Has anyone used any particular hardware control surface as a remote for Qu-SB or Qu-Pac? Just wondering how possible that is. I’m just realizing that since I have an AB-168 (mostly to remote my preamps to stage so I can have the Qu-16 at FOH, I could for fairly reasonable money get a Qu-SB and expand to 32 mic inputs and more mixes and functionality. Not sure I’m ready to give up physical faders, though.
I have used a BCF2k to provide me with 8 faders - and a RasPi, running android, with a touchscreen monitor and Mixing Station Pro loaded - this gave me a way to have layers on the BCF2k, and use the other controls as well.
More complex Midi devices would also work (MIDI/USB supported by Mixing Station)
I’d like to be able to (ab)use a QU16 in that role
The thought had occurred to me to try and use the Qu-16 as a glorified control surface in DAW Control mode or something.
I have Mixing Station Pro on an Android tablet…I’ll have to check out the hardware connectivity options. That’s starting to sound a bit hacky, though. I was thinking more along the lines of an actual MCU or equivalent from Presonus or Behringer. I guess we don’t have MCU compatibility, though.
Thanks for the input.
USB isn’t particularly hacky, OTG will work from a tablet (though you lose power input)
Scott…
I felt the same way about shifting from the phsical surface to using an iPad. Now that there are THREE custom layers, I find I actually prefer using the remote app. I think you’ll find the options for a physical-faderd remote to be 10x as cumbersome as the Qu-pad app and the connctivity more of a kludge…or maybe not.
I think if you try the Qu-pad, you’ll be like a duck in water.
I regularly use the Qu-Pad app for when I’m running sound for others, and yes, get along with it just fine…but when on stage playing I feel more comfortable and am faster with faders to grab. I may just bite the bullet and deal with it…or just continue to use the Qu-16 when I’m in those situations. I don’t need the extra input channels for anything I play in, but it would be awesome to have the additional FX returns and groups without having to burn mix outputs for FX returns 3 & 4 as I do with the Qu-16.
Do you find that the extra custom layers make it easier to use the Qu-Pad app, or do you mean it makes it MORE cumbersome to use the physical mixer?
Again, thanks for the input.
If you’re on Qu-Pac/SB just for the output sockets, please note that you only get group and matrix outputs from a dSnake box. The Qu-Pac/SB itself only provides the same 10 Mix sockets as the Qu16 does.
But, yes, the Qu-Pac/SB provide four FX units instead of 2 on Qu16, if that’s the goal.
Right, and as noted in the original post, I already have an AB-168, which makes the incremental cost to get those additional inputs, buses, and outputs fairly attractive.
Where are you based, you look to have most of the kit required for a test
Just outside of Kansas City, Missouri, in the US. A test of what?
I have had my QU Pac for just about a year and for 95% of what I do I do not miss faders. For the series of school class plays I do I did bring out my GL2400 this year.
I have installed four QU series boards and during the install I mentioned that the Qu Pad App was actually as easier way to operate the board, after following up with the operators at those installs all agreed that I was right and said they rarely even touch the board. I installed QU Pacs at two funeral homes and for them they use the Q Control
presets I set up on their phones and iPads as much if not more than the full QU pad App.
I’ve tried to reply twice, and it hasn’t shown up yet [XAP]Bob, I don’t know what “test” you’re referring to. I’m dead in the middle of Midwest US.
For any strange reason the forum scanner interpreted that post as spam, I’ve just made it visible.
Anyone here have a BCF2k in that area?