Additional DEEP plugins from dLive 1.9 (Bus, Source Expanders)

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions Additional DEEP plugins from dLive 1.9 (Bus, Source Expanders)

This topic contains 15 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Scott Scott 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #103496
    Profile photo of dcarmich
    dcarmich
    Participant

    It would be useful to have some of the DEEP plugins from dLive 1.9 (especially the Bus compressor, OptTronik, and Source Expanders) available on the SQ.

    Are there plans to expand the DEEP plugin library on the SQ?

    #103498
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    +1 for an expander on the SQ

    #103510
    Profile photo of meerabeld69
    meerabeld69
    Participant

    +1 for an explain on the SQ

    #103529
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Once again requests for more sophisticated processing, that is available with D-Live desks, is advanced for the entry level FPGA SQ line. At some point we need to reconcile our mutual processing wants and needs: IMO most of us would like to have available all of D-Lives deep plug-ins. The question is are we willing to pay premium prices for premium processing? Another question that will need to be resolved is the ideal tactile controlling/processing surface for the outstanding DX32 loaded with “Prime I/Os” & DX168 expansion boxes. D-Live offers Stage boxes with internal processing and dedicated controllers providing their external tactile controls. IMO a dedicated processing controller for the DX expansion boxes would fit nicely within the A&H line of gear.
    It is my opinion the SQ5 does not need any substantial revisions: it stands alone as a world class sonic quality small footprint desk at an entry level price point. For those of us that are willing to pay for more processing bells and whistles additional choices would be nice if they were made available. Please remember small increases in sonic quality carry huge pricing ramifications. (a 16 Prime ins & 8 Prime outs with the DX32 module carry a street price point of apx $8,000. — 16ins & 8outs with a DX168 is apx $1,000.) The increase in detailed transparency will not be worth an 8 times greater investment to most of the SR market however up scale needs and wants exist: the fact is they are separate and apart from the entry level SQ5 market and need to be dealt with accordingly.
    Hugh

    #103530
    Profile photo of dcarmich
    dcarmich
    Participant

    If the SQ hardware can handle the processing load, I’d be willing to pay for the extra DEEP plugins.

    #103725
    Profile photo of Gregg Grey
    Gregg Grey
    Participant

    +1

    #103735
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    @Hugh

    It is my opinion the SQ5 does not need any substantial revisions

    Here I have to disagree. An expander is not an extra bell and whistle, it is a must have in live sound processing nowadays. I do not need extra super tooper premium preamps in live environments but I need a well filled toolbox to handle issues in sound processing. Of course, the SQ is not a console for high level festival usage, even orchestra work should be better done with other consoles. But for most of the bread and butter jobs for bands and small venue jobs, where the environment is not well designed and the acoustical treatment of the room is also not optimal. Then you need those tools.

    #103751
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    The over riding question that begs an answer is: If expansion processing is an essential element in live SR why did the #1 brand for live SR choose to not include it in their initial SQ line or as an optional purchase like the 5 comp Package? The SQ line is specifically designed to fit the very market needs Mfk0815 has identified in his post.
    I fully well understand how important various processing protocols can be to our specific work flows, however I have not found a need for “Expansion extension of the Dynamic range” In 50 years of running Live sound reinforcement. The primary reason is in my world of acoustic SR, detail and transparency of the actual performance is paramount and to that end judicious deployment of compressor plug ins work well enough to harness overshoots. Un-like much pop production, session ready musicians playing vintage instruments do not need expansion plug ins. We do however benefit greatly from the FPGA XCIV core processing and the wonderful D-live pres in the DX168.
    Rest assured, if expansion is as big of a deal in small venue SR as Mfk0815 contends A&H will offer it on some basis in the future.
    Hugh

    #103753
    Profile photo of ioTon
    ioTon
    Participant

    why did the #1 brand for live SR choose to not include it in their initial SQ line

    Mono Matrix?

