QU vs SQ

This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Brian Brian 1 month, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #102720
    Profile photo of courtcourt
    courtcourt
    Participant

    So we have a bunch of QUs and I was looking into the SQs and I can’t really tell what the major difference is. Other than supporting 48 channels and 96kHz, what makes it significantly better?

    #102723
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    Hi @courtcourt

    There are many similarities but some of the other differences (looking at the additional features on SQ) aside from the 48 input channels and 96kHz processing you mention are:

    • Intelligent SLink port for connection to expanders and other systems running dSnake, DX or GigaACE/GX protocols ( https://www.allen-heath.com/everything-io/ )
    • I/O port for option cards including Dante, Waves, MADI, SLink
    • DEEP processing options (high end modeling processing from dLive) and dynamic/multiband tools – ( https://www.allen-heath.com/key-series/sq/sq-add-on-processing/ )
    • Lower latency (<0.7ms from analogue in to analogue out with all processing enabled)
    • More output busses, all with stereo/mono options and all 12 mixes can be either group or aux
    • Larger, capacitive touchscreen
    • Fully customisable patching
    • Fully customisable channel strip layout with scribble strips
    • More softkeys
    • Multi-platform support and offline mode for the SQ-MixPad remote app
    • More recording options (48/96kHz and up to 32ch direct to drive)
    • Tie Lines
    • Dual 24ch AMM’s with option to combine into a single 48ch AMM

    Whether or not these make SQ significantly better really depends on your requirements!

    Cheers πŸ™‚
    Keith.

    #102748
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    Besides the numerous and important features that Keith mentioned, there is one that sticks out in my mind (and he kind of covered it)…..

    The QU does not have a “clock” built into it, nor can it sync with any other external clock. This means that you cannot use the QU as part of a larger system by combining it with any other console. That combined with the fact that there isn’t any I/O port on the QU means there is zero expandability. With the SQ (or other offerings from A&H), there is a clock on the console so you can combine it with other consoles to create a larger system.

    For example, you mentioned having “a bunch” of QUs. Imagine if you could put a couple QUs on the stage to act as stageboxes and use one at FOH for mixing. You can do that with the SQ series, but not the QU. Or maybe you would want to run one for FOH and one for broadcast and share inputs between them. Again, you can do this with SQ, but not QU.

    Unfortunately, you cannot use a QU with anything. So even if you buy an SQ, you cannot use the QUs as stageboxes or anything like that.

    #102767
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    >Unfortunately, you cannot use a QU with anything. So even if you buy an SQ, you cannot use the QUs as stageboxes or anything like that.

    The Qu can in fact be connected to the SQ via the SLink port. So if you have the SQ on stage, it can serve as a stagebox, and monitor mixer. There are several videos on the topic. The SQ however cannot control the preamps, that would need to be done from the Qu.

    #102768
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    ^^^^^ Correction I made a typo and meant to say that if you have the Qu mixer on stage, it can serve as the stagebox / monitor mixer. The SQ would be at FOH.

    #102770
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    @brian

    It’s confusing, being that they use the same name, but I think you’re conflating two different types of clock here.

    a) Audio clock, clocking, sync, sample rate – there is an internal clock in all digital consoles which is required for digital audio processing and transfer (e.g. console <-> expander or console <-> console).
    b) real time clock (RTC), date, time – some of our consoles have an RTC, Qu and SQ do not. The benefits of an RTC are that the date and time could be shown on screen and stored files can be timestamped. The downsides are the need for an internal battery (which will need replacing at some point) and the extra cost.

    We looked at the possible system connections along with the importance of clocking/syncing in a live stream here – https://www.facebook.com/112696882086203/videos/262500062266038
    But in short, the Qu was never intended to have system<->system connections so it can be used but cannot clock to an external source so must always be the leader.

    Cheers,
    Keith.

    #102791
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    @scott @KeithJ A&H

    Thank you for correcting my fairly large misunderstanding! (It’s pretty obvious that a digital console would have to have an audio clock to simply function correctly). I’ll just crawl back into my cave……. πŸ˜‰

    Let me just make sure I understand. You can connect one QU console to a larger system (so you cannot connect two QUs together) and the QU must act as the master clock with all other consoles using it for clocking.

    Thanks,

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.