CQ20-B remote control unit.

Forums Forums CQ Forums CQ feature suggestions CQ20-B remote control unit.

Tagged: ,

This topic contains 27 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Mike C Mike C 1 week, 3 days ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #116660
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    Just to add my 2p😉

    This post was originally about a remote control unit for the CQ20 and has spiralled a bit.
    Excuse the pedantry……
    A lot has been said about the “wall wart” but the CQ20 unit has an IEC socket, not an external psu. 😃

    I know Keith explained due to size constraints why the 12&18 have an external psu, makes sense to me.
    I was after a very compact unit Zed10 or Flow 8 size so CQ12 or 18 are perfect!
    External psu not a problem either as a third party psu could pull you out of a hole. (as it doesn’t have some weird proprietary socket)

    This could be a real boon to anyone using this mixer off grid.
    I do video work and all of a sudden a CQ12 or 18 becomes a very useful battery powered multi channel recorder.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if A&H added some sort of battery kit/adapter as an option.
    I have a Tascam 8ch unit and it’s priced not much less than a CQ12T. A Zoom equivalent is much more expensive.
    The Tascam unit is a bit user unfriendly tbh, but solid.
    I don’t know of any battery powered 18ch recorder out there now apart from the CQ18T👍🏻😃👍🏻

    I’m getting my Lipos charged and my soldering iron out!

    #116686
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    There is a clear difference between professional and hobby audio gear: the ability to expand channel counts and/or a deck’s sonic capture characteristics are desirable professional console attributes. These are two of the outstanding features of A&H’s previous entry level SQ deck and the fact that external power supplies are not required for any of A&H’s 24/96K desks other than two of the CQs.
    20 years ago I had a 24 channel analog A&H console with an external power supply that required two rack spaces. It was a pain in the ass to deal with and wall warts are a smaller version of the same inconvenience. I have and regularly deploy as many as six tube mics that all require external power supplies however there are several valid and specific important reasons they are required. (MY DX32 has a pair of internal hot-swappable power supplies: I guess this is the type of feature that can command a premium 4K price tag.)
    Several years ago I posted a long evaluation of the improved sonic quality the DX168 D-Live pres and converters offered over the standard SQ pres. more than two years ago after purchasing 8 prime pres and 8 prime outputs I confirmed A&H’s claim of unsurpassed world class detail and transparency with the primes pre-amps and 32 bit 96K converters. Nowhere in any of my many posts have I ever insinuated anything close to poor quality of the internal pres with the SQ or CQ, however they are a long way from A&H’s best options that, unlike the SQ, are not possible to deploy with the CQ. I am certain the CQs will find professional applications even with it’s hardware limitations. The bottom line is, in a real world evaluation as an entry level product, certain limitations were necessary to reach it’s price point. Most of the CQ line has a lower price point than a bank of 8 prime out puts, and it is half of the investment required to purchase a bank of 8 prime pre-amps: nuff said!
    Hugh

    #116694
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    The criteria you think that categorises equipment as professional is an opinion not shared by many here I’d guess.

    Calling the SQ “entry level” is just ridiculous.
    There are thousands of QU mixers out there earning a crust, so they’re “sub entry level” and not professional then either?😂😂😂

    I think you’re mixing “high end” & “professional”.

    There are £3k radio mics and the Shure SM58 for £100, by your reckoning the Shure isn’t professional?

    Billy does a job with a £40k setup.
    Jimmy does the same event the next year with a £100k setup.
    Was Billy not using professional equipment because Jimmy’s was more than twice as expensive?

