feature request: copying source to another channel digitally

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu feature suggestions feature request: copying source to another channel digitally

This topic contains 18 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of  Anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #43713
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    Mervaka. I agree. I read all these posts and have to wonder. I especially get frustrated at the ones who look at the QU as a full fledged full service digital recording console. I spent a fortune for stuff over the years that came no where close to what it does. And recording is a lot different than live sound. I think AH built it first as a live sound mixer with some recording features. Not the other way around. I am sure there are those that will disagree.

    #43716
    Profile photo of dcongdon
    dcongdon
    Participant

    Same sentiments here. The QU and GLD serve different purposes and the features separate them for a reason. The A&H product lines are broken down by i/o and flexibility. Some elements are shared (FX, dsnake, ME-1, preamps, etc.), but they are fundamentally different platforms. This debate has as much to do with what the QU/GLD CAN do and what they SHOULD do. It is in A&H’s best interest (and yours) that each series have specific boundaries. It protects product value and hardware longevity.

    For QU owners looking for more flexibility, I see the value in a smaller GLD (rackmount) mixer that offers expanded i/o and flexibility. It would come with a price increase, but that should be expected. I think it would be great to have a rackmount GLD starting around the price of the QU32. It would give potential buyers the option to choose between platforms. Either buy-in at the top of the QU series or start with the bottom of the GLD series and expand later.

    I don’t sense there is a large number of QU users who want to ditch the QU platform for something more advanced like the GLD. The Qu is built to be simple and straightforward…add too many features and it will lose a niche in the market. We all have our opinion about where the line is between “simple” and the “next level” (typically, it is determined by our workflow/comfort level). I just think some Qu owners are ready to move up to the GLD but choose not to because the price jump between the 2 series is so large. I think that is unfortunate.

    Of course, that brings us back to GCumbee’s comments. The digital mixer market is offering features at a price point that was unheard of even 5 years ago. We all benefit from the market trends, but I’m not sure if manufacturers will be able to maintain the current pace for long. For those who have been in the game longer, I imagine the frenzy is alarming. New operators are entering the industry expecting features to be added for free in quarterly firmware updates. At some point, we will all need to adjust our expectations when the market stabilizes and the pace slows down… and when the time comes, we’ll have a better idea of which product line has both the features we want AND the build quality to last. So far, I’ve been impressed with our A&H products and expect them to perform well for years to come.

    Quickly, in response to Bob, I think the difference between setting up 2 faders from a single source vs. setting up 2 scenes is negligible. It really comes down to workflow and familiarity with using scenes. I can understand your preference, but saying one is “simple” and implying the other is complicated isn’t completely accurate.

    #43717
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Focal Audio:
    It depends how many other scenes you are using, the two are both valid approaches – My issue is more that you lose any “live” tweaks you make to the vocal channel between each use if you use scenes.

    Personally I don’t think that a “Preamp copy” function would be that computationally expensive – although as I’ve pointed out before I don’t have insight into the architecture of the QU (depending on the architecture it might be much more expensive if it crosses an 8 channel boundary for instance) – and would therefore be a relatively “cheap” feature to add for those who would rather do things that way round.

    Generally:
    The QU is insanely powerful, and an excellent desk. People have different ways of working with them, and that’s what feature requests are for 😉
    One thing I liked about the Mackie site is that they have a sort of “vote for features” list (where you have 5 votes or some such) and that means there is a pretty exhaustive list of things people have asked for – and an idea of how many people are looking for that feature. Makes it easy to not repeat requests, as well as giving people an idea if they are the only person banging on about a particular feature they think would be awesome…

    The thing that *I* would have liked to have seen in the QU series when I made the purchase was a separation between the control surface and the i/o – I’d love an AR box, but can’t justify the cost when it basically means I’m buying (more than) half the desk all over again. A QU16r (r for remote) with just a Talkback, PAFL and maybe ST3 input locally would have been top of my list with an AR(something). As it is the iPad remote control now functions as my main control surface for my regular gigs, it’s only when I’m doing something that I consider risky/different that I’ll keep the console off the stage.
    Going to an iLive was never an option in terms of cost, and actually the QU contains everything required, just drop the preamps and internal routing options to save cost on the desk, then don’t punch the holes in the case… It might be of course that the saving I imagine from that setup isn’t realistic.

    #43719
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Well said, Focal. Thx for elaborating.

    To other forum members: I too think it is reasonable to say “just buy the features you need”. But at the moment there is often not the possibility of such a decision. If you need direct USB multitrack recording, for example, and you want a rack format hardware interface… Well, what are the options? If you then also need HPF’s on the auxes, or a keyed gate… the only hope is the mixer you invested in gets upgraded. I would have been ready to pay 1000€ more for a SiEx1 with a direct USB multitrack recording card. That mixer has everything I need or want including a very nice user interface. But then I’d have to always take a laptop with me what I definitely don’t want. Therefore I chose the Qu which is also good, and has four full parametric EQ bands. Everything else is better on the SiEx1 from my point of view (I don’t do home studio work).

    I’m happy with my decision for the Qu only if I can keep the hope for some small features to come in the future. If I knew they would never come, I’d just be waiting for the next rack size mixer with direct USB multitrack recording to switch.

    So, I’m one of those Focal wrote about, who are willing to upgrade. There is just no buying upgrade path in my case. The only upgrade path at the moment is the manufacturer upgrading the software. It would be even useful if there would be a software-only upgrade path with features being sold. Then I could live with the tiny lighted and all-same-color LR/FX/mix buttons in the Qu (this is something that bothers me everytime) and would invest in a better firmware for my needs or wishes.

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.