Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions RACK VERSION ?

This topic contains 30 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of ianhind ianhind 4 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)
  • Author
  • #65991
    Profile photo of Gsus4th

    Hello everybody

    I’m very interested in the new sq line, nevertheless I’m now in the need to buy a rack format mixer (i.e. x32 rack size) . Is it in the plan? If Yes: will it be in the 2k budget? and when approximately will be announced ?
    An additional question: MTK recording : My understanding is that SQ will have only recording function on board (no laptop needed) not MTK playback to enrich performances … is that correct ? Do you plan to add this function in the future ?


    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H

    Hey Gsus4th,

    There is nothing planned at present, though we have definitely had quite a few requests already!
    Both the Qu-Pac or Qu-SB are suitable for most situations though, and so I’d be (genuinely!) interested to know which features of the SQ you’d need in this form-factor that they don’t provide?

    Regarding the multitrack recording on SQ-Drive – you can use this for recording or playback, and channels are fully patchable, so you could indeed use this to add prerecorded audio in your performance.


    Profile photo of cornelius78

    Hi Keith.

    Can you confirm whether the SQ-Drive (onboard multitrack, similar to Qu-Drive, on the top of the console near the phones socket, not the 32×32 CoreAudio compliant interface on the rear of the console) is limited to 18 tracks like Qu-Drive, or can it do more?

    Profile photo of Showtime

    There wil also be a dante card in the future, this allows also computer playback to 48 channels.

    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H

    Hi cornelius78,

    Currently SQ-Drive records stereo or 16 tracks at 96kHz direct to disk. We will be looking at adding the option of a higher track count with a lower sample rate in the future too.


    Profile photo of cornelius78

    Thanks for that Keith. Higher track count at lower sample rate would make sense, especially if people are going to use AR\AB stageboxes, which AFAIK are clocked at <96kHz anyway.

    Profile photo of Gsus4th

    Hi Keith
    I’m not surprised that you are receiving quite a few information requests concerning a future SQ-Rack. If you exclude the Pro User segment, more and more people are getting confident with virtual fader approach giving a chance to such a kind of format in the <2k price segment.
    I’m considering the two rack brothers in the QU line, but as you can easily imagine while in the process to buy something new you first take look at what is new on the market.
    Now here’s the list of my wishes:

    1) INPUTS 16 PRES XLR/TRS Input + 6 LINE Mono INPUT ( 22/24 seems to be the exact needing required by most users so that you can manage most venues without extra HW)
    2) Capacity to handle at least 32 channels just in case you need to enrich with prerecorded tracks your performances.
    3) On BOARD 32/32 MTK and PLAY BACK facility to SD OR USB with no laptop. Number of tracks not limited to physical input.
    4) Easy Show / Scenes management – everything that could make life easier during a show with or without mix man.
    5) Song management SW (with an easy IOS interface) to manage both stereo track and/or Multitrack (In other words a show is made of a list of songs, and songs are group of tracks)
    6) 96 Khz which on paper should correspond to audio quality improvement
    7) Reliable WI FI router on board (useless if the router on board is low quality)
    8) Reliable and Easy operations mobile GUI
    9) Room and system tuning facilities plus RTA
    10) Sound Presets
    11) Good Pres
    12) Good FX engine
    13) And finally a “regular rack” … Don’t know if you hired a Bentley manager to design the Qu SB and Pac but they are as non-functional as the Midas M32R. May be Pininfarina could do a best job… LOL

    Guess the next move is on Behringer side.. the X32 – although it has been a game changer – now is suffering the years, they are just milking the cow with the new Sd card… until someone will launch something really new… will it be you?

    Profile photo of Showtime

    13) And finally a “regular rack” … Don’t know if you hired a Bentley manager to design the Qu SB and Pac but they are as non-functional as the Midas M32R. May be Pininfarina could do a best job… LOL

    I think this is psersonal, i prefer the interface of the qu above x/m32

    The display in the m32r isn’t usable but you need it for al funtions.

    In my opinion room and system tuning is something you do with your ears and in the system processsor (a mixing console isn’t a system processor)

    10) Sound Presets

    Use your ears, otherwise get into an another business.

    The number of input’s is always not enough, if you need more, buy an extra rack.

    If you pay for a renault you can’t expect the comfort of a rolls royce

    Profile photo of Art

    Don’t forget I/O card capability.

