RACK VERSION ?

[EmanKantParticipant]

sorry, should be of course

– a broad range of features, without going deep on anything

[Gsus4thParticipant]

To EmanKant

I agree in toto with your rack digital mixer market close examination, with the exception of your view on the X32 Rack.
Although my position on Behringer product is aligned with yours, X32 rack cannot be considered in a different market segment; at least price is saying that.
Firstly I have to say that I’m not a Sound Pro, therefore I don’t live with music but as a musician I understand most of the issues connected with music tech.
This given and keeping it basic I would add to your list:

* 22/24 Inputs (16 XLR/TRS pres are ok) Target not accomplished with the QUPAC
* ON BOARD MTK REC/PLAY MANAGEMENT along with MTK song management Target poorly accomplished with the QUPAC- Not only virtual soundcheck
* GOOD SOUNDING (This involves 96Khz – FX quality – and presets ) Target partially accomplished win the QUPAC
* OFF LINE EDITING Target not accomplished win the QUPAC
* An easy to use and complete GUI (a mix between the UI24R gui and X32 gui) Target not accomplished with the QUPAC
* Reliable WI FI connection

Basically no rack mixers now available on the market are meeting this target and that is why I was wondering if A&H was planning to put SQ sound engine on a rack with these features. So I’m torn between mixers that partially answer to my needing where I will be ready to pay something between 1,5K and 2K for a such a kind of gear.
Since A&H will not come out with a rack mounted format of the SQ what is your suggestion? I would say spend as less as possible (ui24R) and wait…

[SteffenRParticipant]

SQ-5 is rack mountable… and you have a GUI with taktile control 😉

what about the QSC?

[Gsus4thParticipant]

Hi Steffen

1) SQ-5 Too big… and only 16 in
2) QSC No recallable preamp

[EmanKantParticipant]

Hi Gsus,

looks like we agree on most of the items. I suggest to skip the Behringer discussion, because it would be mainly on marketing strategy.

Interesting is, that Keith capsuled the whole issue as a “formfactor”-question. I watched him on the tutorial video (Keith sorry, I am talking in 3rd person, I am
not at all sure wether you will read this. In case please transform 3rd into 1st person by cognitive switching). And he claims segments totally different from the musical performance market.
He mentioned the conference-room-, church- and broadcast installations. And in these segments the rack will play a small role only, maybe none. These installs are permenantly wired, so what should a remotecontrolled rack be good for here?

When it comes to live performance in whatever locations the situation is totally different. The recent success of the racks in this application shows imho the way where it will run to. Starting in the late 1980s the areas of industrial producion automation and telecommunications have switched to manager-agent configurations, wehre the agent units are integrated locally into the production lines and are managed remotecontrolled. So in our case this means, transporting signals from stage to FOH, manipulating it there and sending it back will be an outdated approach within an minor couple of years. This will make all the big and costly consoles become obsolete.

Do not take me wrong. I do not believe, that the existing “rack-formfactor”-units will be the ones do perform this change. These all are toys compared to what will be necessary. But they will at least
serve as proof of concept.

Now, as for your question on what do do and what to buy. The UI24R is the best selling unit these days, and they look nice at first view. But imho they lack a couple of features
essential for satisfying the contemporary sound requirements. Neither FXes nor dynamics are really controllable. Just two buzzwords taken for examples: powerbox reverb and New York compression (parrallel comp.). But you can find a lot more of these missing items.

One more thing is the number of Auxes, that is more and more requested for InEars. The UI24R has got 8 Auxes, that would be 4 in stereo mode. Now, you have 24 mic preamps, but can only serve 4 people with stereo phones. Does that make sense? OK, they argue, that mono InEars is good enough and you can control your personal mix via MoreMe function on your smartphone. Imagine a performing musician messing around with his telephones on stage. That´ll be the comedy part of the show.

So I hope that maybe Keith will step into the discussion and even more maybe think the subject over.

[Gsus4thParticipant]

Hi Emanuel

I’m pretty well aware that UI24R is a limited piece of gear, that is why I was looking for a step above rack format mixer that still has to come on the market. Again I’m not a pro sound man and the usage of my mixer would be primarily on stage with no sound man and limited space & Time resources, therefore renouncing to physical faders to me it’s not a stress, but on the other hand I would like to have not a toy but a well sounding mixer.
SQ seems to have all the qualities I’m searching in a mixer, except for the format. Medium/High quality mixer in a small and practical package with enough inputs to manage a small/mid band with no extra gear.
Thank you for your point on the UI24R, think there’s nothing I can do but playing with that toy till something new come up.
Hope A&H will not miss the opportunity to say something really news in the 2k Rack Format segment… Uhmmm… may be Keith is not online working on the new SQ-Rack… Xmas surprise! Keith?… don’t forget our wish list!

[KeithJ A&HModerator]

Hi All,

I am around, listening/reading and cognitive switching…
With SQ it is certainly a question of form factor, as the SQ-5 and SQ-6 are built on the same core, and have essentially the same capabilities with the differences being only in the number of preamps/faders/assignable controls – so it’s not outside the realms of possibility that we decide to create a faderless, rack version, even if there is nothing planned for release at present.
The responses and ‘wish lists’ here are really useful though, obviously there are a huge number of decisions that need to be made for each product, and there is also a lot of time spent on development and testing. As mentioned in the webinar, we start by looking at what is needed and requested, talk to engineers and look at what is possible. So these kinds of discussions are great!
It is, of course, impossible to create something that will satisfy absolutely every engineer in absolutely every situation, but we do our best.

Cheers!
Keith.

[Gsus4thParticipant]

Thanks Keith
I’ll keep following your moves!
Take care

[GaryWParticipant]

I for one would be VERY keen on “a faderless, rack version” of the SQ-5
Thanks Keith!

[FabParticipant]

I would love a sq-rack + ip8…😍

[SteffenRParticipant]

I think the most important addition to SQ would be a updated AR2412

32 Mic Inputs, 1 or 2 AES In
16 Line Out with additional 4 AES Out
a dedicated port for ME systems and an expander port for an additional DX168
running on 96kHz

[Flo84Participant]

Steffen R Yes an AR2412 ++ version will be good !
I had posted this question to A&H team but for now, no plan to make new AR2412 version beacause DX32 already exist but I’m agree with you and isn’t the same thing (and not the same cost range…).

[basmeijerParticipant]

Hi Allen & Heath community! (post #1)

Count us in for the SQ rack. We would love to have one.
This is because we regularly offer our sound services in locations where there is no place for a proper FOH position in certain clubs, In that case a rack model would offer much more setup speed and flexibility. We now own a rack mixer from another brand for these purposes but long for the SQ because of the fantastic sound features they offer.

Of course a true companion would be a SQ series console that is dedicated to be used with this rack mixer(S).
This is because this console would not need all the mixing power and input of the SQ rack mixer, so that would be more economic I suppose.

A track count to mix and record up to 48 is mandatory. To be able to expand and record up to 64 would be great too, if possible technically.
Looking forward to any news about this!

[idolwawaParticipant]

+1 for rack

[BarryjamParticipant]

I too would like to see both a 4 space rack version of SQ and an updated 96k 2412 with DX level preamps. A&H might not be able to offer a 96k 2412 that ALSO has an dedicated ME port (48k), as it appears that the sample rate conversions take place in the Slink. But maybe a forced 48K monitor out would be less costly than flexible sample rate conversion????

I’m just getting into SQ, but I could see how I could quickly need/want Dante, DX level pres, and ME connectivity at the same time.

[Author]

Posts