XCVI bus size?

[HughParticipant]

Keith, please define the primary role “Bus Size” plays in the A&H 96K FPGA processing. Width & Speed are both important factors in all digital processing but their function is clearly different: Size determines how much data can be transferred at one time, while Speed determines time required for the transfer.

1) Is the 36 bus architecture of the SQ5 capable of efficiently managing any and all A&H’s advanced software?
2) Is the stated buss differences from the SQ’s 36 up to D-Live’s 64 bus design more about input capacity than Software implementation?
3) The new CQ has not released any info pursuant to it’s bus size, so a clear explanation of it’s limitations pursuant to it’s bus size would be helpful.

Keith, your ability to comprehensively explain often miss-understood processing controls (ie your clarification of “Trim Control”) is now needed to sort out the benefits and limitations of Bus Size. It is vitally important for us all to understand the precise role and limitations of the Bus count. Is the physical size difference between a 36 bus to 64 buss processing core as significant as surface controls for I/O capacity?
Hugh

[TobiParticipant]

It is vitally important for us all to understand the precise role and limitations of the Bus count.

No, it is really not…

[KeithJ A&HModerator]

@Hugh

I’m afraid I don’t fully understand the question, but at a guess, you’re asking about the differences in mix/output buss processing across ranges (?)

In short, whilst the processing that is provided across multiple XCVI core ranges is the same, the type and amount of processing available in each range varies. There are also big differences when it comes to summing and routing.

For example, the GEQ, PEQ and Compressor found in an SQ’s output channel are the same as those in a dLive’s output channel.
But a dLive has more output channels (width?) and extras like the NEQ,more sidechain filtering on the Comp, and being able to sum more channels and route back to inputs (speed?).

So (and please excuse the slight analogy adjustment), the differences are in both X and Y, not just channel count.

You can find more info on CQ’s output channels/processing in the screen references of the user guide here – https://www.allen-heath.com/media/CQ_User_Guide_V1_1_0_iss1.pdf#page=87&zoom=auto,-361,555

Thanks,
Keith.

[HughParticipant]

Thank you Keith for your prompt reply. Am I understanding correctly your example of processing “WIDTH” controlling the number of output channels, while processing “SPEED” is the primary factor in applying advanced FX applications for output summing and they are not necessarily connected to each other.
Please consider the posted A&H Bus count’s association with channel capacity: the SQ’s 36 bus design offers 48 inputs while Avantis has a 42 bus design that handles 64 inputs. The D-Live has a 64 bus core that is capable of managing a boat load of I/Os. So following the bus size = width or the number of channels capacity, the speed and related ancillary FX limitations of each of these specific bus counts are pretty much an unknown. Pursuant to your explanation the bus size width assumes a correlating speed requirement design.
I find interesting the development of CQ apparently with an even smaller bus size channel count than the SQ that has sufficient speed to accommodate lots of automation and summing chores. These are design decisions that are market related and indicate very good news with extended possibilities for future model releases that would have very different market applications. The CQ will be considered along with the Yamaha DM3 and the older Behringer entry level products. At the opposite end of the sonic quality scale are the D-Live I/Os, found in the DX168, and the world class A&H “Prime” I/Os that at some point could be packaged with a high speed core small footprint product.
Hugh

[TobiParticipant]

Hi Hugh,
its really hard to find out what you mean, because often when you try to talk “tech”, it gets a bit weird… big compliment to Keith for trying…

I don’t know if that is what you want to know:

As you always emphasize, dLive, Avantis and SQ is FPGA-based technology. An FPGA is colloquial spoken a hardware-configurable CPU. You can buy FPGA’s in different sizes, so for example a very big FPGA can be configured to have a lot of summation circuits, a smaller FPGA can only have less summation circuits.

An FPGA can also be configure of course for more sphisticated circuits, for example it could have 16 circuits that are doing Multiband Compression or 4 circuits for common FX calculations or floting point operations or whatever…

So without having A&H internal knowledge, it is very likely, that dLive has the “biggest” FPGA, Avantis a mid-size FPGA and SQ the smallest. OK, not anymore — now CQ would verly likely have the smallest FPGA.

