Avid artist control disconnect

[lberrios1962]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

Not quite correct...

Most "home" networks use the 192.x.x.x address range, and 10.x.x.x devices will not be "seen" on those networks.

Check the address of the LAN side of your router, then use that address range...

I'm not going to create a battle between networking administrators. You have your opinion, that I respect, and I have mine, and I hope you respect.

[Bill Denton]

Ping: eesn and lberrios1962...

I see that both of you are fairly new to the 'hood, not there's anything wrong with that...

I have been around this and other boards for quite a few years, so I'm sure you can imagine how many times I've seen posts that included "somebody told me ..." or "I read on the internet ...".

And having done far more troubleshooting than I ever wanted to (both professionally and as "give backs" to others on these forums from which I have learned so much), I have learned to see things that "stick out" in posts I have read from people having problems.

When I saw the use of the 10.x.x.x address range, it stuck out, as most of the posters on here are using the 192.x.x.x address range that is common in most home networks in the US. So, I inquired about it and eesn provided an answer.

But, remember when I noted how many posts we see here that include "I read on the internet ..."? This thread will also be "read on the internet ...".

So all of us need to be careful how we answer threads on these forums.

So, while the statement by lberrios1962: Whichever IP address you guys use 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.2.2 (Class "C" IP address) or 10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2 (Class "A" IP address) both are correct is indeed factually correct, it is not something that should be posted where you are dealing with an audience that barely knows how to connect the wires (if they even know that)!

This is why I included the caveats about "home networks" and "corporate networks". Because for an average noob who isn't going to bother to RTFM, "10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2" is not going to be a correct answer when they're trying to run things on their 192.x.x.x home network.

Please...don't any of you guys take this as any kind of personal criticism, and if I have offended any of you please accept my sincere apologies...

[eesn]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

Please...don't any of you guys take this as any kind of personal criticism, and if I have offended any of you please accept my sincere apologies...

Bill, you've just seen me make some fairly accusing comments abou the nature of eucon software, the design decisions behind it, and the software implementation. Like most readers doing something similar I start with the sheer frustration of the thing not working when I need it most. But before I post I always consider if those claims could be unfounded. In a way I try to pick my words more carefully.

I don't think this or any other Avid board should strictly cater for a non-technical audience. The Euphonix series products are incredibly sophisticated pieces of hardware engineering which then suffer from horrible software to go with them. Eucon in particular seems to work best in non-real-life scenarios. Every laptop user out there sleeps their laptop, for instance. To not support that is indicative of the attitude going into the product

People like myself do a good amount of reading before committing to a product they might keep for many years to come. You don't want issues with any device, includimg new ones you've just welcomed to your workflow. I've had the artist control for a while now but the reality is those software design and tech choices are not the best. I happens to be technical to discuss why. If it gets incredibly technical I'm prepared to put in the effort, for as long as I can follow, to resolve the problem that brought me here in the first place.

So, about that UDP traffic......

[lberrios1962]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

Ping: eesn and lberrios1962...

I see that both of you are fairly new to the 'hood, not there's anything wrong with that...

I have been around this and other boards for quite a few years, so I'm sure you can imagine how many times I've seen posts that included "somebody told me ..." or "I read on the internet ...".

And having done far more troubleshooting than I ever wanted to (both professionally and as "give backs" to others on these forums from which I have learned so much), I have learned to see things that "stick out" in posts I have read from people having problems.

When I saw the use of the 10.x.x.x address range, it stuck out, as most of the posters on here are using the 192.x.x.x address range that is common in most home networks in the US. So, I inquired about it and eesn provided an answer.

But, remember when I noted how many posts we see here that include "I read on the internet ..."? This thread will also be "read on the internet ...".

So all of us need to be careful how we answer threads on these forums.

So, while the statement by lberrios1962: Whichever IP address you guys use 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.2.2 (Class "C" IP address) or 10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2 (Class "A" IP address) both are correct is indeed factually correct, it is not something that should be posted where you are dealing with an audience that barely knows how to connect the wires (if they even know that)!

This is why I included the caveats about "home networks" and "corporate networks". Because for an average noob who isn't going to bother to RTFM, "10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2" is not going to be a correct answer when they're trying to run things on their 192.x.x.x home network.

Please...don't any of you guys take this as any kind of personal criticism, and if I have offended any of you please accept my sincere apologies...

If I have to make a comment and explain that particular comment for those that no understand networking then the post will be too long. I made it simple and to the point. If there are some others people that need more information I will be happy to assist (obviously you understand), but that wasnt the case.

But made this comment, and quote "where you are dealing with an audience that barely knows how to connect the wires (if they even know that)!"...in a forum where the majority of members are professionals in the music industry, is a disrespectful comment.

Let me make it clear, I'm not new to this board, I was hear before. I have been using Protools since the day it was invented. If I dont post more often is because I have something better to do that is called "work". I do surf the site and if I dont see anything that is important to me then I go away. The amount of post in the forum dont make the member more knowledgeable or less.

Nothing personal God Bless You Have a good day

[eesn]

so, now that we've effectively killed the thread, does anyone have any insight on any of the networking problems, or at least if there's a new version in the works that would address these (and other) problems?

[lberrios1962]

A friend of mine just bought a control last week and is having the same issues and he still waiting from Avid for a respond. I guess there is nothing new about this issue.

It would be nice if anybody from Avid can respond with some answers.

[Trazan]

Aha, so I'm not alone...

[cut]

So I may be onto something. I have removed "EuphonixMIDI.plugin" from:
Library>Audio>MIDI Drivers
and put it into a temp folder incase I still need it. It is my theory that this is a holdover from HUI Emulation mode that is clashing with other MIDI drivers. I did this almost an hour ago and have been working with MIDI and mixing with the Artist Mix and Control with out problems. Might we have a solution?

[cut]

All right, so it is not the end all be all for this problem, I am getting the same thing, albeit a hell of a lot less often.

[klyg]

My solution

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=322849