Forums › Forums › SQ Forums › SQ general discussions › SQ mixer in the way like an QU-SB?
This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
2020/05/16 at 7:44 am #91871
Hi there,
does anybody know, if there is planned a SQ-mixer in the way like an QU-SB? Or another “rack-mixer” from A&H, but not QU-Pac and QU-SB, which don’t have the possibilitie to include a Dante-card, I think. So the newest enines and features in a compact outfit? I need a small mixer-unit with the known A&H features (I own an A&H QU 16 until now) PLUS the possibility to integrate a Dante-card, beacause I want a stable multitrack-recording an playback from modern laptop without the well known USB 2/3 problems of A&H and with the possibilite to have the laptop more far away from the mixer, than USB makes possible. Therefore I want to connetct the laptop with LAN…
Thanks for help or ideas…
2020/05/16 at 12:59 pm #91879You have raised two points I will comment upon;
1) I gave my QU16 to my grandsons for their garage band endeavors along with a custom ADK computer loaded with a Studio One DAW. They have been multi-track recording up to 32 tracks for more than three years with out problems.The gift was prompted by my decision to set up a full Digigrid/Waves LV1 with a new ADK computer with more than enough CPU to manage all DAW activities with all of the Waves CPU hungry plug ins. I bought a QUsb for my small one man gigs and after putting a Glyph, independently powered, HD in the USB2 recording hub I had no problems recording up to as many as 16 tracks to be processed later.
The point is if an appropriate HD is used and the A & H protocol is carefully followed a QU 16, QUsb or a SQ will produce dependable recordings. If I choose a more elaborate recording protocol for my SQ5 the waves plug in would accommodate my server with all of the fabulous plugs I use in the studio every day. At this point it has not been necessary.
2) Be very careful what you ask for: The primary difference between the touch screen operation of My LV1 and the QUsb is Cat6 VxS Wifi. The latency wifi generates can make controlling a show frustrating when lots of fader pushin is necessary. Most of my work is videoing acoustic pro bands that do not require much in the way of audio desk manipulation so the wifi works pretty well. But I recently videoed a one hour stage production with a cast of 30 and more moving parts that a swiss watch and the wifi latency of the QUsb was a nightmare.I too would be a buyer of an SQ loaded DX168 if the touch screen was Cat6 controlled. However no way will Wifi get you there for most audio activity.
Hugh2020/05/16 at 6:10 pm #91883ad 1) I had a lot of problems with a brandnew Lenovo 16 GB ram, i7, SSD laptop because it has only USB 3 ports. Especially playback is impossible… always “electric noise” from time to time… After this I bought an old used Lenovo Thinkpad 410 with 8 GB ram, i5 an SSD, only USB 2 ports, and it run’s. Bur I want to have a fast solution, and this is LAN, so I need for example a Dante solution. REcording on “USB-Drive” ist not the problem, only connection via USB-B to a laptop… But USB 2 will die sloly, so I need a solution for the future and this only can be LAN…
ad 2) Until now I never had problems with connecting the QU16 to my tablet for operating the mixer. I use Mixing Station Pro, a powerful and nearly perfect app. I can customize this app in any way I need. Because I don’t manage huge shows, only playing in a “garage band” also, I never had problems. So I am the keyboarder and audio-technican of the band in one person an have to do both at same time. So I have my tablet on the keyboard and do the little mixing from song to song from there. So I never sit at the mixer itself, and I am much more used to the Mixing Station App surface now. But you are right… WiFi always can be a problem. I only use it for the Mixing Station App. Multitrackrecording or plybacks I would like to connect via LAN cable and I think, this should be possible with the Dante card. And it schould also be possible to mangae Faders, Mute and some other thins with MIDI from the DAW using this LAN-cable…
Two reasons for wishing a rack-mixer is: Smaller and cheaper…. Of course it would be perfect to have a SQ 5, but I need the Dante card also, 700.-, perhaps a Stagebox, 940.-, so I have the amount of about 4000.- for everything. With a rackmixer I don’t need a stagebox and I could get everything for perhaps about 1700.- or so…
2020/05/17 at 1:31 pm #91894At this point there is no clear empirical evidence indicating any advantage in using USB3 to manage audio digital packets: Unlike Video that is a totally different demand. The controlling A&H USB2 question is the degree to which downward compatibility is available within various USB3 HD devices.
Perhaps a bit of thinking out side of the box will offer a new approach to recording your band that would be more appropriate than your present planned protocol. Reviewing the options will reveal the following.
An SQ5 offers 16 tracks of 24/96K or 32 tracks of 24/48K recording with USB2 Output on top of the desk. A Glyph Studio USB3 Powered HD will capture the tracks and from that point a dump down later to your DAW for processing is a no brainer.
I have been deploying a “set it and leave it” desk protocol for more than 50 years for FOH SR in the acoustic Americana genre and these days it works very well with my live music video shoots. I love the SQ full range of recording options that allows us to customize the exact amount of processing the HD will initially capture that has no relativity to FOH manipulation. To that end after the live tracks are in the DAW re-tracking and/or punch ins are a snap with the SQ5s FPGA processing.
My 5 decades of chasing better sonic captures has taught me a very important lesson: blind loyalty to gear of any type is ultimately a disappointing, expensive trip. Chasing technology is a well known rabbit hole but so is a failure to properly assess better available protocol options.
Hugh
Hugh -
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
