Feedback assistant

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions Feedback assistant

This topic contains 8 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Tobi Tobi 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #114484
    Profile photo of tomos
    tomos
    Participant

    It would be great if you could do feedback assistant like in CQ for SQ, it could be used instead of GEQ.
    +1

    #114497
    Profile photo of Ma
    Ma
    Participant

    Would love to see the SQ finished and get a major update. +1 on this and getting a major update soon.

    #114617
    Profile photo of Paul T
    Paul T
    Participant

    Yes, Feedback assistant would be the great option to get add it in the SQ Series consoles.

    #120871
    Profile photo of kub
    kub
    Participant

    why?

    #120921
    Profile photo of Damon
    Damon
    Participant

    This would be fantastic.

    Especially if it were possible to use it as an insert on each input.

    The GEQs have fixed frequency sliders so if there’s feedback between 2 sliders you have to cut a lot more good sound out than with adjustable frequency. It also gets cut out of all the other inputs to that geq

    The adjustable frequencies on the PEQs are great but there’s only 4 and for feedback they could be narrower. Ok you can Send to a mix and get another 4 but then it’s either not on the input or you run out of auxes pretty quick.

    Even without the automatic function If you could have an 8 band peq with ultra narrow cuts as an insert on the inputs capable of operating at the same time as the standard 4 band peq that would be excellent.

    You could call it the surgical input feedback eq

    #121006
    Profile photo of Maxdrums
    Maxdrums
    Participant

    +1

    #121146
    Profile photo of Snrubel
    Snrubel
    Participant

    +1. Implement like in CQ.

    #121172
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    The feedback system discussion has been an ongoing debate for more than 20 years and as a long term practitioner of various devices to quell destructive looping (Feedback), I have experienced mixed success. Without question the best was the “SMAART JR.” that was available with my QU16: unfortunately the license expense was not acceptable for A&H to continue deploying this very simple, effective protocol. This is what I know;

    1) Filtering out obtrusive portions of the sonic field is in of itself a destructive process. Any way you cut it there is a direct relationship between the number of filters set and the amount of sonic field that is erased!
    2) The SMAART protocol is based on establishing a max of 4 customized PEQ filters. Beyond this application, external re-arrangements of stage monitoring and speaker stacks will need to be made.
    3) One of the prime culprits is un-attended (open) mics and to that end various automated features to kill open mics are available with an SQ5.

    There is a pragmatical reality of dealing with the ultra important initial placement of wedges, speaker stacks and mics. An in depth investment of time studying the various elements involved in room acoustical awareness and related sonic source placement factors is the best answer, not massive filtering!
    Hugh

    #121178
    Profile photo of Tobi
    Tobi
    Participant

    Thats Not Always possible.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.