Anyone make the jump from Qu series to SQ?

[gravyfaceParticipant]

Thinking of selling my Qu-24 and getting an SQ6, primarily for studio/recording of a full band.

[HughParticipant]

The Short answer is the sonic quality of your front end capture will be greatly improved over the QU. However in the event you are not familiar with isolating the front end of the recording process from the “nuts and bolts” of managing tracks with a DAW, a clear understandimg of A&H’s USB transfers would be a very good idea. Most of us wind up with either a Waves or Dante card that will facilitate much more efficient track mgt.
Hugh

[gravyfaceParticipant]

I’m not following.

If I’m happy with 32×32 USB straight to DAW (Reaper/PC), what would Dante give me, other than network expansion?

[HughParticipant]

I can’t speak for Dante , however with my Waves/Soundgrid network my DAW negotiates a multitude of tricky processes that are very difficult if not impossible with the 32×32 DAW A&H USB option. I always use the usb to a glyph studio eternal HD for a “pre only” multi-trak capture of my Live A/V set ups: I deliver a stereo audio feed direct to my Atomos video recorders from the SQ5 LR main mix. This is the primary designed live performance specialization of A&H desks all the way up and down their product line. I do not relate well to their remote USB possibilities when necessary and obvious studio work flow probabilities clearly indicate a need for a more comprehensive studio protocol.
Hugh

[gravyfaceParticipant]

Well, certainly within a distributed topology as you’re describing, but most would say “studio use” and mean, “mixer parked on a desk with the usual static analog tie-lines”, in which a USB interface is perfectly acceptable.

[HughParticipant]

The entire question rests with the specific demands of your studio Workflow.
Hugh

[gravyfaceParticipant]

Well there is workflow, which I’m not really concerned about, and then there is the “sonic quality of your front end capture” being “greatly improved”, which I am.

That’s a pretty heavy statement. Besides 96K vs. 48K, care to elaborate?

[HughParticipant]

a mountain of info exists pursuant to the improved sonic quality from SQ’s XCIV core code using FPGA chips that eliminated previous DSP processing limitations. The world class SR sonic performance is the primary reason a 6 TO 9 month back up on availability will delay any delivery of SQ gear you may decide to purchase. As I tried to explain in previous posts the front end capture of any band performance, be it for SR at a gig or for a multitrack recording, is essentially the same thing. The processes that control gain structure, EQ, Compression and most importantly SQ’s class leading individual monitoring is the most important processing protocol to be delivered for either activity.
IMO significant improvement over SQ’s Std pre amps is available with DX168 expansion stage boxes and if your wallet can stand the hit a DX32 module loaded with A&H’s new “Prime” I/Os deliver an industry best detail and transparent pre-amp capture for recordings that can benefit from that level of detail.
But in any event, after the initial capture, the SQ’s advantages are secondary to more sophisticated post production gear. This is a well known reality amongst folks that do this stuff every day for their living!
Hugh

[gravyfaceParticipant]

As someone interested in “straight wire” A/D, none of the DSP processing improvements are of use to me and if the DX168 preamps are required to improve over the standard preamps in the SQ, I’m not entirely convinced I’m going to see the capture improvement you’re speaking of.

[CLabeckParticipant]

I converted from QU24 to SQ7 half a year ago. I use it in a studio context to record bands (multitrack) and then do all my studio mixing using the SQ (used to be the QU). I do mix in hardware only and am not using any plugins (besides some for analytics like a spectrum analyzer and loudness metering). The SQ has been a very significant step up in terms of flexibility and available processing. On the flexibility side the SQ allows to dynamically rearrange the layout of the channel strips “on the fly” including colored text scribble strips – a major improvement for my workflow. On the processing side there are a lot of options (via the payable plugins) that add processing way beyond what was possible on the QU (e.g. various “vintage” compressors, saturation via tube emulation, sidechain processing, multiband compressor and dynamic EQ). Surely there are things that are not available (most significantly M/S processing and a surround bus) but it is night and day – I would not be able to do what I do today on the QU. I recently invested in a MADI card (Dante would be the preferred option) to get a full 48 channels interfaced between PC and SQ – also not possible on QU and quite useful if you do a lot of multing of tracks. For me it is a no brainer – clear advantage for workflow and processing capabilities on the SQ side. And that does not even consider any of the sonic differences coming with 96khz (which I have not used yet as no need and no apparent benefit to me). Obviously the added capabilities come with a price tag…

[gravyfaceParticipant]

Back from the dead…

Still, I’m left wondering whether the straight capture — that is, Qu preamp to AD @ 48kHz vs. SQ preamp to AD @ 48kHz — is any improvement at all.

I don’t mix on my Qu, and I don’t use any effects. It’s a straight capture interface + Qu-You based personal montoring, which is excellent.

[TobiParticipant]

Just for capturing,why Not use a normal Interface Like RME Fireface, which has Superior Sound quality?

[gravyfaceParticipant]

It’s the monitoring that’s killer. I’ve recorded a ton with the Qu, done some comparisons… the pres are definitely on the wooly/warm side, at least as far as I can tell. A&H support says the slow rate is lower on the SQ series, so “faster”… I don’t know, I think it’s probably a wash upgrading at this point.

[TobiParticipant]

RME Interfaces do have Monitoring, Google for “total mix”.

Best Regards,
Tobias

[HughParticipant]

For starters unless you are hung up on having your fingers on the 8 additional faders available on the SQ6, the SQ5 with a DX168 stage box is a much better protocol in most every way. All of the SQ desks offer 48 max internal input processing: the only difference is with the number of faders and internal I/Os. IMO using tie lines to patch available pre-amps direct to a DAW of choice is a better alternative than the internal USB protocol.
One of the great conundrums of some of these threads is why ask for opinions if you are entrenched and searching for a argument about a given protocol. I have not observed any disgruntled SQ purchaser pursuant to the sonic quality differences between a QU vs SQ desk but there are a boat load of opinions of improved audio quality.
Very few recordings are free from the various FX embellishments that are integral to post production & the initial monitoring process. Up sampling plug-ins with their aliasing filtering is greatly aided by 96K sampling FPGA processing that is featured with the SQ line. An SQ 5 with a DXi68 expansion stage box is pretty much the same investment as an SQ6 and if you have the ability to audition the subject gear then objectively evaluate it before you dismiss the difference. At that point your opinion would carry much stronger credibility.
Hugh

[Author]

Posts