How About and SQ-0, SQ-1, SQ-2 and SQ-3?

[Art]

The SQ-0 would be like a QU-Pac, the SQ-1, 2 and 3’s would be like the SQ-5, 6 and 7 respectively but with no (or limited) pre-amps on-board for those of us who will never need the on-board pre-amps because we use stage boxes only. Especially now since the new S-Link card is available.

[Ryan]

Oh! Or SQ-0 = QU-SB, SQ-1 = QU-Pac, and SQ-2/3/4 would be with the no/limited preamps.

[Jens-Droessler]

I thought the SQ5 was the one with the limited preamps already…

[robbocurry]

SQ-PAC would be awesome – any plans to make one A&H???

[KeithJ A&H]

Hi all,

We have no current plans for an ‘SQ-Pac’, though it has been requested a few times!
In most situations the Qu-Pac will do everything that’s required (and more), but that’s not to say we would never look into an ‘SQ-Pac’ in the future.

Thanks,
Keith.

[Art]

🙁

[stylos]

Hey Keith,

a definite +1 when voting for an SQ-pac. it would be the perfect backup desk for us SQ converts. I have replaced all of our desks with the SQ series (they sound freaking awesome!) plus DX168s and S-link cards ordered for FOH/mon splits – waves card and waves server in the pipeline when funds permit! so taken to the product in a big way! the ability to carry a spare desk in a small flightcase (minimal Van space!) would be great. if a beer or Cider (do a lot of Cider festivals) was spilt into one of the desks I could swap it out recall the show and carry on. I am sure the qu-pac is also great but its the recall of an SQ show on the back up mixer that would be the HUGE selling point for me.

PS really loving the SQs – fantastic products! loving your work sirs!

[Jens-Droessler]

I have no use for a SQ-Pac. But I’d really welcome it, because it would mean the iPad app has to get a lot more features we all miss right now.

[alli]

I would love to see a lighter version of SQ-6 or 7 with just a couple preamps! “GLD-Style” 😉 Nearly ever use it without a stagebox…

[MarkPAman]

2 Pre amps (or 3 with Talkback) the stereo inputs on TRS, 2 XLR outputs & AES out. Killer as a take to festival surface.

Maybe not worth building a version of the 5 like this (though, I’d like one), but something with the surface format of the 6 or 7 would be very useful indeed.

[Kris]

Hiya Keith

The thing that’s seriously compelling about a rack mount SQ compared with the Q is the card slot capability – particularly with Dante – and using it as a really capable sub mixer or for comms… a bit like a DM0 light! +1 vote from me!

[Mfk0815]

A +1 for am mixengine-only version of the SQ (similar to the QU-SB or QU-Pac). But first of all, let’s release the 1.3 Firmware and the SQ-Director;-)

[basmeijer]

That’s me too. Awaiting SQ consoles with less inputs and outputs.
Reason simple: less space, weight, compact. Just a few inputs to connect someting like outboard gear, link another desk from a guest engineer, a talkback mike at FOH plus a few outputs like for same outboard gear, L/R, direct hookup to delayed speakers and such.
For me like 6 in, 6 out tops works for all occasions. But could even live with 4 in+out. The rest would just be completely redundant and still unused when the console reaches its retirement age.

[Gsus4th]

Hi Keith

To me, H&H is really missing an opportunity leaving the SQ fader-less (whatever you want to call it) field to competitors. Q PAC is not an alternative for people that are looking for sound quality even in small venues. H&H was the first offering a 96Khz machine on a middle-low level size/market, and a 24/32CH fader less version of SQ (great Mixer) with its sound quality would have been a smash.
Last year you said that the fader-less version was not in your plan, now you confirm the same line and – again – I personally think you are very wrong. In the meantime, I’ve bought a rack mixer from an H&H competitor, but I still keep on expecting you change your position on the subject.
regards
Luca

[Barryjam]

Keith, would you also say there are no plans for a SQ-sb (similar to QU-SB) at this time?

[Author]

Posts