SB (Stage Box) form factor for SQ-serie

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions SB (Stage Box) form factor for SQ-serie

This topic contains 88 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Hugh Hugh 2 weeks, 3 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 89 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #100361
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Thank you Keith for responding to my market sales question and to all that are advancing their thoughts pursuant to the SQsb request. Keith pretty well defined the reasons I gave my QU16 to my garage band grandsons in 2016 after purchasing a QUsb. For the small guitar/vocal shows and a few Bluegrass gigs where I was in a “set it and leave it” protocol the QUsb appeared to be a perfect answer. One year later the decision to upgrade my studio to 24/96K processing with a complete Digigrid/Waves LV1 system totally revamped my sonic expectation for all of my work. Strike two occurred when videoing live music performance became my dominate work activity that required delivering audio to my two Atomos video recorders: the manipulative needs for these activities were well beyond the QUsb’s design. Strike three was the horrendous difficulties incurred trying to use the QUsb for a turn key FOH audio/video of a church theatrical production one year ago: the latency issues with wifi only control were a nightmare! Before 3/01/20 I was in the SQsb camp for reasons already advanced: however touch screen control, even with the much improved Cat6 connectivity I enjoy in the studio with my Waves LV1 system, is still not a competent replacement for knobs and faders immediate response most live production requires. I still have my QUsb rig that is used these days as a loaner for small SR gigs that I do not need to deal with at this point in my life: any of you that have a well established SR reputation know exactly the type of situation I am describing. The QUsb or any new SQsb with out knob and fader controls will never be a part of any of my future work .

    As previously stated, I like the idea of a new “SQ control surface” that is a some what altered SQ5 that would accommodate multiple DX168s: (to this end MFK0851 is spot on with the two build S-Link needed improvement) the unity of all processing contained in the control surface makes perfect sense to me. The primary reason the CDM32 never appealed to me is the redundant expense of adding a D-Live control surface putting you well above a 10K investment and that is more than double the investment required for a SQ5/DX168 combo. Creating a new SQ control surface by removing the 16 XLR inputs and pre amps from the SQ5 should provide the margin to make the control surface’s d-live op amp changes and the ability to handle multiple DX168s with out sacrificing the Dante/Waves port. The tactile controls of the SQ suit me very well. I am not suggesting abandoning the SQ5 for a new control surface: it perfectly suits most folks that are buying it. My request is for a custom control surface specifically designed to work well with a pair of DX168s as they exist today..
    Hugh

    .
    Hugh

    #100402
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Bryan, IMO todays church SR management includes multiple video cameras that need audio input, streaming live performance as well as various other recording and broadcasting needs but not necessarily in that order. The subject proposed wifi controlled SQsb would certainly not be suitable for many if any of these activities. There very well could be ancillary uses for a portable, small, wifi only rig however the existing QUsb will probably be functionally suitable & financial a much better fit for these purposes.

    Over the past 24 hours I spent some tine investigating the C-Class D-Live surface controllers that are apparently a highly recommended ubiquitous partner with the CDM stage boxes. The C-1500 has a MSRP of more than 8K and the C-3500 is 13K: Add to that ‘wallet shrink’ 7K for a CDM32 stage box and the world class processing of D-Live sonic quality has an entry level price tag of Apx. 15K.
    This is where the rubber hits the road: tactile control in harmony with touch screen convenience is must have in todays better gear. The reason A&H offers three C-class surface controllers for their CDM stage boxes is based on channel count and the absolute live performance requirement for tactile controls. Where does that leave this thread? The 32 D-Live inputs and 16 D-Live outputs with of a pair of DX168s controlled by an SQ control surface that is essentially a modified SQ5 (with the mods that I have recommended in my previous posts) will require apx. a 5K investment. What I am describing is D-Live processing and sonic quality for an entry level price point 1/3rd the required investment of a comparable d-Live CDM package. It is un-certain whether or not a pair of DX168’s could be functional with a C-1500 surface, but in the event they would, the price tag is still 10K: twice the price of my suggested SQ controller paired with two DX168s.
    Hugh
    Hugh

    #100670
    Profile photo of DB
    DB
    Participant

    As i’m reading this thread, as a relatively unexperienced user in pro audio, i’m already blown away by all the feature suggestions that have been made. Ofcourse everybody wants the most possible features from such a device but i think the main reason why QU-SB / QU-Pac were so populair was because they were simple! Easy to understand for beginner users. I understand people want to connect as many devices from different product lines but lets keep in mind that the SQ range has to stay beneath a certain price point for it to be succesfull.

    That being said, i think the SQ-Pac would be the best option to go with. Because many SQ-Pac users will definitely miss the physical controls on the rack unit. While SQ-SB users won’t miss any features on an SQ-Pac. Ofcourse the physical controls will make it a bit more expensive, but it doesnt have to be much if A&H keep it simple like they did on the QU-Pac. Besides that, the SQ-Pac will instantly be the best rack mixer to buy on the “affordable mixer market”, so im not afraid they won’t sell.

    I/O wise, I think the SQ5 has the perfect I/O on the back of the console with enough possibilities to expand with a stage box like the DX168. Although I doubt if that is possible for a price lower than an SQ5.

