Honeywell NetAXS security card panels

I work at a facility that uses a LOT of Honeywell card-access panels, mostly the N1000-4x type, and for several years we’ve been happy with those (though seriously, only 4 doors per $2000 panel?!). When they came out with a new panel with built-in Ethernet, we started purchasing those instead. The NetAXS 4 panels saved us from having to buy a separate Ethernet to RS-232 and RS-485 devices, and we loved how quickly they would initialize compared to the old panels.

However, we ran into a pretty major brick wall recently. Our campus has several buildings, with several floors, and several departments. One building houses a number of different tenant organizations. This means that we have a lot of different access levels, 108 to be exact. The software we use to manage the panels is called Winpak SE 4.4, and it began complaining immediately after we updated from version 3.3 that some of our NetAXS panels may not function properly, and that they are limited to 128 access levels. WTF?! None of us recalled seeing anything in the adverts about a limitation on how many access levels could be used. And why in the world would a newly designed panel have such a tiny limitation when its older version had virtually no limit?

Now 128 may sound like a lot until you find out that every card given a custom access to a particular door counts as an access level, we tend to run out very quickly on a popular door. This seems to be the primary way that levels are used up. A single card can only have a single assigned access level, so we have to do custom levels quite often.

We could replace the new panels with the old panels. But at $2000 a piece, that is a chunk of change.

ANOTHER HUGE ISSUE: We recently had a lot of difficulty getting the panels to download access levels. Through several calls to tech support and trying new firmware and OS files, and several emails sent, we found that our database (which started back around 2003, I think, and has gone through several upgrades) probably has a bit of corruption. How it manifests is that we see cards repeatedly being given “Host Grant” on the Event View. Host Grant is designed to check with the server and download a card to the panel if it is authorized, but not yet downloaded. The cards were being downloaded, but because no access levels are ever downloaded to the panel, the panel is continually using Host Grant. That is, the cards are downloaded, but because they have no permissions, they can’t do anything. So the panel checks with the server and it says, “Sure, let that card through that door” or “No, it isn’t authorized”. This creates about a 2 second pause between the card being read and the lock opening.

Tech Support had us create a new access level with appropriate permissions for each of our existing levels, isolate the cards in each level and assign them to each new matching level. This creates new fresh access levels that the panels can read just fine. They immediately were downloaded to the panels and everything began working as designed. That solved some big issues when people couldn’t get through doors when the network was down. Now the panels store the information and can work independently of the server most of the time. I also had to go through each custom access level that touched a new panel, remove the custom setting, then add it again. 5 hours later everything is working normally.

ANOTHER ISSUE: If we have an “active shooter” situation, we’d like to be able to shut down access to a site, or lock all the doors. That isn’t an option in the Winpak software without doing some major cartwheels. The software has been out for at least 15 years, so they’ve had ample time to work on it. All Honeywell ever seems to do is release a new version without new benefits other than support.

ANOTHER ISSUE: The Winpak database isn’t a pivot table. If you want to search for specific things that Honeywell doesn’t offer as a prefab search, you are out of luck. It runs off of a SQL Server Express database, but the forms they offer for searching often leave out things we’d like. If it is in the database, we should be able to search for it, and create custom searches.

So, we did get some good help eventually from Tech Support that resolved a big issue. But we still would like to see some major improvements in the software soon.


Choosing a microphone for singing (and mic-shaming)

I sing jazz standards as a hobby. Doing so puts me in contact with a lot of singers, some professional, most not. I’ve found that a lot of people don’t really know much about choosing a microphone, and tend to rely on others recommending a brand. Conversely, I’ve found that some will “mic-shame” others for their choice, ignoring the actual sound produced by the singer, or overlaying their actual sound with mental prejudice.

Choosing a mic is a personal decision, and finding one that fits your voice is essential to producing the sound that you desire. There really is no substitute for going to a music store and trying out at least a few mics (and actually singing in the store). If they are interested in sales, they should have a way for you to test a few mics at a time with a mixer board and quality speaker (or speakers).

There are generally two kinds of handheld microphones, dynamic and condenser. Dynamic mics are the more common kind, can take some wear and tear, and do not require any special power source. Condenser mics are said to be more sensitive to sound, but subject to damage and require that the mixer board provide 48 volts of “phantom power” over the mic cord to the microphone or have a battery installed.

You may also want to consider a wireless microphone. Such a mic also requires a receiver station, and there are considerations for the frequency range that the mic uses. If you intend to use your mic at vocal jams, keep in mind that setting up the receiver station in a safe location with a power cord is a lot more work than just hooking up a mic to the venue’s mixer board. Wireless mics require a battery, and may encounter interference with other electronics.

