QU-16 Editor?

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu feature suggestions QU-16 Editor?

Tagged: 

This topic contains 90 replies, has 34 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of garyh garyh 16 hours, 42 minutes ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #61463
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    Nice to see somebody doing their research before buying the desk.

    So much better than people buying one, then ranting all over the place because they’d made a false assumption!

    All these desks have slightly different features, so it’s important to look closely to make the right decision.

    IMHO an offline editor would be the single biggest improvement A&H could make, and I’m guessing, not that hard to do from the iPad app either, so perhaps we’ll have it one day.

    Anyway, good luck Grant – maybe let us know what you go for, and how you get on?

    #61464
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Yep – I’ve got a lot of apps for desks at this price point – there to allow me to make comparisons without spending the cash on every desk available…

    Much as I love the QU for my own work I don’t think it’s on my list for my current church… (The record to USB stick is the one feature that nearly brings it back)

    #61486
    Profile photo of NZdave
    NZdave
    Participant

    Mamerica started this column back in 2013/10/18 at 3:40 pm

    When I first bought any QUs’ I never even thought about iPads let alone off line editor?

    Then through those later ‘near’ 4 years the iPads appeared!

    I just can not believe that A & H dont use the Demo mode to build the editor to be saved back into the QU?
    There must be some powerful brain storming or marketing happening over a cuppa back in their tea rooms?
    Partly because of the lack of offline editor.. [If Grant is correct that other brands have this or similar?
    And if the QU is not on Bobs list for future mixers?]
    then someone at A & H needs to be listening!

    I know A & H want to promote the iPad scenario so why is the no action? discussion? murmurs about this?

    #61487
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    It’s not the offline editor that takes it off the table.

    It’s the fact that I know that I have mixed into people’s monitors instead of FOH, I want/need a way to make that very hard for inexperienced volunteers.

    At the moment the Expression 1 is top of my list… properly set up it has many similar features to the QU – less good use of the screen, slightly lesser EQ control, more sends, flexible patching from local inputs (so that roving mic can have both speech and singing channels)…

    It’s mostly a wash until fader glow. That single feature should eliminate mixing FOH into a monitor or vice-versa.
    There is little to no price difference, both have personal mixer options and QuYou style apps, both have digital snakes if needed.

    It’s down to little things. For a theatre/festival I’d recommend Qu, but hesitate because of the lack of an offline editor…

    #61629
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Mind you, I hadn’t looked at the price recently…

    #62425
    Profile photo of Barryjam
    Barryjam
    Participant

    I finally have a reason to want the editor. We’ve got a sound guy who is scared of the learning curve. I’d like him to be able to learn to mix QUsd on IPad with the band’s actual settings rather than a blank demo. I could show him custom pages and other features that would make his job so much easier, but the persuasion would be in seeing our actual channel names, channel libraries, etvc. He could practice at home away from the mixer, which I own and cannot part with.

    #62553
    Profile photo of Mbirame
    Mbirame
    Participant

    Just want to throw my +1 at an offline editor. I just upgraded from a QU-16 to a QU-PAC and ar2412. I need to do significant routing changes to many, many scenes by doing this switch and I’m crying at not being able to just easily do these changes on an editor.

    #63224
    Profile photo of Ryan
    Ryan
    Participant

    It turns out the CRC is not one of the common algorithms (brute forcing with different initial values will not work).

    #63233
    Profile photo of fxk
    fxk
    Participant

    Yeah… If you’re that close (I’ll assume you are) it is absolute evidence A&H have no intention of either providing help, or to allow a QU editor in the wild, or EVER provide an editor. They know how it’s done, they’ve “had plenty of time” to develop their own, and we’ll NEVER see one – even as an extra cost option.

    If I could afford to sell my early QU16 (with the fixable phantom-pop problem, a defect they corrected on later versions, that they say I have to pay for), and my AB168 without taking a bath, I’d dump A&H in a heartbeat, though I do love the console itself.

    If nothing else, when asked (over and over) they had have come clean and definitively said “Never Ever!, I may have had some respect left for them. Lying by omission is still lying.

    Shame on A&H. For lying about the editor, and trying to stick me with the bill for the phantom-pop fix.

    #65287
    Profile photo of daubi
    daubi
    Participant

    can someone host a Wiki, which collects all known facts about the file format?
    I compared to identical scenes. In the file you can see the scene number (4. byte). And that is
    the only difference. -> if there is a CRC, not all of the file is included in the calculation.

    #65288
    Profile photo of daubi
    daubi
    Participant

    As I do not have access to the Mixer, can someone try the following:
    Make 2 scene, keep all settings identical, double check Qu can load it.
    Check the CRC at position 0x651C, if it is identical.
    Than start modifiying beginning of the file until it fails loading.
    I recommend binary search.
    By that we should be able to identifying the range for the CRC calculation
    To make format analyzing more exciting my files have different length.
    Some have 0x6520, others 0x6640. But CRC is at same position.

    #65343
    Profile photo of daubi
    daubi
    Participant

    I do not believe any more in the CRC. Checking all files I have, there are to many “collisions” (same value for not identical files).

    There seems to be sections, started with a section number followed by a5a5a5.

    Unfortunately I do not have mixer to check, which modification it would except.

    #65347
    Profile photo of Ryan
    Ryan
    Participant

    It’s a messed up CRC, only 256 possible values.

    Yea, a5a5a5 seems to be a section separator. For some reason I always thought of it as marking the end of a section, maybe because I consider the CRC less of a section than the file header. I guess that doesn’t really matter either way.

    Could you upload a few of the files with length 0x6640?

    #65395
    Profile photo of daubi
    daubi
    Participant

    here some files with bytes behind the CRC.
    My guess, this happens if you overwrite a scene

    #65397
    Profile photo of daubi
    daubi
    Participant

    here I try to upload a file with extra data behind the CRC.
    I renamed the file extension, as the forum does not like .DAT

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 91 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.