    Profile photo of Gsus4th

    Hi Showtime

    Bad day ain’t ? … a bunch of people who dare to say silly things and – upon request – also to answer! Ah too bad… a Sound Pro like you forced to read such a bunch of nonsense…
    Don’t know if you are part of A&H Group… (hope not), nevertheless I kindly ask you to be patient 🙂

    In order:

    1) I was just answering a Keith question and that is my confirmed answer. Do you have different views on the subject? Entitled to write your wish list!
    2) Obvious that my point is personal as any other point of my list! can you accept it? By the way the Bentley thing, was more a joke to say that I don’t like Qu Pac/Sb shape.
    3) Concerning your suggestion to change business, actually it’s not in my plan, but I have to tell you that music is just an hobby for me… that is why I’m taking it very easy… May I go on and live with my hobby or do I have to ask you a permission? My regular job has often to do with fresh and stuck up souls… so my dispute with you is nothing new.
    4) Let me say this: thirty years ago cars were not featuring functions as cruise control, automatic wipers, automatic gear. Now if I have to buy a car I do want all this options on my next new car and this does not mean I’m not able to use a manual gear or keep the distance from the other cars… it’s called technology making your life easier…

    By the way… I can afford two Rolls Royce [one for the mixer and one for the extra rack] but the places where I have fun with music have no room enough to park ‘em! 🙂
    In the end… my suggestion:
    Enjoy your job, you are a lucky man, you live with music a common language that has thousand of dialects and unwritten rules and where there are no newbees… Use all the senses that you have available (not only earing) and respect other people thought.
    End of my arguing there will be no more replies.

    Take care

    Profile photo of MaSta

    A rack model makes more sense than a odd shaped stand alone units like Qu-Pac or Qu-SB.
    It saves time, router + wireless gear etc can stay in the same rack.

    I operate a B*** X32 Rack and it has a really nice feature: it doubles as a stagebox, with is good for several reasons (good value, redundancy etc).

    A rack model with 24/12 ins/outs would be great. 32/16 would be awesome.

    Profile photo of Ryan

    Why’s everyone talking about rack mounting as if you can’t rackmount the Qu-Pac or Qu-SB?

    Profile photo of GaryW

    Firstly for Ryan.
    I rack mount my Qu-SB.
    In the same SKB ‘shallow’ 4U rack case, I also have a Furman power conditioner, Wifi access point (Airport Express), optical out to a DAC feeding the Qu-SB St-1 input for AirPlay music streaming, a DMX ArtNet bridge and Chauvet 1-to-4 channel DMX splitter… thus I run both sound and lighting control over the same WiFi network from my iPad(s).
    Love it!!!!!

    The reason a Sq-5-SB appeals greatly is that it looks like I could have two of them linked together, one as a stage box for the other, giving me the option of one larger rig or two smaller ones depending on event size etc.

    Plus I could add a xx168 expansion module for a full 48 channels in should I need it. Oh yes, and I can add a Dante module for remote (wired) recording / playback. Sweeeeeet!!!!!

    I’d also hope that the SQ range will include an offline Mac editor as do the other upper end consoles do. Perfect-a-mundo!!

    My request for a Sq-SB?
    Just take the rear of the Sq-5, keep it flat and not sloping, chop the excess height back to a clean 4U fit, and keep the depth close to the Qu-SB if at all possible.

    Profile photo of MaSta

    Because of features and performance. And redundancy.

    Coming from the X32 system, this one is a no brainer (and a possible deal breaker).

    Profile photo of EmanKant

    Hi Keith,

    before I will try to answer your question concerning the “I’d be (genuinely!) interested to know which features of the SQ you’d need in this form-factor that they don’t provide”-quwestion, I want to state, that I understand your aim to to go for a long product-lifecycle with the QU-racks, at least until return on the R&D-invest is secured.

    On the other hand I do not have to tell you, that the immature segment of consumer-digital-mixers still follows the innovate-or-die-rule. Your competitors Presonus and Soundcraft have released the 3rd version resp. 2nd version of their rack-line recently. For the discussion let us leave aside Behringer, who is based in a different market segment, targetting on customers looking for seems-similar-to-gear for performing sounds-similar-to-music.

    As for the SC UI24R, the 1st 10,000 units have been sold easily within not even six month after roll-out. Adressing the 1000-$/€ segment this must have gathered enough on revenue to pass the break-even.

    The UI24R, though selling pretty well, is incorporating, compared to the QU-racks, a couple of flaws. The WLAN-support is messy, the unit is still noisy, despite of better preamps than its predecessors, and the processing features are implemented rudimentary only. No sidechaining on gate and comp, no reverb-parameters or reverb-types. But the buyers seem not to care, some are waiting for firmware updates, that probably will never show up.

    The main selling points seem to be
    – the browser-based GUI, running on everything that can carry a browser.
    – a broad range of features, within going deep on anything
    – 24 channels
    – usability as an audio interface, with a latendy of only 0,58ms unprocessed and 3.19 ms processed.

    The QU-racks do offer all these dynamics- and FX-features , but they come with double the latency and an IPad control app only. The pro community, at least in Europe, seems to be not so Apple-minded. That is imho one of the reasons why the QU-racks are often sorted out as candidates. Though they are known to be good-sounders.


    – the 96kHz and the 0.7ms latency of the SQ (for DAW-use)
    – combined with an universalized GUI (for everyone)
    – the 8 FX-engines of the SQ
    – the plugin-options of the SQ
    – the connectivity-options of the SQ

    could be arguments that can not be overheard. Even if the unit does not fit under the 1000€-barriere.

    Kind regards

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.