OS3.3.1

[womble123]

I know the HC-800 is now redundant but I used that for Audio outs like another chap. What is my options now as I have a EA-5 in my rack along with a HC-800 for audio out and a bunch of EA-1's scattered about? Do I need a second EA-5 for the audio outs or is there another option?

[msgreenf]

2 minutes ago, womble123 said:

I know the HC-800 is now redundant but I used that for Audio outs like another chap. What is my options now as I have a EA-5 in my rack along with a HC-800 for audio out and a bunch of EA-1's scattered about? Do I need a second EA-5 for the audio outs or is there another option?

EA or core 

[womble123]

2 minutes ago, msgreenf said:

EA or core 

EA-5 or Core 5?

[Andrew luecke]

And Core 5 would be strongly preferred at this time (because it is much newer).

[womble123]

21 minutes ago, Andrew luecke said:

And Core 5 would be strongly preferred at this time (because it is much newer).

Is it out yet?

[msgreenf]

16 minutes ago, womble123 said:

Is it out yet?

Been out for months 

[therockhr]

I’m always surprised how many people use the audio of the controllers. I know I shouldn’t be as that is the way Control4 has designed the system to be used but with so many good audio systems out there I just like the idea of separating that subsystem out. 
 

I think there would be a decent market for a triad matrix with streaming zones. 

[womble123]

2 minutes ago, therockhr said:

I’m always surprised how many people use the audio of the controllers. I know I shouldn’t be as that is the way Control4 has designed the system to be used but with so many good audio systems out there I just like the idea of separating that subsystem out. 
 

I think there would be a decent market for a triad matrix with streaming zones. 

I use the Triad Matrix and Amp's what would you recommend for inputs over Control4?

[therockhr]

12 minutes ago, womble123 said:

I use the Triad Matrix and Amp's what would you recommend for inputs over Control4?

I personally have a single Sonos connect that feeds a Russound MCA-C5. Works perfect for my family as we are good all listening to the same streaming music in different zones. I guess I don’t see the need to have 5 different network audio streams. Not saying some don’t I just don’t personally.

If I needed more audio stream then I would probably look at adding a Sonos connect for each zone or get something like a CI 580 from NAD. 

[womble123]

23 minutes ago, therockhr said:

I personally have a single Sonos connect that feeds a Russound MCA-C5. Works perfect for my family as we are good all listening to the same streaming music in different zones. I guess I don’t see the need to have 5 different network audio streams. Not saying some don’t I just don’t personally.

If I needed more audio stream then I would probably look at adding a Sonos connect for each zone or get something like a CI 580 from NAD. 

Interesting regarding the Sonos as you can use Airplay 2 with them. What other Airplay 2 options are there?

Also, I cannot see Sonos Connect on my trade site? Is there a new version?

[therockhr]

52 minutes ago, womble123 said:

Interesting regarding the Sonos as you can use Airplay 2 with them. What other Airplay 2 options are there?

Also, I cannot see Sonos Connect on my trade site? Is there a new version?

The Sonos port is the new version. I haven’t upgraded to it because my Sonos connect actually feeds the Russound matrix as I mentioned via stereo and also feeds a denon receiver via optical and another via digital coax (they all output the same audio stream). The Sonos port doesn’t have the optical I need. 

[SpencerT]

[deleted]

[Cyknight]

On 9/28/2022 at 4:09 PM, therockhr said:

IO Extender. I am guessing that controller has a similar architecture as the HC800

No it doesn't.

[Cyknight]

On 9/28/2022 at 4:09 PM, therockhr said:

that might not want to upgrade to a CORE 5 just to get the number of IO they need

So don't update.

[therockhr]

1 hour ago, Cyknight said:

No it doesn't.

Then what processor is in an IO extender. Generally curious. 

[therockhr]

56 minutes ago, Cyknight said:

So don't update.

What kind of response is this? What does it provide to this conversation?  

[Cyknight]

8 minutes ago, therockhr said:

What kind of response is this? What does it provide to this conversation?  

The same that was echoed numerous times in the conversation - no-one is forced to update, so no-one is forced to buy new hardware.

So if you're not willing to spend money to go to a Core-5 at this time ... don't.

 

We have numerous systems running older versions perfectly fine, and we fully support them as far as we can. If new features aren't worth the cost of replacing a decade old controller..., don't update. I fail to see why that is such a huge concern.

[Cyknight]

23 minutes ago, therockhr said:

Then what processor is in an IO extender. Generally curious. 

