Using analog snake cable is recommended for sq series or not?

[Bertz]

Hello there,

Our church have sq6 mixing console, about a year there are some problem rising up like some of the aux mix bus button does nit not functioning (can not be press). Mix 2 and house mix keep switching so faders keeps moving. We dont have any connecrion to the board except the inputs and outputs. I was thinking that because we were using the analog snake 50 meters long. This kind of snake can affect the sq6 system? Hope somebody can share there thoughts about this.

Thank you and God bless.

[Anonymous]

I can’t see any way that an analog snake would cause this type of issue. It seems you just have a malfunction with the board. Perhaps someone spilled some liquid in sometime the past? You could consider sending it out for repair or possibly saving the show, doing a full reset, and reloading the show and see if that helps?

[Mike C]

Not a snake issue. Sounds like maybe a could button’s are stuck, maybe from a drink spill as mentioned.

[Hugh]

There obviously is a hardware malfunction with the desk, as has been suggested.
The OP has however opened the door to an operational question about the importance of sorting through the fundamental options, Pro vs Con, when selecting SR gear. The SQ line has three different versions that differ only in the number of faders and internal I/Os: the FPGA processing and 48 channel count limit with all SQ desks are identical.
I can see absolutely no advantage of an SQ6 over a SQ5 with a single DX168 on stage or the pulpit, or a SQ7 over a SQ5 with two DX168s cascaded at the source of the creative program. Deploying one or more DX168 expansion stage boxes puts the I/Os where the action is and a single cat 6 cable that renders all multi-channel snakes obsolete. The SQ5 remotely located would accommodate any and all ancillary external inputs at the controlling location. The required investment difference will not be significant.
This is today’s professional approach for remote management of critical I/Os at the source, where they are needed.
Hugh

[SQuser]

@Bertz
> … are some problem rising up like some of the aux mix bus button does nit not functioning (can not be press).
I also think that it is definitely not related to your analog multicore.
But this could be easily tested by disconnecting all connections to and from the desk.
Please try it.
I can’t imagine that the error will disappear.

@Hugh
> The SQ line has three different versions that differ only in the number of faders and internal I/Os:
That’s not true: SQ-6 and 7 have more Soft Keys and additional labeled controls in the form of Soft Rotaries.
If you don’t have any use for it, of course it’s ok for you.
But others are happy about the additional options and prefer this more convenient operation.

But the main difference are really the additional faders, which represent a big advantage depending on the projekt and especially live.

And: We don’t know the local conditions.
I can imagine that the analog multicore has been used for a long time.
In old and possibly listed buildings it can sometimes be very difficult or even impossible to lay new cables.

[Hugh]

Yesterday’s analog processing requiring 24, 32 or more faders and a plethora of aux controls has been digitally replaced with DCAs and their associated spills along with digital group assigns and ganging that were not previously available.
As a 50+ year veteran of SR endeavors, I am well aware of the huge difference between the two eras and most of the real benefits the digital revolution has actually delivered.
#1 is deploying expansion stage boxes that provide the I/Os where the are needed, on stage.
#2 is DCA channel management along with group assigns & ganging with absolute precise custom patching.
These two digital gifts have rendered matching console faders and I/Os with input capacity obsolete today.

IMO, the utilization of double the amount from 8 to 16 soft keys or the addition of 4 or 8 assignable soft rotaries is not a very long list of benefits to warrant 24 or 32 channel snakes or the additional investment required for a SQ6 or SQ7. However in the real world it is very hard for some of the “old analog dogs” to scale the learning curve of the new digital protocols.
Hugh

[Tobi]

Hi Hugh,
I have to agree, that Missing soft Keys in SQ 5 is Not a big issue. But you are really using the Word “protocol” (Always) wrong, See Here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol

Best Regards,
Tobias

[Bertz]

Thank you for all your thoughts regarding the scenarios I had laid here. I appreciate all comments. For that I was enlightened and I will apply what i have learned from here.

[SQuser]

@Hugh
> These two digital gifts have rendered matching console faders and I/Os with input capacity obsolete today.
Would you please leave it up to each person to decide what is important and what is unnecessary – from your point of view: obsolate.
If you are happy with your smaller desk, then it is good for you.
I consciously chose a size larger and would definitely never want to swap.

[Dean]

I went with the SQ5 for size and weight considerations. If I could have 32 full size faders (plus the soft rotaries) in the space and weight and price of the sq5, I would have gone for that.

Of course that would require Dr. Who Tardis technology.

Dean

[Hugh]

It is not my wish to create a whizzing contest about proper use of words in the english language however toby has left me no alternative. Pursuant to Websters new world Dictionary on pg. 598: “first leaf glued to a manuscript (noting the contents)” pretty well describes my use pursuant to digital processing forms. Wikipedia is a handy source for a boat load of information: but hardly the last word in proper definition of words in our English language.

My initial post on this thread was centered around examining the gear options (specifically for the SQ5,6 & 7) with pros & cons for each. My second post was to illustrate two of the specific unique advantages digital processing offers that may or may not be considered when purchasing a SQ6 or 7.

The only reason I offered my thoughts on this thread was to help illuminate the digital options available today that may be overlooked or miss-understood when important Church committee decisions about SR gear are made.
Hugh

[Author]

Posts