So by the size of the FPGA and therefor its capability for parallel operations, the processing capabilities of each product will be limited, although it should of course theoretically be possible, to rededicate “FPGA-Space”, for example in SQ you could remove some input channels and use the gained space on the FPGA to implement circuits for additional FX or Matrix (which is of course nothing A&H would like to do).

Just to be sure: for such an operation (transform Input Channels to Matrixes) you very likely would need to reprogramm the FPGA, so that is nothing that could be done on-the-fly or by a menu setting!

Of course again — I don’t have internal knowlegde from A&H, so thats all just assumtions based on the principal functionality of FPGA’s. In detail it may be different.

Best Regards,
Tobias

[KeithJ A&HModerator]

@tobi – exactly! great explaination 🙂
The amount of processing available is often referred to as ‘FPGA Fabric’, which makes sense to me – you can make whatever you want, the limitation is the amount of fabric you have.

[HughParticipant]

Thank You to both Keith & Tobi for the highly informative digital processing discussion: a clear understanding of the flexible possibilities of the “FPGA Fabric” has been long overdue. These threads are full of requests to implement “this or that” feature to the existing A&H 96K desks. From this thread we now know the processor width determines the I/O count, while processor speed will determine the amount of efficient ancillary FX that can be available.

The release of CQ is a harbinger of the specialty market possibilities for A&H given the flexible nature of the FPGA processing Fabric. I have vociferously complained about the audio industry’s brain lock business model pursuant to the need for Channel count and processor speed to be offered only as a uniform fixed synergistic package. I am also well aware of the Digico and Calrec interests that sit at the main decision making table, however at some point the potential for implementation of the world class A&H “Prime I/Os” are too strong to be exclusively wrapped in an overpriced Digico DX32 housing.

Toby is absolutely correct in asserting that none of us are privy to this level of decision making, however the best way to leverage the unique quality leadership that the Primes offer would be to offer them in a small footprint package with a processor speed that would accommodate all of A&H’s software bells and whistles available on a pay as you need it basis. Therein exists a pure profit potential that huge!
Hugh

[BrianParticipant]

Hugh,

Your posts are nearly impossible to decipher. Can you explain what they heck are you talking about when you say, “the best way to leverage the unique quality leadership that the Primes offer would be to offer them in a small footprint package with a processor speed that would accommodate all of A&H’s software bells and whistles available on a pay as you need it basis”

This point is clear however….. To get a “a clear understanding of the flexible possibilities of the FPGA Fabric” you are going to have to get a job with A&H in their development lab. This is obviously proprietary information that A&H would want to keep out of the hands of their competitors. They aren’t going to share it publicly. They aren’t going to share it privately. They aren’t going to share it at all. You can ask, but don’t expect to get the answers you are looking for. Also, you have to understand that eventually you start to annoy everyone with the same questions that everyone else seems to understand can’t and won’t be answered.

[BrianParticipant]

Hugh,

Let me add that I know that you have been campaigning for a small format console with Prime preamps for years now; which is what I think you were trying to convey in that weirdly worded portion of your post. I know you must think you have the “winning” combination and if A&H would just listen to you they would make a ton of money and the world would be a better place because of it. I promise you, A&H have seen your suggestions. I’m sure they have considered the possibilities you mention. But you have to understand that all the posts in the world are not going to alter the trajectory that A&H takes on this. The A&H staff is too polite to say it, but I’m not….. give it a rest already!

[HughParticipant]

Brian. I will rephrase my post into it’s basic elements to help you understand my fundamental position. All of the readers of these threads have every right to opinions, one way or another, pursuant to this or that request. To that end whether you or I have been annoyed by various persistent requests within these threads is irrelevant.

1) The Prime “money channel” I/Os are clearly an industry leader in front end analog capture detail and transparency along with their advanced a/d & d/a converters. These qualities are extremely important to the acoustic recording and SR performance world and to that end need to be made broadly available in sensible sized packages that will fit various work flow needs.
2) The under 48 channel small desk market is exponentially larger than the big format market and it is an egregious mistake to assume that sonic quality is not critically important to a significant portion of small desk users.
3) More than 50 years ago, when I entered the investment banking world, IBM and GM were the bullet proof investment grade equities that were in every retirement portfolio. They have both since lost their enviable position of market leadership, and profitably, for failures related to their dogmatically fixed business model. William Deming forecast their demise to no avail, however the industrial leadership of Japan did follow Deming’s formula for future market assessment. Toyota is today what GM was in 1965. This I know, Industrial leadership has a finite life cycle and once lost it is virtually impossible to recover it.

