HPF on the OUTPUTS

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu feature suggestions HPF on the OUTPUTS

This topic contains 12 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Pete Pete 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #54013
    Profile photo of Ratchet
    Ratchet
    Participant

    I thought this thing had everything, but now I’m looking at buying something to high-pass filter my outputs, namely for protecting my aux-fed subs. A 4th order, 24 dB per octave, HPF on the MIX sends would be great, since I won’t be using subwoofers for most of my monitor mixes (I might for the drum mix), so I don’t need that subsonic information being sent there. Also, I need to HPF my subwoofer around 35Hz, to protect it from subsonic monsters.

    There’s all that space in the window for it, but it’s just blank. Bewilders me.

    I was using the HPF on an input channel, for a source that frequently goes too low, which is only 12 dB per octave, and I knew it wasn’t ideal. I engaged the Pink Noise to check things out, and without thinking I threw some in the Subwoofer AUX (MIX) which had its main fader at unity. Instant over excursion, but luckily the drivers didn’t blow. Whew. I’m going to need to figure something out to filter the subsonic frequencies in a hurry. Thanks.

    #54026
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    I’d find a good LPF & HPF useful too sometimes, but I do wonder where things stop. We could ask for 4 way crossovers with time & phase correction etc, but we’d soon find ourselves running out of physical output sockets.

    DSP is getting built into amps & speakers a lot now.

    Maybe an intelligent output box to run on the D Snake could serve both Qu & GLD series desks and have the DSP in it to manage speakers. But then more and more speakers come with their DSP built in, and they’re starting to have digital inputs too, so maybe we’re going to want a breakout box giving digital outputs……

    Sorry, just thinking aloud through the keyboard really.

    #54032
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    A dSnake extension with it’s own control would be an interesting item to have – I might be barking mad here, but I wonder if the ME-1 comms could be (ab)used for the same purpose – rather than halving the I/O available (unless the “extension box” could have a “speaker extension” added on?!?

    #54033
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    This is interesting but unlikely. Not enough market for it. Has AH ever said why they can’t put an HPF onto the already PEQ on each mix? Just like in the inputs. I am no software type but seems like with all the other things they have done that could be added. How much DSP does that take?

    I would gladly give up AMM for it. Make it optional. Like with GLD where you build your configuration till you run out of DSP.

    Let’s focus our attention toward getting this done rather than a new box. Just my opinion.

    #54034
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    Fact is. That should have been there from the beginning. Only makes sense for output processing to include that when you have PEQ, GEQ and Comp, Delay already there. I am sure most folks would rather have HPF than delay. But delay does come in handy for delay stacks.

    #54035
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    As with all things it depends on your usage model…
    I wouldn’t have thought that a true HPF/LPF would take more DSP than the existing shelf, but what do I know 😉

    #54036
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    Well like I said. It takes demand. We have done it before. Let’s all just start a campaign to get this done. Like I said. It SHOULD have been there already.

    #54045
    Profile photo of xyz
    xyz
    Participant

    +1 for High Low filters.
    However where will it stop?
    I was just talking to a friend yesterday saying how the QU has all of this technology built into it… and into to each channel! Not just out-puts.

    cheers

    #54049
    Profile photo of mervaka
    mervaka
    Participant

    It will stop when they run out of either CPU cycles or memory 🙂

    #54111
    Profile photo of Dags
    Dags
    Participant

    Hi there Ratchet.

    Agreed, it seems strange that the HPF isn’t there as part of the ‘standard’ PEQ module that is also used for the inputs.

    But I tend to use the GEQ for the main & mix outputs and fully cut 20Hz, 25Hz & 31.5Hz (or higher depending on the speakers) in order to tighten up the low end and protect amps/speakers from damage.
    Granted, the GEQ may only cut 12dB of each frequency, but this might be sufficient to suit your needs?

    Coupled with a HPF on all input channels that need it, I haven’t found myself desiring a HPF on the outputs.

    Dags

    #54115
    Profile photo of xyz
    xyz
    Participant

    @Ratchet
    Put the built in Comp/Limiter on your Aux fed subs.
    Set it up so its just kissing the threshold to protect your speakers.
    The last thing you need/want is over-driven bottom end subs in this madly driven sub bottom-end world.

    #54153
    Profile photo of Ratchet
    Ratchet
    Participant

    @Ratchet
    Put the built in Comp/Limiter on your Aux fed subs.
    Set it up so its just kissing the threshold to protect your speakers.
    The last thing you need/want is over-driven bottom end subs in this madly driven sub bottom-end world.

    Clipping the amp wasn’t what I was wanting to protect my subs against. Overexcursion from subsonic frequencies was my main concern, since some sources have < 10Hz information, but even 25Hz isn’t good for my particular drivers in their 55Hz Fb ported enclosure. The free-air phenomenon when fed lower frequencies than the port’s tuning, can cause physical damage from over excursions.

    I’m already using limiters to avoid clipping amps, but I’ve since acquired a DriveRack PA+ and its subsonic filtering is covering my bottom-end now, nicely. The input channels’ HPF was working temporarily, until the DRPA+ arrived, but it didn’t help with Pink Noise, for instance.

    Just seems like I bought a piece of gear that the Qu-16 already does 99% of, but had to splurge because of that 1% the Qu-16 won’t give me.

    #54171
    Profile photo of Pete
    Pete
    Participant

    Ratchet, I agree with your last sentence. There were two things I identified as being missing from the QU mixers. One was the lack of user installable plugins and the other was the fact that I will still need an external crossover to protect my top speakers from all the bass energy. You raise an extension to the crossover by asking for a sub-bass filter. Way to go.

    Why can’t A&H put in a crossover on say, the Matrix outputs as Andreas pointed out earlier ? It would be a really nice feature to have I think.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.