Charlie Hughes: Please explain SNMP.

Ray: Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) is the most common way devices on an Ethernet network are controlled and monitored. It allows products from many companies to all be controlled by a common program. For example a large theme park has control of their audio, rides, lighting, cash registers, security system, and so on, over the common Ethernet network for the entire park. This allows them to do cool things like have scripts that say if this happens do these things and send an email off to this person informing him that this event just happened.

Charlie Hughes: Is there a security vulnerability with this?

Ray: There is not any more security problem than if you did not use SNMP. Any such system will have either NO connection to the outside world or it will be through a very good firewall.

Zim: So what you're saying is that all devices speaking the common language of SNMP can work together seamlessly, as alluded to before?

Ray: Well, SNMP is SIMPLE, so it does not directly allow products to talk to each other. It does allow a single control and monitoring program to talk with all SNMP enabled devices on the network. Such programs range from freeware to $5000 a copy. :>)

Moderator: Audience, we have about 10 more minutes with Ray. Final questions please.

TC: Which makes more sense: a centralized DSP controller, i.e. Media Matrix; or a distributed DSP controller, i.e. SoundWeb?

Ray: What are you doing? What is the project, and what are the important issues? There is no one answer that is correct for all projects.

TC: Example would be an arena, in terms of reliability, power.

Ray: Well, many arena and stadium systems are being done with multiple processors, both MediaMatrix and SoundWeb. When you have a system that requires very high reliability then it makes sense to distribute the processing some as one technique in improving the overall system reliability. The system design may be more critical than the exact type of processor used. Back in the analog days, I saw a stadium where the entire sound system could be brought down by shorting a single cable that ran around the stadium. That was an example of a very poor design that made the issue of component reliability moot. Design for reliability, and don't get hung up on the specific tools that you need to use to get there.

Moderator: Ray, what significant changes do you see coming in church sound systems?

Ray: I see the systems getting almost totally digital, and hopefully easier to use. The weak link in many systems is the operator, so we need to look at designing systems that are easier to use and operate well.

Moderator: Looks like our time is about up. Ray, thank you so much for sharing your time and expertise with the PSW audience.

Ray: Thank you for having me.

Charlie Hughes: Ray, thanks for your time. Hope to see you at the next AES or NSCA.

Ray: It was an honor!

Moderator: And my compliments - great typing skills, Mr. Rayburn!

Ray: Not bad for two finger hunt and peck :>)

Moderator: A transcript of tonight's chat session will be posted on PSW tomorrow. Upcoming chat sessions: Ken Berger on July 2, Brian Blackmore of Church Production magazine on July 10 and ATI's Larry Droppa on July 11. Continue the chats on PSW various rooms! Good night!