Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rob Spence]

I didn’t see any reference to ducking but a look at the functional schematic showed side chains on gates & comps.
I agree it is a nice upgrade from the QU. A slot for a Dante card, scribble strips, and the ability to add inputs above the base configuration (the SQ5 can have 16 local and another 24 on the stage for example unlike the QU16).



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob Leonard]

Channel or Strip? Again you may be getting confused on the terminology.
You understand that it is a 48 CHANNEL desk, correct? Where the word Channel refers to a processing module (eq/comp/gate/fader/sends, etc.)

Andrew,
In the Soundcraft world the number of controlled channels is determined by the number of layers x the number of input channels defined. If I clear my Performer and define every channel strip as a mono input, then my physical channel count can be no more than => the number of layers x the number physical faders on the board and physical inputs available for those channels.

In my case using a Performer 1 I can have no more than 60 physical channels to the mix with my current setup, and am currently maxed at 48 capable using a 32 channel stage box and the 24 inputs located on the rear of the board.

What people fail to see is that those physical channels are eaten by matrix and VCA, etc. depending on the board.

So, the SQ has 6 layers available, x 16 faders/physical channels implying a capability of up to 64 mono channels with stage boxes, etc.. However, you are correct, the literature states 48 channels, period.

The input limitation will always be the faders defined for input and the number of inputs available. I.E. If you have 16 inputs on the back of the board and no stage box or expansion you have a 16 channel board.

I think that's nit picking though. Certainly a better offering at the price range than many in it's class, not to mention few questions concerning reliability and service if needed.

I don't know if it's possible with A&H digital boards, but the channel count on my Performer can be extended using my Ipad allowing full use of up to 80 channels as long as you have that many inputs to the board (64 on the stage and 16 into the back of the board). Outputs do not effect inputs. 

[Andrew Broughton]

The input limitation will always be the faders defined for input and the number of inputs available. I.E. If you have 16 inputs on the back of the board and no stage box or expansion you have a 16 channel board.

No, it's a board with 16 INPUTS. The x32core has 32 + 8 (limited) CHANNELS, but only a couple of inputs. On the QU and other boards, you can patch one INPUT to more than 1 channel. On the SQ, you could patch XLR#1 to all 48 channels if you want. It's still a 48 CHANNEL console.

Again, terminology is confusing the issue. Analogue analogies don't help.

[brian maddox]

No, it's a board with 16 INPUTS. The x32core has 32 + 8 (limited) CHANNELS, but only a couple of inputs. On the QU and other boards, you can patch one INPUT to more than 1 channel. On the SQ, you could patch XLR#1 to all 48 channels if you want. It's still a 48 CHANNEL console.

Again, terminology is confusing the issue. Analogue analogies don't help.

Yeah, the terminology is often quite cumbersome.

I've taken to referring to the I/O of a console as inPORTS and outPORTS.  They are holes [Ports] in the desk that an audio signal can go through and enter the maze that is the mixer.  Once they are in the desk they get to queue up to jump on to one or more Channels, limited by how many Channels there are available. 

Channels Are the lanes that the audio signal can travel to get processed and perhaps blended with one another, and Busses are the Exit ramps that leads the Audio signal back out to the outPORTS and out to the outside world.

I know this little analogy is imperfect, but it does at least avoid some of the old analog terminology and i find that as long as i use it consistently, my training of others seems to go much more smoothly.

Aside:  I did find it interesting to learn that the Soundcraft [performer?] Channel count was actually limited by the number of handles available to adjust them and not by a processing limitation, either real or applied.  That's the first desk i've heard of for which that was true...

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

Andrew,
In the Soundcraft world...

So, the SQ has 6 layers available, x 16 faders/physical channels implying a capability of up to 64 mono channels with stage boxes, etc.. However, you are correct, the literature states 48 channels, period.

The input limitation will always be the faders defined for input and the number of inputs available. I.E. If you have 16 inputs on the back of the board and no stage box or expansion you have a 16 channel board.

I think that's nit picking though. Certainly a better offering at the price range than many in it's class, not to mention few questions concerning reliability and service if needed.

I don't know if it's possible with A&H digital boards, but the channel count on my Performer can be extended using my Ipad allowing full use of up to 80 channels as long as you have that many inputs to the board (64 on the stage and 16 into the back of the board). Outputs do not effect inputs.

Bob, The A&H architecture is different than Soundcraft's.  No matter how people try to slice and dice the board to make it mean something else or to draw parallels to other things, the Sq is a 48 channel max desk, that can select up to 48 channels out of potentially a larger number - the sum total of analog inputs on the surface, stage boxes, and expansion card.  If you don't own 48 channels worth of input hardware, then you have a 48-channel capable board that is not fully utilized.

The number of fader handles does not correspond to audio pathways in any way.  I can set up some inputs to processing channels and then delete the channels from the fader banks and the audio will still pass.  I can put the "lead vocal" processing channel on every fader of every page if I want.  It will work fine, and all faders on all pages will move together.  Not a very useful setup, but it would work if you wanted to for some reason.

