GX3232 / DX3232

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions GX3232 / DX3232


This topic contains 2 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of tourtelot tourtelot 1 year, 8 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #97398
    Profile photo of Dave Meadowcroft
    Dave Meadowcroft

    Not specifically related to SQ…

    Now we’re firmly in the era of IEMs and we have desks that can deliver a large number of stereo buses, the ratio of inputs to outputs that is normally 2:1 (3:1 on GX4816) is often less than ideal.

    For example, there’s a 10 piece soul band I mix fairly regularly, all on stereo ears. 8 are mono inputs, 1 stereo keys and drums are 8 channels. That’s 18 inputs and 20 outputs for the band. There’s other inputs such as MC and house music and outputs like FOH and matrixes too of course.
    There and other bands I mix that have more mics on the kit and more stereo inputs from keys/guitars and I often have all 32 faders on layer A of my SQ7 in use, but the demand for outputs is increasingly way over the 2:1 ratio.

    I know there is the DX012 that recognises that sometimes we need more outputs and I’ll shortly be buying a couple of those along with the GX4816, and there’s also the DX32 that you can load anyway you like (at a way higher price point compared to other GX/DX) but it got me wondering why this imbalance still exists when more and more often it doesn’t reflect the on stage demands.

    This isn’t looking for suggestions on what IO would support my needs, I’ve got that figured out, just suggesting that maybe the time for re-evaluating the IO ratio is here? 🙂

    As DX can handle 32×32 it would be great if that format existed in the GX4816 form factor, or even a smaller 16×16…

    Profile photo of Nicola A&H
    Nicola A&H

    That’s good feedback Dave. We have one of the widest I/O range in the market, but you can’t make everyone happy, for example I’ve seen requests for a DX2412, a DX84, and other combinations.

    I get your point on the I/O ratio. The main reason for offering DX012 as a separate box, rather than adding outputs to the other racks, is that most applications require inputs and outputs in separate locations. Unless you are using many active wedge monitors, outputs tend to be best located close to your amplifier racks or IEM transmitters, typically side of stage. And as more people abandon copper snakes for Cat5, it makes sense to have a distributed rather than centralised system. That was also the rationale behind the DX Hub, or adding DX sockets to the GX4816. With DX012 and DX32, you also have the flexibility of AES3 outputs, which would be a costly addition to a standard I/O rack.

    Profile photo of tourtelot

    Hi Nicola. Any chance of a DX012 as a DT012, with a Dante card installed? That would of interest to me running a strictly Dante rig.


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.