LCR panning

[JuzzyQLDParticipant]

I’d agree that with the GLD phased out, there is ONLY the Avantis and dLive consoles available, that have the routing flexibility to do this. Adding to this, the GLD was RRP $9,934.82 in 2013 (very comparable price to the SQ) but came including all the FX etc)
I too, feel like there is a gap in the range… but A&H probably like it this way so people buy the avantis or dLive at nearly $20k!!!
It feels like a cash grab…

Anyway, enough rambling, a solution to this problem, could be, to simply use a pair of groups or matrices (1x mono & 1x LR) for your LCR setup, yes you will have to unassign or manually some channels from the Centre and visa versa, but this

[blue439Participant]

I would love to see this. Inferior mixers like X/M32 have it. Why not SQ?

[HughParticipant]

Every week there seems to be requests for specific SQ missing options that are readily available on the D-Live and/or Avantis platforms. IMO the large gap between SQ and it’s better endowed A&H siblings can be readily remedied with an alternative processing controller. The operational advantages associated with deploying DX168 or DX32 expansion stage boxes is a no brainer for most of us and to this end a processing controller loaded with most all of D-Lives tactile features and processing would become a “must have” for many of us. This thread deals with missing LCR controls that are very important for theater work, however this is just part of a long list of complaints regarding this or that missing features on the SQ line up that are available on D-Live.

A small footprint SQ5 with it’s 16 input faders X 4 layers offers tactile control for as many as 64 channels simultaneously. With Grouping and DCA’s tactile control of this type of channel count is not a current problem with an SQ5: however a well designed controller should present ample accommodation for managing 64 channels that are captured on stage with the subject expansion stage boxes. The FPGA XCIV core currently offered in the SQ line needs to be up-graded to match the current D-Live/Avantis core processing capabilities in a new processing controller: this would answer the request of many past posts. The current footprint for the SQ5 will answer the vast majority of user channel count needs and reducing the XLR inputs to only those that are essential desk management tools would be a welcome change for many of us.

For me XLR mic inputs on my SQ5 are as useless as tits on a boar hog: the first layer of my SQ5 is a waste given the fact it is dedicated to the internal 16 SQ mic pres that I never use. IMO a small footprint processing controller, like I am describing, would find an enthusiastic market even with an expected higher price tag than the SQ5. The SQ5 is sonically a magnificent world class entry level desk that is probably the most remarkable quality/value desk in the A&H product line. What I am suggesting is a significant up-grade in processing, functional control and efficiency. A&H has opened the door to this component approach with the world class DX168 & DX32 expansion stage boxes and the processing controller I am advocating is a synergistic fit for these high grade components. It is not entry level but a great option for more sophisticated needs.
Hugh

[Dave MeadowcroftParticipant]

+1 for LCR option, even if it means (when enabling the option) the sacrifice of an aux/group or matrix.

There is a small gap in the audio right at the front of the dance floor in my venue at Stage Centre. I’m contemplating adding a centre fill to address this, but 90% of the time I would only want vocals in this fill so tapping of a mono sum of Main LR at my DSP isn’t an option. LCR would be the perfect solution.

I could work around it using a post fader aux but would need to use a fader for a DCA with Mains and Aux assigned instead of the master, but LCR would be better.

[HughParticipant]

The controlling processor I suggested 5 weeks ago is a pragmatical solution for both the discriminating user and the necessity to protect A&H’s return on their investment in technology advances.

1) An ignorant expectation of entry level pricing for flag ship technology will gain zero traction in product design discussions.

2) Digital chips have opened the door to offering a fully loaded processing controller device for expansion stage boxes with software that becomes operational with the purchase of special use licenses. This is the existing protocol with the SQ5 and making available all of the D-Live processing without question would be well met in the pro SR market. This would be a game changing design that introduces a real al-la-carte variable menu and bus design for the discriminating SR buyer. The flexibility to be able to add and pay for features as you need them prevents paying for features you do not need or are not willing to pay for.

3) Fixed footprint options would be an attractive advantage for most all of us. I would like an 8 fader version that would accommodate up to 24 expansion stage box inputs. IMO the existing SQ5 16 fader version that handles 48 inputs would be a lot more popular and probably have a much bigger market demand. Truth be told the perceived market demand could and would determine all of the optional fixed tactile configurations.

The subject LCR needs and expanders that some folks like to use a lot more than gates, along with a long list of features including better scene management and a comprehensive I-Pad menu that are requested frequently could and should be optional features in a new flexible processing controller.
IMO we have come a long way from the Henry Ford credo: “Give em any G D color they want, as long as it’s Black”
Hugh

[Dave MeadowcroftParticipant]

Hugh,

I’m certainly not complaining that it doesn’t have LCR, or any other feature. I bought the equipment I have fully aware of what it can and can’t do, and I’m an extremely happy customer. In fact I’m still overwhelmed at just how good it is 18 months after purchase, and I still get excited every time I sit at it to mix which I’m lucky enough to do at least 3 times a week.

This section is specifically for feature requests so that A&H know what user’s would like, and gauge how widely used these things would potentially be. They then use whatever internal business decision making processes they have to determine what features to include in future.

One of the many advantages of digital consoles is that their functionality in a great many areas can be expanded through ongoing development, which thankfully A&H are keen to do in a user-led way.

I have invested in a SQ7 plus most of the addons, a GX4816, DX168 and DX012 already. I really have zero interest in adding to that by purchasing a theoretical additional controller at some point in the future which may never even come.

I have a product which may be able to do something that I, and others, would find useful should A&H feel it’s viable and would benefit enough users. This is why I added my +1 to this along with my use case it would address.

[HughParticipant]

Dave you are absolutely correct: this is the proper forum for feature suggestions, and that is exactly what I am doing.
The ability to update the SQ’s current platform is limited by it’s 36 bus fixed architectural design. I completely understand the frustration many very satisfied users have with the fact that this or that needed feature is missing in their SQ that is available in the D-Live or in their previous desk. Software can be a license option or provided free in up-dates however the designed platform chips that control much of the missing features cannot.

Dave I completely understand your frustration with the SQ’s designed dichotomy offering: it has world class sonic performance while limiting it’s feature set to an assumed entry level need. This is the Henry Ford business model that was totally appropriate with yesterday’s analog protocols, however in today’s digital world of silicone chip core platforms, the Henry Ford business model is obsolete. I also bought the comp package for my SQ5 and have been very happy with it but would prefer e few of the absent features that are available with the D-Live. The primary difference between us is our respective preferred fader count and the fact that I understood the fixed limitations of the SQ line before I made the SQ5 purchase. Would you purchase a license that would facilitate a LCR protocol: and the answer is, ABSOLUTELY! Would I buy the universal Processing controller that I am requesting, ABSOLUTELY!
The question that needs to be evaluated is, would a fully loaded processing controller with all of the flagship A&H technology be a better option if you had the option of paying for only the features you needed, when you needed them?
Hugh

[MichaelParticipant]

+1 on this. The SQ fits super well into high school auditoriums, but many have a typical LCR setup, and it would be great for this console to be able to be used in those environments. The less x32s I can spec the better!

[Author]

Posts