SQ Rack Mixer?

[EJCParticipant]

I can’t be alone in thinking an SQ rack mixer would be a really great product? I was hoping for announcement at NAMM… maybe next time!

I’ve searched the forum but please feel free to move/merge this post if needed.

My situation is:
I’m a freelancer looking to get a small desk, and I also run a small PA company. The company has QU16 and SQ5, and we share an AR2412 between them.

I would also have bought a QU-SB, but I don’t believe it has the capability to double as a DSnake stagebox?

My *new* application would be for a new band, to run monitors from the stage (for which the QU doesn’t have enough output routing flexibility). Essentially, the product I’d love would be an SQ, in a rack format.

With the same core, ability to add DEEP processing, and a DSnake output so I could either hand cat5 to FOH, or just otherwise use it as a stagebox with our other mixers.

At the moment, I think my option is the x32 rack – but I’d much rather stay within the ecosystem!

[BrianParticipant]

+1

I agree!

We actually use a X32 Rack on stage for IEM mixing and for our drum inputs. We use Dante to connect it to our Avantis, but because the X32 is 48khz, the Dante network runs at 48khz. If there was a SQ Rack, the entire ecosystem could run at 96k (and wouldn’t require Dante to connect the two brands together).

Plus the X32 inputs (routed through Dante to the Avantis) have a longer total processing time than the A&H stage boxes do. That’s why we run our drums on those inputs because we would be delaying them anyway in an effort to time align them to the mains (because they are such a loud acoustic instrument at the back of the stage).

[Alex_Petrov_59Participant]

Yes, it would be great to have SQ-SB or SQ-PAC for small groups too.

[clarocqueParticipant]

+1 for a SQ-PAC! Qu-PAC from factor but with the SQ7 mixer please.

[HughParticipant]

Here we go again: I have serious questions pertaining to any advantage a new SQ rack mixer or SQsb would have over the presently available SQ5. Other than a very small difference in footprint there are no special functions that I can identify while several critical features (such as tactile controls) that are very important to some of us would be missing. I own a QUsb as well as a SQ5 and this is what I have found to be true:

1) The increased performance quality and sonic improvement with the SQ5 is derived primarily from it’s advanced FPGA processing and when combined with the 96K SR it creates an opportunity to fully utilize high end pre-amp in & out puts to attain previously unknown detailed transparency in live sound.
2) The D-Live pres, in the DX168, are significantly better than the original SQ pres but the “prime” pres available with the DX32 module have set a new world standard for detailed transparency.
3) Most all of us are aware of the fact that expansion stage boxes are a vast improvement over console housed in/out puts. The only questions that are still on the table is what the most efficient method for the controls and the most appropriate location for the processing. My thoughts about these questions have been posted with in these threads on several occasions. ( A wifi enabled tactile controller with all the processing housed internally makes the most sense to me with all ins and outs housed in expansion stage boxes)

In todays digital processing world it is very important to match up the elements of your gear to reach it’s synergistic potential. Doing other wise is somewhat analogous to placing a formula 1 engine in a dump truck or shooting squirrel with an elephant gun.
Hugh

[Mfk0815Participant]

In my opinion it makes not that much sense to just pack the Mix engine and the IO of the SQ5 into a stagebox like housing, or in other words, just build a SQ variation of the QU-SB.
The most successfull rackmount digital mixer, the X32, has several benefits compared to the A&H world.
1) it can be used as Mixer and/or as Stagebox given the Main mixer the opportunity to control the preamps of the X32 Rack. even HA split is available, unfortunatly without gain tracking.
2) the connectivity with two AES50 ports allows to connect the X32 to stageboxes or other mixers simultaneously. IN the SQ world there should be two build in SLink ports. this allows the operators to build up complex systems without loosing the expansion card
3) the extra ultranet port is designed to connect the personal monitoring system of Behringer without loosing the other ports. But you can also use the AES50 port to connect the Midas DP48 personal monitoring devices. all of those connection protocolls allows to be freely daisychained, something i miss on the most Slink-enabled protocols
4) there is a big amount of control software for a lot of operating systems. Wehn the X32 rack was introduced even the tablet based apps were enhanced to control the most aspects of the mixer, the desktop/laptop application was enhanced to control everything of the mixer.
5) there are several possibilities to enhance the system with hardware controller, MIDI based or network based (the X-Touch). even the remote apps are enabled to be controlled with MCU or HUI based controllers.
6) You can use the X32 Rack even as a loudspeaker management system because it has the right filter types on the matrix busses.

