[HughParticipant]

That is the whole point: “Different strokes for different folks”. Clearly SQuser is more comfortable with a bigger desk with more faders and soft keys, however with a limitation of 48 inputs it certainly is not necessary. Acquiring adequate gear to have the tools needed for your work flow should always be the top priority.
Unfortunately the OP’s SQ6 fader problems are shared by more than a few SQ6&7 owners. Thus the “law of Averages” are in play. (doubling the number of motorized faders will potentially proportionally increase the failure rate)
I have advanced posts in this forum to illustrate the important difference between pragmatical vs preferential gear decisions.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

A kill button for failed external outboard gear seams to be a reasonable request. It certainly is not important to my workflow that deploys a Waves card to facilitate much stronger tie line inputs for my Digigrid/Waves LV1 recording system. My SQ5 with DX32 Prime I/Os are a perfect front end capture tools for my A/V project studio. For the acoustic Americana genre that is my forte, the Waves plug-ins are never needed with my SQ5 desk for SR management. Two mixing tracks in my DAW is where Waves plug-ins are great!
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

We need to maintain a clear focus on the known factual elements of the often reported fader problems with SQ6 & 7 desks. Speculation pursuant to the amount of experience we may or may not have experienced is a weak substitution for actually refuting the reasons I offered in favor of the SQ5/DX168 combo over the more expensive, much greater footprint of the SQ6&7s. For the record I have no idea what SQuser was doing in 1975: however I was mixing SR for the worlds best Bluegrass band (The New South) at large festivals every week end, on Various 24+ channel analog consoles. I know from more than 25 years of working with a boatload of faders what it is all about. This is the primary reason I am a huge proponent of DCAs, layers and expansion stage boxes that the digital revolution has made possible.
My posts are directed toward folks involved with their church’s decisions to improve SR Gear. The argument I have advanced will never be provided by A&H for marketing reasons. However the importance of clearly understanding the extended ramifications of the three SQ models is impossible unless we are willing to discuss their real world differences.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

“Spreading nonsense” is a weak defensive position in support of yesterdays necessary analog practice of matching up fader counts with I/O capacity. The three SQ models share a processing core that offers a 36 bus design and a max of 48 inputs. An SQ5 with a pair of DX168s matches the SQ7’s 32 inputs with the additional bonus of providing D-Live quality I/Os and converters on stage where they are needed. The additional bonus is the 16 SQ5 internal I/Os will be available to facilitate ancillary hardware at the console maximizing the SQ’s 48 input design. All of this for less investment than required for the SQ7’s doubled up fader count.

Every move to auxes or FX adjustment will result in fader relocation on all models. Proper patching and DCA assigns will minimize the amount of fader movement that switching layers requires. The gospel truth is todays premium large format systems have heavy involvement with automated algorithms and massive Waves plug-ins that greatly facilitates the management of large channel counts. This is the primary benefit of digital processing that also happens to apply to the entry level SQ line.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

A gator suit case will accommodate an SQ5 and DX168 with room to spare for cables. The DX88, as Brian suggested, would make a lot more sense than cobbed up custom stuff.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

A clear explanation of the possibilities for this to be a retro fit with a software update or is it a hardware issue that needs to be included in future models. Perhaps Keith could provide us realistic info pursuant to this very important issue.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

You did not misinterpret my post: I have observed far more fader complaints with SQ6 & 7 desks on this forum even though the smaller SQ5 has many times over the number of units in service than a combination of both the 6 & 7s. One possible reason for the disparity may be the fact that the SQ5 has fewer motorized faders to maintain and, IMO, can make much better extensive use of layers, patching, DCAs and groupings.
If you will consider the fact that motorized faders relocate with many desk management activities it makes perfect sense that the “law of averages” is at work in this case.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

There are many times over more SQ5s working every day with very few SQ5 fader malfunction reports found on this forum. Perhaps a well thought out SQ5 with DX168s would have been a better choice.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

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

[HughParticipant]

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

[HughParticipant]

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

[HughParticipant]

The SQ USB limit is 32 inputs, not 48 as I mistakenly stated: however the primary reason for my post was to correct the implication that a waves or dante card was necessary for tie-line deployment which it is not.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

I deploy a Waves card for several operational reasons, however Keith made very clear in his tie-line info/video that tie lines can deliver to the SQ usb output the full 48 maxed out inputs with out either ancillary Waves or Dante card. In short they are not apparently necessary to fully deploy 48 inputs to the subject USB “B” port.
Hug/

[HughParticipant]

For starters unless you are hung up on having your fingers on the 8 additional faders available on the SQ6, the SQ5 with a DX168 stage box is a much better protocol in most every way. All of the SQ desks offer 48 max internal input processing: the only difference is with the number of faders and internal I/Os. IMO using tie lines to patch available pre-amps direct to a DAW of choice is a better alternative than the internal USB protocol.
One of the great conundrums of some of these threads is why ask for opinions if you are entrenched and searching for a argument about a given protocol. I have not observed any disgruntled SQ purchaser pursuant to the sonic quality differences between a QU vs SQ desk but there are a boat load of opinions of improved audio quality.
Very few recordings are free from the various FX embellishments that are integral to post production & the initial monitoring process. Up sampling plug-ins with their aliasing filtering is greatly aided by 96K sampling FPGA processing that is featured with the SQ line. An SQ 5 with a DXi68 expansion stage box is pretty much the same investment as an SQ6 and if you have the ability to audition the subject gear then objectively evaluate it before you dismiss the difference. At that point your opinion would carry much stronger credibility.
Hugh

[HughParticipant]

The FPGA processor of any and all SQ desks will accommodate 48 inputs: the SQ tie line protocol does not require a Waves or Dante card. An SQ5 has 16 inputs so when a a pair of cascaded DX168s are deployed, 48 pre-amp inputs are available to be delivered, VIA the tie lines, to a DAW of choice. The number of internal inputs or faders on any of the three SQ desks will make absolutely no difference when Patching the available collective inputs.
IMO if the truth is to be told, an SQ5 with either one or two DX168 expansion stage boxes is a much better working protocol than the SQ 6 or 7 with a boat load of faders and internal I/Os but exactly the same processing core. The D-Live I/Os in a DX168 are an improvement over the stock SQ I/Os: plus it is always better to get the pre-amps as close to the mics as possible.
Hugh

[Author]

Posts