    They need 2!! Updates to include Mono Matrix!
    With the first Software there was NO!!! possibility to get a Mono Sum of L+R Out of the console (ok, via a post aux-mix)

    I think 90% of all mixers on this earth support a Mono Sum.

    So why didn’t they include it from beginning?

    #103756
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    If expansion processing is an essential element in live SR why did the #1 brand for live SR choose to not include it in their initial SQ line or as an optional purchase like the 5 comp Package?

    That‘s a very good question, expanders are a common tool in live sound work to make a clean mix, something which cannot be done with a gate, the gate is a wrecking ball but the expander is a precise scalpell on the other hand. And expanders are available on so many consoles for decades.
    When you are doing a lot of acoustic SR, expanders will help you to clean the sound from unwanted bleeds right before the rest of the processing. And most of that signals have a lot of dynamic range, thats the reason why gates a worthless here. And when you work with compressors without using expanders before, the compressor will amplify the dirty bleed as well.
    So, my answer to your question is „I have no idea, why A&H missed to implement expanders from the very beginning“. maybe they do it to be somehow different, but makes this explanation more sense?

    #103761
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Mfk0815 has a strange concept of the basic principals of capturing acoustic music for either live SR or recording. The primary reason a Decca tree is an established protocol to capture an orchestra performance is to preserve the natural harmonic blend, “BlEED” of the individual instruments. This principal is also at work with the best acoustic ensembles, (from Bluegrass to Barbershop) and to this end a SQ5 and an appropriate expansion stage box (DX168 or DX32 loaded with Prime IOs) will work beautifully: This I know because it is what I do.
    Max separation is a genre specific chore that I know very little about: it apparently is where the expansion protocol renders the greatest benefit. I am certain A&H will address it if a real need is expressed by enough folks.
    Hugh

    #103772
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    Hmm, I think we talk about complete different use cases. But thats ok, in my use case with close miking, no distant stereo microphones, decca trees and stuff like that, the search of more gain before feedback, instruments with different levels and similar there an expander is essential. So, if you do not need expanders, fine for you. But there are others out there, like me, with other needs. Hopefully you can respect that needs of others.

    #103777
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    I try to be respectful of everyones working needs, however that does not mean I need to ignore the industry realities I observe. The most important element to sort out in this thread is the importance of max isolation and corresponding track separation in some work protocols and the gear it takes (bus,source expanders) to do that job Well. The reality is max isolation is required in very few genres: today, in high end live and recording performance, close micing is not preferred. Whether the individual DPAs one foot from the three tenors or the tube mics I deploy 1 foot from my singer/musicians the blend, when two mixed, is an essential element of the Acoustic genre where I work. I am not questioning anyones reasons for their go To protocol: however I do question the implied universal need of expanders to tame feedback in most musical genres. As I have mentioned in both of my previous posts in this thread, when and if A&H perceives a need to include expanders in any of their lines, they will be made available.
    Hugh

    #103790
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    I don‘t want to discuss your world of live sound reinforcement versus my world of it. So, let us end here. You have your opinion and I have mine. Thats ok for me.
    We will see whether there will be an expander available on the SQ in future. If it happens, you have to be careful. Otherwise you will accidently use it.

    #103808
    Profile photo of EJC
    EJC
    Participant

    Agreed that the Source Expander would be an extremely welcome addition. (So much so, that I have considered a hardware 545… as the full 5045 costs as much as an SQ console in the UK).

    Hugh, while I agree that it’s unnecessary in many acoustic styles, in Pop it’s becoming increasingly essential to reach the “hi-fi” standards that audiences are becoming used to.
    That’s not about the quality of the players; but more about the position of backline, size of stages, and volume of shouting audiences.

    While pop/rock music may indeed be “genre-specific” use cases, they’re hardly Niche markets… Personally I think it’s one of the tools within Premium desks that many users would get a lot of use from, were it to become an option on the SQ line!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.