How About and SQ-0, SQ-1, SQ-2 and SQ-3?

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions How About and SQ-0, SQ-1, SQ-2 and SQ-3?


This topic contains 32 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Scott180 Scott180 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • Author
  • #80984
    Profile photo of Rob

    One area where I know the QuSB and QuPac tend to come up a bit short is as a portable IEM system. Being able to arbitrarily assign all outputs to a series of stereo mixes rather than have locked down mix assignments like the QuSB would be huge by itself.

    Profile photo of GaryW

    I have a Qu-SB at the moment and on reflection, I’d vote for a SQ-4 with 8×8 in/out, or even an SQ-3 with 4×4 i/os.
    Both in a SQ-5 form factor.

    That way I’d use my Qu-SB as my initial stage box for the SQ-3/4, eventually upgrading with 2x DX168 or a DMx.

    One request though, would be for an AES input alongside the AES output…

    Profile photo of MRBaum

    Hi Keith,

    let me notice some points why the Qu-PAC isn‘t an option.

    1) The Qu-Pac does not allow free patching of the outputs.

    1) The Qu Series does not offer a Dante Option.

    I bought a Qu-Pac to test it. The plan was to use several ones in different rooms of our church because of the simple user interface and the App „Qu-Control“. But not being able to route different busses like eg matrix 1/2 for the delayline to the local outputs is very strange. The is an K.O. criteria for using Qu-PAC. Adding an AB Stagebox in the controlroom where I need no further inputs, only output is a waste of Money and Space. Also it will lower the number of Stageboxes I would maybe need to use on stage. (The controlroom with amping is opposite of the stage).

    But while the SQ series does not offer a similar configurable app „SQ-Control“ and there is no 19“ rackversion with an easy front interface and less rackheight like the QU-Pac I have no solution for fixed installations in our venue.

    If I could use Dante on Qu-PAC I could build a network to distribute audio to all the rooms. The would be the bonus point for an SQ-PAC Version.

    Profile photo of RRS

    An SQ-sb or SQ-Pac would be great. I would love to have the sound, convenience and featureset of an SQ console in a small and light rack format. Allen & Heath leaves the field to Behringer x32 Rack, Yamaha TF Rack and the wonderful Presonus Studiolive Rack Versions (which are also Audiointerfaces and Stageboxes to their Mixer lineup with faders). Is A&H concerned to cannibalize sales of the dLive CDM Series for install purpose? Let us upvote this thread to make a statement, how welcome an SQ Rackmixer would be!


    Profile photo of Barryjam

    I’d buy a SQ-sb or SQ-Pac and still keep my SQ5.

    Profile photo of Søren Steinmetz
    Søren Steinmetz

    A SQ-Pac to fight in the UI16/UI24 market, and at the same time able to double as a stagebox for the SQ5/6/7 would be great.

    Profile photo of Kraken

    SQ/Ava-Core would be the best option in my opinion.
    Format 1U
    Back panel:
    2xXLR out (LR/control room)
    1x AES/EBU out
    1x AES/EBU in
    2x Slink
    1x Option card slot
    1x eth control
    1x powerconn T1

    Front panel
    1x 3,5mm jack in
    1x “TB” mic pre in with Talk button
    1x headphone out with knob
    1x USB slot
    4x micro-soft buttons
    1x soft rotary
    Soft off-button

    Option to have it as have it as brain on stage for Avantis/SQ to have failover redundancy as DLive. Or even to use it with dLive as failover with limited procesing when on ultra small gig with only small stagebox DX168.. 😉

    MSRP: start @ 1500 Eur up to 4000eur? (depending on configuration of processing core, plugins and or redundancy package), would be insta-purchase.

    Profile photo of MRBaum

    Hi Keth,

    beside the reasons I already mentioned I found another on. On the Qu series there is no Windows and no Android Mixing App available. But the SQ Series does support all that channels.

    Because in our site I give support through teamviewer and Windows Mixing App (on the Behringer X32 Rack) I cannot switch to the QuSeries, and the SQ5 is not suitable for rack installation.


    Profile photo of maw92

    So … 2 years later, whats the official stand on an SQ Pac in the near future? I own a SQ 6 and would love me a rackversion of it and would rather not purchase M32C (i still find sq 5 clunky for rackmounting)

    Any News I overlooked?


    Profile photo of Showtime

    I think the next thing to expect is a live version of the ahm64

    But don’t forget the list of the to do things is large at the HQ of A&H

    1) Full control of the ipad app of the sq range
    2) GX4816 support of the dlive
    3) Offline editor of the avantis

    Before making more product’s beter finish the current range.

    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C

    I bought a Qu-Pac to test it. The plan was to use several ones in different rooms of our church because of the simple user interface and the App „Qu-Control“. But not being able to route different busses like eg matrix 1/2 for the delayline to the local outputs is very strange.

    The ALT OUT and AES OUT can be routed to any output source, not a lot of extra local outputs but it may help.

    The SQ mix app does need some work, the sliding control panel needs a more central stop
    position putting it about where it is at on the QU app. Actually using the QU app as a starting point for the SQ app would be great.

    I would like an SQ rack along the same lines as the QU Pac, with maybe some more outputs squeezed in.

    Profile photo of MRD_Sound

    And SQ0 (SQ-SB) would be great for people who need a mixer and want to use it as an audio interface on the side!

    Profile photo of iandrewc

    I’d really enjoy a SQ-SB type console, we own a QU-SB which we use for our gym / outdoor events, and a SQ-6 in our main auditorium. I’ve ran into an issue though were because we have the 96K GX4816 input rack with our SQ-6, if I ever needed to service the SQ (which I do, I have a bad fader motor), I would have to run the QU on our stage temporarily, as well as being unable to import the mix settings from the SQ. So if I had a “headless” SQ like the QU-SB I could easily swap the unit out.

    Profile photo of ioTon

    SQ SB +1

    Profile photo of Kyle Thompson
    Kyle Thompson


Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.