All these mentioned features makes the X32 Rack a very valuable tool for sound work. Imagine what would be when A&H to take over that features for a rack mount SQ with the IO of a DX stagebox. Imho that will be a possible game changer for A&H because it would be the best argument to pack the SQ-SB into a Inear rack for several bands or at a HOW-installation….. You can extend the system with DX stageboxes AND connect the simultaneously to the FOH console (e.g an SQ6 or SQ7). The inear mix might be controlled via a remote app, or connect the ME-systems, again simultaneously to the SQ-SB. In the case the FOH mixer is broken or there is no space for the FOH mixer you can do the job on the SQ-SB.

Or use it in your studio, where you do not need that tactile control of but a lot of preamps without wasting studio space. the monitor mix is again possible via ME or tablets.
Or, or, or

So in my opinion the SQ-Sb is far away from being pointless.

[Andre SParticipant]

Hi colleagues,

I did a video Interview with Keith for my YouTube channel and I did ask him directly if there´s a SQ Pac in the works.
Interview with Keith Johnson of A&H, part 1

At 26:00min he talks about it as far as he can go (without loosing his job).

Cheers,
André

[Alex_Petrov_59Participant]

Dear Mfk0815,
I’m agree with you – the SQ-SB will be very useful and popular even A&H just cutoff faders from SQ5 desk ( and of course cutoff faders from the price). I’d like to get all plag-ins with the mixer too like its does Behringer/Midas.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[HughParticipant]

There is no way I will accept the possibility of diluting the SR performance of a good money gig or slow down a studio recording with a less than timely response of a wifi only controller. At this point we have pretty much universal agreement pursuant to the importance of stage floor XLR expansion stage box connectivity for all performers and outputs: Cat 6 beats the hell out of hundreds of feet of copper ladened snakes.
Appropriate management controllers, be they tactile hardware or wifi touch screens or a combination of both, of the subject stage boxes, is the thread question that has frequently appeared in this forum. I am more than familiar with most of reasoning behind the pleas for a SQsb. However due the fact that I own and have used in the past a QUsb and a SQ5 as well as running a project studio with a complete Digigrid/Waves LV1 protocol that features two 24 Inch touch screens along with a usb Faderport 8 for multi track mixing: I have no allusions pursuant to WIFI limitations.
This is what I know: the tactile controls of the SQ are by far more responsive and dependable than any of the other connectivity that I have available. Slower response is not a big problem with the Waves system for tracking in my studio, however it can become inconvenient when deeply involved in two mixing multi-tracked recordings. The primary problem with wifi only controls is the requisite lag time, that is a given, that is never a problem with tactile controls. I have used my QUsb on many solo performance occasions with a I-Pad attached to my mic stand. It works however not nearly as clean or dependable as my SQ5. Beyond that when providing SR for the ensemble featured in the second act the tactile controls are a must have feature. I upgraded to a new I-Pad to use with my SQ5 and absolutely do plan to use it when called for: however to rely on it totally for controlling my SR performance is never going to be a possibility.

MLFK0815 raises a very important point that I agree with about the need for increased ports and ancillary options for the family of DX expansion boxes we are now deploying, I would like to see all of the port and I/O convenience of the D-Live models made available in a SQ processing controller. However IMO eliminating redundant performance I/O XLRs on a processing controller will fit a lot more situations than removing the faders.
Hugh

[Author]

Posts