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 106 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of nottooloud nottooloud 1 year, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #101175
    Profile photo of DB
    DB
    Participant

    So I was kinda bored tonight πŸ˜‰

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #101177
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    Look good!
    Maybe turn it over, so numbers run left to right, and the buttons are above the sockets! πŸ˜€

    #101178
    Profile photo of DB
    DB
    Participant

    Yea, this was just a copy of the SQ5 so thats why the numbers are the other way around. I only added the soft buttons and changed the logo πŸ˜‰

    #101211
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    Good idea, lets we doing visualisation of our dreams and they will come true!
    My small improvement for SG-SB is here
    (all things on the one side – in this case we can set the box in any place)
    (Combi inputs XLR/TRS and a few Hz inputs are better for me – I don’t need DI-Boxes)

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #101308
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    Added USB Record stick and grips

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #102051
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    Hello everybody,
    Just to show the item in first page…
    And I’d like to remind you be more active if you would like to get the SQ serie in form of a stage box or SQ-PAC.
    Please, more discuss on the thema!
    We have calculated price for future unit and we have approximately construction of the unit – are you agree with it?

    #102242
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    I’m looking every day for very good news from Allen&Heath about SQ-Pac and/or SQ-SB testing… But nothing… Are somebody heard about it?

    #102352
    Profile photo of EJC
    EJC
    Participant

    I’ve been watching this discussion quite regularly – I would LOVE an SQ5-rack (SQ-SB)

    For me, it’s a QU-SB, but SQ. I won’t bore you all with the details; but I’m a freelancer and I also run my own small company, and do lots of travel gigs (rarely flying, but small form factor is important so I definitely think of it as a “fly rig”).

    – I usually need my I/O on the stage (like others have said, without spending $$$ on stageboxes). At FOH I could either use an iPad, or run cat5 down to control the existing MixPad app with a laptop/touchscreen option… there are many possibilities without changing any architecture or developing “new” apps.

    – For gigs where total size of the rig isn’t as important, the ability to interface it with my current SQ-5 and/or QU16 (ie use it as a stagebox) is also essential; as long as it has SLink (and ideally an expansion slot) then it’ll do that job just as well as the SQ5 currently does.

    – For situations when I’m onstage (eg playing drums in a band) I could also use a rack to run PlayBack, where I’d like my laptop on top of the rack. The new Rack-Mixer would then go inside a rack unit, with an analogue split system to plug into “whatever” FOH the venue has.
    The rack mixer could then handle all the IEMs, plus the PlayBack outs using USB-B.

    I’d also use this setup when touring as a band’s sole engineer, mixing FOH on “desk du jour” while keeping the IEM side of things consistent.

    Which brings me to … USB-B streaming. I currently record all my shows & run virtual soundcheck using 32/32 USB. The big thing that stops me going DLive (aside from price, but I might be tempted to swallow that) is… I’d lose the USB!
    Dante card is another Β£1kGBP, so that’s not going to happen.

    The QU-SB (well QU in general) doesn’t have 12 discrete output paths, which is a total deal-breaker for me (especially as the x32 rack has 16). I can absolutely live with 12, especially as a trade-off to get the myriad other benefits of SQ.

    In short – physical I/O, no physical control.

    The mockups above are great (although power should be on the Back of the unit, not taking front-facing real estate!)
    I’m also not sure whether softkeys are the best use of space? I’d rather have a touch-screen and rotary, if we’re going to start adding control; but honestly, the MixPad app is GREAT and I sometimes control my SQ5 just from that anyway (depending on where FOH has to be).
    I’d say keep the cost down.

    Personally, the XLR/TRS combi inputs are a cool idea, but I wouldn’t use them – and the *other* things being discussed here which are NOT already features of the SQ range are, I think, irrelevant.

    As it currently stands, without this unit existing – I’m looking at x32 Rack, plus some discrete bits of hardware (like DBX160) to replace the DEEP processing – AND then a bunch of analogue splits all built in, so that I could interface with all the A&H gear we currently use.

    I would MUCH prefer to stay within the ecosystem (and I’d pay SQ5 money for the unit… although I’m probably in the minority there). So +1 +1 +1 to this product becoming reality please.

