SQ6 in the studio

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions SQ6 in the studio

This topic contains 24 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Rens Rens 4 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #98728
    Profile photo of Rens
    Rens
    Participant

    Hugh-

    Thanks for the reply; if I do go the SQ route (i have a colleague who swears by it) then I am planning to use the MADI card as I am happy with RME at the DAW interface.

    Im told the preamps are ‘even better’ in the DX168 box in terms of noise than what is in the desk. do you concur?

    Rens

    #98729
    Profile photo of Scott
    Scott
    Participant

    The DX168 preamps are the same as the ones used in the dLive. I’m not sure about those used in the SQ’s local I/O. I always use mine with DX168s on stage, and the local I/O is usually only used for break music playback. Overall the SQ sounds fantastic and is a pleasure to haul around compared to taking the dLive out. I have an SQ5 which is super compact, and yet has loads of capability.

    #98730
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Scott speaks the truth: The DX168 stage box is a world class D-Live product. The internal SQ pres are not the same but they are very close, if not identical, to the DX168. I will be doing a new show, when we are let out of “covid jail” that features a 4/5 piece seated acoustic ensemble in the second set and I do a solo performance in the first set. I deploy 6 tube mics for all of our capture and the ensemble has the DX168 while I use the SQ5 at my separated stage location. This provides a seamless two hour + show that allows a lot of performance flexibility for a few of yesterdays hot pickers to do their thing for our “old and in the way” fan base. It is an evening full of our favorite music from the “Great American Songbook” that is fun for all involved.
    Some folks believe they can perceive a small sonic difference between the SQ vs DX168, IMO it is minimal.
    Hugh

    #98731
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    Today i use a gsr-24 with antelope converters and an rme madi-fx card for both initial capture and for overdubs. It works well, and running at 96k i get minimal latency (as in sub 3ms) and good sound. I have the power supply in an adjacent machine room, so its quiet.

    Its a very good platform for my needs, but the gs-r24 is starting to have problems with the group busses, metering, and some of the channels and i need to decide if i (1) put time into fixing it (2) buy another analogue console like an audient 4816 or the new low-end neve or (3) go digital in which case the sq series looks really good.

    It may be worth taking off the bottom cover of you GSR-24 and checking / re-seating the ribbon cable connections that connect all the boards.

    #98742
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    I have been using a complete Digigrid Waves LV1 system in my studio for the past 4 years and given the splendid service it has rendered I recommend the Waves card for the SQ line: however the Dante option also provides a very similar function but I have no experience with it.

    I think in a studio setting Dante will offer the same overall use case as the Waves card. The only thing the Waves card can do that the Dante card cannot is work with a Waves Soundgrid Server which is important in a live sound setting where latency is a real issue. In a studio, latency has to be accounted for but isn’t a major issue if it gets to be a high number like it would in a live setting where audience members hear both the raw and latent signals at the same time. If you already have a Soundgrid Server or think you will want to go that route someday, then the Waves I/O card is a better choice. Barring that, I think the Dante card is the better choice because of the higher number of Dante enabled devices out there.

    #98745
    Profile photo of Dymaxion
    Dymaxion
    Participant

    The only thing the Waves card can do that the Dante card cannot is work with a Waves Soundgrid Server which is important in a live sound setting where latency is a real issue.

    Is the latency difference really that noticeable? Latency on a Dante network with a decent switch (assuming you’re not doing multiple hops) should go as low as .5ms? I suppose the Dante virtual soundcard may be worse, if you’re using it?

    #98748
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    The most important thing to remember is the Waves server is not necessary to multi-track or execute most other studio work with your SQ. The Waves card inserted in your SQ creates a Cat6 connection to the computer that houses your DAW and the “FREE” sound grid studio program will put you in business. You will need to purchase a server if you intend to use Waves plug ins but most folks are very pleased with the SQ provided FX and Deep Comp package. It is most un-likely you will not be able to find the studio embellishments you will need within the SQ for most small to medium channel count every day studio chores. Most every thing you will need you have already have with the SQ: whether you chose a Waves or Dante card either way the big benefit is replacing USB2 with a Cat6 multi-track recording protocol.
    Hugh

    #98749
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    There is one other caveat that may or may not be important: Your computer needs to have enough horsepower to run 24/96K multi-tracking. The proposed channel count is also a very important consideration to include in your computer power evaluation.
    Hugh

    #98750
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    You will need to purchase a server if you intend to use Waves plug ins

    Just to be clear, a Waves Soundgrid Server is not required to use plugins. You can accomplish the same thing using a DAW.

    Your computer needs to have enough horsepower to run 24/96K multi-tracking.

    This is true, but multitrack recording doesn’t take that much horsepower. You are basically just saving the digital data to disk. Any recent i5 or i7 processor (and by recent I mean something in the last 5-7 years) will be fast enough for this task. Our i7-3700 records 40 tracks without breaking a sweat. Like it’s maybe at 30% CPU usage (but I am going off memory here).

    #98752
    Profile photo of Rens
    Rens
    Participant

    In a studio, latency has to be accounted for but isn’t a major issue if it gets to be a high number like it would in a live setting where audience members hear both the raw and latent signals at the same time.

    Not always true in the case of overdubs monitored through the recording chain, but I guess with the onboard effects in the SQ that cam be mitigated.

    Does anyone have experience with the MADI card yet? It would seem to use coax rather than fibre, which is a shame but I can see why that would make sense for live setup/teardown.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.