GX-2412 w/DX and ME expansion ports

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions GX-2412 w/DX and ME expansion ports

This topic contains 10 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Hugh Hugh 1 month, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #108116
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    I would love to see the AR-2412 form-factor receive a 96k upgrade!

    For portable use the 2412 is a perfect size, and if it also had the ability to directly run MEs and/or DX boxes like the GX-4816, that would be a huge bonus! The GX-4816 is great for installs, and good for bigger stages but a GX-2412 would be the ideal companion in portable rigs along with DX-168s.

    #108119
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    Yes, indeed, that would be a no-brainer for some of us…

    #108172
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Scott has advanced a very important expansion gear suggestion that would increase all on stage I/Os and monitoring options. I am fully aware of todays impossible manufacturing bottle necks that have created delivery delays that are unacceptable. However these problems will not last forever and good relevant ideas need to be incorporated in the current A&H advanced planning. The DX expansion stage boxes have pretty much become the go to high quality pro stage protocol: to this end a dedicated processing controller for the DX expansion line is a no brainer.

    The SQ5/DX168 combo has awakened a significant share of the performance SR market and the past reluctance to buy into the A&H brand has pretty much evaporated. At the core of the market shift is the unquestioned sonic quality of the DX168 with D-Live I/Os and the DX32 loaded with the new “Prime I/Os”. They deserve a comprehensive dedicated processing controller that should have a similar, stellar market appeal.
    Hugh

    #108424
    Profile photo of Yann
    Yann
    Participant

    +1 for anything that comes with rack mount ears!

    #108555
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    The GX4816 is a pretty unique and useful product in the A&H “Everything I/O” lineup. There really isn’t another option out there that allows both DX and ME expandability at the same time. I could definitely see where it would be useful to see GX boxes with various levels of physical I/O along with the DX and ME expandability.

    #108559
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    There apparently is uniform agreement about this request: making it rather unique for any forum discussion. Perhaps Keith could provide us with likely architectural form factors problems that may prevent, or greatly complicate, the requested ancillary connectivity in future offerings.
    Hugh

    #108560
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    @Hugh

    Sure! Happy to jump in.

    I can see how a GX2412-size/type expander would be a useful addition to many smaller or portable setups.
    If it worked in a similar way to the existing GX4816, the only issues I can see would be around how the 128×128 available GX signals are split up. With the GX4816 for example, the first 64 inputs and 64 outputs are used by the onboard sockets (48/16) and the ME system (0/40). There are then two 32×32 DX ports to take up the second 64×64.
    With 24/16 on board sockets then, there would a ‘loss’ of 40 possible input channels if only two DX ports were offered. However, a third port would mean that there wouldn’t be enough output channels available for the ME system…

    A bigger consideration is cost. It wouldn’t be as low as half the cost of a GX4816 and would be more than double the cost of a DX168, due to the base costs before you get to the sockets/preamps/conversion of the former and the extra tech required (gigabit networking, port handling, SRC) over the latter. So for argument’s sake let’s say it’s 3/4 of the price of a GX4816… For some, I presume it might then be more attractive to get double the input channel count and all the expansion features for 30% extra or indeed a higher channel count but without the expansion features for less!

    To be clear, I’m not saying it would never happen, just that there are obviously lots of things to consider.

    What would be really useful to let us know is whether there is a consensus on why the suggested format would be so useful. Is it mostly about the use of the ME system alongside GX/DX preamps or is it about cost vs required channel count or is it all about portability?

    Cheers,
    Keith.

    #108566
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    With the GX4816 for example, the first 64 inputs and 64 outputs are used by the onboard sockets (48/16) and the ME system (0/40). There are then two 32×32 DX ports to take up the second 64×64.

    Now I understand why any attached DX box starts at channel 65 when connected to a GX4816. I never considered the 40 output that the ME system requires as being added to the 16 outs of the GX box (making a total of 56 of the 64 available). That makes perfect sense why the DX expanders start at channel 65.

    Personally I think one of the primary reasons to suggest a smaller box is the potential for a smaller form factor. 5U is pretty large – especially when combined with other gear (like a power conditioner, etc). A 3U version may be very well received even if the price isn’t 1/2 that of the GX4816. Rack space and weight are a consideration for touring/mobile scenarios.

    #108568
    Profile photo of Dave Meadowcroft
    Dave Meadowcroft
    Participant

    I can see the potential for this, although personally I don’t think I would have a use for it.

    I would have thought for portable/touring applications (ignoring ME) a 1U DX160 or a 2U DX1616 would be great. All power and network connections at the rear and XLRs on the front. With DX1616 all patching would be sequential which would be very intuitive (and you could actually achieve the theoretical 128×128 with 8 and a DX Hub!).

    #108577
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    What would be really useful to let us know is whether there is a consensus on why the suggested format would be so useful. Is it mostly about the use of the ME system alongside GX/DX preamps or is it about cost vs required channel count or is it all about portability?

    For my use both the added channel count and the ability to use the ME systems without running a separate ethernet from the console would be great.

    There are many times while using the DX-168 that I need just 1 or 2 more inputs (or outputs), so I use another DX-168. IMO a single 24×12 would be much more convenient than adding another box. The 48×16 is a bit too big in my truck, where space is prime. 🙂

    #108579
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Thank you Keith for the cogent, thorough explanation of the complications involved with a 24 channel version. The ME port would be convenience feature some folks will welcome but not on my wish list. The channel allocation problem is another “catch 22” that the dormant 16 inputs on the SQ deck creates. It appears to me a controlling processor with out performance I/Os would be able to manage a GX24 with MEs. At some point I hope A&H will develop an appropriate, comprehensive processing controller for the exceptional DX expansion boxes.
    Hugh

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.