Next SQ Suggestion: SQ-8?

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions Next SQ Suggestion: SQ-8?

This topic contains 12 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Andrien Andrien 11 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #91609
    Profile photo of Mark
    Mark
    Participant

    So, we all know the SQ is awesome – great sound, great features, great layout – but there’s always room for improvement (such as the new features in the awesome 1.5 firmware). Here is my suggestion for the next (and probably final) SQ in the series…

    I think it would be great if A&H would take the 7 (32 faders + main) and add another set of 8 faders to the right of that with it’s own set of layers. I suppose these could be set to anything, just like the others can, but in my mind they would be for DCAs, mix/bus mains, FX returns, etc. Of course, the DCA spill feature in 1.5 would work great with this – select the DCA and spill it out on the faders to the left. I could see it maybe being handy to throw the main vocal on one of them so that no matter what layer you were on, the main vocal would be right there.

    I would maintain the same I/O count on the back and even keep the same screen and button arrangement as the 7, just widen the chassis a bit to accommodate the extra 8 faders and 4 or 6 buttons for the layers of these faders. I would even leave the mix buttons where they are (next to the main) and put these 8 additional to the right of those, with the layer buttons for the 8 to the right of the faders.

    This, in my view, takes some more of the handy GLD or dLive layout and brings it to the SQ, created separate ‘banks’ of faders on their own layers.

    The other option would be to use the chassis from the 7 but use the fader layout from the 6 (24 + main) and then the 8 to the right of that…if it could fit. But I’m more inclined to want the above layout (32+1+8).

    Has anyone suggested this before? Thoughts? I’m sure some will say it’s unnecessary, and the 5/6/7 are great as they are, but I can see it being really handy for those who don’t want/need to go up to the dLive but could use some of the functionality of the extra faders.

    #91610
    Profile photo of Showtime
    Showtime
    Participant

    For the segment were the sq range is seated the sq5 6 and 7 is enough. The s7000 has 36 faders. If this isn’t enough you beter look to your workflow. I do 48 channel jobs on a sq5 or a dlive director.

    #91612
    Profile photo of tourtelot
    tourtelot
    Participant

    Mark never said it couldn’t be done, but here are my thoughts.

    (And is this true for you, Mark?) I came from the analog console era, PM4000 and PM5000, Midas, Clair, etc.

    I still think it’s nice to have all my working faders up and available in the “heat of battle.” I also guess that those who cut their teeth on multi-layered panels have less issue with this than I do, and since those are the bulk of the folks buying SQs today, I have doubts that A&H would ever consider such an upgrade.

    In that regard, Showtime might be correct in thinking, maybe not altering your workflow but making a decision about whether a multi-level panel is right for the way you work. There are still big-time FOH guys using analog panels (not a ton, but some) because that’s how they like to work. “It’s not the gear, it’s the ear.”

    D.

    #91613
    Profile photo of Mark
    Mark
    Participant

    Yeah, currently I setup my SQ-6 like I described – on the first 3 layers, the right 6 or so faders are all the same (i.e. don’t change as I switch layers) and are a combination of DCAs, mix mains, FX returns. So, what I was describing would let me offload those from the main layers onto the second set of faders to the right.

    I expected someone to suggest a big dLive board and act like I was crazy. But, cost is an issue as are needs – I don’t see why this couldn’t be done by A&H and it doesn’t seem too far fetched for them to do it IMHO. But, that’s just my view. They haven’t done it so maybe my view is crazy.

    #91615
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @mark

    Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.

    AH has to make money so they can keep providing the gear we use. And at a price we could afford.
    Then their is the competition. Users are fickle and AH has to compete to offer what the market wants to buy.
    Then they have to convince enough people to buy it.
    It is not easy running a successful business.

    What would be the demand for something like a sixteen layer board with 64 faders/layer and yada yada features up the gazoo?
    Would there still be somebody that wants 256 faders/layer and 32 layers?? And still more features?

    They could design a board that did almost every feature that anybody ever asked for but nobody would buy it for the cost if not also for the complexity. There will always be some people who want conflicting choices that are mutually exclusive.

