Hog over GrandMA2

Hi, just some for some general interest: Why did or would you choose the WholeHog system over GrandMA?
  • I chose Hog over GMA 1 because it was alot easier for me to use. I like the intuative setup with Hog.

    That was the main reason.
  • I belive Hog sys have a more CLEAN visual.
    The MA have too many colors, etc...
    Also, Hog makes more sense on "talking" to the console.
  • I can put in the back of my car to take it home to do so ESP per work without having 3 mates come over to help me get it in the house
  • +1 on everything stated so far.

    The GUI on H3 is much more simple and elegant to use than the GMA.

    It takes far too many keystokes and navigation points through menus to get even some simple tasks done on GMA where I can do these same tasks very quickly on H3.

    I also personally have some "tactility" issues with GMA....I hate the little clicks in the encoders, and I hate the way the faders and buttons feel.....if you program and operate for long stretches at a time the H3 consoles are much kinder to your hands and fingers.

    Hope this helps. :)
  • Because all of the Grand MAs have been rented out that week and we only have Hogs left.
  • Imagine one thing,...
    You have a Console, when you start, have a possibility to use in a
    HOG MODE
    ?
  • [QUOTE=Dibbs;39956]Because all of the Grand MAs have been rented out that week and we only have Hogs left.

    Tell me about it Dibbs! There aren't ever grandma's in the shop..
  • The only reason the Grandma's are all rented out is... UHHH some people like to work a lot harder!!!:D:p

    Actually the MA has some strengths - but they are hidden by the 16 hobbit boys running internal patch. Get out the seed cakes Bilbo they have to be fed!
  • I agree with most of what's said here as well -- I was a hardcore grandma guy up until about 3 years ago when I was so nicely left with a H3. I'd say I love the fixture abstraction layer ... that'd become more and more apparent to my especially with the more complex fixtures (showgun, dl.3, studio pix, etc.) -- I also agree with marty that it does take quite alot of useless button pushing to do very simply things (effects engine much!) -- I love how much less the DP's cost verses the NSP's as well ... I also find (personally) it's great to get tech support in english verses german ;-)
  • Probably that's not the right place to ask this kind of question. Is it? I mean we're on the Hog III software forum. Probably you would get a more objective answer on the LightNetwork. Personally I think there's nothing you can do on one desk that can't be done on the other one. I'm fluent both on the Hog III and Grand MA. The strong point of the Hog software is the already mentioned abstraction layer for fixtures. I'm actually working for a production with a Grand MA and I have to say I set it up like if it was a hog. I've got the first row of executor buttons set as the Intensity Position Colour Beam buttons of the hog III. The process to achieve it is little bit tricky for you have to store Macros with all the information needed to be triggered via "Comment Macro" in an empty cuelist assigned to the executor button. Dunno if it makes sense. Personally I think there's not a big difference on keystrokes number to do something. Sometimes the Hog wins sometimes the grand Ma does. I reckon it's more the way you feel and the way you can wrap your brain around one desk versus the other. Bottom line I would always go Hog if it was my call.
  • I have to laugh - you are right it probably is the wrong place to ask...

    thou having run both I still prefer Hog over MA - just the way my brain works... or doesn't like to work. Its the reason I dropped ETC as a board of choice I hate programing 20 steps in a macro that should be there in the first place... Power translates to usability, and I sure find MA a lot less usable than My Mr. :18: Hoggy!
  • +1 with all the above.... :hogsign: :trink26:
  • I would agree with marco,
    if you want an objective viewpoint it would
    be better to ask the same question on the
    lightnetwork and see what replies you get.
    I'm going to play devils advocate here and
    ask what features people want or would like
    to see that the MA has that the hog III
    does not....I can think of 10 off hand but that's
    just me...

    Best cormac
  • No, this is exactly where i wanted to post this. because i wanted to know why you (the people who own Wholehog Desks) have them. The reason why i chosen to direct it at you is because my mind is already set on the Wholehog system and i knew that the main competitor of Wholehog desks is Grand MA. I just wanted to know why you made that decision. Some very good points, the one i have noticed is the nice interface of Hog :P
  • I love the hog.. I also love the MA. They both are incredibly powerful boards.

    Personally I like the GUI on Hog much better. But there are a lot of features that an MA includes that is definitely missing from Hog. Here is a few things just off the top of my head:

    Artnet in (merging and external control)
    Midi control of encoders, triggering
    Keystroke macros & better overall macro control
    bitmapping
    more powerful effects engine
    worlds
    motorized faders

    I know some of these things are in the works, but its just taking forever in my opinion. And then some have been bluntly stated aren't happening. But overall, its getting better.. I am pretty sure the next release of Hog 3 will make many happier.
1 2