[HughParticipant]

Digico, A&H & Calrec are also known as “Audiotonix”, the collective corporate control of the individual brands. According to authorized employee posted comments, the internal policy decisions consider customer requests along with a long list of defined brand priorities. The best advice I have seen posted is to buy the gear that best suits your needs as they exist, and not fall into the speculative rat hole of relying upon a personal wish list of future feature up dates.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

Audio automation is a seductive enticement that seldom , if ever, fulfills it’s promise! There is no short cut or algorithm that can replace the essential elements of know how to establish an effective SR set-up. It aint rocket science, it is a simple matter of making an effort to gather the essential SR protocol dots and connecting them.
The CQs are audio tools that obviously are targeted for entry level SR beginners however the CQ 20b also is loaded with a powerful FPGA 24/96K processor that is scaled back for the limited number of I/Os that it has internally available. I have a well known established 50+ year history of high level professional audio activity however I plan to deploy a CQ20b this summer for several solo gigs if the internal I/Os are acceptable and the ancillary recorded playback system is reliable and effective. The tiny footprint desk along with my Flea 47 tube mic and EX10s will all fit in the trunk of my Camry and will be a breeze to set up. The fact that I have a DX32 loaded with primes and D-Live I/Os along with a SQ5 and all sorts of ancillary gear does not preclude my need to deploy for certain gigs a small CQ20b.
Truth told I will not need or use any of the CQs Automated features, It’s supposed to be a pretty great audio tool without any of those features for the solo gigs I am often called on to perform. Either it will perform satisfactorily or it will not: I will find out this summer!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

I was soundly chastised for suggesting the probability of exactly these issues with an auto feedback algorithm when the CQ was introduced. Gutting the sonic landscape is the price paid for failure to properly set up and perform professionally by relying on automatic filter placement.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

The OP has an interesting story that is missing some important information. There had to be a prevailing sonic quality improvement reason to dump, at a deep discount, the midi automated Soundcraft desk that performed beautifully with the Logic DAW! Blaming it on third party advice makes no sense to me.

Digico and A&H have been focused on world class sonic quality processing for more than 25 years. They are industry leaders in the concert console market largely because of the sonic quality their desks offer: Ancillary automation the OP is requesting apparently is not very high on their critical feature list. The entire question is somewhat akin to asking for automatic transmissions in formula 1 race cars.
The core bus and input capacity of the SQ line is identical so I opted for a small footprint SQ5 for both live gigs and project studio front end capture. The SQ5s Waves card enables tie lines direct from my DX32 prime I/Os to a Digigrid/Waves LV1 recording system that has a boat load of bells and whistles if needed in post production. The Waves card has also become a big deal with large scale 100+ input concert consoles to allow automation with many of the Waves plug-ins providing needed automation with server assisted low latency. This is what many big systems are deploying today with great success.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

Stereo monitor cueing has a few beneficial advantages, however it certainly is not universally better than mono cueing!

1) In or over the ear direct monitoring of a stereo mix is the most efficient delivery of the desired “separation”.
2) Some performers prefer BU tracks in one ear and their contribution in the other.
3) Stereo mixing for speaker stacks and wedge monitoring is “Fools Gold”.

Most all of my 50+ year career has been with acoustic Americana music performance and this is what I know. It is imperative for performers to be able to hear each others contribution and understand the critical difference between BU rhythm vs a lead role. The best performance possible is when the ensemble gets a wedge cue very close to the house speaker stack distribution and can manage their own dynamic control. Hot back lines and todays “more me” musicians require custom individual cue mixes that absolutely places the dynamic control of the performance at the console and not with the musicians on stage: it usually does not deliver to the seats a better performance for acoustic ensembles.
Large scale sound reinforcement pretty much requires console control of everything. However in most mid to small venues delivering a clean mono distribution with stage wedges providing the portion of the performance that is absent with “the stage bass bloom” from the speaker stacks is the most efficient protocol for artist control of their performance. IMO direct in or over the ear distribution of a stereo mix is as good as stereo can be: from that point on the further from your ear that stereo mix is is sourced, the less effective it will be!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

