DX32 and Stage Box Options

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions DX32 and Stage Box Options

This topic contains 5 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Art Art 3 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #69096
    Profile photo of D.J.
    D.J.
    Participant

    I continue to see references to a DX32 stage box, specifically when reading about the forthcoming DX Hub : DX Hub*
    4 DX Link ports for connection to DX Expanders
    Allows single cable connection between FoH and stage
    Locking etherCON connectors
    Compatible with DX32, DX168 and DX164 audio expanders
    32×32 audio channels (96kHz) per DX Link port
    Freestanding or 19” rack-mounted operation
    Optional rack mount kit

    However, there is no product information on a DX32 stage box that I can find anywhere. Is this a forthcoming product? If so, what is the anticipated launch timeframe? I ask because I really need to get to 32 inputs and 16 outputs on stage, and I currently have an AR2412 that has served me nicely for several years. I would love to make the jump to 96K and get the additional inputs at the same time if possible, so I don’t just want to go buy an AB168 and tack it on to the AR2412 if a new all-in-one option is on the way. Honestly, I would simply add an AR84 to the rack but the list of configurations that will work with my SQ6 and the latest firmware 1.1 don’t include that one. Supported daisy-chain unit for the AR2412 are listed as the AB168. Could someone from A&H confirm that with the current firmware, I can connect my AR2412 to the S-Link port, and then daisy-chain to an AR84? And more importantly, is there a DX32 on the way, and if so when? Thanks for any help and advice!

    #69098
    Profile photo of lightingman117
    lightingman117
    Participant

    DX32 is a dLive product. It’s not hard to find in the dLive section > dLive menu > products > dx expansion.

    V1.2 coming out soon* weeks/month for the SQ *should* enable DX32/DX Hub usage.

    http://www.allen-heath.com/media/DX-System-Guide-ISS_1.pdf

    DX32

    #69108
    Profile photo of D.J.
    D.J.
    Participant

    I have seen the DX32 “Expander”, but it only has slots for four cards that can have 8 inputs or outputs each. That means best-case scenario I get 16 ins and 16 outs, not 32 ins and 16 outs. I was hoping for a simple DX32 rack mount unit (like the AR2412) that was 96K with 32 ins and 16 outs all in one unit. The only way to get this now is to buy a GigaAce card for the SQ6 (don’t even know the cost or when they will be available) and then connect to a CDM32 dLive stage box, which costs a whopping $7000US by the way! No thank you on that price for the level of work I do. It looks like my only 96K option is to buy two DX168 units (one rack mounted and one on the floor), which completely sucks because you have to pay an arm and a leg for the rack mount kit and it takes up 4 rack spaces!! (The AR2412 only takes up 3). Not only that, but you then have to run a separate power cable out to the second DX168 on the floor in addition to the CAT5 cable= major PITA. I’m just looking for a 32 X 16 rack-mount stage box that isn’t a $7000 dollar investment. I would gladly pay $2500US for a box like that, which is almost double what the AR2412 costs. Hopefully the guys at A&H are listening and have something in the works; I can’t be the only one with this problem/wish!

    On a completely separate note from the stagebox gripe, I absolutely LOVE the SQ6 as a board; it is an upgrade to my Qu-32 that I have had for several years. Basically all the extra features and functionality I had wished the Qu-32 had were answered with the SQ6. The only thing I wish it had was a built-in feedback rejection engine/filter (like the DBX AFS) that could be applied to any and all mixes. But since I can now use external hardware as inserts (BRILLIANT AND THANK YOU, A&H!!!), it is kind of a moot point (although I would still love to save the extra rack spaces). GREAT JOB ON THE SQ6 A&H!!!

    #69110
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    In my usually cynical way I will ask how important is 96k to you? For live I just don’t think it’s a game changer one way or the other. There are so many factors going on. Do you really think you or anyone else would hear any difference? I owned and operated a commercial Nashville studio for many years. We went through the old 24bit vs 16 arguments. The 44.1 vs 48k arguments. I’ve heard it all. Bottom line is I had some of the greatest musicians and engineers come through my place and never had anyone say they HAD to have 96K to do their work. In fact many major labels had us recording at 16bit/44.1k to not have to do conversions for CD. It was never an issue. Not one person ever said ‘I can hear you’re recording at 16/44.1. Not once.
    I think this is mainly hype and really unnecessary. If you can do it fine but it’s not a deal breaker by any means. There are plenty of solutions for you to accomplish 32/16. I do it all the time and it sounds great.

    #69122
    Profile photo of D.J.
    D.J.
    Participant

    You are absolutely correct in that there is no “need” for 96K, per se. As you stated, no band is coming to me and demanding 96K for the shows I engineer; it is more a personal desire to stay current, be able to offer it if it ever is asked for, and keep the resale value of the rig up. All that being said (if I completely give up on the 96K thing), I would still like to know if I can connect an AR84 to my current AR2412 successfully, as that would obviously give me what I am looking for in the way of inputs and outputs. The “Supported SLink Connections” document does not cover this exact configuration, however. I am assuming that since an AR2412 to AB168 IS supported that I would be able to go from an AR2412 to an AR84, but would like someone from A&H (or other user who has successfully used this configuration) to chime in and let me know.

    #69123
    Profile photo of Art
    Art
    Participant

    In my usually cynical way I will ask how important is 96k to you? For live I just don’t think it’s a game changer one way or the other. There are so many factors going on. Do you really think you or anyone else would hear any difference? I owned and operated a commercial Nashville studio for many years. We went through the old 24bit vs 16 arguments. The 44.1 vs 48k arguments. I’ve heard it all. Bottom line is I had some of the greatest musicians and engineers come through my place and never had anyone say they HAD to have 96K to do their work. In fact many major labels had us recording at 16bit/44.1k to not have to do conversions for CD. It was never an issue. Not one person ever said ‘I can hear you’re recording at 16/44.1. Not once.
    I think this is mainly hype and really unnecessary. If you can do it fine but it’s not a deal breaker by any means. There are plenty of solutions for you to accomplish 32/16. I do it all the time and it sounds great.

    Remember all of those concerts we went to in the 90’s and the 2k’s that were mixed on digital boards in 96kHz and sounded fantastic? Me neither. But they did sound terrific nonetheless.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.