Hog 2 vs Chamsys MagicQ

[dunk]

Hi All,

 

I have never used the Hog 2 or the MagicQ from Chamsys so have little idea as to how they compare to eachother. Basically, I am an Avo user through and through. I have a Hippotizer in stock and struggle to use it to its full potential with a pearl.

 

With this in mind, how does the Hog 2 compare to the MagicQ?

 

Thanks

 

Dunc

[Jon T]

download both pc versions, give them a go using the demo of 'capture' or something similar, and decide for yourself. However, I think you will find the maqicQ allot more at home with video content/servers than the hog2.

 

www.capturesweden.com

[Joe Bleasdale]

However, I beleive that the HOG2 OS is more user freindly. But thats just my opinion. :unsure:

 

joe

[mumbles]

Joe, have you actually used either in anger, or just played with the offline editors/simulators...

 

M

[Joe Bleasdale]

I have had my hands on both. I hated the magicQ but by far like the whole hog. I supose it all boils down to what you require/prefer.

 

joe

[gareth]

I have had my hands on both.

But have you actually done any serious programming on either of them? Or jsut had a fiddle on them at trade shows?

 

Personally, I've programmed shows on both desks - I used to own a Hog2, and now I own a Chamsys MagicQ PC Wing with an all-in-one 17" touchscreen PC. They're similar enough to make it a very natural leap from one to the other - but of course the MagicQ is so much more evolved than the Hog2, given that development on the latter stopped some years ago while the former is still under daily development by the guys at Chamsys. The basic operating philosophy is very similar, though - so how Joe could "hate" one and "by far like" (?!) the other is beyond me.

 

Also, for someone coming from a Pearl (which I have also used on quite a few shows - have you, Joe?) there are various settings you can change on a MagicQ to make it a little more "Pearl-like". That's not to say that you can change it to work in the same way as a Pearl - but you can subtly change the way you work with it so that things make a little more sense for someone coming at it purely from a Pearl perspective. As far as integration with your Hippotizer goes - MagicQ and you are made for each other! :unsure:

 

I'll echo the suggestion that someone else made, of downloading the MagicQ PC software and having a look at it - once you've got your head around the basic operational principles, I think you might quite like it!

 

(Oh, amd Joe - if someone posts a question like this, they're generally looking for answers from people who have actually used the products in anger, in a real-world type of scenario. You might like to bear this in mind before posting in future.)

[Flyingwysiwyg]

dunk,

 

You may also want to have a look at the GrandMA if your using Media Servers. I can't comment on the MagicQ, but I have used both the HogII and the GrandMA and for that sort of thing the GrandMA wins hands down in my opinion.

 

F - Wyg

[niclights]

Gareth made the crucial point that it is about moving from Avo to Hog/Chamsys, rather than a comparison between the two.

 

This will no doubt just turn into another recommendation to try every one of the main contenders, and the simulators/offline editors are the perfect way to find out if you can understand them.

 

It is very true that the Chamsys has made great efforts to be more 'Avo friendly', and I love some of the options (along with the support). But you may still find it a difficult transition to any of these consoles (MA included). It probably depends how much you are used to busking. If the majority of your shows are pre-programmed then it's simply a matter of learning how to do it. But the control surface and methods are the areas I struggle with on all these other consoles at the moment.

 

So, how about the D4?

 

(I might also suggest the Expert should hopefully be a serious contender, but not yet....)

[gareth]

This will no doubt just turn into another recommendation to try every one of the main contenders

Mainly because many people, when responding to questions like this, don't focus on what the OP actually asked and take the thread off at a tangent to promote their own agenda. The OP in this thread specifically asks about Hog2 and MagicQ consoles, from the point of view of a Pearl user ....

 

Yes, I know there's a fine line between being helpful and suggesting something which may well be a viable alternative, and ignoring the original question in order to suggest something that's not really appropriate or helpful ... I guess I'm just hoping that one day the BR might actually contain a topic which starts with a question like Dunc's, and remains on-track all the way through without deviating onto a discussion on the relative merits of two consoles which are nothing to do with ones that the OP asked about. Wishful thinking, perhaps ...?

[Cormac]

Pearl V's Hog II media server

 

1.As media server's are a visual tool I find it helpful to be able to lay out as many palettes as possible on the Hog II touch screens which is something you cannot do on a pearl.