Comparing Microphones Equally
There is a common misconception that one equalization fits all mics, or should fit all mics. This is balderdash. Each mic has different components and electronics and will require that you pay attention to the sound quality you are producing with that particular microphone. I’ve seen Youtube mic comparisons where they use the same settings for each mic, allegedly to show an unbiased approach to the sound. Again, this is nonsense. Each mic requires that you set it up for the best sound for your voice and that particular mic. Only then can each mic be compared fairly for your choice. Unfortunately, not all shops carry a wide selection, so you may want to start your search online for popular microphones (I can save you a bit of time by saying that the most popular mics I’ve encountered are the Shure Beta 58, the Sennheiser e935, and the Heil PR35).

1. Each mic you are testing should be set up with its own cord to the mixer board. While speaking and singing various styles with each mic, tweak the equalization knobs (often just  High РMid РLow knobs) on the mixer board starting with each at the middle position. Try each mic with and without some reverb. Your goal is to find the best sound for your voice with THAT mic. Once you have found the best setting, turn the volume down for that mic and try the next mic, again tweaking the settings until you find the best sound for your voice and that mic.

2. Once you have set up each mic with the best sounding settings, begin comparing the sounds that you produce over each mic, both speaking and singing various styles. Notice if there is “handling noise”, that is the sound of simply holding the mic in your hand and moving your fingers. Some mics pick up a LOT of handling noise, and you may need to use a low-cut or high-pass filter on the mixer board for that mic (oversimplified, this cuts out some of the low range of the mic while allowing the range for human voices through). Try the mic with windscreen (sometimes called a “clown nose”) and without. Windscreens can help control plosives (spoken “P” and “B” words that have a sudden burst of air directed at the mic) and sibilance (hissing “S” words which the mic can pick up strongly). Learning how to handle the mic and to direct plosives and sibilance away from the mic can be a better solution than the windscreen.

3. Narrow your choices to two mics and then decide based on sound, cost, and durability of the microphone.

I’ve seen singers go through this process and pick out a perfectly fine microphone, only to then encounter another singer (sometimes a pro) who decided years ago that their microphone was the best and only mic that should ever be used by anyone and that all other mics are inferior regardless of sound and components. Some singers arrive at this simply based on “I’ve always used this and it works, and I don’t like change”.¬† Sometimes the shame factor is enough to make a singer change mics, simply on the basis of alleged authority. Do the same comparison of mics as before with the suggested mic and the mic you already chose. Ignore the “authority” and focus on the sound quality, then make your choice.

My microphone is the Heil PR35. I chose it after looking online at hundreds of reviews and forums, after using a few different mics at a mic-comparison session with fellow singers, and based on the specs of the microphone. The PR35 has a larger diaphragm than most other handheld mics, and this gives it both sensitivity to low volume singing (for a sultry whispery sound) and to low frequency sound which is helpful for conveying my baritone voice. I cannot get right up on the mic as I would with the Shure Beta 58, but then again I don’t have to because it picks up subtle sounds easily. It does have rather a lot of handling noise, so I find myself compensating with a high-pass filter and slightly boosted low EQ. This mic gave the most natural sounding version of my voice, to my ears. It is more expensive than some mics, and most shops don’t carry it as a mic you can try. I tend to use a windscreen to help avoid plosives, and haven’t noticed that it “muddies” the sound, though it does dampen the overall volume a bit, which can be compensated at the mixer board.



Update on Electronic noise during recording

After we moved to a new home, I had not been able to record vocals on my computer due to a constant electronic noise in the background, something like a high-pitched whine and chatter.

After a lot of troubleshooting, I purchased a Ziocom Ground Loop Noise Isolator from Amazon ($9). It is a small non-powered device that plugs into the microphone input (3.5mm) on the computer, and the output from the mixer board plugs into the ground loop isolator. Just that quickly, all the chatter stopped and the recordings are clear again, except for a background hiss. I’m going to try a DAC to convert to USB digital prior to the PC and see if that fixes it.

The concept is that the ground point of my computer and the ground point of the mixer board are different, even though they are in the same room. This creates a slight “potential” (DC current) which is then amplified by the mixer as electronic noise. This gizmo filters out that current and lets the audio signal through.

I used an XLR female to 3.5mm audio cable from the mixer to the isolator.



(NOTE: I am not an electrician. I am familiar with basic wiring, having done simple projects for about 30 years. If you are not entirely comfortable doing such a project, please hire a licensed electrician who can easily do it for you, or just change out the entire fixture.)