The feedback system discussion has been an ongoing debate for more than 20 years and as a long term practitioner of various devices to quell destructive looping (Feedback), I have experienced mixed success. Without question the best was the “SMAART JR.” that was available with my QU16: unfortunately the license expense was not acceptable for A&H to continue deploying this very simple, effective protocol. This is what I know;

1) Filtering out obtrusive portions of the sonic field is in of itself a destructive process. Any way you cut it there is a direct relationship between the number of filters set and the amount of sonic field that is erased!
2) The SMAART protocol is based on establishing a max of 4 customized PEQ filters. Beyond this application, external re-arrangements of stage monitoring and speaker stacks will need to be made.
3) One of the prime culprits is un-attended (open) mics and to that end various automated features to kill open mics are available with an SQ5.

There is a pragmatical reality of dealing with the ultra important initial placement of wedges, speaker stacks and mics. An in depth investment of time studying the various elements involved in room acoustical awareness and related sonic source placement factors is the best answer, not massive filtering!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

Keith has provided a detailed explanation of the design factors that control the max number of matrices available with FPGA console processing. Please remember the primary function of most all A&H consoles is to provide world class sonic quality with efficient SR processing: not necessarily a broad based multi function distribution network. Given the current amount of faith based large format SR activity it is entirely conceivable the Digico, A&H & Calrec focus may well include a broad based comprehensive distribution network that could utilize various desks within their current offerings. However IMO it is highly unlikley it would be an applicable fit for the reasonable entry level pricing of the SQ line.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

Opps, another typo: should be Calrec, not Calred. The good news is I do not type documents for a living!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

You are absolutely correct, A&H apparently is going to maintain tight control over their world class Prime I/Os: thus the $500.+ per channel investment required to deploy Primes via the Digico designed 4K DX32 housing will not be a viable option for most people. We must remember that A&H is the entry level entity in the Digico, Calred, A&H conglomerate: Digico sits at the head of the table and they certainly will protect the elite status they have historically enjoyed. It is clear to me the detailed transparency that primes deliver will be only for those applications that are capable of benefiting from that level of clarity: this pragmatical reality will exclude most commercial music produced in the world today from using Prime I/Os!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

I have a DX32 (8 Prime pres & 8 Prime outs with 16 D-Live M-AINs) not a DX12. Blooming Typo I was in a hurry!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

I have a 24/8 with my DX12.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

That is good timely Information, thank you SteffenR. jerimiah Cleaver with Waves set up my Waves card several years ago and established the Digigrid/Waves LV1 protocol to use my DX32 primes and SQ5 for all of my front end Waves studio capture. I recently bought two M-AIN D-Live pre amp banks and when configuring all of the patching required for both Live SR and the Waves card I reviewed Keith’s 1 min U-Tube Video.
The reason I posted the Waves vs SQ patching clarification request is to ask Keith to consider a more detailed video that delineates the difference between basic SQ patching (that is certainly “Layer specific”) in that the A layer is dedicated to the SQ5’s 16 internal inputs so all ancillary S-Link inputs will not have a sequential relationship: like they do with the patching with a waves card.
Thank you again for your helpful post SteffenR.
hugh

[HughParticipant]

If you do not understand the question, please do not offer input definitions. Perhaps Keith will be able to provide the appropriate answer.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

Run tie lines of the raw pre amp capture and he can post produce for his video recording as much as he wants with his own gear. In the event you are needed for the additional video mix, give him an estimate of your billing for this additional process.
(chances are your best bet is to end your involvement with providing the raw pre amp output with a gain structure he finds acceptable)
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

Truth told gain structure involves more than the console alone: the capabilities of a companion speaker system plays a critical role in the need to push input gain at the console. When a, similar to the CQ desk, budget friendly speaker system is deployed at a noisy gig nothing beneficial can come from it.
Unfortunately this conundrum is prevalent with many start up bands and acceptance of the fact that their role of providing elevator music is impossible to overcome with additional DBs: be an increase from either the desk or more powerful speakers.
The amount of speaker delivery power needs to be calibrated with a given venue’s nomenclature and adjusted pursuant to need with the speakers: never beyond the optimum gain level set at the console!
Hugh

[Author]

Posts