Forums › Forums › SQ Forums › SQ general discussions › SB (Stage Box) form factor for SQ-serie
Tagged: SB with SQ inside
This topic contains 106 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by 
nottooloud 1 year ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
2021/12/20 at 4:20 pm #104975
Hello A&H,
I, too, would like the form factor of the qu-pac mixer with the SQ features and capabilities. We run a wedding/event band and the mixer always has to be up by the band so running from an iPad has always been perfect for us. We have the ME-U and ME-1’s so as long as we’re able to use the same accessories and multi-track the gigs to a USB stick I think it’d be a very popular product for A&H. Thanks!!
2021/12/20 at 9:38 pm #104981As I have previously mentioned I can completely understand Luster light’s working protocol. I too mix all of my gigs from the stage and have two custom I-Pad holders for my mic stand: one For the QUsb I purchased more than 4 years ago and the new one for wyfiing mySQ5. It is very important to understand two of the limiting factors of Wyfi only operation of anSQ5.
1) Wyfi only control is latency prolific and for many critical applications tactile controls are absolutely necessary.
2) The current architectural design will not accommodate all of the processing and control features of the SQ5 with an I-Pad.To this end ,it would be very informative if Keith would explain the SQ5’s 36 bus design and how it compares to D-Live’s much larger bus design and corresponding capabilities. This is the heart of the issue and we all need to know precisely what is involved in this or that we are asking for.
Hugh2021/12/21 at 6:52 am #104985I agree with you, Hugh, we should know 100% what we get – it should be better than MR 18 in all aspects. Especially in terms of sound quality, but regarding Wi-Fi, I think it would be better to have an external router … it will be more flexible. If someone needs a more reliable connection, then CAT5 is the best solution.
Dear LusterLights, thank you for your opinion. Let’s more ofter tell about it to A&H – I’m sure it helps!
2021/12/21 at 9:03 am #104986@Hugh
The attached image quickly compares the SQ and dLive on just audio processing and basic channel counts (i.e. ignoring the huge differences in the control options, I/O, total number of audio paths etc…).
There are many similarities and the processing that is in the SQ is the same as that found in dLive, it’s just that dLive is bigger/wider/deeper.
If you haven’t seen it before, also note that the Dyn8 and the Dyn Engine is a rather large and crazy powerful bit of processing that can only be achieved with the bigger Avantis or dLive cores.Cheers,
Keith.Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.2021/12/21 at 8:50 pm #104995oot:
Very Sadly the 4 FX busses can’t be routed out of the board (directly…)2021/12/22 at 1:08 pm #105010Thank you Keith for the prompt response and the very informative attachment. After thinking thru the processing differences between the SQ5 and D-Live cores several things have become very clear to me.
1) 48 input channels are an appropriate limit for a small form desk.
2) A LPF, 2 IP inserts,16 rack extra FX engines, NEQ 12 band PEQ & 64 configurable mixes could possibly become very useful to small channel count users.
3) The massive D-Live DYN Eng that includes MB comp would certainly prove very useful in small channel count protocols.
4) The absence of expanders in the flag ship D-Live core capabilities is a real stumper?The DX processing controller I am requesting needs a D-Live core that should be limited to the existing SQ 48 input channels: large channel counts belong in the D-Live, Avantis world. The specific features that would be available with the D-Live core could be optional add ons like the comp pkg I added and paid for: we should be, and have been, willing to pay for the extra bells and whistles that we want. The existing tactile tools (faders & encoders) in the SQ suit me very well but there needs to be a much more comprehensive connecting protocol that will enable efficient simultaneous use of 3 DX168s or in my case a DX32 and a DX168.
Perhaps the most important question relating to this thread is the amount of function in the existing SQ5 that is not available with an I-Pad controller, be it Wifi or Cat 6 connected. The significant sonic improvements provided by FPGA processing in the current SQ5 are apparently not completely adaptable to an I-Pad controller. Moving up to a D-Live core will prove to be much more limiting. The real question is how many of the folks that are demanding a SQsb have and use a QUsb. Before we move into the creation of a SQsb, real world experience with a much less expensive QUsb should be a no brainer!
Hugh2021/12/22 at 8:49 pm #105015Maybe it is worth to talk about possible price points. The QUsb costs more or less the half or the third of the models with faders. Ithink everybody would expect a similar difference.
Before we move into the creation of a SQsb, real world experience with a much less expensive QUsb should be a no brainer!
Not a QSsb nor any other QU but I own a X32Rack, beside a dLive, SQ6 and a M32. And even if I like to work with standard consoles, the X32Rack is a real usefull tool for not only the classic usage of consoles. If you want I can enumerate use cases but maybe I will run into the limit of maximum characters per posting. 😉
2021/12/23 at 12:12 pm #105023@Hugh
No worries!
A few points (and apologies, it wasn’t an exhaustive comparison)– ‘High power – lower channel count’ concepts do get discussed from time to time, though often don’t make sense from a cost perspective as although the hardware is doing the work, it’s the firmware running on the core which is the real magic (though of course it’s not actually magic, it just takes years of development!). Being that input channels are multiples of the same thing, it is not the same cost to develop the second or 48th or 128th channel as the 1st and the overall platform. So what I’m really saying is that a dLive with half the channel count would not be half the price.
