Control surface for use with Qu-SB?

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Control surface for use with Qu-SB?

This topic contains 13 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of [XAP]Bob [XAP]Bob 3 years, 12 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #62860
    Profile photo of Scott S
    Scott S
    Participant

    Has anyone used any particular hardware control surface as a remote for Qu-SB or Qu-Pac? Just wondering how possible that is. I’m just realizing that since I have an AB-168 (mostly to remote my preamps to stage so I can have the Qu-16 at FOH, I could for fairly reasonable money get a Qu-SB and expand to 32 mic inputs and more mixes and functionality. Not sure I’m ready to give up physical faders, though.

    #62861
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    I have used a BCF2k to provide me with 8 faders – and a RasPi, running android, with a touchscreen monitor and Mixing Station Pro loaded – this gave me a way to have layers on the BCF2k, and use the other controls as well.

    More complex Midi devices would also work (MIDI/USB supported by Mixing Station)

    I’d like to be able to (ab)use a QU16 in that role

    #62862
    Profile photo of Scott S
    Scott S
    Participant

    The thought had occurred to me to try and use the Qu-16 as a glorified control surface in DAW Control mode or something.

    I have Mixing Station Pro on an Android tablet…I’ll have to check out the hardware connectivity options. That’s starting to sound a bit hacky, though. I was thinking more along the lines of an actual MCU or equivalent from Presonus or Behringer. I guess we don’t have MCU compatibility, though.

    Thanks for the input.

    #62864
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    USB isn’t particularly hacky, OTG will work from a tablet (though you lose power input)

    #62866
    Profile photo of Dick Rees
    Dick Rees
    Participant

    Scott…

    I felt the same way about shifting from the phsical surface to using an iPad. Now that there are THREE custom layers, I find I actually prefer using the remote app. I think you’ll find the options for a physical-faderd remote to be 10x as cumbersome as the Qu-pad app and the connctivity more of a kludge…or maybe not.

    I think if you try the Qu-pad, you’ll be like a duck in water.

    #62868
    Profile photo of Scott S
    Scott S
    Participant

    I regularly use the Qu-Pad app for when I’m running sound for others, and yes, get along with it just fine…but when on stage playing I feel more comfortable and am faster with faders to grab. I may just bite the bullet and deal with it…or just continue to use the Qu-16 when I’m in those situations. I don’t need the extra input channels for anything I play in, but it would be awesome to have the additional FX returns and groups without having to burn mix outputs for FX returns 3 & 4 as I do with the Qu-16.

    Do you find that the extra custom layers make it easier to use the Qu-Pad app, or do you mean it makes it MORE cumbersome to use the physical mixer?

    Again, thanks for the input.

    #62869
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    If you’re on Qu-Pac/SB just for the output sockets, please note that you only get group and matrix outputs from a dSnake box. The Qu-Pac/SB itself only provides the same 10 Mix sockets as the Qu16 does.
    But, yes, the Qu-Pac/SB provide four FX units instead of 2 on Qu16, if that’s the goal.

    #62870
    Profile photo of Scott S
    Scott S
    Participant

    Right, and as noted in the original post, I already have an AB-168, which makes the incremental cost to get those additional inputs, buses, and outputs fairly attractive.

    #62873
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Where are you based, you look to have most of the kit required for a test

    #62875
    Profile photo of Scott S
    Scott S
    Participant

    Just outside of Kansas City, Missouri, in the US. A test of what?

    #62881
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    I have had my QU Pac for just about a year and for 95% of what I do I do not miss faders. For the series of school class plays I do I did bring out my GL2400 this year.

    I have installed four QU series boards and during the install I mentioned that the Qu Pad App was actually as easier way to operate the board, after following up with the operators at those installs all agreed that I was right and said they rarely even touch the board. I installed QU Pacs at two funeral homes and for them they use the Q Control
    presets I set up on their phones and iPads as much if not more than the full QU pad App.

    #62882
    Profile photo of Scott S
    Scott S
    Participant

    I’ve tried to reply twice, and it hasn’t shown up yet [XAP]Bob, I don’t know what “test” you’re referring to. I’m dead in the middle of Midwest US.

    #62883
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    For any strange reason the forum scanner interpreted that post as spam, I’ve just made it visible.

    #62885
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Anyone here have a BCF2k in that area?

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.