Pangolin Beyond: QM2000 or FB3???

[FutureWeapons]

Newish laser user here. I was thinking about purchasing Pangolin Beyond, but was wondering what people's thoughts are on getting either an FB3 or a QM2000 in the laptop box with my upcoming order. Seeing that you can upgrade to Beyond from LD2000, I would assume Beyond is going to assume LD2000's functionality at some point - is this correct? I don't want to pick up an unnecessary piece of hardware if it's just a matter of waiting, plus it's going to mean an extra network cable after FB3.net is completed if this is the case. Will I ultimately lose anything if I go with the FB3?

[taggalucci]

I think there's a few of us here interested to see what the future of the QM2000 is and whether the FB3.Net would render this more expensive DAC obsolete. I'm not sure the answers are clear yet. There has been some commentary around the effective devaluing of the QM hardware since the release of Beyond as a result of the relative price differences to upgrade from each platform.

Have a search around on this forum for "Beyond".

I have 2 FB3s, a QM.Net and Beyond (as well as LivePRO (both QM and FB3 versions) and LD2000). If I needed a 4th interface for Beyond, I'm not sure which I would choose. An FB3 would be the obvious cheap option, but then I couldn't use that with my existing QM in LivePRO, but then I can't use my QM with my 2 FB3s in LivePRO either.

I'm not sure that my QM is better than my FB3s, though I've not done serious testing to work out the difference.

There are some awesome QM shows that won't work (at present) on the FB3. But if you make you're own and create live shows, then this isn't an advantage.

Once you figure it out, perhaps you can tell the rest of us!

[dave]

Qm2000 is 16bit x-y, FB3 is 12bit X-Y.. If you are planning on doing a lot of bounce mirror work the extra bits will come in handy..

FB3.net will soon solve FB3's lack of network support

...

[FutureWeapons]

Thanks for the info guys. A couple more questions regarding Pangolin stuff - somebody just showed me the difference between running a 5 watt RGB laser using an X-29 system and a Pangolin FB3-SE. Using the X-29 system the beam was huge and had to be masked to not spill over into the balcony overlooking the stage. Using the FB3-SE the beam was roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the size despite the scan area being opened up completely in Quickshow. He said it was because the the FB3 X and Y runs at 5V, while the X-29 runs at 10V. Is there a reason for this difference? It looks like both the QM2000 and the FB3 both operate the same in this regard.

Can somebody explain what differential vs. single-ended output is? My differential-output FB-3 was unable to operate the laser properly, however his single-ended FB3-SE was able to operate it no problem. Is it just an arbitrary difference, or is there some advantage to running either way?

Also, will the 12-bit vs. 16-bit difference affect the size of my beams at all? I'm thinking of investing in a pair of DT-40 Wide scanners for my 2 watt RGB lasers because I'm mainly interested in beams at this point, but I'm open to anything that's going to create larger beams with what I already have.

Thanks for all the help, I'm learning as I go!

Edit: Discovering this forum makes me really want to start modifying/building my own lasers. You people do amazing stuff, it's very inspiring.

[allthatwhichis]

I might be biased but from where I stand I would go with a QM2000... And i don't know enough about differential signals to respond to your question except to say the FB3 differential board is easy to add or remove; it is held on by two solders and a plug.

[masterpj]

I might be biased but from where I stand I would go with a QM2000... And i don't know enough about differential signals to respond to your question except to say the FB3 differential board is easy to add or remove; it is held on by two solders and a plug.

I'd say the following: Want portability and not take up another wall socket? > FB3
Recommended: Compact setups, laserists and dj's that travel a lot.

Want that extra precision and LD2000 color palete setup (which I personally think creates a better color balance): QM2000
More precision because well FB3 = 12bit and QM2000 = 16bit

[allthatwhichis]

I was thinking more about the 6 color channels and the abstract generator, not to mention the 120+ shows that Ld2000 comes with. Yes the FB3 is more portable and does not need a .NET box to be used with a laptop, but to me it lacks a few thing when compared to the QM2000. Again, I might be biased.

[White-Light]

Isn't the software side of thing kind of evening out with Beyond though?

Beyond has an abstract generator and I understand all the LD shows will eventually run on Beyond (although whether or not that includes the Fb3 version I'm not sure).

Only real question is colour channels and number of bits.

Edit: just remembered I don't think there's any pricing difference between Beyond with the FB3 and Beyond with the QM so it comes down purely to the colour channels & bits.

[allthatwhichis]

Isn't the software side of thing kind of evening out with Beyond though?

Beyond has an abstract generator and I understand all the LD shows will eventually run on Beyond (although whether or not that includes the Fb3 version I'm not sure).

Only real question is colour channels and number of bits.

BEYOND will definatly have the same functionality as LD; I just like the thought of getting LD2000 along with BEYOND.

I would also add mobility to the equation; you have to get a .NET box to run the QM2000 on a laptop, but then you can also run the QM2000.NET on a POS 600MHz Pentium III with a half gig of RAM, something I wouldn't want to witness one try with QuickShow. Might be a moot point given we are discusing BEYOND and the fact you can get a decent laptop for less than a grand these days...

[FutureWeapons]

BEYOND will definatly have the same functionality as LD; I just like the thought of getting LD2000 along with BEYOND.

I would also add mobility to the equation; you have to get a .NET box to run the QM2000 on a laptop, but then you can also run the QM2000.NET on a POS 600MHz Pentium III with a half gig of RAM, something I wouldn't want to witness one try with QuickShow. Might be a moot point given we are discusing BEYOND and the fact you can get a decent laptop for less than a grand these days...

Yeah after much consideration I decided on the FB3 in preparation for FB3.NET to be released someday. In the meantime I already have a USB-over-ethernet setup that runs 300 feet, I don't really want to add another network cable to the mix for no good reason. I still have two more lasers that need individual boxes, so maybe this will change, but I'm going to wait until I get hands on with the software first.

You can seriously get a laptop for waaay less then $1000 to run Quickshow (or Beyond), there's really no excuse to run a PIII unless you've gone broke buying laser parts and only have <$100 for your controller

Edit: I'm really anxious to hear about color channels and bits - why would you need more color channels, unless you have more diodes? Also, what does 12 vs. 16 bit really change? I would think most functions could easily be handled by the computer itself.