The request I have been making is more about basic industry business model issues than my personal needs. I have been a loyal A&H desk owner for more than 25 years and I did invest additional money in securing a DX168 to improve the sub standard SQ5 I/Os. It was money well spent, and more than two years ago I was very happy to invest additional money in 8 Prime I/Os. However this is where my gear journey became problematic: Paying $4,000. for a DX32 shell required to house the great primes while I had 16 useless I/Os occupying the top layer of my SQ5 was dumber than a box of rocks.
Truth told I am very pleased with the Digigrid/Waves recordings that my Primes, thru SQ5 tie lines, provide. For my SR work the DX168’s I/Os are very similar to the Digigrid I/Os I have worked with for more than 7 years. This is how I initially identified the sub standard SQ internal I/O quality issue that made the DX168 necessary. I certainly can live professionally very well with my SQ5 irrespective of it’s subject deficiencies.
My requests are not intended to please you or anyone else, including the A&H staff that you are apparently speaking for. My request is a direct appeal for the decision makers at the table where the basic business model decisions are made.
Hugh

[BrianParticipant]

Hugh,

My problem (with you) is that you constantly make the same basic post – asking A&H for the same (proprietary) information and suggesting the same hardware solution. You’ll make a post and then when A&H doesn’t announce a new hardware solution that matches what you have suggested, you feel compelled to repost the same basic thing again because you feel like no one heard you and/or your annoyed that no one acted on your ideas. It happens over…. and over….. and over again…….

Your last post is a microcosm into this exact behavior. You once again suggested a cheap Prime option in a smaller than 48 channel format. You also have the audacity to suggest that unless A&H takes your advice and creates such a product, they are going to loose out on market share and become the next IBM or GM. This is actually very ironic because IBM is a 133 billion dollar company. Just because they shifted their company out of the personal computer business doesn’t mean they aren’t a wildly successful company. I think it is clear that you think your “expertise” is higher than it really is and if this forum had a “block” feature, I would have used it long ago.

I’ll simply repost what I said in my last post because I cannot think of a better way to say it…. I know you must think you have the “winning” combination and if A&H would just listen to you they would make a ton of money and the world would be a better place because of it. I promise you, A&H have seen your suggestions. I’m sure they have considered the possibilities you mention. But you have to understand that all the posts in the world are not going to alter the trajectory that A&H takes on this.

[HughParticipant]

Brian. does the 4 year old persistent plea for an expander also put your underwear in a wad or is your disdain for my questions pursuant to the A&H business model personal in it’s nature?
You incorrectly addressed only one of the explanation points the you had requested: IBM abandoned their highly profitable OPD division along with personal computer production because their Mainframe business model could not accommodate the rapidly expanding, and now ubiquitous, personal computer Word and Info processing market. In consolidating their efforts totally in the Mainframe business model, they lost their leadership position as a blue chip growth stock and this is the analogous point that I am raising. Is A&H in a better market position if they make their primes available as optional internal XLR I/Os with all of their 96K desks, or continue to require an external $4,000 DX32 housing. This is a business model question and certainly does not require secret proprietary info disclosure.
Brian your opinions of me or mine of you is of very little consequence, however the price point and conditional availability of Prime I/Os is a very important business model question!
Hugh

[TobiParticipant]

Hi Hugh,
I am really sorry — but Brian is right… you are talking jibba jabba… IBM… GM… tsts…

Best Regards,
Tobias

[SteffenRParticipant]

Brian. does the 4 year old persistent plea for an expander also put your underwear in a wad or is your disdain for my questions pursuant to the A&H business model personal in it’s nature?

What exactly is your problem?

[nottooloudParticipant]

Just stopping in here to say that entire bunch of y’all are pretty tiresome. Except, of course, @keithjah.

[Author]

Posts