The light fixture in my closet was under-powered so much that I couldn’t tell the colors of the shirts. I removed the glass cover and discovered that it was using orange-colored compact fluorescent bulbs with an odd base I hadn’t used before (GX24Q-2).

I searched online to see if there were LED lights that used this base, and found that while there were some, there were also adapter bases made to allow a standard bulb to be used. I purchased 6 off of Amazon and looked at the wiring description which wasn’t a lot of help.

It said to remove the fluorescent ballast entirely, but leave the wires attached to the GX24Q-2 sockets. On each socket there are 4 wires, 2 wires will be unused, 1 will be attached to the 120V white neutral wire and 1 will be attached to the 120V black hot wire.


I shut off power to the fixture at the breaker to prevent accidental shock. I removed the fixture from the ceiling and unscrewed the 3 wire-nuts holding the fixture to the house wiring (Ground, Hot, Neutral).

I used my multimeter to test which of the pins on the new adapters went to the screw socket and which went to the base contact. The side of the screw socket will be connected to the white neutral, and the base contact will connect to the black hot.



I found that 2 of the pins on the adapter were not connected (these correspond to the 2 unused wires), and then labeled the 2 remaining pins either B or W for Black or White. I also labeled the sockets attached to the light fixture so I could easily match them. (I’m not sure that it really matters for a bulb, but since I’m not sure, better to just err on the side of caution).

I used a marker to put a dot on each wire that went to either the B corner or the W corner. The other two wires I bent down and attached a wire-nut to keep them from touching anything electrical. I arbitrarily decided to make the yellow wires attach to Black 120V and the others to attach to the White 120V.


I used wire-nuts to attach the colored wires to the house wires. I turned on the power again and tested the lights which worked perfectly. I reattached the fixture to the ceiling.

All in all, the directions that came with the adapters left a lot out. It would probably have been easier to just get a new fixture, but it was a lot cheaper to do it this way. As I said at the beginning, if this is beyond your skill and understanding, please do not attempt to do it yourself. Hire a licensed electrician to do the work.

IP Cameras – trouble with plugins for viewing

I install rather a lot of IP cameras for security. I’ve been seeing a recurring issue with manufacturers using plugins in order to view the camera feed. For example, when viewing a Samsung (now Hanwha) camera via its IP address, it first pops up a screen with a link to install a plugin. Once this installs, the browser is supposed to close and reopen and be able to view the camera. Sometimes that works, like on my laptop. But other times, it keeps going back to the plugin install page. On those computers, I’ve never been able to get the browser to view the camera. I can view an RTSP stream, just not the built-in program for configuring the camera. No idea what the difference is between the two systems. If Samsung would drop the plugin and go with HTML5, then the program would be compatible with any browser.

Vicon uses built-in Java for viewing and configuring their cameras. But the version of Java on the camera is older day by day, and so Windows quickly does not trust it and each camera has to be entered into the Java exception screen in Control Panel. Java then wants to reset this list for safety reasons. Ridiculous waste of time just to be able to configure the camera.

Netgear switches (GS110TP) that I use to hook the laptop to the IP cameras also use a Java plugin to view the switch layout. Clicking the link doesn’t install the plugin, it just redirects to the Sun Java homepage, which is useless. Besides 64-bit Firefox cannot install such a plugin. Browsers are moving away from such approaches and going with HTML5. Thus there is a part of the switch I have that I cannot access due to the manufacturer deciding to use a plugin instead of a standard web page or HTML5. I can’t get my laptop to install the plugin because I have 64-bit and Firefox. I can still do most functions on the switch menu, but am blocked from other sections.
I’ve read on Netgear forums that this problem is marked “solved”, but all they said was “please open a trouble ticket” and then closed the thread. Yo Netgear, that isn’t solving the problem! So what if you “are aware” of the issue. You’ve “been aware” for YEARS now. Hire some programmers and dump plugin entirely.


Moz-extension entry in Firefox history

Recently I noticed an odd thing appearing in my Firefox history. Whenever I would first start the browser, a line would appear in history:


A search yielded no result. I did find one discussion about a similar case where an add-on (extension) was causing this. I did other searches based on just “moz-extension” and “blank.html”. Eventually, I disabled a handful of add-ons and restarted Firefox. No odd entry! One by one I enabled them until I found the one that causes this entry:


I am writing to them to see if they know why this is happening.

Android g900vvru2dpf4 update, no Linux connect

After I upgraded to the latest Android g900vvru2dpf4 software, it no longer wants to show any files when I connect via USB to my PC. Tried reconnecting physically several times. No joy. I’ll keep messing with it in case I missed something.

EDIT: Had to go into developer mode and change USB setting from charge to connect. It will still charge but now the computer sees it as a device and can connect.