Forums › Forums › SQ Forums › SQ feature suggestions › Channel to Matrix (Matrix Fed Subs)
This topic contains 11 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
2018/07/07 at 7:46 pm #72462
I would love to see the option “channel to matrix” in the future. Because of the missing Mono Bus of the console it would be great to have this feature for feeding subs independently from the LR Bus. I know i could do a workaround with assigning the channel to a group and then to a matrix but it would cost me one aux.
It would be not a great deal to implement it, or am i wrong??
Greetz from a happy sq-6 user.
2018/07/07 at 9:41 pm #72464Why not just use a group without matrix?
2018/07/08 at 10:01 am #72471Hey Daniel,
I would love to see the option “channel to matrix” in the future.
afaik this shows a missunderstanding of the concept of “matrix” in a live console. Matrix busses are set apart from groups or other mix busses, because they are purposely limited to sub-mixes of existing mix busses. As such, “channel to matrix” would defeat the purpose of matrix busses. If you want such functionality, a group or a mix bus can offer it. If you don’t have enough mix busses, the console might not be right for you 🙂
2018/07/08 at 5:49 pm #72475I don’t think I misunderstood something.
There are desks available where you can send a channel to a matrix. On a modern digital desk I don’t think a matrix has to be limited for sub mixes.
In addition to a matrix fed subwoofer it would give us the opportunity to send a single or more tracks to a different zone f.e. during cooperate shows.
It also eats one of my 12 auxes.
Why should it be the wrong desk for me when mostly everything else about it perfectly fits my needs.
This is a suggestion forum where users can suggest future features, isn’t it?
2018/07/08 at 6:41 pm #72476Well then you need one more aux bus, don’t you? Matrix stands for mix of mixes.
2018/07/08 at 6:46 pm #72478Hmm, and why A&H introduced the input to matrix routing possibility with 1.70 for the dLive? Hmm, hmm, hmmm. What‘s ok for the dLive should also be ok for the SQ imho.
2018/07/08 at 8:25 pm #72480I have no problem with input to matrix. It can be useful now and then. But for the situation described I see no reason why not to use just a geoup instead of a matrix and route this group to an output instead of the mains.
2018/07/09 at 7:33 am #72489I don’t think I misunderstood something.
It also eats one of my 12 auxes.
Well, maybe I missunderstood something. From where I stand, having different functions in a product is only a good idea, if they have different functionality. A matrix bus which allows for any input signal to be routed to it does no longer differ from an aux bus (if it does, and I might have overlooked something here, please tell me) and thus this makes no sense to me. Why should I have two functions which are named differently but essentially behave the same? If you need more auxes, then that’s what you should look for.
On a totally different note: I can see how this functionality would help and I would probably use it, if the console offered it to me. But I would rather see A&H bump the number of auxes up and keep the matrix as a different function and bus type.
2018/07/16 at 2:35 pm #72704Yamaha first introduced the “super matrix” which is able to accept mixes, mains, and individual channels to form the ‘matrix’. Google “yamaha M7 super matrices.” dLive now has this same feature.
To be perfectly honest, audio consoles in this era should have all inputs & outputs matrixable. There’s no reason this isn’t doable with modern FPGA’s of sufficient size.
Limiting users based upon the expected target market is silly. Max IO & features should determine target market; not capabilities within those constraints.
—
To answer the question, you can send a single channel to the matrix (look at the input socket); this is NOT phase aligned with any matrixed sends though. Thus it is only useful for one single input. And the SQ does not have the ‘super matrix’ feature that dLive or Yamaha M7+ has.
2018/07/17 at 4:47 am #72724There’s no reason this isn’t doable with modern FPGA’s of sufficient size.
It looks like the Qu series uses DSPs, not an FPGA.
Limiting users based upon the expected target market is silly. Max IO & features should determine target market; not capabilities within those constraints.
Mm yep it is silly. Especially when the lower end product uses the same hardware as the higher end version; then you hear stories of people soldering in a jumper to unlock the features of the high-end version. Discount/free upgrade.
2018/07/17 at 6:41 pm #72753Ryan,
Not sure what you’re getting at with the Qu series comment. As this is the SQ subforum. I get the supermatrix not working for Qu/cheap/hardware limited consoles. But FPGA’s? meh, everything is on the table IMO.
Are you referencing accessing extra CUDA cores in the NVIDIA 770 (iirc) via hacked firmware? Cuz I remember those days 🙂
2018/07/17 at 8:18 pm #72760Heh, that was a derp moment. I thought I saw Qu in one of the posts earlier. Not sure how much of the FPGA the SQ uses, but it’s possible they are bumping up against limits on resource utilization or routing difficulties; but one would hope that they have enough extra capacity for large future updates.
Yea, also oscilloscopes, which one company in particular has been making “free upgrades” easier to do to their own product.
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
