A heartfelt plea to unlock more routing flexibility on the CQ — this isn't about cannibalizing SQ/Qu

CQ CQ General Discussions
1

I want to start by saying how much I appreciate what Allen & Heath has achieved with the CQ series, especially the *T models. It’s a rare thing: a full-featured, genuinely backpackable mixer with superb 96kHz audio, thoughtful workflow, and a touchscreen UI that actually makes sense in live sound. I own a CQ-18T and have brought it into a wide range of real-world shows — it punches far above its weight sonically and ergonomically.

But a bunch of users – myself included – are also running up against some hard limitations that feel unnecessarily locked down. I understand if the FPGA in the CQ can’t support full subgroup DSP or dynamic EQs — but we’re asking for routing and signal flow improvements that wouldn’t require significant hardware resources, and which would massively increase the mixer’s real-world usefulness. Here are some examples from the feature requests section:

These aren’t premium SQ/dLive features — they’re basic usability expectations in modern live sound. The CQ occupies a truly unique spot in the A&H lineup and doesn’t compete with Qu or SQ, especially for those of us who need high-quality sound in an ultra-portable form factor. But limitations like these make the CQ far harder to recommend for real-world live workflows, even though the core hardware and interface are fantastic.

These topics have been brought up before, and I’ve seen them dismissed here — sometimes by loyalists, sometimes by well-meaning folks focused on defending the existing roadmap. But I hope Allen & Heath can hear the intent behind this post: we’re not trying to turn the CQ into something it’s not. We just want to unlock the full potential of what it already is.

Thank you for listening.

4 Likes
2

That’s a very thoughtful post, schpeakers. Very eloquent.

I’m a big A&H fanboy - mostly because of the sound I get with my SQ and CQ mixers. I get the design philosophy with CQ - essentially analogue mixers on steroids with the advantages of digital. So an ‘easy in’. Flexible routing doesn’t fit that model but for us more experienced and digital mixing savvy users, the kinds of things you’re asking for would be a big help.
So A&H have a tightrope to walk. I’d love to see them adopt some of these for my sake. But I do understand if they stay tightly focussed on the initial product purpose and deny us die-hard soundies the finesse we crave!

3

Really appreciate the thoughtful engagement, and I agree with most of what you said.

I do want to push back slightly on one point though: I don’t see the CQ as an “analog mixer on steroids.” It’s something else entirely. It shares the compact footprint and form factor of a small analog board, but the guts and capabilities are miles beyond what any analog mixer in this size could ever offer — with per-channel processing, onboard FX, recallable scenes, and 96kHz quality. That’s a huge leap, and one of the CQ’s greatest strengths.

But at the same time, I’d argue it gives up some core analog strengths too, like tactile immediacy. That glass surface, while well-designed, simply isn’t something most engineers would trust for fast moves in a high-pressure live show. And that’s precisely why I think the CQ can afford to offer a little more flexibility without threatening the Qu or SQ lines. No one’s choosing a CQ over a motor-fader SQ for a high-stakes FOH rig — they’re choosing it because they need something lightweight, self-contained, and high quality for smaller gigs, fly dates, or side-stage monitor duty.

It’s also worth pointing out that the CQ is completely insular and non-expandable — you can’t connect a stagebox or increase I/O at all. That’s a hard limit no other A&H digital mixer has. So regardless of how feature-rich it gets, the CQ will never serve the kinds of gigs a Qu or SQ can — and in fact, it’s perfectly positioned to be a “gateway drug” into the rest of the A&H ecosystem. Give users a taste of that sound and workflow at the compact level, and they’re likely to level up when their needs grow.

So rather than thinking of the CQ as an “easier analog mixer,” I see it as a new category: a highly capable digital box that fits in your backpack, great for people who know what they’re doing — but limited more by software choices than hardware capacity.

The thing is, CQ already isn’t an “entry-level mixer” anymore — not when it runs at 96kHz and has RTA, per-channel processing, and wireless control. That ship sailed. So I think it’s worth unlocking just a bit more of what it can already do — especially when it comes to routing and mix logic that helps the CQ behave more like the pro tool it clearly wants to be.

2 Likes
4

I’ll probably get eviscerated for this but you probably want an XR18. Its wild that it was launched 10 years ago and there is still NOTHING on the market to replace its flexibility and IO in that form factor.

1 Like
5

I know, right? The XR18 is insanely capable. Even its upscale Midas cousin is only $649 now!

The CQ18T is still unique thanks to its touchscreen, 96kHz and an actually usable 5GHz WiFi access point. This makes it a high-quality one-stop shop while with the XR18/MR18 I would have to lug around a router, an iPad and more cables, even for rehearsals.

I just wish the CQ were competitive with these XR18/MR18 twins in its feature set. It just isn’t. Not even close.

1 Like
6

Agreed. The best way to put it is that the software doesn’t really feel like it’s been fully built out for the hardware’s total capabilities.