    Anyway, I’m away back to real life for a bit – happy weekend everyone!😃👍🏻😃

    #116709
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Professional: “Engaged in a specific occupation for pay as the source of ones livelihood”
    Very few of the readers of these threads are actual professional practitioners however we may enjoy developing professional audio gear and related skills for a variety of reasons. A console, desk or deck is an vital tool in audio management and to that end it’s flexibility to meet the needs of various applications becomes very important. As previously stated the CQ will find some ancillary professional applications however it’s hardware limitations will not meet extended professional requirements.

    robbocurry might benefit from a close review of the audio digital revolution that has dominated the 21st century. Analog gear quickly became obsolete and generational digital processing development has left some gear less desirable. I gave my highly prized obsolete 24 channel A&H analog console to a small local church because the tax deduction was more beneficial than it’s secondary market value. My QU16 and QUsb I gave to my grandsons for their garage band endeavors because the outstanding 96K FPGA processing with the SQ5 was substantially better for my acoustic Americana music workflow. The QU16 and QUsb are certainly not obsolete, however they clearly are not as desirable as the SQ or new CQ line. Generational digital processing development is always reflected in softer secondary market value: it’s not a hardware limitation issue.

    The SQ line was the second and much lower price point FPGA 24/96K processing deck offered by A&H. At that point in time it was the entry level deck of that generation and when compared to Digico and D-Live price points it was, and still is
    the best quality/value available anywhere. The reason the SQ5 is more of a professional tool than the CQ is very obvious: hardware that offers expandable I/Os and real tactile motorized faders and layers.
    Hugh

    #116718
    Profile photo of willmodelisme
    willmodelisme
    Participant

    A bit haughty and pedantic point of view about professional users and their gear…

    #116719
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    TL;DR
    🥱
    40 years getting paid in the music business, I definitely don’t need a lecture as I’m an early adopter of most relevant technologies.

    #116740
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    There is absolutely nothing to be gained with a whizzing contest between happy CQ owners and my posted cautions pursuant to the CQ’s professional hardware limitations. My concerns have very little relevance to happy CQ users unless they develop future needs to expand their I/Os with additional and/or better pre-amps & converters or need to provide theater audio management that realistically requires actual motorized faders with layers.
    The dogmatic objection to my posts by some CQ owners does not refute the fact that the subject hardware limitations exist, thus denying certain desirable professional applications.
    Hugh

    #116746
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    @Hugh
    I think you’re just a wind up merchant.

    You’ve contradicted yourself by quoting this earlier:

    Professional: “Engaged in a specific occupation for pay as the source of ones livelihood”

    Therefore ANY equipment used as a tool in paid service could be deemed professional:)

    You may be operating with more expensive equipment but that doesn’t make cheaper gear “hobbiest”.

    When I want to drill a hole I’ll use a drill, not buy a saw then complain about it’s shortcomings!

    Anyone who buys a CQ12 and expects 20 channels or Dante is foolish, as it offers neither.

    Your perceived limitations aren’t limitations if you know what you’re buying and you buy what you need.

    #116751
    Profile photo of BigMerv
    BigMerv
    Participant

    @robbocurry

    +1 to what you say!

    He’s moving the goalposts.
    CQ has now been granted professional status even with it’s non existent hardware limitations!

    ” I am certain the CQs will find professional applications even with it’s hardware limitations.”
    HUGH CH5 ver 2-24

    #116785
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    @Hugh. Respectfully, I will have to agree to disagree with you on this particular thread.

    This post has become a bit of a rabbit hole and I’m not going any deeper!
    I’m sure you have better things to do too?

    For my part, I’ll lay off the caffeine before I visit here in future:)

    #117041
    Profile photo of Robert
    Robert
    Participant

    “Analog gear has become quickly obsolete”?

    Well, damn, I guess I better sell my APIs, SSLs and all those other nice analogue mic pre’s/EQs I own before the market crashes.

    #117045
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Pragmatically speaking the longer you wait to sell analog peripheral processing gear the greater the discount you can expect in the secondary market. High quality mics and speakers will always maintain strong market values because they have not been replaced with better options like the analog processing gear has experienced.
    Hugh

    #117047
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    Providing a “professional” service is first how the service is provided in a “professional” way and second is the equipment used to provide it.
    I have seen very professional equipment deployed but the providing of the actual service was a total cluster …K.

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.