Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
2018/12/02 at 6:37 pm #80494
Hi Alex,
thanks for pointing in that direction, but I found those specs some time ago already :). What I was looking for was a bit more of a use-case driven approach. So the added faders are obvious, but at first glance that appears to just offer more control over the physical IOs. “Why would I need that, I don´t mix more than 16 channels anyway”. Yes, but you can use the additional faders and knobs as something else, for example have direct control over your FX returns or put them in MIDI mode to control settings on your favourite outboard gear, saving the separate MIDI controller you´d need otherwise.
Maybe it´s just me and the additional “beyond live” use cases are obvious to everyone, really not sure. Once you are familiar with the technology and features it jumps at you. On the other hand it took me some time to get to the level that gave me those ideas and I´m sure marketing would like to have a shortcut for that ;).
Cheers!
2018/12/02 at 6:13 pm #80493So to me there is different areas of decision, and I´m now at the point where I compare models in regards to my use cases (and I agree they are a bit out of line probably).
1. Physical Controls
Currently using two desks, I´m blessed/cursed with a ton of faders (2x02R), but most often I find myself only using only a fraction. I´m just too lazy to patch all the time so I keep as many things “on desk” as possible. But it´s channel-centric and not very flexible MIDI wise, so it´s a bit limited. With the SQ´s given flexibility I could just map the active channels to a single layer and be happy for audio control. That would mean SQ-5 or 6. BUT! If the MIDI channel strips work as I think they do, I could use the desk to control MIDI outboard and plugins and then I think about either the SQ-7 or a setup with two desks, basically turning the SQ into a “half-desk, half-MIDIcontroller” mode.While we´re at it: Who decided it was a good idea to leave a large area of SQ-7s surface at waste, although that is an ideal spot to place more soft encoders? Not only does it look unbalanced (as if someone forgot to put things there), it also wastes space unless you consider that a place to put your iPad on or some midi controller box. Speaking of which: How large a device can actually be placed there?
2. Physical IO
Need a lot. Currently got around 180 outs/60 ins from/to gear. Will reduce that a good bit, but still have a large number. My studio setup is currently built around 9 neutrik TRS patchbays and I review the options to create an automated patchbay using stageboxes. That also pushes the question of a single vs. multiple consoles in regards to capacity of the digital busses, capacity of digital IO interfaces (Dante) and flexibility of workflow (split mind regarding layers, scene management etc). My favorite idea so far is a two desk setup that is not linked via Slink, but Dante and then use Slink to add stageboxes as deluxe patchbays. That would have the benefit of direct desk integration, an I/O ratio that matches my channel mix and a more robust setup, as it´s build for stage. The other option would be no stageboxes, but external DANTE converters. Depending on make and model, you could get the same cost per channel or end up with a 2-3x multiplier (ouch), also ADAT and MADI converters if needed. Plus less vendor lock-in. But at the cost of more complexity. It´s all about compromises and trafeoffs. So yeah, time to draw a few setups and write down their pros and cons.See, I somehow got attracted to SQ and the closer I look, the more nice options I discover. The official showcases seem to revolve around live gigs and options to extend your channel count for choirs and orchestra. Studio use appears to be less present, same thing for complex integrations (like in above setup: where and how do I route my other signals, like network data, MIDI, SMPTE). Developing those might be useful, otherwise I see studio users go “Oh it´s a live desk” and move on.
2018/11/30 at 7:14 am #80453Hey, thanks for the heads up and good morning btw 🙂
I double checked, and yes, it´s not as free and not as complete as I would like it. Dang. It´s a good thing you told me, as I didn´t yet get into the details – and we all know who is in there.
Would have been too good to be true and make the value of the SQ explode, as it could replace many DAW controllers. But then again, maybe that´s a nice feature request for a future fw upgrade: Turn the MIDI channel strips into soft encoders, freely assign MIDI CC and Notes.
But that´s not a show stopper: if I can´t get to internal FX processing parameters via channel strip, I´ll simply use external FX (DAW/digital outboard) when there is need for any automation. And mapping of the MIDI data sent by SQ will be mangled by Bome translator if needed (in case plugin or hardware does not support learn mode).
2018/11/29 at 10:12 pm #80444So after watching these:
Allen & Heath SQ-6 Digital Mixing Consoles Review & Tutorial
SQ First Look Webinar – November 2017
I think that yes, what I proposed above can be done, at least most of it. Loved the GEQ faderband. My head is spinning, the SQ seems to solve so many challenges… Shut up and take my money ^^
2018/11/28 at 4:57 pm #80410Ich werde wohl bald eins haben 🙂 Wie sind denn Deine Erfahrungen bisher, alles ok, würdest Du wieder kaufen?
2018/11/28 at 4:51 pm #80409It seems the limiting factor would be the DVS.
From the user guide:
100 Mbit
32×32 at 48/24
16×16 at 96/24
8×8 at 192/241 GBit
64×64 at 48/24
32×32 at 96/24
8×8 at 192/24https://dev.audinate.com/GA/dvs/userguide/pdf/latest/AUD-MAN-DanteVirtualSoundcard_4.0.x-v1.1.pdf page 20
2018/11/28 at 1:18 pm #80405Yes, more information on that would be nice, I second that request.
What I´d find more helpful than a statement about which is simple “better” (define what “good” is), would be some a/b recordings for different kinds of sound sources, like mics, line signals, synths, guitar after fx etc.
Also comments on use cases, as in a live vs studio use.
Cheers,
Oliver2018/11/28 at 11:47 am #80397Hi Keith,
many thanks for the fast reply, which is also spot on. One normally doesn´t get this quality of answer in such a short time, note taken. Didn´t I see you on TV :D? Just kidding, I like that Allen & Heath “have a face” and also that the pics on the corp home page are not stock photos, but the real deal. Gives the company a certain groove and I like that.
I plan the whole studio rebuild around DANTE, so I´m still a bit undecided whether I would use the DS168, as this would block my path to a second faderbox (SQ-5/6) with direct connection. But then again, would 2 mixers need to be directly connected or couldn´t I just make use of two SQ mixers with DANTE and simply have them as two “sort of separated” 48ch I/O in case I want that many channels. Not sure I´m going to be there next week, but a setup of 2 consoles with DS168 cross connected via DANTE may be the growth option I can look at.
If the DS168 had direct DANTE connection, that´d be awesome, but I guess there is a reason why direct mixer connection is preferred. On the other hand, speaking of the digital I/O with older boxes, I will either decomission them or go for a DANTE/ADAT/SPDIF/AES bridge like ferrofish or some of the red boxes. Happy mix and merge in DANTE world.
I guess the SQ will then get three roles:
– Recording outboard gear with direct monitoring pre-DAW (better than a rack of 19″ ADCs and latency)
– Deluxe controller overkill for DAW mixdown (but then again, let´s compare Ableton summing to SQ summing and see if there is a difference)
– Depending on quality and flexibility move the DAW more to a tape recorder role and make use of the SQ FX, this will at least take load from the DAW CPU and may sport other benefitsCheers,
Oliver -
AuthorPosts