    So in short. I agree with the earlier mentioned “simplified” version of the SQ5. Although I would keep some physical controls (at least soft buttons and level control of channels). The touchscreen is doubtable, because i can imagine it would drive up the price. But in my opinion SQ-Pac for the win!!!

    #100671
    Profile photo of DB
    DB
    Participant

    In addition to Keiths reply about why SQ-SB/Pac over an SQ5 or QU-SB/Pac?

    A lot of the arguments for SQ over QU have already been mentioned but I agree with all of them. 96khz / XCVI is the way to go in 2021. Buying an QU while SQ has already proven 96khz / XCVI can be affordable feels outdated. Ofcourse for people who don’t need this or have sound systems where its not audible (bars restaurants) I can imagine people still want a cheaper QU-SB. But for those who are already familiar with the SQ range, an SQ rack version is the way to go for all kinds of applications where SQ5 is to big or the faders arent a must.

    Examples I can think of where SQ-rack will be the perfect solution:
    – Small bars/clubs installs where guests artist plug in on a regular occasion
    – Churches and youth centre installs
    – Live streaming setups where an SQ5 is too big or too expensive
    – Small bands that ‘set up and leave’ the mixer
    – IEM rack
    – Rental companies that are looking for a high quality, but small mixer for sound systems to rent out
    – For smaller jobs of rental companies where an SQ5 is just a step too big to bring along. (DJ/band gigs with a few extra i/o needed)

    #100672
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @DB

    you need platinum ears to hear any diffrence from 96kcps live no matter what sound system you have
    as golden ears wont quite do it.

    the real benefit of 96 comes with all the editing and mixing impacts
    and also downrezzing to 44.1 for CDs at the end.

    SQ has other useful features that Qu is missing which should be the real reason to choose it.
    Unless you were using it for studio recording that will then be edited mixed mastered and downrezzed.

    As to features everybody wants to make their job easier.

    @Hugh
    we run the audio to the live feed, mixes, and the PC used for morphing the video with the audio for streaming.
    why would you want to run audio to a camera?

    #100673
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    you need platinum ears to hear any diffrence from 96kcps live no matter what sound system you have
    as golden ears wont quite do it.

    you would be surprised…

    #100674
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @SteffenR

    I am not suprised at the number of people who claim they can hear an alleged difference.
    The video team at church claims they can set dB level by just their ear and dont need no stinkin meters.

    But I work with facts and data and what you can measure wrt 48 vs 96 is insignificant.

    You might hear the mike or the speakers changing the sound, or defects in the A/D/A circuits,
    but just going from 48 to 96Kcps with nothing else happening is never going to to be audible.

    Not in AES any longer, but I do recall a side experiment at an AES convention some decades ago about what could really be heard. I want to think I recall it because it was about sampling rates, but I am too old to remember details now.
    As I recall it was at least double blind, maybe triple blind,
    and was an A B C X type test to see what could actually be heard vs what people claimed.

    Result: Do not believe them in cases like this.

    #100680
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Answer to Volounteer’s question: I am not in the streaming business, I am engaged to video live band performance with a simultaneously multi-tracking of the event. like most all of the cell phone videos that proliferate u-tube, you obviously are not very well versed in this type of activity. The reason I am paid to video a performance is to deliver a studio quality audio two mix that is perfectly synced with the frames. Most of us doing these chores need a scratch track embedded in the initial video to sync the final two mix with the video editing. In the davinci resolve video editing suite this process is very easy. My two GH5 cameras and Atomos recorders are marginally better than my apple I-Phone or I-Pad for video capture, however even when a FOH mix is available for these Apple devices a custom scratch track mix is ALWAYS much better. Professional video usually requires redundant multi-track for post production video editing that is much much more difficult to sync with the Apple type of devices.
    Hugh

    #100684
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @Hugh

    Versed well enough.
    I understand the syncing and other issues for producing movies and videos.
    Use the sound from the camera to use as a guide to replace the sound from the mixer in sync as you do a final mix.
    But sending sound direct into the cameras for recording will cause worse problems for most people.
    And yes, I have seen people do that.

    What type of church has live band performances? And need studio quality too?

    #100700
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    For starters volounteer my cameras do not record anything, Atomos recorders are attached to each camera that provide hot swappable SSDs for easy editing of the video including the imbedded custom scratch audio track. IMO decisions made within your congregation pursuant to their acceptable degree of mediocrity are not important to this thread, however it is important to understand the reason I question the use of any console limited to WIFI for most all church services. The ability to shape a mix for a video, broadcast or streaming with out the typical FOH embellishments is a very fundamental protocol. Tactile control is pretty much an essential element for most of us that are paid to do these chores simultaneously.
    I have been involved, over my 80 years on this earth, in many lay capacities within my church and this is what I know: 1) The ministry’s success will depend upon the clarity of the spoken word and the perceivable quality of the music program. Performance from the pulpit is only as good as the delivery to the pews, radio or TV. 2) Great music will not necessarily fill up your church: however sub std. music performance, or the service FOH distribution, wlll most likely empty out the pews or cause the viewer to switch channels.
    Hugh

