Print

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

[Steve Ferreira]

Digico has revealed a new console the Quantum 225. Looks like a step backwards with only 72 inputs when a console like an SD9 has 96 ins. The cable hole in the back of the console and that stand are also interesting. I read somewhere that the price point was $30,500 USD. Wonder if a smaller Quantum will come to the market as well.

https://digico.biz/consoles/quantum225/

[brian maddox]

Digico has revealed a new console the Quantum 225. Looks like a step backwards with only 72 inputs when a console like an SD9 has 96 ins. The cable hole in the back of the console and that stand are also interesting. I read somewhere that the price point was $30,500 USD. Wonder if a smaller Quantum will come to the market as well.

https://digico.biz/consoles/quantum225/

"interesting" is not necessarily the word I would use. Maybe "weird" might be more descriptive. Especially the hole in the rear panel.

And it would appear that now we have still ANOTHER Digico naming convention. It's a minor point, but it still bugs me that their product line naming structure is so inscrutable.

It looks like my church is going "all in" on Digico products going forward so maybe I'll get some hands on time on one of those to make me like them more. But for now I'm still firmly in the 'meh' camp for all things Digico....

[Erik Jerde]

If you need the quantum processing in a smaller/cheaper package then this will be your jam.  Otherwise SD12-96 is still a better console.

I do like the onboard waves and 4 MADI ports.  These days though I’d rather see 3 DMI slots instead of the onboard waves.  4 MADI ports are going to be hard fully utilize with such a small channel count.  Could be great in a house of worship setting if it had the channel/bus count of the SD12.

[Matthias McCready]

It looks like my church is going "all in" on Digico products going forward so maybe I'll get some hands on time on one of those to make me like them more. But for now I'm still firmly in the 'meh' camp for all things Digico....

I am in the same boat. I use them where I work, and they are pretty good but are not my favorite.

Looks like we will be launching another campus in the coming months, so I will see what DiGiCo we end up getting. Most of the campuses are SD8's; although a few campuses have either an SD10 or an SD9.

I wish D-Live could do all of the snapshot fade recall time stuff; it would be fun to have that as an option! 

[Russell Ault]

If you need the quantum processing in a smaller/cheaper package then this will be your jam.  Otherwise SD12-96 is still a better console. {...}

I'll be interested to see how long the SD12 is around for, though (although DiGiCo always keeps product lines alive longer than I expect them to). The SD12 was always a bit of a strange beast: more screens than the (more capable) SD10, and more expensive than the (more capable) SD9. It's the only SD console that runs an embedded Windows version other than XP, which should in theory give it a much longer life expectancy than the rest, but since it's also not readily upgradeable to the Quantum architecture I'm not sure that will matter much in the end.

My guess is that the SD12 was released as a testbed to see how the market would react to a console with a relatively minor UX upgrade and dramatic changes under-the-hood (that are basically invisible to the end-user), and my impression was that the response (for the reasons I mentioned above) was "eh". If you wanted something with 24 faders but cheaper than an SD10-24 (or SD8-24, I guess?) you'd save your pennies and get an SD9. If you wanted more control you'd splurge for the extra faders (and channels) of the SD10. The fact that the SD12 is the first console since the SD8 to not receive any of the upgraded T or B software always seemed to me to market-related (as opposed to technical reasons). To me, the only conceivable advantage the SD12 had, with its two screens, was that it was perceived as more "walk-up friendly", but as anyone who's tried to do that with an SD console can tell you, screen real estate is the least of your problems if you're in a hurry and don't know what you're doing.

While the SD12 was being released, Quantum was just around the corner, which brought actual new functionality (perhaps most impressively the concept of "nodal processing") to the DiGiCo lineup, and the response was strong enough that DiGiCo has now released two (well, three if you count the Quantum 5) new consoles in the Quantum line in the space of roughly 3 years. Even the names have changed (which I think is particularly telling): goodbye "SD7 Quantum", hello "Quantum 7".

My (rather smudged) crystal ball suggests that the whole SD lineup's days—including the SD12—are severely numbered. I predict by the end of 2023 there will be a rack-mountable "Quantum 113", T and B software for the 225, B software for the 113 (and perhaps the 5), and an EOL announcement for the entire SD range (which, incidentally, will also drastically reduce the inscrutability of the DiGiCo model names).

-Russ

ETA: As I was falling asleep last night two things dawned on me: one, the hole in the back of the Quantum 225 is probably a covered vent of some kind (all the promised I/O is already visible in the photo, so there should be no reason to run anything into the console itself). Two, in addition to a new Quantum 113, I expect to see a "Quantum 325", which would be a 338 "brain" (and channel count) in a 225 body; a 213 (i.e. a rack-mountable 72-channel console) might be in the cards as well.

Also, looking again at photos of the SD11 just now, I'm thinking that my smudged crystal ball may have been trying to show me a "12" instead of a "13" (easy to confuse a 2 and a 3 through the smudges), so those new rack-mountable consoles would actually be the Quantum 112 (with ~48 channels) and the Quantum 212 (with 72).

[Kent Clasen]

[quote/] ETA: As I was falling asleep last night two things dawned on me: one, the hole in the back of the Quantum 225 is probably a covered vent of some kind (all the promised I/O is already visible in the photo, so there should be no reason to run anything into the console itself). Two, in addition to a new Quantum 113, I expect to see a "Quantum 325", which would be a 338 "brain" (and channel count) in a 225 body; a 213 (i.e. a rack-mountable 72-channel console) might be in the cards as well.

