Marketing Request: Workflow SQ-5/6/7

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions Marketing Request: Workflow SQ-5/6/7

This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of moebius moebius 2 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #80424
    Profile photo of moebius
    moebius
    Participant

    Obviously, all models share the same engine and at first glance it seems they just have a different number of faders and IO. Looking closer, there are also a few buttons and pots added with the bigger models. Would be nice to see some use cases that show the benefits of those.

    Yes, I can (and will) read the manuals back to back 🙂 But it would be very nice to get a quick overview of what each model adds on top in terms of interface and workflow, not just number of pots and buttons.

    Anyone?

    #80488
    Profile photo of peterlanders
    peterlanders
    Participant

    The differences are exactly as described: different number of local inputs, faders, softkeys, and soft knobs. Speaking only for myself, I based my model choice on how many physical inputs I felt I could use, with room to spare.

    The extra controls on the larger models don’t bring anything new to the table, but might add extra flexibility and convenience for you. Or not. If you look at the manual section on the softkeys and knobs, though, you’ll at least see what parameters are preassigned and available for customization.

    #80492
    Profile photo of Alex A&H
    Alex A&H
    Keymaster

    Hi Moebius,

    This can be found on our Website at the bottom of the ‘Overview’ tab in the Features section: https://www.allen-heath.com/ahproducts/sq-7/

    Thanks! Alex

    #80493
    Profile photo of moebius
    moebius
    Participant

    So to me there is different areas of decision, and I´m now at the point where I compare models in regards to my use cases (and I agree they are a bit out of line probably).

    1. Physical Controls
    Currently using two desks, I´m blessed/cursed with a ton of faders (2x02R), but most often I find myself only using only a fraction. I´m just too lazy to patch all the time so I keep as many things “on desk” as possible. But it´s channel-centric and not very flexible MIDI wise, so it´s a bit limited. With the SQ´s given flexibility I could just map the active channels to a single layer and be happy for audio control. That would mean SQ-5 or 6. BUT! If the MIDI channel strips work as I think they do, I could use the desk to control MIDI outboard and plugins and then I think about either the SQ-7 or a setup with two desks, basically turning the SQ into a “half-desk, half-MIDIcontroller” mode.

    While we´re at it: Who decided it was a good idea to leave a large area of SQ-7s surface at waste, although that is an ideal spot to place more soft encoders? Not only does it look unbalanced (as if someone forgot to put things there), it also wastes space unless you consider that a place to put your iPad on or some midi controller box. Speaking of which: How large a device can actually be placed there?

    2. Physical IO
    Need a lot. Currently got around 180 outs/60 ins from/to gear. Will reduce that a good bit, but still have a large number. My studio setup is currently built around 9 neutrik TRS patchbays and I review the options to create an automated patchbay using stageboxes. That also pushes the question of a single vs. multiple consoles in regards to capacity of the digital busses, capacity of digital IO interfaces (Dante) and flexibility of workflow (split mind regarding layers, scene management etc). My favorite idea so far is a two desk setup that is not linked via Slink, but Dante and then use Slink to add stageboxes as deluxe patchbays. That would have the benefit of direct desk integration, an I/O ratio that matches my channel mix and a more robust setup, as it´s build for stage. The other option would be no stageboxes, but external DANTE converters. Depending on make and model, you could get the same cost per channel or end up with a 2-3x multiplier (ouch), also ADAT and MADI converters if needed. Plus less vendor lock-in. But at the cost of more complexity. It´s all about compromises and trafeoffs. So yeah, time to draw a few setups and write down their pros and cons.

    See, I somehow got attracted to SQ and the closer I look, the more nice options I discover. The official showcases seem to revolve around live gigs and options to extend your channel count for choirs and orchestra. Studio use appears to be less present, same thing for complex integrations (like in above setup: where and how do I route my other signals, like network data, MIDI, SMPTE). Developing those might be useful, otherwise I see studio users go “Oh it´s a live desk” and move on.

    #80494
    Profile photo of moebius
    moebius
    Participant

    Hi Alex,

    thanks for pointing in that direction, but I found those specs some time ago already :). What I was looking for was a bit more of a use-case driven approach. So the added faders are obvious, but at first glance that appears to just offer more control over the physical IOs. “Why would I need that, I don´t mix more than 16 channels anyway”. Yes, but you can use the additional faders and knobs as something else, for example have direct control over your FX returns or put them in MIDI mode to control settings on your favourite outboard gear, saving the separate MIDI controller you´d need otherwise.

    Maybe it´s just me and the additional “beyond live” use cases are obvious to everyone, really not sure. Once you are familiar with the technology and features it jumps at you. On the other hand it took me some time to get to the level that gave me those ideas and I´m sure marketing would like to have a shortcut for that ;).

    Cheers!

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.