QU suggestions

[Anonymous]

For the next firmware upgrade, May I suggest to include the ability to lock out users from Eq’s and all processing. In a house of worship setting where staff is volunteer, semi skilled and well intended, I find it frustrating to keep people from adjusting eq’s gates and such. Yes you can recall but that does not help when the operator thinks their settings are better than the Administrators setup.

In addition, it would also be good to have the same user be able to recall scenes but not overwrite with administrative permission.

Finally it would be helpful to be able to create name specific users. This way the administrator can set specific permission levels for each operator.

Thanks for listening.

[mervaka]

Read the latest manual. Most of that is already there.

[DoctorG]

I. too, have had similar questions about the QU mixers. I am using the manual for version 1.7 firmware, and it doesn’t seem to address these issues. The basic user security is so limited that it is practically useless. There seems to be only one Standard user – no ability to assign separate Standard users with different passwords and different permissions. The only permissions screen, on p. 46 of my manual, lets one set permissions only for Pre Fade/Assign Routing, Routing Screen controls, FX and Mix Sends, and QU-drive recording. The permissions do not appear to get to Processing parameters.

If we are somehow missing something, please tell us which version of the manual has this information and on what pages it appears.

[GCumbee]

If it’s in the manual it should be in the menus.

[DoctorG]

To what menu screen are you referring that has the information about which we are speaking? Is it possible that there are menu options that are not in the manual?

[GCumbee]

You have to look. I don’t have my console here. I just have not worked with the permissions section. I know it is not as extensive as the GLD.

[GCumbee]

Part of the price for moving up to GLD. I agree that EQ, comps, gates should be added to permissions on the Standard user.

[BLKGHOST]

There are no other options that aren’t listed in the manual. May I ask what other access you want to give to the user you want to keep out of the processing screen?

[Anonymous]

Personally I suggest that training is a more appropriate solution. There will be cases where your volunteers need to change the eq…. So train them how to, when to, why to.

Explain the default.

The system I installed at church a few years back does a full system recall on boot – to a locked scene. Means that everyone knows where they start.
But people can change anything they need to – they have had some amount of training, and the more skilled have asked more questions and read the manual…

[DoctorG]

Tiny Tim,

I was hoping that someone with more expertise than I would respond to your suggestion, but that hasn’t happened yet.

I have been studying the manual prior to arrival of our QU32 console, and I may have found the way we can have more control over what a user can do. It has to do with the scene filters. Since the filters that can be applied to scenes can lock out most sections of the mixer, including processing, by setting up scenes with the filters you need and restricting access to certain scenes, you can control what a used can do in some detail. The information about this is in Section 9, pages 53-59 of the manual for firmware 1.7. Since I don’t have the mixer to try out these features, this is about all I can suggest to you.

[Andreas]

Scene filters only define which mixer sections were loaded during a scene restore and which are left untouched, these filters do not control user access by any means.
User control on the Qu is exactly as limited as described on the already mentioned manual page (three user levels).

[DoctorG]

Andreas,

Yes, you are correct. The scenes would only protect subsequent users from changes made by a previous one. So our initial request for improved “security” features remain applicable.

[Anonymous]

At what point do you have to trust users?

[Wilts]

I’d actually like to give more access to the standard user (eg FX setup) whilst projecting items such as IP address/channel delays from being accidentally messed up.

[GCumbee]

Bob. I agree and here is the kind of thing I am up against. I have cases with customers with analog mixers. Just about all users have no real concept of EQ or compressors. About all they know is faders and mutes. I get asked to come in and adjust their mic channels to improve the quality. I go back later only find they have changed and sound bad again. I can name a case this past week where I went to a big church that I installed a new LR line array system a few years back. I had never been real happy with it mainly due to very poor acoustics. I re tuned the system with a new processor. I set their vocal and pastor Earset mics. I then went to church there. On the first service I tweaked channels and had it sounding very good. Operator was very gracious about it. Console is a large name brand. On the second service the operator is not quite as gracious. I usually just don’t challenge him. He started redoing everything I had done. I didn’t want to start a fight so just shut up. Now everything was muddy. He does not like any high end. It was like we draped blankets over the speakers.

I thought to myself. Here is a case where I wish I could lockout the EQ. Of course it would cause a firestorm if I did. Working with volunteers is walking a fine line.

[Author]

Posts