Jump to content

Avo Evolution


Biskit

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

 

This is really just a 'matter of interest' question. I op on a Pearl 2004 regularly, and have occasionally used the 2000 version when we have hired in. However hire companies have always said the 2000 desks were "upgraded to 2004 spec". I have also seen (though less often) 'original' (pre 2000) Pearls billed as "2004 spec".

 

I'm just wondering what the differences are. I was always led to believe the 2000 to 2004 upgrade was simply software, and I know the real 2004 also has minor hardware differences ie. DMX on four outputs rather than two dual-universe ones. I find it harder to believe that pre-2000 desks (now over 8 years old, of course) can be upgraded to nearly current spec with just a software update. Although the button and fader layout is still the same (AFAIK).

 

So what are the differences (hardware and software)... how has the Pearl evolved? I have no experience with 2008 Pearls but feel free to extend discussion to these if you do. Was the original Pearl hardware so good that it is still a top class console all these years later with just cosmetic tweaking?

 

Ben.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The differences are in both software and hardware.

The upgrade from Pearl 2000 to 2004 involves a change of motherboard from the original Boris 1 to the Boris 3 motherboard. There's also a Boris 2 motherboard out there, I don't know what stage it came along at though, I suspect it was in later Pearl 2000s?

Different, more robust faders are also used in the 2004, although you don't need to change these if you're upgrading a 2000 to a 2004.

Button and fader layout is basically the same, no button changes are required for a 2000-2004 upgrade, although faderboard PCBs from a 2004 won't fit a 2000 (at least not an early one anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they say 'upgraded to 2004' they do just mean software. It would not be cost effective to install Boris3 and the new playback board. The fader tracks need machining to fit since the stems are larger.

 

There is basically no difference between the original pre 2000 boards up to the 2004, other than the nicer, longer-lasting playback faders. AFAIK all changes to MB were merely to relating to parts availability/manufacturing and changes in regulations. The only exception might be extended memory that was not fitted to very old boards - this is the only restriction for using latest soft.

 

2008 & Tiger add USB board with software to accommodate. Tiger also has a modified analogue board to make it smaller.

 

So, essentially there have not been any significant changes since 1996. The design and operation have proven popular and reliable, though many might disagree. To these I would remind that any board out in rock'n'roll conditions for this long will need some TLC!

 

But it is old now. The processor is a Motorola 68340 and the software was written for this. The code has been pushed to its limits in the memory available and it does struggle in the new LED age. So the only option was to change to a faster processor with necessary architecture. Thus the Expert.

 

Although the surface looks similar to the standard Pearl, albeit with more playbacks & buttons, the hardware is all new.

 

Motherboard is an Intel based laptop type. All panels (including display & DMX) are USB devices. This should give the console a much longer lifespan while maintaining the popular, familiar control. If faster processor/more memory is required it is a simple matter of using a newer PC motherboard. Changes and additions to control surface involve plugging in a new USB device. This could, for example, include changing LCD to a touch sensitive type. Also, it is possible to configure the panels improving flexibility in an emergency.

 

The board runs on a Windows embedded environment, making development much simpler along with having native USB support (a big problem for non-Windows systems like 2008 & GrandMA!)

Equally important is this is the same platform as the D4, which should eventually unify software development. This improves efficiency of Avo resources and therefore, ultimately, the end-user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.