Not sure on the internal processor, but the i/o is a different best altogether to begin with - it has no drive, no operating system, at all.

Comparing the i/o with a 'true' controller in that sense is about the same as saying the audio matrix is the same.

[Andrew luecke]

So, I'm seeing a bit of info which imho is a bit wrong (but keep in mind, I don't work for snap)

1. Control4 notified installers about the HC800's getting depreciated at least 2 months ago (https://tech.control4.com/s/feed/0D51T00009uoZHKSA2).. I responded here to a post too, warning they were EOL a month ago: https://www.c4forums.com/forums/topic/41118-markets-for-old-c4-gear/#comment-317267 .
2. HC800 is actually almost 11 years old now (Jan 2012 was the launch)
3. Replacing a HC800 Primary requires a Core3 or Core 5 regardless, and you'd just move the devices to the ports on the new controller (unless you plan to add MORE IR devices simultaneously?) In 2012, the most common use-case for IR was TV's, or set top boxes. These days, most things (including TV's) are IP. 
4. The mobile app still works even with OS3.0.0. You just don't get new features
5. Control4 specified that the HC800 architecture is different to other controllers, and they would need to maintain a completely separate build for them. Even if they turned them into a glorified IO Extender, they would still need their QA team testing them every release, help installers with the driver and to develop a migration process. And this work would consume a huge amount of resources with marginable benefit.  Remember development isn't free, and even turning them into an IO extender, or supporting new updates (if even possible) to benefit a handful of people who may use them as an io extender, would slow down development of more important features. Developers can either work on the HC800 firmware, or they can work on other things.. They can't do both
6. In fact, even the Gen 1 Hue Bridge was released after the HC800, and support was canned 2 years ago. And the Hue bridge is a simple, dedicated device (a lot less complex than a Control4 controller). 2012 iPhones ended support 2017. 2012 Mac computer support ended years ago, and Windows 11 only supports 8000 series processors (launched 5 years ago). Another example is Sonos also didn't support S2 on products, which were being sold still in 2015 (a year before HC800 stopped being sold). S2 was released in 2020.
7. Intel are no longer supporting the hardware, and the CPU's are missing a lot of important extensions which I'm guessing will be needed increasingly in the future (like AES)  
8. And finally, all this assumes that any custom kernel modules and such being used on the HC800 are being actively supported too (which is plausible). 
9. Negotiations with companies like Apple may even require certain security requirements/extensions for certain services (or there could be consequences for being unable to secure them properly). Which again, would cause major chaos with development. They might even have to offer drivers which would simply be broken on some controllers.  

 

The question is, should SnapAV continue developing firmware for a controller which was released with OS2.2 (a year before TuneIN Support), and move some developers (even for a few months only) from working on other features (like improved lighting, improved voice control and new remotes), to support new firmware or IO on a 10 year old controller (which they likely couldn't fully keep secure in the future anyway, without microcode updates from intel)? I'd argue it probably doesn't make much sense.. Almost no 10 year old hardware is being actively supported by vendors anymore, and in the computer industry, 10 years of support is practically unheard of (even datacentres are using CPU's from only 4 or 5 years ago, and only for Mainframes I'm guessing, it might be different). 

 

 

[therockhr]

7 hours ago, Cyknight said:

The same that was echoed numerous times in the conversation - no-one is forced to update, so no-one is forced to buy new hardware.

So if you're not willing to spend money to go to a Core-5 at this time ... don't.

 

We have numerous systems running older versions perfectly fine, and we fully support them as far as we can. If new features aren't worth the cost of replacing a decade old controller..., don't update. I fail to see why that is such a huge concern.

No one is forced to do anything with control4 so why is the response of “if you don’t want to upgrade don’t” an actual argument to make on why control4 would or would not decide to repurpose hardware so it doesn’t have to be trashed? There is precedence for them leaving hardware on an old revision and it still functioning in new systems.

I have said I think the hc800 has been supported as a main controller for plenty of time but if there is a way to help customers/dealers and not have something end up in a landfill when it can be repurposed it might be worth Control4 doing everyone a favor. 