    Considering the depth of their offerings I have to say that AH does a great job with the products they provide.
    And they certainly seem to listen to the demand and offer the features that many people want if not every feature some guy likes.

    #91616
    Profile photo of Mark
    Mark
    Participant

    @volounteer
    “And they certainly seem to listen to the demand and offer the features that many people want if not every feature some guy likes.”

    Thus the reason for my post. If I’m told I’m an idiot and no one comes along saying they’d also like this, then no reason to make it. But if people start saying they’d upgrade to the 8 or whatever they called if it if was made then maybe there’s a market for it. Can’t assume things until the idea is put out there.

    I’ve mentioned it before on Facebook on either posts A&H has made or in the SQ group and had positive feedback from others. Thought I’d share it here since I had some time. If no one really wants it then I guess I will just continually be told it’s a stupid idea and it’ll die here. So be it.

    #91620
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    What I like is the small footprint of my SQ6 for the 25 fader layout. And, in opposite to the SQ5 it has with the six layer enough space for all fader available on the SQ and also two extra layer. The SQ7 has even more fader, multiplied with the layers they are very good equipped. I think not about more faders, which would increase the footprint of the consoles. I rather would have the feature to lock several, user adjustable, amount of faders on the right side, so that they keep the assignment regardless which layer is selected. This do not need any physical changes and would be really helpful, in my opinion.

    #91622
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @mark

    Not a bad idea for AH , if your idea meets a large enough need.
    All you can do is request it.
    If enough others do that too then the chances of AH doing it increase a lot.

    I do know that if AH built a wide board with 512 faders somebody would want 1024.
    At some point the market is just too small to justify the engineering and marketing expense.

    For our smallish church we do need more channel inputs. But we do not need more of other features.
    We have a Qu32 and 16 faders is more than enough for any volounteer to run any stage set up we use.
    We used to have an analog board with 48 inputs but I am guessing cost factors cut that back when they replaced it.
    OTOH my last church had a 16input analog board and had room left over.
    It was a used one given by a dJ who attended. If they had had to buy one it would have been an 8 or even a 4 input.

    Now I have seen pictures of really large boards , especially studios back in the analog days, and I always wondered if they really needed that many channels or was it more to make the operator feel more important.

    For my own small home studio 8 faders would be plenty. 16 would be beyond perfection.
    Now I might need more channels and more layers if I worked on big projects.
    But for my small needs 8 stems lets me do anything I need to do. And yes I can see some folks needing more.
    I just dont see anybody needing what some of those big boards may have outside of a very very few mammoth theatre productions.

    #91625
    Profile photo of Wheelomatic
    Wheelomatic
    Participant

    If we’re on the topic of suggestions – I’d have bought the SQ5 if it had Thunderbolt or USB 3 integration. Or, even a TB2 card option. I know for most this beast is all about live applications. But for me, I’d have bought it yesterday if I could get in and out of Logic with a bigger pipe than USB 2.
    Best,
    Wheels

    #91630
    Profile photo of tourtelot
    tourtelot
    Participant

    You can via Dante. (Not Dante Via, haha)

    D.

    #91656
    Profile photo of Barryjam
    Barryjam
    Participant

    Sorta OT. In my opinion, A&H would prosper most from a SQ version of Qu-sb or Qu-PAC. Kinda surprised it hasn’t occurred after this passage of time.

    #91657
    Profile photo of Søren Steinmetz
    Søren Steinmetz
    Participant

    To have a SQ6T or SQ7T could be usefull in several smaller musicals and other places.

    To have DCA’s up on one bank, or to have your “money lane” channel(s) up at all times in a seperate faderbank is quite usefull.

    That very reason is why I have been thinking of getting a GLD besides my SQ, now we talk the price segment comparable to the competitors.

    Then again I agree with Barry, it might be a smarter move to make a SQ-pac.

    #91824
    Profile photo of Andrien
    Andrien
    Participant

    As an alternative it is also a good idea if SQ could support IP8

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

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.