rawls (anchors) but there's not that much space around the area of the intercom that has to be recessed to be able to drill the stone with out it probably chipping away siince it's so close to the edge and once that happens I'll be attempting to epoxy the rock back together. Oh and if I am able to drill the stone and insert a rawl there's no space to allow for a screw head and allow the device to sit flush on the mounting plate so I would have to try and counter sink a bugel head screw into a piece of metal 1/16" thick. Good lookin out guys!

Hmmm.. did anybody think this through before going into production? Does AMX award new product design and engineering contracts to the lowest bidder? Cuz that would explain it.

On a positive note I do like the way they look and feel. In reminds me of my time in the Navy where one of the mottos was "It doesn't matter if it works as long as it looks good". I guess I'll break out the RTV and silicone it to the rock. Nah, I can't do that.

Comments

  • glr-ftiglr-fti Posts: 286
    Sounds eerily familiar to the MIO-DMS. Must be using using the same engineer!
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
    As best as I understand it, the metal ring that is supplied with the device attaches to the back with the four flat head bolts that come with it. Then the hooks on the ring attached to some sort of a rough-in box that I've never seen.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Posts: 4,584
    I've been convinced for a long time that recent AMX engineering (last 5 years or so) has had a strong slant towards "look and feel" with little regard for usability. It has hurt sales too; I can't tell you how many times my boss has looked at an AMX panel, said, "what were they thinking?" then sold the client a Niles.

    For example, I would love to include more 5200 panels in jobs, but that piano-gloss black finish takes about 3 minutes of handling to look like crap. It's not like they are dirt cheap ... but panels that are dirt cheap look better after heavy use. So we simply aren't selling them.
  • ericmedleyericmedley Posts: 4,177
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    I've been convinced for a long time that recent AMX engineering (last 5 years or so) has had a strong slant towards "look and feel" with little regard for usability. It has hurt sales too; I can't tell you how many times my boss has looked at an AMX panel, said, "what were they thinking?" then sold the client a Niles.

    For example, I would love to include more 5200 panels in jobs, but that piano-gloss black finish takes about 3 minutes of handling to look like crap. It's not like they are dirt cheap ... but panels that are dirt cheap look better after heavy use. So we simply aren't selling them.

    This is true. They do get dirty quickly.

    Another problem we've had is our designers have kinda drank the Kool-ade on them and see them as a replacemnt for the 8400. However, they still insist of trying to get as many buttons and controls on a screen that is something like 40-50% smaller. It's price point is just a little too close to the 8400. To me nobody should be even doing a comparision between them. They are entirely different products with different scopes of use. The price point of the two things belies this a bit.

    We've had one project already with a client who tried one out ,loving it at first, but after two weeks decided that he liked the 8400 better due to the screen size.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    TurnipTruck wrote:
    As best as I understand it, the metal ring that is supplied with the device attaches to the back with the four flat head bolts that come with it. Then the hooks on the ring attached to some sort of a rough-in box that I've never seen.
    Nope, the screw holes on the back of the mounting plate don't align to anything on the MET-COM and hooks are actually how you mount the MET-COM to the back plate. The back plate does has the 4 counter sunk locations for these screw and I'd really love to know what they were intended to be used with. I can see some sort of surface back box or rough in ring thingy but where do go about to find it? I've check the places there are to check for anything but no joy.
  • I guess they are for this

    http://www.amx.com/products/CB-MET-ECOM.asp

    Thats the rough-in box

    By the sound of it the screws are similar to those included with the old CP/4 panels.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    Jimweir192 wrote:
    Damn, nothing like hiding something in plain sight, I hate when they do that, makes me feel dumber than normal.

    The screw length doesn't give you much room for error using this back box and they make no sense for resi SFD (single family dwellings) installs but maybe in commercial office buildings, apartment complexes or condos they might be useful where you can mount to interior stud walls prior to sheet rock being applied.

    Mounting on a wood surface would be easy enough I guess using #4 wood screws and it wouldn't require the back box but in masonry is going to be a bit tricky and might be made easier by using the back box but removing the side mounting flange and letting the mason mortor the back box into the wall. I can work with that!

    Another observation is how easliy this can be removed. All you have to do is push a little tab and slide it up 1/4" and it comes off the mounting plate and loose in your hands. No security screws or any screw for that matter to prevent removal. I'd at least want to require a thief to carry a screw driver in order to steal it.
  • vining wrote: »
    Another observation is how easliy this can be removed. All you have to do is push a little tab and slide it up 1/4" and it comes off the mounting plate and loose in your hands. No security screws or any screw for that matter to prevent removal. I'd at least want to require a thief to carry a screw driver in order to steal it.

    This is very important and my biggest worry. In our building we have access to the wall behind the intercom and we manged to screw on the plastic on the back of the intercom so that it is secure.

    We are doing a building with 3 of them and I have asked the interior designer to design a nice piece of wood to go around the 3 intercoms so that you will not be able to access the small tab. This way in order to remove the intercoms you have to remove the wood and it will make it much harder to steal them.\

    Vining what about the camera? I found it almost useless to be honest. The viewing angle is very small and it is very difficult to see someone.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    Elytronic wrote:
    Vining what about the camera? I found it almost useless to be honest. The viewing angle is very small and it is very difficult to see someone.
    I haven't powered it up yet. I got it to use with a SIP Gateway and some IP Phones that I ordered for testing but I haven't had a chance to do anything with them yet. I only took it out of the box so I can show it to a customer and discuss with the mason how to prep the stone work to accomodate it.

    I would think a camera for this application would be extremely wide angle and almost to the point of being a fisheye.
  • vining wrote: »

    Damn, nothing like hiding something in plain sight

    Its one of the nice features of the new site - recommended accessories!
  • maxifoxmaxifox Posts: 209
    The camera is definitely not a fisheye and has very limited view angle (comparing to what one may expect from a door camera). The device has a two-position switch that allows you to adjust the viewing angle
    horizontally within 30°. As we found the switch does not help much, the problem lies in the limits imposed by view angle.

    So far we face two problems: camera narrow view & easy-to-steal because of installation design. Disappointing at the moment...
  • Exactly what Maxim said above.

    For the steal point there are ways to overcome it like I mentioned above, but this is unacceptable in a $2k+ intercom.

    For the camera problem I am really worried. In the building installation we are doing with 3 of them I really hope that it works. In another house installation that we have and we would be using the intercom I have asked the security people to install a camera at the gate also and I will give the customer choice of the intercom's camera and the normal camera so that I am bit more "covered".

    I think AMX has to do more "practical" and more field testing of their new products. I will open another thread on this since the new products are very interesting and are almost there in terms of needs and features but they fail on the little important details (R4, Met-E-Com, 5200i, etc).
Sign In or Register to comment.