Also, looking again at photos of the SD11 just now, I'm thinking that my smudged crystal ball may have been trying to show me a "12" instead of a "13" (easy to confuse a 2 and a 3 through the smudges), so those new rack-mountable consoles would actually be the Quantum 112 (with ~48 channels) and the Quantum 212 (with 72).
[/quote]

I think that Kyle M. From digico said there is a cable pass through for an optional screen mounted on the left side so it can stay on console [connected] in the case.

[Russell Ault]

I think that Kyle M. From digico said there is a cable pass through for an optional screen mounted on the left side so it can stay on console [connected] in the case.

Ah, okay! I see it now; that's actually pretty clever!

-Russ

[Brian Bolly]

My (rather smudged) crystal ball suggests that the whole SD lineup's days—including the SD12—are severely numbered. I predict by the end of 2023 there will be a rack-mountable "Quantum 113", T and B software for the 225, B software for the 113 (and perhaps the 5), and an EOL announcement for the entire SD range (which, incidentally, will also drastically reduce the inscrutability of the DiGiCo model names).

-Russ

ETA: As I was falling asleep last night two things dawned on me: one, the hole in the back of the Quantum 225 is probably a covered vent of some kind (all the promised I/O is already visible in the photo, so there should be no reason to run anything into the console itself). Two, in addition to a new Quantum 113, I expect to see a "Quantum 325", which would be a 338 "brain" (and channel count) in a 225 body; a 213 (i.e. a rack-mountable 72-channel console) might be in the cards as well.

Also, looking again at photos of the SD11 just now, I'm thinking that my smudged crystal ball may have been trying to show me a "12" instead of a "13" (easy to confuse a 2 and a 3 through the smudges), so those new rack-mountable consoles would actually be the Quantum 112 (with ~48 channels) and the Quantum 212 (with 72).

The SD lineup has always had some odd characteristics.  Like, the 10 - they fixed the problem with the faders from the 8 and added GPIO plus T and B software, but likely had to add channel count to significantly market it above the 8.  Or the 9, which had a center screen but without a center fader bank it didn't line up with faders and was always a little odd to mix on (eventually you got used to it, but still).  Or the 5CS which was a "budget" 5 and wasn't supposed to be upgrade-able, but then...it was?

For the naming I had thought that the new Quantum line was Q(# of screens)(# of faders), but this new one proved me wrong.  So it seems to be (X)(YY) Where X = # of "modules" wide (1 module being 12 faders) and YY= Total # of faders.  I could see them try to squeeze something in between the 225 and 338, but picking out a name/layout might be tricky - 3 modules and only 2 screens?  2 modules and 2 screens?  If the 225 takes off with the modular bay I could see a 2-screen 338 - but what do you call it? I am eagerly awaiting a "Q113" though - our SD11i desks have been absolute workhorses, and the next gen will undoubtedly be no different.

[Russell Ault]

The SD lineup has always had some odd characteristics.  {...}

That maybe one of the greatest understatements I've ever seen. You left out my personal favourite, which is that the SD9, when released, was only a 48 channel console; the weird "mono or stereo" thing made it clear that 48 channels was never a technical limitation, but was there to avoid poaching SD8 (and then SD10) sales. They even released the T and B software on it because they knew most of their T customers (and, I'd guess, a healthy chunk of their B customers too, although it's not my market) would need more than 48 channels and would have to up-sell to the SD10.

Then Core2 came out, and suddenly the SD9 could do about 75% of what the SD8 could do (which, for many users, was still over 100% of what they actually needed) but at a fraction of the cost. Worse, because the T software was already out, the 96-channel SD9T started to compete with the SD10T (at an even smaller fraction of the cost). I've always assumed the issues that a 96-channel SD9 caused were one of the reasons the original SD12 was only 72 channels.

{...}
For the naming I had thought that the new Quantum line was Q(# of screens)(# of faders), but this new one proved me wrong.  So it seems to be (X)(YY) Where X = # of "modules" wide (1 module being 12 faders) and YY= Total # of faders.  I could see them try to squeeze something in between the 225 and 338, but picking out a name/layout might be tricky - 3 modules and only 2 screens?  2 modules and 2 screens?  If the 225 takes off with the modular bay I could see a 2-screen 338 - but what do you call it? I am eagerly awaiting a "Q113" though - our SD11i desks have been absolute workhorses, and the next gen will undoubtedly be no different.

Yeah, that threw me for a loop, too. Given that the 225 only has one screen, my guess now is that X (as you say) has something to do with processing power (hence my prediction of a 325 to replace the SD10-24 and a 212 to replace the SD11i).

As for screens, my guess is that we should expect to see only a single built-in screen for most Quantum consoles from here on out (and perhaps even a 338-1 with only a single screen to replace the SD10). DiGiCo's real strength has always been in shows that don't change very much from night-to-night (touring, theatre, etc.), and for a lot of those markets touchscreen real estate is less important than having a place to put your libretto/QLab monitor/Smaart monitor/etc. Especially since they already also make the more walk-up-friendly S-series, I wouldn't be surprised if DiGiCo really focuses the Quantum series even more strongly towards their traditional markets (and the fact that the 225 looks a heck of a lot more like an SD9 than an SD12 I see as evidence of this).

-Russ

[Matthias McCready]

Just got a Quantum 225 shipped in at work this week. I won't be the end user, but I will be interested to see what my coworkers think of it.

[ProSoundWeb Community]