[BradWalkerParticipant]

@mrbaum,

I think if the app „SQ control“ would be available like with the Qu Series your problems would all be solved on a very smart way.

Vote for the feature request.

You’ve hit it on the head! I totally forgot about the SQ Control app, and it is exactly what I’m looking for. The Qu platform doesn’t have SQ’s assignability and processing quality we need in most of our projects. How possible is that @alexs?

[BradWalkerParticipant]

Hi @markpaman

I don’t know how your system’s set up, but if it’s not too complex….

Could you run main PA from a matrix, and route the things that require the simple control to that via a mix?

There’s actually a couple of different systems I’m referring to, but these ones all probably fall into the “more complex” category. The mains are really “zones” fed by matrix and operated under DCAs. Mixes are for musicians, cry rooms, green rooms, 70v distributed, ALS, etc. That all works fine, but simple control of mains in a compact smartphone form factor that is lacking.

[BradWalkerParticipant]

Thanks for the reply Alex! This is understandable, unfortunate. Is it an architecture problem?

The simplicity of the SQ4U interface is so much less intimidating than the MixPad, and the ability to operate it on their own phone vs. a separate/bigger device to carry around.

The system we installed this fall where the idea came up was where the pastor saw how we created a dedicated “Mix User” for each monitor position, and the musicians could just use their personal phones to log into whichever mix they were standing in front of for that service. He wanted the ability to do the same for “his mix” (which is essentially the Mains) during a simple midweek service without having to sort through the extra screen information on the MixPad app, while also teaching and running his own laptop.

Thanks again for the fast reply,
Brad Walker

[BradWalkerParticipant]

Hi @keithjah – First-time poster, long-time A&H dealer and system designer…

3 – at the output stage for use in place of a dedicated speaker processor
[a console is not a speaker/system processor, there is a reason they exist! admittedly though, there are already many features in our digital consoles that allow you to shape the sound and perform some of the functions that a speaker processor is designed for, and maybe again an option ‘beyond’ shelf for LF and HF would achieve what most engineers are looking for here?]

So… would it be acceptable to loose LF and HF bands for this?

+1 for switchable HPF/LPF vs. PEQ on the LF and HF bands.

Certainly a large part of the market for the SQ will not need a dedicated speaker DSP, if I as designer can incorporate HPF/LPF on matrices and outputs. I would need selectable slope, however, and if I had to choose from a limited selection I’d really want to at least see Linwitz-Riley with 12, 24, and 48 dB/octave options. Butterworth and Bessel next in order of priority. Frankly, I would love to have these options on the channel HPF as well.

Everything else is there for the functions of a basic output speaker DSP. If I can keep it in the mixer, it makes a big difference with what we specify for the budget church or club – especially on a budget-friendly mixer that can run 96K with DEEP plugins, and very granular user rights control that makes a big difference in those settings.

I could also see this as a dedicated “Speaker DSP” DEEP plugin, as long as it isn’t as clunky to use as the Midas PRO series attempt at speaker DSP was 😯

BTW, I’m loving the new DynamicEQ and multi-band compressors. A little getting used to after the BSS 901 emulation in the Midas PRO series, but very workable once I figured out what was what.

Thanks for a great product!
Brad Walker

[Author]

Posts