DX168 outputs vs SQ6 outputs

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions DX168 outputs vs SQ6 outputs

This topic contains 7 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of SteffenR SteffenR 2 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #111639
    Profile photo of FitzroyChris
    FitzroyChris
    Participant

    The DX168 input preamps are a well-known significant improvement over those on the native SQ6; is there the same comparison for the analog outputs on both? In our church we drive balanced outs to the FOH speaker processor and the stream mix direct from desk; would we hear an improvement using the DX168 outs? I’ve not seen any comparisons….

    #111659
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Given the fact that the DX168 is a D-Live expansion stage box it would be totally inconsistent for it it have lower level quality out put amps. It is important to understand the small measurable functional difference between the D-Live I/O s VxS the SQ’s internal I/Os. It is most apparent with the small increased amount of DBs that will be available for FOH distribution. IMO the difference is due to improved detailed transparency that lowers the system noise floor, and this is even more evident with the A&H “Prime I/Os” that reach a new world class level of sonic console clarity delivery. They are available at this point only with a DX32 enclosure.
    I have and use both a DX168 for live FOH distribution and a Prime loaded DX32 that I deploy mostly for studio recording activities. Matching up the I/Os with the sonic quality of your gear to be deployed down the capture and delivery chain is extremely important. There are also various venue & or stage noise floor levels that are well beyond our ability to remediate. Generally speaking the DX168 I/Os should provide a little bit better sonic capture than the internal SQ’s I/Os for any system be it for live SR or recording in the studio.
    Hugh

    #111722
    Profile photo of iandrewc
    iandrewc
    Participant

    Interesting, I never gave a thought that the preamps and such would actually be better in our GX4816 since it’s also part of the d-live line. I guess I should really move our system output from the SQ itself down to the GX4816 outputs.

    #111727
    Profile photo of Dave Meadowcroft
    Dave Meadowcroft
    Participant

    I’ve never noticed a difference with outputs, but there’s a perceptible difference with inputs. Not better or worse, just different. I prefer the GX/Dx ins personally.

    #120597
    Profile photo of MBJ
    MBJ
    Participant

    I was wondering the same thing. Our PA is used for Playback 7 days a week but Bands maybe once a month. Don’t want to keep the GX4816 powered on all the time just to use 2 outputs so presently we are using SQ6 Local Out 11,12 to PA. Would I benefit anything by using the GX outputs instead of SQ6 Local Outputs?

    #120599
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    What kind of PA system?

    #120602
    Profile photo of MBJ
    MBJ
    Participant

    EV ETX 18SP Subs EV ETX 12P Tops

    #120605
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    You have other problems than the last 3% quality gain on the DX/GX outputs.
    Latency with the FIR filtering

      could

    be one. Quality loss on long cables could be higher too.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.