It’s always a case of trying to match the capabilities and the channel count to the intended application and with dLive, it wouldn’t make sense to put all the work in to something with fewer channels.
There are plenty of users out there using CDM32’s with just the 32 on-board inputs…
– As of V1.9, dLive has two (very cool and pretty advanced) expanders – https://www.allen-heath.com/dlive-v1-9/
– The DX protocol is 32×32 per port, but gigaACE/GX is 128×128. A DX-Hub (https://www.allen-heath.com/ahproducts/io-dx-hub/) translates between 1x gigaACE/GX port (connect to SLink) and 4x DX ports and would allow for simultaneous use of your DX32 and DX168
– We have been adding more and more control to the app with every firmware release and do aim to be able to control everything from the app in future (as we did with Qu), there is no limitation in the core it just takes a lot of development/test time to implement in firmware and build into the app. For this reason, the control that is there has been carefully prioritised and there is a list to work through! Obviously a remote-only SQ, as discussed in this thread, would require full control (as with Qu-SB!).Sorry all for half-hijacking the thread, but this is the best place to respond for anyone else coming across Hugh’s post and wondering.
Thanks,
Keith.2021/12/23 at 12:42 pm #105024After reviewing MLFK0815 posts from seven months ago we clearly understand your satisfaction with the X23 rack and all of the many functions it offers to your work flow. However I am hard pressed to figure out why you want to replace the X32 that is working so well for you? You want A&H to use a X32 as a “blue print” for a new SQsb without using the Behringer X32 48K sample rate and it’s internal processing and beyond that, he expects the SQsb to be offered at half or less than the SQ5 price point. You have to know the A&H decision makers will be delighted with that proposal. From his current post it is unclear as to whether he actually ownes a D-Live an SQ6 and a M32, all with dante compatibility” or has worked with this gear in the past.But it is very clear he does not own and has not worked with a QUsb.
We know the sonic quality possibilities of the A&H FPGA XCIV core has elevated digital processing well beyond anything in the Behringer family, including Midas. The entire question about a SQsb turns on the ability of A&H to develop comprehensive external I-Pad type controls, be they WIFI or Cat 6 connected, even for the smaller SQ 36 bus architecture. The answer to that question is well beyond the pay grade of most all of the posters on this forum!
Hugh2021/12/23 at 4:15 pm #105028From his current post it is unclear as to whether he actually ownes a D-Live an SQ6 and a M32, all with dante compatibility” or has worked with this gear in the past
Hugh, I not only own them, but also use them on regular bases. I do not own or work with any QU models because they do not meet my needs at all.
and beyond that, he expects the SQsb to be offered at half or less than the SQ5 price point.
Thats just an projection of the price differences between the QU24/QU32 and the QUsb.
Just to make it clear, your holy grail „sonic quality“ is not the only attribute that counts in live sound reinforcement, it is important but not the most important one. 48kHz is ok for the QU, the GLD (Which I also used for years with success), and so it‘s ok for the Behridas products in my opinion. Probably I have not your golden ears, to hear the difference in live situations with an noisefloor from the croud, so that I can live with that. But I like the flexibility and also some of the processing capabilities of the Behridas products. If you do not know them well enough maybe you should use them for a while to get your own picture. At the moment It seems to me that you have a lot of prejudice and too less knowledge to understand, what I am talking about. And if you do not want to change your mind, be so kind and ignore what I am writing. I hope that the guys from A&H can see better what I mean.2021/12/24 at 1:44 pm #105035My message this Christmas eve is peace and love for everyone and particularly for the folks that post and read these threads. My posts on this thread over the past year were not boiled in a verbal vitriol nor were they a mission to disappoint any of the perceived needs of the SQsb wish list holders. But as a 4 year owner and user of a QUsb and a SQ5, the limitations of this type of gear needs to be well understood. A Wyfi only controlled QUsb or SQ5 clearly presents an unacceptable amount of latency for any perpetual FOH SR management. For the more advanced XCIV processing core found in the SQ5, A&H has not figured a way to deliver anything close to full control with a I-Pad, even if it is Cat 6 connected. An I-Pad is an indispensable tool that offers highly portable bandaid adjustments to a well configured FOH: however there is no way an I-Pad can approach the precision of tactile controls for managing a FOH mix.
My exchange with MLFK0815 is a totally different matter. Given his satisfaction with the 48K sample rate and the highly regarded features available with his X32, what is his interest in using the X32 as a blue print for a SQsb? He is absolutely correct in assuming my lack of experience with any gear from the Behringer group. The needs of my work flow are focused on sonic quality, not an abundance of features that I have not found to be necessary or important over the five decades I have been delivering FOH SR.
