Remote mixer with Hardware controls, onstage junction box

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu feature suggestions Remote mixer with Hardware controls, onstage junction box

This topic contains 5 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of DaBlick DaBlick 4 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #86162
    Profile photo of DaBlick

    So here’s what I’m thinking.

    It would be nice to have be able to have something like a QU-16/24/32 that had the physical controls/knobs but NOT the audio processing, that could used to affect mix settings on an ONSTAGE box like the QU-SB or QU-PAC. In short, a QU-16/24/32 that is, in effect, like an iPad running QU-Pad, but with the hardware features of a regular QU-16/24/32 and none of the weight and cost of regular QU-16/24/32.

    Another way to possibly describe it is that it’s somewhat like an ME, but intended not for an individual performer but the person mixing from the house.

    Yes, I know that you have the DSnake (or regular XLR snake) options to run from the stage to the house desk, but here’s the advantages of my idea:

    1) This “remote mixer” would weigh less
    2) This “remote mixer” would COST less (although you’d have to buy the QU-SB or something similar)
    3) This “remote mixer” could be connected without having to buy DSnake boxes and cabling and thus would be MORE COMPETITIVE
    As I see it, it could be done either via regular old Cat5 cable and/or Wifi.
    4) This “remote mixer” is easier to setup/breakdown and possibly pack/transport.
    5) With WIFI there’s no cabling for audience the trip over and potential disrupt/break things.
    6) It’s at least conceivable, without the need for onboard audio processing that the remote mixer could be battery powered and thus, even less cabling/setup.
    7) It gives current owners of QU-SB or QU-PAC (and perhaps DSnake) some additional attractive options/extensions. For example, I have the option of controlling
    my onstage QU-SB or QU-PAC not only with an iPad app, but with a LOWER COST and EASIER SETUP device that gives me the convenience and control of real knobs and

    I think this would make the ENTIRE QU Series considerably more competitive. I’m not aware of any competitors doing anything like this although my knowledge of the market is not extensive.

    Would I buy one? In a freakin’ HEARTBEAT!

    Would you?

    Profile photo of volounteer

    No, but I do not need the features when our Qu32 is cabled permanently and working fine now.

    Interesting idea!

    I wonder how big the market is for such a device and approach.
    A&H will have to answer that for themselves.

    Profile photo of SteffenR

    the market is huge for such a device
    that’s why the dLive is there and the iLive was the first one with some of this features from Allen & Heath 😉

    your point 5) is not a real solution for a professional mixing device
    wireless control could only be an option not the only choice
    if you have the first big show with not working wireless control you will know what I mean

    point 6) the audio part does not consume much power, the control hardware will, al least the screen will

    Profile photo of Ryan

    I guess it would probably cost at least ~$700 USD ($1000 seems more likely) based on the cost difference between a Qu-SB and a Qu-16.

    With just the network connection, it wouldn’t have anything that involves sending audio one way or the other; no Qu-Drive port or USB-B port for recording from a computer, no talkback mic, and no headphones.

    So basically like those USB control surfaces for DAWs, maybe like the Korg nanoKONTROL, just with faders and knobs rearranged to make it look a bit more like Qu. Seems like an interesting idea, almost the opposite of those mixers where you need to plug a tablet in to provide the control surface.

    Profile photo of DaBlick

    re: Steffen R.

    My point was not to have it be EXCLUSIVELY WIFI. What I meant in point #3 was that it should work both for cabled internet (Cat5) and Wifi.

    I agree that the screen consumes power but but every modern iPad will go several hours on a charge with a much bigger and higher resolution screen than what the QU series has. The control hardware might consume a fair amount of power with console automation but I really tend to doubt it. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about the power draw of audio processing. Processing digital audio on 32 channels, 16-20 output mix busses, and each with a ton of per-channel processing (gates, compression, PEQ/GEQ, FX, etc requires considerable processing power.

    My QU-PAC does not have any significant and I suspect all the hardware is passive, but look at the design of that thing. It’s designed for ventilation because clearly it has a huge power draw. I also know (from painful experience) that if I use that thing outdoors on a hot day… and I do NOT run at least one fan on it, it will become too hot too touch and thus, be in imminent danger of frying.

    Profile photo of DaBlick

    Something I hadn’t considered in my original post is that the QU-16/24/32 already have the software to send all the mixing signals to an onstage box like the QU-PAC.

    How do I know this?

    Well, consider that almost every “move” you make on the QU-nn needs to be reflected in the QU-Pad iPad application. But if you think about it, while that application is merely updating a screen, some other recipient of the datastream could (seemingly) just as easily be updating the live mix itself.

    So here’s another thought. One idea is: Don’t even start by MAKING another product. Just do an update of the software such that You can connect a QU-16/24/32 to a QU-SB or QU-PAC such that the moves you make on the QU-16/24/32 update the mix on the QU-SB or QU-PAC.

    Now, the flaw there (and admittedly it is NOT a trivial one) is that no one wants to pay the huge bucks for a fully-operational QU-16/24/32 JUST to use the controls and NOT use the (considerable) mixing power of it. But… because the QU-16/24/32s already send pretty much everything that’s needed, I suspect it’s just a fairly small change to the software to ADD this additional capability that means you don’t have to run a snake.

    So my point is that if this can be done via small software changes, it seems to me to bring considerable flexibility to the QU platform. But I just doubt there’s many people who either already HAVE or would buy BOTH a QU-16/24/32 and a QU-PAC or QU-SB. Although QU-SBs are fairly inexpensive – they can be had for around $800 USD.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.