SQ6 faders moving up & down

[Bertz]

Our church bought SQ6 mixing board about year ago, just last sunday the faders began moving up and down and switching from main to aux 3. I keep reading on the issue on the net, ive read that was a common issue. Can you give me a clear answer on how to fix it or i shall bring it the service center. Hope that somebody from this forum can enlighten me. Thank you for answers.

Sincerely

Bertz

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[MabelTainter]

We’ve been dealing with this same issue on our SQ-7. After updating the firmware to the latest 1.5.10, the fader stopped working properly and would either act erratically or would slam up and or down when changing layers. I’ve been talking with A&H support (I had issues with our AB168’s dropping out spontaneously and inconsistently), which prompted me to update the firmware in the first place, and then the topic changed to that one fader. Apparently, it seems that they might be related somehow via a hardware issue, but because it only started after updating the firmware, I’m still not convinced that it’s not a software issue. Unfortunately, I have no answers for you, but I hope you’re able to find some!

[Hugh]

There are many times over more SQ5s working every day with very few SQ5 fader malfunction reports found on this forum. Perhaps a well thought out SQ5 with DX168s would have been a better choice.
Hugh

[htevents]

@Hugh,

What do you mean with this? Is the SQ5 more reliable than an SQ6/SQ7 or did I misinterpret your post?

[Hugh]

You did not misinterpret my post: I have observed far more fader complaints with SQ6 & 7 desks on this forum even though the smaller SQ5 has many times over the number of units in service than a combination of both the 6 & 7s. One possible reason for the disparity may be the fact that the SQ5 has fewer motorized faders to maintain and, IMO, can make much better extensive use of layers, patching, DCAs and groupings.
If you will consider the fact that motorized faders relocate with many desk management activities it makes perfect sense that the “law of averages” is at work in this case.
Hugh

[SQuser]

@Hugh
Recently in another thread you spread the nonsense that working with more than 16 faders would be obsolete these days.
Now the “logic” follows that with the SQ-5’s only 16 faders you “can make much better extensive use of layers, patching, DCAs and groupings”.
Oh and yes: Now you even find a corresponding “law” that says SQ-6 and 7 are not recommended.
Btw. have you ever thought about it?:
The more fader you have available, the less you have to switch to other layers and mixes – the less wear and tear.

And: I know of two SQ-5s that I sometimes have to work with.
One has some sticky faders that move significantly slower than normal.
And on the other, the faders make small jitters before they reach their upper positions.

I’m really happy for you and everyone for whom the SQ-5 is the perfect desk.
But don’t keep trying to badmouth the larger SQs, please.

[Hugh]

“Spreading nonsense” is a weak defensive position in support of yesterdays necessary analog practice of matching up fader counts with I/O capacity. The three SQ models share a processing core that offers a 36 bus design and a max of 48 inputs. An SQ5 with a pair of DX168s matches the SQ7’s 32 inputs with the additional bonus of providing D-Live quality I/Os and converters on stage where they are needed. The additional bonus is the 16 SQ5 internal I/Os will be available to facilitate ancillary hardware at the console maximizing the SQ’s 48 input design. All of this for less investment than required for the SQ7’s doubled up fader count.

Every move to auxes or FX adjustment will result in fader relocation on all models. Proper patching and DCA assigns will minimize the amount of fader movement that switching layers requires. The gospel truth is todays premium large format systems have heavy involvement with automated algorithms and massive Waves plug-ins that greatly facilitates the management of large channel counts. This is the primary benefit of digital processing that also happens to apply to the entry level SQ line.
Hugh

[SQuser]

> Every move to auxes or FX adjustment will result in fader relocation on all models.
Obviously you just don’t know how to achieve, with more available faders also to need less access to these settings.
But everyone should work the way they want – and also with the desk that allows them to do so!

Unfortunately this discussion doesn’t help the two people concerned, but I’m sure that their problems are not related to the size of their SQ desk – as it suggested here.
However, no one in the forum will be able to help here, only A&H support.

[Hugh]

We need to maintain a clear focus on the known factual elements of the often reported fader problems with SQ6 & 7 desks. Speculation pursuant to the amount of experience we may or may not have experienced is a weak substitution for actually refuting the reasons I offered in favor of the SQ5/DX168 combo over the more expensive, much greater footprint of the SQ6&7s. For the record I have no idea what SQuser was doing in 1975: however I was mixing SR for the worlds best Bluegrass band (The New South) at large festivals every week end, on Various 24+ channel analog consoles. I know from more than 25 years of working with a boatload of faders what it is all about. This is the primary reason I am a huge proponent of DCAs, layers and expansion stage boxes that the digital revolution has made possible.
My posts are directed toward folks involved with their church’s decisions to improve SR Gear. The argument I have advanced will never be provided by A&H for marketing reasons. However the importance of clearly understanding the extended ramifications of the three SQ models is impossible unless we are willing to discuss their real world differences.
Hugh

[SQuser]

> I was mixing SR for the worlds best Bluegrass band (The New South) at large festivals every week end, on Various 24+ channel analog consoles.
Obviously you’re assuming you’re the only one with experiences here.
Sorry, but I worked for years on an analog console with 40 channels (68 faders – already 8 VCA!) – and not just on weekends – and not just with a small band.
Later the digital revolution reached me with 56 channels (38 faders).
So I know very well what I’m writing about here.
Maybe to clarify again: Of course I also use DCAs, layers, groups and stage boxes with my SQ-6 – I’m not stupid.
But the additional 8 faders make the handling for my (!!!) workflow much more comfortable and clearer.
That’s why the fact that it’s almost 20 cm wider, almost 3 kg heavier and a higher price doesn’t bother me at all.
If I only ever had a Bluegrass band, probably 16 faders would be enough also for me – or even just 8.

[Hugh]

That is the whole point: “Different strokes for different folks”. Clearly SQuser is more comfortable with a bigger desk with more faders and soft keys, however with a limitation of 48 inputs it certainly is not necessary. Acquiring adequate gear to have the tools needed for your work flow should always be the top priority.
Unfortunately the OP’s SQ6 fader problems are shared by more than a few SQ6&7 owners. Thus the “law of Averages” are in play. (doubling the number of motorized faders will potentially proportionally increase the failure rate)
I have advanced posts in this forum to illustrate the important difference between pragmatical vs preferential gear decisions.
Hugh

[SQuser]

A big apology!
I only now realized again what a troll is and that we shouldn’t feed it.
Thats why I agree everything and will obediently scrap my SQ-6.

[Tobi]

He is trying to get better, even though I have to admit, some of His Posts in this topic are … Special …

[Brian]

I think the likelihood is that you are experiencing a fader hardware failure. I think any “timing” of the failure to the firmware update is simply coincidence. We tend to think about “what changed” that might have caused this issue and many times firmware updates are the only thing that “changed”. But with electronics in general, hardware failures are going to happen when they happen and are rarely caused by firmware updates (and when they are, it’s a huge problem affecting large numbers of people).

Furthermore, I think it is likely there is a small correlation between the different SQ consoles and fader failures – with the smaller consoles likely having fewer failures. However if this is even statistically true, it’s simply because the more faders you have on a console, the higher the odds that you will eventually have one fail. It doesn’t mean the faders on the SQ7 are more likely to fail or the faders on the SQ5 are “better” and less likely to fail however. It’s just that with twice as many faders on the SQ7, the odds of you having one fail is going to be “twice as high ” as a SQ5. Think of it this way, if I buy two lottery tickets instead of one, I am twice as likely to win the lottery even though the overall odds of my winning are still extremely small.

[Author]

Posts