[Mfk0815Participant]

First lesson: read the manual. in particular Page page 19.

You can setup the layer of the mixpad individual from the surface. That is the reason why you can copy the layout of the surface but can’t change it.

[Mfk0815Participant]

Hmm, fine when you have found with your SQ5 the right system for you. And I do not understand why you are always talking about Wifi and the possible problems with that.
Why should the SQsb be only controllable via Wifi? Just because this is the case for the QUsb? The remote control software of the SQ works well on several operation systems and most of them can use wired network beside Wifi.
And put some of the benefits from other consoles and combine them with the SQ. Things like Fader wings, MIDI control, more flexible connectivity, like two SLink connectors build in (this will help to free the interface port for Waves or Dante card)
All those things, I already mentioned in my first post in this thread, combined with the benefits of the SQ series would result in a real competitor on the Faderless mixer market. Use it as an audio interface in the studio, as a stagebox for an other SQ, or dLive and Avantis, or a full console when less footprint is required, as a rackmount IEM mixer for a band. Stuff like that. And because the mixer is more ore less the same as the SQ5 without screen, fader and other controls, it should also be less expensive. Ok, the last point is irrelevant for you, since you spend more than 2.000 € for eight premium inputs without a thought 😉 but others have to be more carefull with the money.
Regardless what your opinion is, I think that SQsb, as I described here, would be a perfect extension of the SQ product range and brings also improvements for the other models of the SQ series. Just think about the often discussed scenario with live sound and video stream sound from the same console. When the SQ6 or SQ7 is used for live sound mixing and some one in the video booth can use one or two MCU controller to run the mix for the video stream, a lot of people will be happy.

[Mfk0815Participant]

From his current post it is unclear as to whether he actually ownes a D-Live an SQ6 and a M32, all with dante compatibility” or has worked with this gear in the past

Hugh, I not only own them, but also use them on regular bases. I do not own or work with any QU models because they do not meet my needs at all.

and beyond that, he expects the SQsb to be offered at half or less than the SQ5 price point.

Thats just an projection of the price differences between the QU24/QU32 and the QUsb.
Just to make it clear, your holy grail „sonic quality“ is not the only attribute that counts in live sound reinforcement, it is important but not the most important one. 48kHz is ok for the QU, the GLD (Which I also used for years with success), and so it‘s ok for the Behridas products in my opinion. Probably I have not your golden ears, to hear the difference in live situations with an noisefloor from the croud, so that I can live with that. But I like the flexibility and also some of the processing capabilities of the Behridas products. If you do not know them well enough maybe you should use them for a while to get your own picture. At the moment It seems to me that you have a lot of prejudice and too less knowledge to understand, what I am talking about. And if you do not want to change your mind, be so kind and ignore what I am writing. I hope that the guys from A&H can see better what I mean.

[Mfk0815Participant]

Maybe it is worth to talk about possible price points. The QUsb costs more or less the half or the third of the models with faders. Ithink everybody would expect a similar difference.

Before we move into the creation of a SQsb, real world experience with a much less expensive QUsb should be a no brainer!

Not a QSsb nor any other QU but I own a X32Rack, beside a dLive, SQ6 and a M32. And even if I like to work with standard consoles, the X32Rack is a real usefull tool for not only the classic usage of consoles. If you want I can enumerate use cases but maybe I will run into the limit of maximum characters per posting. 😉

[Mfk0815Participant]

If the mixer is not the QU16 you can use the matrix busses to usedifferent delays for both sides.

[Mfk0815Participant]

One possibility is to feed the in-ear and stage monitors via the ME system. This will free your mix buses for other tasks. Or you add a second mixer for monitoring. Or switch to a larger model with enough capabilities for your needs. An last option is to reduce your wishes so that they can be fulfilled with what you have.

[Mfk0815Participant]

Each physical input socket is equipped with a preamp and the AD converter. So there is only one input gain,no matter where you will route the digital signal to. So when you pass the signal via tie lines or dante to the second console, this second console has to work with the same analog gain asthe first one. You only can adjust the digital gain via the trim of the input channel, but if the preamp is set too hot, you will have the same on both consoles.
The only way to have full independent gain on both consoles is to use analog splits before you reach the preamps of both consoles.

[Mfk0815Participant]

So, you made something wrong. You can use a pre fade aux mix with the post delay tap point. You just have to configure the aux mix as I wrote in the previous posting.

[Mfk0815Participant]

Hmm, go to routing, select the aux bus, press on the aux snd button and define the tap point for this mix bus, when it is used in pre fader mode. You cannot choose individual tap points for each channel of the selected mix bus. You can readthe details about that in chapter 8.2 of the current reference manual.

[Mfk0815Participant]

In other words is the sq6 limited to 12 different and separate mixes excluding the LR?

Yes, 12 is the limit of mixes. But you can route the result of the mixes to any possible outputs of your system. Keep in mind that the mixes can be either mono or stereo, in other words you need 12 (all mixes are mono) or up to 24 (all mixes are stereo) output sockets. And you can send the same mix to several outputs, lets say mix 1 to local out 1 and the same time to the output 1 of your AB168.

[Mfk0815Participant]

If we think this feature request to the end, every processing of that stereo channels, input, mixbus, main or matrix should be able to be unlinked.

[Mfk0815Participant]

For an interface, does anyone have a reasonably priced recommendation they’d use?

“Resaonable” is not well defined. But I think even a budget interface like an Behringer UMC202HD, Evo 4, Steinberg UR22 or similar will help a lot.

Using the USB interface of the QU will avoid an extra DA and AD conversion. On the other hand an external Interface might give you more flexibility with the Gain settings and allows you to run an extra computer for multi track recordings.
Nevertheless the hint to use a matrix to adjust the level of the Stream independent from the live level is it worth to think about it. Imagine that the live sound level must be adjusted for some reason. you do not want to change the level of the stream as well, it should be constant.

[Mfk0815Participant]

Stereo is in live environments definitely overrated, and so is Daves mixing strategy too. 😉

[Mfk0815Participant]

I’ve been using an output on the dSNAKE to the line-in on the computer (placement purposes).

What type of input/audiointerface do you use on the computer? If it is the buildin with the mini jack you will get in troubles since the dSnake output works on +4 dB level and the computer on -10 dB level, I guess. You better use an audio interface, connected via USB for instance, on the computer. This interface should be able to handle +4 dB signals. That would have another benefits because the buildin interfaces are most of the time cheap and of really poor quality.

[Mfk0815Participant]

I prefer post PEQ as tap point for monitor mixes. This helps me to provide the corrected signal to the monitors. Post-Compressor is not so good,since this can increase the risk of feedback on the monitors.
Sometimes I use the same singal source for more than one channel. E.g. to use different EQing when the saxophone player is using tenor, soprano and/or clarinet with the same microphone. To adjust the level of these channels to each other the digital trim of the channels is helpful because the analog gain of the input socket is always the same.

[Author]

Posts