These boards are very similar in layout to the GLD.  Anyone who is still unsure about how this works should go play with a GLD and it will make sense.  Anyone in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is welcome to come over to my place.  I have two GLDs that you can practice patching, processing channel setup, and moving control strips around until your heart is content.

[Rob Spence]

On the GLD80 I got 80 fader positions. With 48 mix channels, I also add mix masters, matrix masters, fx returns, & DCAs. I can fill up the 80 pretty quick.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Trevor Jalla]

Its my workflow bias but when I see "stereo mixes" I'd prioritise them as stereo IEM auxes instead of stereo subgroups to FOH, or broadcast / recording mixes etc.

So to me, 12 stereo mixes + 48 channel cap, seems at cross purposes. A&H marketing does however call it "The Ultimate IEM mixer" - but this is only true if it is a dedicated monitor board. I don't think you're going to get a 12pc band that doesn't need at least 24 channels. If they're on IEMs, the compromise is whether to give the artist pre-processing sends, or have their processing mirror FOH. To customise the pick-off point to suit each performer onstage would be far too cumbersome - which is why I double-patch, it takes the guesswork out.

I could happily upgrade my Si Ex1 + 32stagebox setup, but I'd need TWO SQ desks. And that my yet happen - however one alone would for me be a lateral move.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

Its my workflow bias but when I see "stereo mixes" I'd prioritise them as stereo IEM auxes instead of stereo subgroups to FOH, or broadcast / recording mixes etc.

So to me, 12 stereo mixes + 48 channel cap, seems at cross purposes. A&H marketing does however call it "The Ultimate IEM mixer" - but this is only true if it is a dedicated monitor board. I don't think you're going to get a 12pc band that doesn't need at least 24 channels. If they're on IEMs, the compromise is whether to give the artist pre-processing sends, or have their processing mirror FOH. To customise the pick-off point to suit each performer onstage would be far too cumbersome - which is why I double-patch, it takes the guesswork out.

I could happily upgrade my Si Ex1 + 32stagebox setup, but I'd need TWO SQ desks. And that my yet happen - however one alone would for me be a lateral move.

Do you really need to split every input?  What problems are you trying to solve?  I've never understood this workflow.  Do your mains sound radically different than your IEMs?  In every case I can think of, the problems that I'm solving are on the input channel, and my changes are beneficial for both mains and monitors.  Also, if you do split every channel, do you really do sound check twice?  It seems to me that what would happen in practice is most of the time would be spent on the house mix, and most of the split channels left at 0, which seems a worse situation than not splitting.

The A&H boards allow monitors to be pre dynamics, which solves the only reason I've ever had to split channels, other than once in a blue moon where a vocalist requests changes to their EQ for their wedges, which can be easily done by splitting that one channel.

[Bob Leonard]

Its my workflow bias but when I see "stereo mixes" I'd prioritise them as stereo IEM auxes instead of stereo subgroups to FOH, or broadcast / recording mixes etc.

So to me, 12 stereo mixes + 48 channel cap, seems at cross purposes. A&H marketing does however call it "The Ultimate IEM mixer" - but this is only true if it is a dedicated monitor board. I don't think you're going to get a 12pc band that doesn't need at least 24 channels. If they're on IEMs, the compromise is whether to give the artist pre-processing sends, or have their processing mirror FOH. To customise the pick-off point to suit each performer onstage would be far too cumbersome - which is why I double-patch, it takes the guesswork out.

I could happily upgrade my Si Ex1 + 32stagebox setup, but I'd need TWO SQ desks. And that my yet happen - however one alone would for me be a lateral move.

So if you're using an Si series board anything being input to the board can be assigned to a mix group. In your case you have 14 separate outputs for the mix groups(mono), or you can assign two outputs to a group and make it whatever you want. You don't usually need stereo for an iem as long as you remember any input to any group at any level.

[Bob Leonard]

Bob, The A&H architecture is different than Soundcraft's.  No matter how people try to slice and dice the board to make it mean something else or to draw parallels to other things, the Sq is a 48 channel max desk, that can select up to 48 channels out of potentially a larger number - the sum total of analog inputs on the surface, stage boxes, and expansion card.  If you don't own 48 channels worth of input hardware, then you have a 48-channel capable board that is not fully utilized.

The number of fader handles does not correspond to audio pathways in any way.  I can set up some inputs to processing channels and then delete the channels from the fader banks and the audio will still pass.  I can put the "lead vocal" processing channel on every fader of every page if I want.  It will work fine, and all faders on all pages will move together.  Not a very useful setup, but it would work if you wanted to for some reason.

These boards are very similar in layout to the GLD.  Anyone who is still unsure about how this works should go play with a GLD and it will make sense.  Anyone in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is welcome to come over to my place.  I have two GLDs that you can practice patching, processing channel setup, and moving control strips around until your heart is content.

I had said above it was a 48 channel board. It's all semantics TJ.

[ProSoundWeb Community]