    #102360
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    A few posters have repeatedly pushed this idea for several months. We have been through all of the pros and cons ad-nauseam and at this point the desires of the SQsb wishers posting on this thread are very well know to most everyone, including A&H. If a significant number of sales are likely with out detrimental corresponding product off sets a device of this nature could possibly be available in the future: however a few folks repeating the plea over and over will not impress anyone that is in a position to influence product development at A&H. It is almost always about the predictable number of likely buyers willing to pay double, or more, for the SQ features the QUsb does not have. This is where the rubber hits the road.
    Hugh

    #102367
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    Hi all,

    There are some great ideas here and really well explained reasons for wanting certain things (and not others).
    We have read and made notes from most of the posts (Ooo, that rhymes!) and will continue to check back to this thread which is incredibly useful to us if and when we do work on an SQ in this form factor.
    I just wanted to jump in after Hugh’s post though, as it made me realise that some of you guys might be expecting us to pop up at some point and confirm this is happening or for it to perhaps appear within a few months.
    So to try and be clear, we’re always working on new products, some may take say, a year or so and others much longer, but with very few exceptions we will never confirm or deny what we are working on until it’s released.
    I realise this is super frustrating as we live in continually faster paced and more informed world, but there have been many times where product or firmware releases get pulled at the 11th hour for all kinds of reasons, so we’d rather stick to announcing things when they’re ready or 100% confirmed wherever possible.

    I really hope this doesn’t dissuade anybody from continuing to post their thoughts on this topic!

    Cheers,
    Keith.

    #102377
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    Dear Mr. Keith,
    Thank you very much for the actual information on the creation of SQ-SB(PAC) and new hope that our dreams will come true. In order to somehow speed up the process of creating SQ-SB(PAC), maybe you will bring up for discussion some specific parameters and properties of the future product, and in the process of discussion useful ideas will arise that will improve this product to its serial production and ensure its commercial success? We are ready to help you!

    #103342
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    Dear Mr. Keith,
    Please, don’t forget about SQ-SB and SQ-PAC.
    Keep it up.
    Keep it up.
    Keep it up.

    #103347
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    You definitely don’t need to worry about me forgetting!
    (but good to keep this topic ‘in view’ for others to contribute)
    πŸ™‚

    #103351
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    We are a few weeks short of a one year anniversary of this thread’s requests for more efficient stage box options. It occurs to me the fundamental differences lie with in the specific difference between a stage box, that houses it’s own processing, VxS an expansion box that requires external processing.(CDM32 VxS DX168) Location of the requisite processing and the importance, or disdain, of tactile controls is at the heart of the issue.

    1)The hard cold truth is, other than it’s cosmetic appearance, A SQ5 placed on the stage floor in front of the performers that is totally controlled with an I-Pad and ignoring the SQ’s tactile controls would in essence be an SQsb.
    2) I am currently using either a DX168 or DX32 expansion box for all I/Os with the processing and tactile controls of my SQ5: totally ignoring the SQ’s I/Os.

    it is important to acknowledge the fact that both camps can function pretty well within the existing SQ protocol. Our desires are centered around our wish to discard unnecessary function that we do not use. It is also very important to stipulate the absolute agreement pursuant to the necessity of the existing ancillary WYFY controls and USB recording protocol.
    IMO the most important factor to consider is the fact that A&H has staked out it’s future by delivering world class sonic processing in affordable incremental packages. The most recent example is the “Prime” I/O option that is a no brainer for classical music recording. 8 in and 8 out with a appropriate companion processing and tactile controller will probably be available in the future for this ground breaking technology.
    I am very thankful for the SQ5’s ability to deliver my SR needs and it is important to acknowledge the fact that no other desk at it’s price point can approach the SQ’s sonic quality or capabilities.
    My biggest future concern is the precarious political difficulties between the western consumer world and the Chinese government. My friends selling upscale SR systems tell me 6 month or more delivery delays are expected. The Amazon “order upon sale ” protocol is a disaster in high end SR sales and installation. We need to realize it is also a problem with most all entry level gear: China is pretty much in total control of these manufacturing activities and their policies have a direct effect on most all SR gear availability.
    Hugh

    #103762
    Profile photo of Alex_Petrov_59
    Alex_Petrov_59
    Participant

    Hi Hugh,
    I’m totally agree with you:
    “…
    1)The hard cold truth is, other than it’s cosmetic appearance, A SQ5 placed on the stage floor in front of the performers that is totally controlled with an I-Pad and ignoring the SQ’s tactile controls would in essence be an SQsb.
    …”

    For people who like to have a little tactile controls it will be enought to sell SQ-PAC… I’m live during 3 years with MR18… I’ve understood that a mixing console with tactile control knobs is just a habit that is easy to get rid of … As easy as switching to a digital console from an analog one. (Maybe hard on begin but you cannot stop it more…) In addition, tactile control knobs are a source of additional damage due to wear. I would be happy with my MR18 but for studio works it has not so good quality of sound as SQ… So, I’m waiting for SQ-SB anyway:

    (melody from ‘O sole mia)
    It’s now or never
    SQ-SB
    Sell it me sooner
    My Allen&Heath
    Tomorrow will be too late (Political situation will be worse)
    It’s now or never
    SQ-SB

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 107 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.