    #100704
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @Hugh

    you contradicted yourself in that confusing first paragraph
    first you say you dont record anything then you admit you DO record the video and audio
    but later you imply you are doing it in RT with something els. so what do you do?

    not sure what the gratuitous insult about our congregation has to do with this topic
    and we do not use wifi for anything.
    we have 5 RF mikes but not wifi, and we have about 20 mikes and other wired inputs.

    as to 1) I agree – but only about the spoken message –
    1a) and that quality has more to do about selection and performance than sound system tweaking
    2) disagree – quality of music is far second to what is spoken by the preacherman
    2a) and by how intelligible the words are
    2b) sub standard music is very subjective and applies more to the performance than the sound system
    and in my 80 years I have never seen any church not keep people due to ‘sub’ standard music
    but I have seen them fall apart for many other reasons
    2c) you are confused about how real life works. operational problems will lose many video viewers
    lack of sound, too low to hear, too high that clipping problems are endemic will also lose viewers
    and lack of hearing assist for deaf folks will lose some from the pews
    3) If your church is losing people then I would look for the real reason and not assume it was bad music sound

    #100717
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    There certainly is confusion rampant in my current repartee with you volounteer: the OP’s request for a SQsb limited to wifi control is the basis for this thread. One of the reasons I gave for tactile console controls was the critical ability to provide isolated mixes for ancillary efforts , including video scratch tracks. It is a well known professional practice to provide separate mixes for these needs to eliminate the necessary adjustments that are made to FOH to accommodate room anomalies. I will quote you ” What type of Church has a live band and wants studio quality audio?” The answer is most of them that are filling up the seats!
    We best leave it up to the readers of this thread to determine which one of us is confused about Faith based sound reinforcement and it’s ancillary activities.
    Hugh

    #100718
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    I will now come back to the initial topic of this thread. I personally see a market for a rackmount, stagebox like version of the SQ. There are some devices of that kind available out there which meets the possible target price point (round about 2000 €) but all of them are running at 48kHz. But even with that limitation they can be a good replacement for many audio interfaces. Higher channel count, a good mixing engine for monitoring with nice effects, both for channel processing and bus FX, and a good user interface in the most cases. In the last week I tried to find an audio interface with at least 24 possible inputs and some outputs for monitoring with a DSP for direct monitoring. Until now I am very disappointed about the result. Very limitatd DSB engines, e.g MOTU or RME, complicated way to extend the input channel count, and most of the time you have to use 48 kHz then, the user interface is not as easy to use (worst example ever is MOTU CueFX, never had contact with a more worse UI). And you have to spend more money for that.
    So, for me it would be a real advantage to have the SQ as a Stagebox, either without any IO, like the Midas M32C, or with the IO of an SQ6, or the full load with the IO, 48 inputs and 24 outputs combined with two SLink ports and at least one extension card slot.
    And in addition to that, it would be great to have an eight or 16 fader controller, with a full channel strip encoder bank which also can be used as a MCU.

    I think that would become a great option for studio work and a nice solution also for live situations.

    #100721
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @Hugh

    Very few churches have live bands.
    Most churches have live music but not bands.

    Even fewer churches are filling all the seats these days.
    Name the church if you make such claims.

    Again you keep moving the goal posts or divert attention from the original posts.

    Of course churches want good audio live.
    And we want to provide good audio to to mixes and streaming and recording yada yada.
    But none of that has anything to do with the original issue of sending that TO the video camera itself as you first wanted.

    #100766
    Profile photo of Barryjam
    Barryjam
    Participant

    I guess I should post here, although some of what I say will be redundant.

    I am both the keyboardist and IEM monitor “engineer” for an 8-piece tribute band. My history with A&H digital ranges from Qu-16 alone, then Qu-sb with stage boxes, and now, SQ5 with GX4816, DX012, and two Me-1. Our input requirement is 24 to 32 channels. Since we have to connect to a wide variety of FOH mixers of different brands, we cover all situations with 32 channels of analogue splitting. I have one rack with GX4816 and splitter, 2nd rack with DX012 and 6 wireless stereo IEM transmitters, and then, SQ5 next to my keyboards on stage. During sound check, I make minor adjustments to preamp levels for FOH provided mics, and musicians fiddle (hopefully only once) with their Phone control of wireless IEM mixes or knob control of Me-1s. I rarely, if ever, even touch the SQ5 after sound check.

    I could easily do all this with an IPAD only control surface. I’ve never had WI-FI issues, mainly because the WI-FI router and phones/IPAD are all on stage so range is not a problem.

    I believe the SQ series provides superior latency performance for IEMs. (Although I admit I never got complaints using Qu-sb).

    Personally, I would buy a SQ-sb/pac and leave the SQ5 in my van (redundancy and abundance of caution). I wonder if those who report WI-FI nightmares are predominantly FOH engineers battling greater distances and crowd interference. The present and future of stage monitoring is IEMs. Smaller bands not using dx/gx boxes would probably do fine with 16-18 inputs and outputs on a SQ-sb/pac. (I suspect that people like me needing zero analog I/O on the control surface may indeed be a niche market).

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 89 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.