2.Recording cue-lists is easier on a Hog and if your programming a cue based media server show it is in my opinion easier to program and then edit than on a pearl.

3.Multipart cues are also a little easier to handle than on Pearl

4.Hog II views make it possible to have several pages of views which saves a lot of time if your dealing with more than one media server.

5.The majority of media server's are channel hungry and I don't think pealr's are as happy dealing with that as hog II's.

6.Don't get me wrong but having to label endlessly on bits of pvc tape and then transfer to another console is not the way to go with a media server or any ML console.

 

Avo D4 is an option and a good one.

 

 

 

This is my take and may differ as others will no doubt tell me how wrong I am.

Dosen't hippotizer have it's own inbuilt software,zookeeper or something so it can run standalone or be cued by the console?

 

Regards C

[indyld]

Gareth replies are pretty spot on (including the bits about not going off on a "which desk do you prefer" tangent). In this case, I also think that Gareth displays a fair degree of impartiality in order to answer the question. So, to the original question.

 

The Hog II and the MagicQ (BTW sharing features with my two favourite desks - Pearl and Hog II) share the important features, with Cham Sys having added a load of their own. Good media server support being one of them that seems important for you. The two desks also use similar interfaces and workflow (although, being a Pearl user, that doesn't help).

 

As has been mentioned, Cham Sys also made it possible to use the MagicQ in a more "Pearllike" way. That should get you over the initial learning curve, but long term the MagicQ is easier to use as a Hog than an Avo. I love the Pearl but the workflow is quirky and, given an great interface like the Hog, why not use the MagicQ to it's full potential and move away from the (frankly) clunky attribute selection and masking of the Pearl.

 

Everyone can point to a lack of actual faders - the virtual faders don't really make up for this. What does is the media support, choice of playback styles, complex live shape control, morphing, cloning, connectivity blah blah.

 

Hang on a minute, this is turning into a MagicQ vs Pearl ......

 

How does the Cham Sys MagicQ compare to a Hog II? It's better.

[dunk]

thanks for the responses guys. I guess, in essence of what has been said, I need to download and play with the pc version of MagicQ and set up my Hog 2 console (which I have never used!) I need to learn a new desk, be it the hog or the magicQ, but dont want to get involved in tehcnology that has ceased development (hog2). Being that I own a Hippo HD, I think the MagicQ may be the way to go - also because they have added a certain level of 'buskability' to the desk. I am not discounting the D4, but looking at finances at the mo, I need to be reasonable!

 

Any more thoughts please let me know!

 

Thanks again,

 

 

Dunc

[gareth]

The Hog2 is an excellent desk, considering it first appeared on the scene 14 years ago and development stopped quite some time ago. I think one of the main problems with it right now is availability of spares - particularly touch-screens and backlights, which I understand are fairly scarce.

[gyro_gearloose]

Perhaps another factor to consider is the price of buying either a Magic Q or Hog system. I can't comment on Hogs as I have never used one, and I have only played around with MagicQ and not used it in a live situation. However my MagicQ setup, which consists of a fairly low spec laptop and a Velleman DMX interface, only cost around £200. The Velleman interface itself only costs around £60, or £50 for the kit version as long as you don't mind a bit of soldering. If I wanted a physical fader wing and another DMX universe I could add a Mini-wing for £545 which would give me 10 faders, or I could get a PC-wing for around £1200 which would give me 10 faders, encoder wheels for moving lights, and 2 DMX universes.

[Tomo]

If you do go the MagicQ route, I'd recommend buying a "Real" MagicQ console, especially as you're moving from a Pearl.

 

A PC keyboard is laid out for typing - it's generally quite rubbish at anything else.

Physical control consoles of all types have proper facepanels, with the buttons, faders and encoders you use laid out in a way that makes sense for the style of console.

- For example, look at the Ion and a Congo Jr. They share the same physical size and enclosure, but have completely different facepanels because their styles are very different.

 

As to the original question - I quite like the Hog II console, but I've never had the chance to use a MagicQ in anger so can't compare them.

 

As always - download the offline editors and try them out.

 

Both consoles use touchscreens extensively, so the offline editor is a reasonably good comparison in this case.