Insert B

This topic contains 26 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of SteffenR SteffenR 3 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • #90487
    Profile photo of jes89

    Wondering if we could get a post eq/comp insert option maybe even toggle between pre and post?. I’d rather use multiband/desesser/dyneq after eq compression.

    Profile photo of Andre S
    Andre S

    Yes, that would be nice. As workaround I am sending a channel to a group and insert there one of dynamic trio addons.

    Profile photo of maw92


    Profile photo of Carl N
    Carl N

    This would be incredibly useful. Both for signal flow and also for the ability to send every channel through a Waves rack (keeping phase coherency) and still having an insert slot available for hardware or FX units etc.

    Profile photo of SteffenR

    for a second insert you have to buy an Avantis or dLive

    if the SQ gets all the features from the expensive desks then I will ask why I have to pay that much for them

    Profile photo of volounteer


    I suspect that AH would love to give you fancy features that the competition has but only if AH does not have more expensive devices that already have them.

    Wait for a 3rd party to deliver the goods and become dominant in the industry if the others dont change fast.

    The more interesting question is are all the OEMs colluding on prices and features so they all make more profit?
    Dont know cant say, but always something to consider with most industries.

    Profile photo of Kirky

    Makes no sense to me, to not integrate a second insert, just because that’s a feature of the more expensive consoles. A&H should just design the best product for every given hardware. If you have to spend 5x more for a Dlive, just because you want that extra insert, then A&H is no longer a company which products I would want to use. If a second insert is not possible due to DSP limitations, than that’s fine. But an additional insert should consume almost no DSP, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t implement that. Makes the console so much more valuable and competitive with the recently released competition.

    Profile photo of SteffenR

    the console has no real DSP

    Profile photo of Kirky

    What is that supposed to mean? It’s a digital mixing console, of course it does Digital Signal Processing.

    Profile photo of SteffenR

    DSP— digital signal processor

    Profile photo of Kirky

    Or “…Processing“…

    Whatever, I think my post was pretty clearly formulated, even if an FGPA is technically no DSP-processor. Fact is, it does some digital signal processing. And if the implementation or power of the FGPA used in the SQ-series is not powerful enough to run a second insert, then well thats how it is. If it IS able to do it, and the argument to not implement it is: “I want my more expensive console to have more inserts than your cheaper one”, then I say that’s a bad argument and such a mentality leads to inferior products and in the end to an inferior company as a whole. A company should always strive to make each product as good as possible and as good as the development costs allow.

    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H


    Many manufacturers use off-the-shelf DSP chips, and there are plenty of mixers which are re-branded OEM units and some which use re-housed technology, but none of this applies to any A&H product.
    The XCVI core as used in SQ/Avantis/dLive is carrying out digital signal processing, but uses FPGA technology rather than multiple DSP chips (which is what Steffen was getting at).
    The different ‘sizes’ of XCVI core in each of these ranges is due to different hardware – we build the architecture from scratch to contain all the channels, routing and processing for the model.
    It can be thought of as similar to multiple DSP chips, all of our own design, running highly efficient algorithms and with none of the issues or timing weirdness that can be caused when they to talk to each other.
    So the processing and mixing algorithms that each of the ranges actually use are the same, but with varying numbers of channels, available routing/processing for those channels and different extra processing engines.
    A good example is with the DEEP/DYN engines (the DYN engine runs the DYN-8 processor) – The dLive has both, the SQ has the DEEP engine but not the DYN engine and the Avantis features DEEP and a slightly smaller DYN engine.

    So we are not picking from a pool of available DSP, where the next feature is simply appended. The foundations of the XCVI design are the routing and allocated processing, and this is what dictates the capabilities of each model.

    We definitely aim to provide the best product with the given hardware, which is exactly what this part of the digital community is about.
    Adding one feature will take up processing resources that could be used for another, it will also use developer time that could be spent working on something else.
    All we want to do is try to make sure we make the most of the hardware and available development time by implementing features that satisfy the most number of users 🙂

    Apologies for hijacking! Just wanted to try and clear up the confusion as I’ve seen it elsewhere too.

    Profile photo of Mfk0815

    For me there must be enough processing power for eight effects in the FX rack available. So, what is the difference of using that eight effects on eight differen channels or using two of them on one channel?

    And some words on how much features of the upper class consoles can be done for the SQ. Back in those medieval days of personal computers IBM decided not to use a 386 processor for their AT Pc platform to not harm the business of their midrange computers with not more power as the 386 provides that days.
    That leads to a situation that a small company named Compaq grows to a big player on that market because they have no reason to protect other product series of their company.
    We are here in a similar situation. Steffen says that those features should not be part of the SQ series. You rather have to buy the Avantis or the dLive.
    While money is always something you have to consider, there are still other reasons not to use those big consoles. The footprint, an SQ is a lightweight console compared to the upper class models. I own a dLive compact series as well as a SQ because I have use cases I want to use the one or the other (or both). So for me I would love to have a small version of the dLive in the case of the SQ with same flexibility, processing capabilities but with more or less the same amount busses and channels as the SQ has nowadays. That means less channels but the same comfort as on the big dLive. And of course the scenes and shows should be interchangeable.
    Generating a full interchangeable ecosystem would be a big step into the right direction. At the moment there are too much pitfalls for using different series together. Different audio protocolls, remote control protocolls, show and scene data formats and so on.
    But I am just dreaming……

    Profile photo of SteffenR

    Steffen says that those features should not be part of the SQ series.

    that’s not what I say… if A&H can manage it to implement so… but I was trying to say that the SQ is more a budget version of the upper class consoles
    and that there must be a reason (as Keith confirmed) that there is only one insert point available
    and there are reasons that not all features are possible to implement

    Generating a full interchangeable ecosystem would be a big step into the right direction.

    this will not that easy to do
    the difference between the dLive and the SQ are way to big to do this the easy way….
    but could be easier with dLive and Avantis
    maybe we can think about what we really need
    but this should go to a separate thread
    and since this is related to all systems we have no dedicated place to discuss this…

    waiting for your suggestions where we want to discuss this
    dLive feature suggestions forum?

    Profile photo of volounteer

    It has been a long time since I tested computer gear for a 3letter computer company but my recollection is that FPGAs, which were rather new back then, are way short of the processing ability of DSP chips.

    I would expect FPGAs to provide logic to glue DSPs together not try to replace them.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.