Most of the venues where we have appeared over the past 10 years offer very well designed FOH systems and as a rule a more that sufficient controlling console. The acoustic Americana production I offer, with seasoned session ready performers, depends upon a carefully crafted stage mix that features a front end of six high end tube mics feeding A&H prime I/Os and processing enhancement provided with my SQ5. I offer to the FOH console a show ready stage two mix and the fact is the QUsb was never satisfactory to work well within this protocol, so I used my studio Digigrid/WavesLV1 for these purposes until I bought the SQ5 & DX168 combo.
Yes, I am guilty of placing a much higher priority on sonic quality over an abundance of features. I am a minimalist and I proudly admit my SR priority is maximum detailed transparency with a small amount of DYN range reduction and a very small FX wet down. To this end I have found the SQ processing to be precisely what I need and I have not found a need for the abundance of special Behringer features in any of these endeavors.
Hugh2021/12/24 at 6:19 pm #105037Hmm, fine when you have found with your SQ5 the right system for you. And I do not understand why you are always talking about Wifi and the possible problems with that.
Why should the SQsb be only controllable via Wifi? Just because this is the case for the QUsb? The remote control software of the SQ works well on several operation systems and most of them can use wired network beside Wifi.
And put some of the benefits from other consoles and combine them with the SQ. Things like Fader wings, MIDI control, more flexible connectivity, like two SLink connectors build in (this will help to free the interface port for Waves or Dante card)
All those things, I already mentioned in my first post in this thread, combined with the benefits of the SQ series would result in a real competitor on the Faderless mixer market. Use it as an audio interface in the studio, as a stagebox for an other SQ, or dLive and Avantis, or a full console when less footprint is required, as a rackmount IEM mixer for a band. Stuff like that. And because the mixer is more ore less the same as the SQ5 without screen, fader and other controls, it should also be less expensive. Ok, the last point is irrelevant for you, since you spend more than 2.000 € for eight premium inputs without a thought 😉 but others have to be more carefull with the money.
Regardless what your opinion is, I think that SQsb, as I described here, would be a perfect extension of the SQ product range and brings also improvements for the other models of the SQ series. Just think about the often discussed scenario with live sound and video stream sound from the same console. When the SQ6 or SQ7 is used for live sound mixing and some one in the video booth can use one or two MCU controller to run the mix for the video stream, a lot of people will be happy.2021/12/25 at 1:31 pm #105042MLFK0815, we are in total agreement about the need for two S-Link connectors replacing the existing single input: I have been streaming an audio two mix to my two Atomos video recorders with wired XLRs since I got into the video business more than 5 years ago. For more than a year we have been barking back and forth across an idealogical fence with one another about a basic issue that is well beyond our control: A&H has not at this point developed a comprehensive remote control protocol for it’s advanced XCIV processing core. I have diligently pointed out over the past year the existing limitations of remote control as it has been offered by A&H at this point. I completely understand the importance for distant remote control in some configurations and to this end I hope these needs can be provided by A&H in the future. However while I have a history of heavy investment in gear that I need or want I do not want to pay for features I do not need or have no plan to use. For these reasons I am a big fan of a menu of synergistic audio components that offer the possibility of task specific systems. A&H has moved a long way down the road in this regard with the pre loaded options that we can activate with an optional additional investment. This is a harbinger of 21st century audio marketing and to that end I hope A&H will develop a necessary comprehensive remote platform that will deliver exactly the needs of the SQsb requests.
Hugh2023/03/07 at 7:04 pm #111847I, and many others, would buy a wings version of the sq series, , yesterday. 32 in, 12 or 16 out. About $4,000 with full dynamic and miltiband sets included. I’d even help sell them to touring engineers.
2023/03/08 at 7:06 pm #111872Keith,
Thank you for your post of 1/12/23, however I hold a totally different opinion pursuant to the wisdom in offering an advanced D-Live DYN engine and core in something with fewer channels and much smaller footprint. It is an egregious mistake to assume high quality processing is an exclusive need only for large channel count protocols. I have not needed more that 8 ins & outs over the past 20 years for my acoustic America genre studio or live A/V captures. However I invested in a DX168 with the initial SQ5 purchase shortly after it”s release and two years ago initiated the purchase of a DX32 loaded with 8 Prime I/Os. The increased detail and transparency offered with the “Primes” made the sizable investment worth it to me and my main point is, in the premium sonic quality market place, price is not the ultimate factor: function and performance are!
Apparently A&H determined a smaller footprint in the Avantis loaded with a core capable of adding the best of D-Lives processing on an optional “Pay as you need basis”. IMO a mini Avantis with a large processing core and a single advanced 15.6 inch touch screen, two I/O ports and 8 faders with 6 layers along with 8 “Prime” preamps and 8 output amps, for the money channel needs, would be a unique and attractive offering for many discriminating buyers. Most all of the SQ/Avantis connectivity and ancillary features would probably be appropriate for the mini Avantis.
Consider the potential market for this type of unique ultra small footprint, premium quality desk controller, including most all high end classical deca set up recording, along with most all important acoustic gigs that do not require more than 48 inputs. Some of us were willing to deal with a $8,400. MSRP for a DX32 with 8 Prime I/Os, and it follows we would trade up for type of features I am requesting for a mini Avantis.
Hugh -
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
