24 channels version of DX box

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions 24 channels version of DX box

This topic contains 12 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of guma guma 2 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #82835
    Profile photo of AndreyMaslov
    AndreyMaslov
    Participant

    I wonder if anybody heard of A&H plans creating DX2412 box, similar to AR. 24 channels is on of the main reasons I’m staying with A&H (16 – not enough, 32 – too many) and AR2412 box was a good match for QU-24. Now after switching to SQ6 I don’t want to pay for 2 DX168 boxes, I need exactly 24. Yes, I know I can still use AR, but what’s the point getting better preaamps and not using them. I use stage boxes all the time, which takes me to another question – how about SQ version with just a few preamps, like GLD. I don’t need 24 in the in the board, 4 should be enough.

    #82838
    Profile photo of Showtime
    Showtime
    Participant

    It make more sense to make a 32 in and 24 out stagebox. With al in-ear mixes would this be a perfect box.

    For a 48 ch mixer a 24 in 12 out is to less.

    Richard

    #82844
    Profile photo of Barryjam
    Barryjam
    Participant

    A 24in 12out box makes great sense for my IEM rack because it is three rack spaces and permanently wired to IEM transmitters. I’d rather have a separate stage box when I need more I/O. So everyone’s idea of the perfect box spec is gonna differ.

    #82851
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    32 in 24 out doesn’t make sense. You loose 16 input channels that is a big selling feature of the console! Many people need more than 32 remote ins.

    As Barry states, a 24 in 12 out box is the perfect piece for the SQ architecture.

    Two of those boxes will max out your I/O with 48 in 24 (stereo) outputs from the 12 aux mixes.

    A DX2412 is the exact box that needs to be created for this console, unfortunately this apparently isn’t in the pipeline right now. I don’t understand why, as it is completely transparent on why that device should be built.

    #82858
    Profile photo of AndreyMaslov
    AndreyMaslov
    Participant

    Exactly! My setup is perfectly matched with AR2412. Now with only 16 in DX168 I have to scratch my head which inputs (which wireless mics in my case) I have to relocate to local inputs to keep it the same. But all my antennas are on the stage, so it’s a real pain.

    #82866
    Profile photo of Rob
    Rob
    Participant

    I don’t know if it’s feasible with the technology, but I’d rather see a full-fat stage box physically based off the AR2412 with a GigaAce link to the SQ, an ME port, and a DX expander port.

    #83497
    Profile photo of alli
    alli
    Participant

    +1 I did a DX2412 stagebox request some time ago. Would be perfect.

    #83499
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    Yup DX2412 is THE product that needs to be made.

    24×12 @ 96k, running two maxes all I/O for the SQ-series format.

    This literally is the absolute perfect box for Allen & Heath to create.

    It is just so awkward to run 3 DX168…

    #83511
    Profile photo of TonmeisterDaniel
    TonmeisterDaniel
    Participant

    Two DX 24/12 would maybe max out the inputs of an sq console but it would still be lacking of outputs.

    Imagine you send 12 stereo iems and need more outputs for main lr and / or matrix mixes near the stage.

    I would like to see some expandable boxes with a customizable in and output factor plus the ability of aes outs

    #83522
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    dLive DX32

    maybe next firmware supports this…

    #83556
    Profile photo of guma
    guma
    Participant

    DX32 will be too expensive for most SQ users.

    #83571
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    DX32 is an incredibly expensive way of getting 24 in 8 out

    DX2412 is the ideal box to be made for the SQ series. I wish Allen & Heath would take this into consideration.

    The DX168 is just a weird product in size, racking, limited I/O causing a user to chain 3 of them (along with a DX Hub). I get why that product exists, but it really isn’t feasible for high input scenarios.

    #83573
    Profile photo of guma
    guma
    Participant

    Agree, for a higher input channel count it should be up to the users decision to work with a ‘one point stage box solution’ (2 × DX2412) near amp city + analog subsnakes or ‘distributed system’ (DXhub + 3 x DX168) or anything between.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.