cnicholson Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 4 hours ago, Cyknight said: I've seen both happen in tests, but most often it's the second scenario - which isn't as likely to cause an issue as in most cases, people still turn all the rooms on/off at the same time anyway. Got it. Thanks. Any known issues with my other approach: all inputs into Matrix #1 (32 inputs is enough for my project) and use spare digital outs on Matrix 1 to feed Matrix 2? I could make this my universal solution by putting ADC converters in between Core 5 analog outs and Matrix #1 (I haven't noticed any quality loss). The ADCs would be required since PulseEight doesn't route analog inputs to digital outputs, but it will route digital inputs to analog outputs (if PCM stereo). Then there would be only one valid path from Core 5 to Matrix #2 zones (via Matrix #1 and NOT direct). Or would Core 5, nonetheless burn a new output to feed two endpoints on Matrix #2? Obviously it is better to just get a properly sized matrix. Since I don't have that (and I have 54 zones!), I guess I'll have to live with any glitches (which I haven't noticed, but I also haven't done rigorous stress testing). But your explanation above gives me some good ideas for testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 3 hours ago, cnicholson said: Got it. Thanks. Any known issues with my other approach: all inputs into Matrix #1 (32 inputs is enough for my project) and use spare digital outs on Matrix 1 to feed Matrix 2? I could make this my universal solution by putting ADC converters in between Core 5 analog outs and Matrix #1 (I haven't noticed any quality loss). The ADCs would be required since PulseEight doesn't route analog inputs to digital outputs, but it will route digital inputs to analog outputs (if PCM stereo). Then there would be only one valid path from Core 5 to Matrix #2 zones (via Matrix #1 and NOT direct). Or would Core 5, nonetheless burn a new output to feed two endpoints on Matrix #2? Obviously it is better to just get a properly sized matrix. Since I don't have that (and I have 54 zones!), I guess I'll have to live with any glitches (which I haven't noticed, but I also haven't done rigorous stress testing). But your explanation above gives me some good ideas for testing. Bigger matrix is better, but while a matrix to matrix is not ideal as it could limit total available connections, in this case it's better than splitting controller audio. cnicholson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob21 Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 Although it is obviously not cost effective, would it be suitable to add a second controller and dedicate it to the second matrix? Allowing control4 to eliminate delay automatically Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 On 2/18/2023 at 8:00 PM, Rob21 said: Although it is obviously not cost effective, would it be suitable to add a second controller and dedicate it to the second matrix? Allowing control4 to eliminate delay automatically Yes also an option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.