[therockhr]

8 hours ago, Andrew luecke said:

So, I'm seeing a bit of info which imho is a bit wrong (but keep in mind, I don't work for snap)

1. Control4 notified installers about the HC800's getting depreciated at least 2 months ago (https://tech.control4.com/s/feed/0D51T00009uoZHKSA2).. I responded here to a post too, warning they were EOL a month ago: https://www.c4forums.com/forums/topic/41118-markets-for-old-c4-gear/#comment-317267 .
2. HC800 is actually almost 11 years old now (Jan 2012 was the launch)
3. Replacing a HC800 Primary requires a Core3 or Core 5 regardless, and you'd just move the devices to the ports on the new controller (unless you plan to add MORE IR devices simultaneously?) In 2012, the most common use-case for IR was TV's, or set top boxes. These days, most things (including TV's) are IP. 
4. The mobile app still works even with OS3.0.0. You just don't get new features
5. Control4 specified that the HC800 architecture is different to other controllers, and they would need to maintain a completely separate build for them. Even if they turned them into a glorified IO Extender, they would still need their QA team testing them every release, help installers with the driver and to develop a migration process. And this work would consume a huge amount of resources with marginable benefit.  Remember development isn't free, and even turning them into an IO extender, or supporting new updates (if even possible) to benefit a handful of people who may use them as an io extender, would slow down development of more important features. Developers can either work on the HC800 firmware, or they can work on other things.. They can't do both
6. In fact, even the Gen 1 Hue Bridge was released after the HC800, and support was canned 2 years ago. And the Hue bridge is a simple, dedicated device (a lot less complex than a Control4 controller). 2012 iPhones ended support 2017. 2012 Mac computer support ended years ago, and Windows 11 only supports 8000 series processors (launched 5 years ago). Another example is Sonos also didn't support S2 on products, which were being sold still in 2015 (a year before HC800 stopped being sold). S2 was released in 2020.
7. Intel are no longer supporting the hardware, and the CPU's are missing a lot of important extensions which I'm guessing will be needed increasingly in the future (like AES)  
8. And finally, all this assumes that any custom kernel modules and such being used on the HC800 are being actively supported too (which is plausible). 
9. Negotiations with companies like Apple may even require certain security requirements/extensions for certain services (or there could be consequences for being unable to secure them properly). Which again, would cause major chaos with development. They might even have to offer drivers which would simply be broken on some controllers.  

 

The question is, should SnapAV continue developing firmware for a controller which was released with OS2.2 (a year before TuneIN Support), and move some developers (even for a few months only) from working on other features (like improved lighting, improved voice control and new remotes), to support new firmware or IO on a 10 year old controller (which they likely couldn't fully keep secure in the future anyway, without microcode updates from intel)? I'd argue it probably doesn't make much sense.. Almost no 10 year old hardware is being actively supported by vendors anymore, and in the computer industry, 10 years of support is practically unheard of (even datacentres are using CPU's from only 4 or 5 years ago, and only for Mainframes I'm guessing, it might be different). 

 

 

These are valid arguments. I would disagree on how much time and effort it would take to support the controllers once they are downgraded and stuck on a old version but it still work with new controllers. 
 

as the question to supporting old hardware I wonder if control4 views themselves more in line with Apple, Samsung, google, etc or Siemens, ABB, Honeywell or Allen Bradley? Or maybe somewhere in between. 

[drmark12pa]

So if C4 is upgrading their controllers, why can't they alphabetize the macros, Voice Scenes, etc.... ?  It seems odd that if everything is such a big change as to EOL a controller, the least that could be done then is allow alphabetizing of some of these items in programming.  I don't think that is asking too much if I'm going to be spending several thousand dollars on a new controller.  I don't think that would be asking too much.  If they do a significant enough revamp that makes something as complex as audio streaming I would think alphabetizing should be something in the capability of the engineers involved.

Every firmware update I'm always waiting to see this fix but for some reason it hasn't materialized.

[RAV]

2 hours ago, therockhr said:

These are valid arguments. I would disagree on how much time and effort it would take to support the controllers once they are downgraded and stuck on a old version but it still work with new controllers. 
 

as the question to supporting old hardware I wonder if control4 views themselves more in line with Apple, Samsung, google, etc or Siemens, ABB, Honeywell or Allen Bradley? Or maybe somewhere in between. 

You're focused on the software side only.
The hardware is limited in terms of supported network security. Can't rewrite that with software.

[msgreenf]

and not sure how to features you are requesting are related to hardware LCM?

[therockhr]

34 minutes ago, RAV said:

You're focused on the software side only.
The hardware is limited in terms of supported network security. Can't rewrite that with software.

Be specific on what hardware in the HC800 controller cant be supported. The original IO extender is older than the HC800 and is still supported.

i need to just stop. The answer is they dont see value extending the life of those controllers anymore.

Technical wise, it can be done.