Aux sends – Individual EQ/Compression per send channel

[tronious]

Right now it seems like the EQ and compression can only be applied to the entire aux.

Would be a great feature to adjust the send EQ on each channel or apply compression to only specific sends

So if I wanted to bring down the high’s on a guitar send, I could EQ that and not affect keys or vox or whatever else is sending to my ears

Same for compression. I might want to ONLY compress the box in my ears.

There are occasions where the

[Highflyer1953]

That is exactly what every A&H mixer does, right up to Avantis, (I think also DLive, but have never used one) so there is absolutely zero chance of such a strange adaption being added to CQ!

[tronious]

I’m not sure why you consider that a strange adaptation?

Can you elaborate why it’s strange? What am I missing

Why would it be strange to add this software capability to the CQ if the previous mixers supported it as you said? Unless you mistyped?

“This is exactly what every A&H mixer does…”

I can tell you from real world experience that it would absolutely be beneficial to myself and others in my band

[Brian]

It’s strange because the CQ series is literally A&H “budget” line. The features you requested are normally only found on high end consoles.

Highflyer was pointing out that this feature isn’t available on ANY A&H system currently. Of course with the larger consoles, most people have enough capacity and flexibility to double patch sources to two (or more) channels and then apply different EQ and compression to each channel as needed. However even that is a work around because A&H hasn’t implemented the ability to channel EQ/Compression/gates on a per channel per buss output on any of their consoles.

To give you an example of how rare this feature really is on a console, Digico only introduced “Nodal Processing” (the name they have given to this feature) on their newest Quantum consoles. The least expensive Quantum console starts at around $40,000 USD and that’s without a stage box. Nodal processing isn’t even available on the SD series consoles which have been used by major touring acts for years.

I think it goes without saying that the odds of A&H implementing this feature on the CQ series is ZERO.

[SQuser]

Another addition:

> What am I missing
The finite processing power.
If your CQ has (at least) 17 inputs and 7 outputs, you would suddenly need 119 EQs + comps instead of only 17.
A SQ with 48 channels and 13 mixes would need 624 EQs + comps for this function.
With an Avantis we would then have over 2000.
And so on.

[tronious]

I write computer software for a living. I understand what goes into it.

You’re assuming everyone would usecall inputs and all processors at once.

I also understand that because it’s software, components are written as reusable components.

If A&H came back and said (yeah we simply dont have the CPU to do it.. we don’t have enough memory to handle it) I’d buy it but they wouldn’t say that because you can easily manage that.

With everything there are trade-off’s.

When you write software you set limits for users. No reason the software cannot take into account a max number of allowed processors and say “sorry, you want the FX send? You’ll have to disable something.

As far as it being a “budget” mixer I disagree.

Last firmware update they added groups and a few other bells and whistles.

If they’re smart enough to engineer this thing they can handle the processing.

You seem to be one of thosendolks who likes to get into back and forths over the Internet so I won’t engage you.

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote.

A&H it’s a good idea. Hire me, I’ll help you write it.

[Highflyer1953]

I meant that CQ is just like all other A&H mixers, I work with all A&H up to Avantis, and have a friend who has just moved from SD9 to Quantum (DiGiCo) to get more processing power!

[SQuser]

@tronious

I’m sorry if I offended you with my post.
I couldn’t see that you were a programmer and hadn’t missed the additional processing power required.
Let’s hope that A&H accepts your offer and can therefore incorporate your idea into the product range.

[KeithJ A&H]

@tronious

Well yeah, the FPGA fabric is finite.
For stability/reliability, speed of workflow, audio quality and coherency reasons, the way all our digital consoles work is that all the processing is there ready to be used at all times and bypassed (with compensation) if not in use.
We have no plans to assign processing on an ad hoc basis, this has been done by others and the feedback is that most engineers hate it. I guess because at the point they want to do one more thing, they find they’ve run out. Or you can get into situations where the system is more stressed part way through a show and suddenly falls over.

So although I think everyone would agree it would be great to have this option, it’s never going to happen on the CQ.

It’s not a bad idea, which is exactly why you’ll find it on the high end DiGiCo’s. As things progress and everything becomes more powerful, we’ll no doubt see it on products like the CQ at some point.
Just not yet!

Thanks,
Keith.

[Smilzo]

I like to chime in, very interesting… lets keep away from additional sends on demand and talk more in general!

[quote]For stability/reliability, speed of workflow, audio quality and coherency reasons, the way all our digital consoles work is that all the processing is there ready to be used at all times and bypassed (with compensation) if not in use.[/quote]
Using only a fraction of ins/outs it’s a waste of processing power, that is 99,9% of user utilization (I’ve never seen all input and output used all the time, at least a couple of ins are used as backup/emergency channels!). Analog mixer, that have limited resource, often offer a group of mic input, a group of line input (with less processing), and a group with no processing. It’s a clever solution.

[quote]We have no plans to assign processing on an ad hoc basis, this has been done by others and the feedback is that most engineers hate it. I guess because at the point they want to do one more thing, they find they’ve run out. Or you can get into situations where the system is more stressed part way through a show and suddenly falls over.[/quote]
Your points are very valid, but there are other points on the opposite side.
Imagine a firmware with “bare channels” and “advance channel”. The bare have just simple eq and sends. The advance could have some “slot” for user fx (compression, gate, overdrive, delay, reverb). When all bare channel are loaded, the processing power is x% (say 50%). If you add an fx to a slot, the firmware could add the cpu utilization and give us a meter. Simply as a DAW, with more controlled condition.

[quote]Would be a great feature to adjust the send EQ on each channel or apply compression to only specific sends[/quote]
Nice, but unreal and a nightmare to adjust! What in real life happens is that a musicians want eq adjustment on his/her monitor/in ears. I find such a request could be done splitting input on two channels, one for main stage one for monitors.

Back to send on demand.

[quote]When you write software you set limits for users. No reason the software cannot take into account a max number of allowed processors and say “sorry, you want the FX send? You’ll have to disable something.[/quote]
The matrix(s) (input, outs, sends, groups) should be always usable. Something like fx user slots in each channel to add fx until max cpu level is reached (Warning: max cpu utilization, no more fx slot!)

[Brian]

[quote]For stability/reliability, speed of workflow, audio quality and coherency reasons, the way all our digital consoles work is that all the processing is there ready to be used at all times and bypassed (with compensation) if not in use.[/quote]
Using only a fraction of ins/outs it’s a waste of processing power, that is 99,9% of user utilization (I’ve never seen all input and output used all the time, at least a couple of ins are used as backup/emergency channels!). Analog mixer, that have limited resource, often offer a group of mic input, a group of line input (with less processing), and a group with no processing. It’s a clever solution.

Allen and Heath does this primarily so they can automatically calculate latency and keep it consistent through the console whether or not you have a specific “thing” turned on or not. This is how they have decided to handle latency through ALL of their digital consoles and I doubt they are going to move away from that philosophy any time soon.

[Smilzo]

[cite]Allen and Heath does this primarily so they can automatically calculate latency and keep it consistent through the console whether or not you have a specific “thing” turned on or not. This is how they have decided to handle latency through ALL of their digital consoles and I doubt they are going to move away from that philosophy any time soon. [/cite]

I like this feature, it should be maintained.
There’s no difference between actual fx shared one-slot and user slot. If i don’t use a slot, there’s a compensation. So all as usual…!

I give you and example. If I don’t use compression in a channel, but I need more eq band, I could change the fx slot from compression to peq. So I have 2 serial peq.

PS: I refer to user slot, not changing the flow or adding several sends. User friendly and consistent approach, despite minor tweakability, IMO is the way to go for this kind of device. 🙂

[Author]

Posts