I have a wish for an extra product in the CQ line:
I love the CQ18-T for the functions and the touchscreen/control surface.
I love the CQ20-B for the build-in power supply and the amount of inputs and that all outputs are XLR. (I only see Jack to XLR adapters in the pictures of the CQ18-T online)
I would love to see a CQ18-T style control/touchscreen remote control (with build-in power supply) for the CQ20-B that works over a CAT cable (wireless as extra would be luxury). So the system is wired and working without third party products.
This unit only needs the headphone, CAT and 230V/110V power connectors.
For important productions people mostly don’t trust WiFi connections to control the console. Third party products are mostly compatible for the next 2/3 years and then you don’t know if you can still control your beloved mixer.
The OP has identified two of the three greatest limitations of the CQ line.
Wall wart PWR SUPPLYS
RANDOM CONFIDENCE IN WIFI ONLY CONTROLS WITH CQ20B
The hard cold reality is the CQ line is absolutely an entry level, feature rich product that barely addresses some of the fundamental tools that are professionally required. It is what it is and efforts to get beyond it’s limitations will probably prove to be less than satisfactory. A CQ20B mixing surface that offered a useable touch screen and a HP outlet along with cat 6 connectivity should not be all that difficult for A&H to develop. However the third limitation, that was not mentioned, is the fixed number and quality of the I/Os that are available. These are just a few of the desirable professional tools that are available in the SQ line that unfortunately are not feasible to offer with the CQ’s 1K basement level price point. Maybe A&H will provide an up scale small foot print desk with lots of professional utilitarian features at some point in the future?
Hugh
I have a CQ12T so I cannot comment about the wifi, but can you clarify about the issue with the wall wart power supply and the “the fixed number and quality of the I/Os that are available” ?
What kind of issue is this ?
There is no issue with the wall wart other than it’s an external unit.
It works as it should, the reasons for it being external were explained by Keith in another post.
There is NO issue with the number or quality of the inputs and outputs.
If you want more of either, buy a different mixer.
If you want better preamps/processing the same applies.
No need to poo poo the CQ line.
Glass more than half full.
Oh and I forgot - no need to shout in caps - the CQ20 doesn’t have “WiFi only” control - it has an Ethernet port that can be hard linked to a tablet (with an adaptor) or a computer.
The “randomness in your confidence of WiFi control only” may be directly proportional to your ability to set it up properly?
As an actual owner of an actual CQ unit I have not actually had a problem with the WiFi.
I am 101% with you BigMerv, I was just ironizing a bit on Hugh’s post…
My CQ12T is a amazing and I just can’t realise what it offer for the price point.
Like many other owners the CQ offers me a price/size/quality combination that is hard to beat.
In reality, in a blind live test, would most people really tell the difference between good quality A&H preamps?
Just re-read Hugh’s post.
The bits about CQ being “absolutely entry level” and “barely addressing some of the fundamental tools” really made me laugh. You own an SQ, we get it!
I’m sure most CQ owners aren’t in the running to engineer the next Taylor Swift tour but they might just be doing solid paid work at a different level.
Millions of great shows have been done over the years by people with vastly inferior equipment.
All this talk about “wall warts”……
Some people have obviously never encountered the classic A&H analog mixers that had external power supplies?!
Wasn’t much of an issue for them!
For those of you that are proud new owners of a CQ desk please do not despair over my mentioning it’s limitations. My post in this thread was intended to inform potential buyers of certain desirable professional features that are not, and most likely will not be available with a CQ deck. The CQ line is an outstanding feature/performance deal with it’s 1K price point and it will probably soon be established as a sales leader in the entry level digital deck market. However it is very important for anyone considering the purchase of any entry level digital deck the hardware limitations that were not accommodated in it’s fundamental design. In the event the subject professional features are not important for your work flow: congratulations, the CQ line may well be a perfect deal for you!
Hugh
Thank God Hugh is saving the world by warning people that the CQ is an entry level console at entry level pricing and it doesn’t have the same feature set as more expensive systems. No one would have known this without his warnings… ?
I would add that if the CQ line features define the new entry level of sound mixers, it’s a giant leap for man kind (not to paraphrase anybody of course…)
Like most individuals, if you take the time to read the description and consult the online manual, it is evident in clear and simple English what functionalities the product does or does not possess. However, if you choose not to engage with the available information, any resulting issues are a result of user error and should be approached with caution before making a purchase. It is important to refrain from expressing dissatisfaction on online forums regarding specific features that are present in other products, such as SQ/d-Live or Advantis, but not available in the CQ. Rest assured, it is highly likely that valuable and justified features will be incorporated in future firmware updates.
Lee7’s post is exactly my reason for clarifying the huge difference between hardware limitations and creating software features with firmware updates. The three hardware limitations I raised in both of my posts can not be remedied with firmware updates. This fact is never mentioned within any audio brands digital desk advertising: it is a nebulous marketing protocol from yesterday that believed any negative info will be detrimental to the sales pitch. However the better advertising protocol today is careful disclosure of various risk factors that will reduce future problems and exposure to the expense involved in resolving miss understandings that can result from yesterdays nebulous advertising.
The CQ line is a fabulous good deal that really has no competition and it’s hardware limitations will not prevent it from becoming an all time big seller! IMO most objective judgement pursuant to the appropriate time to clearly disclose any digital desk’s hardware limitations is before the purchase decision is made that will avoid the Lee7 type of impossible expectation for “future firmware updates”.
Hugh
Yes Hugh but the limitations have to be actual limitations.
Your spiel is debunked:
1: The external psu is not a “limitation” it’s a production choice as it was on previous top line A&H mixers.
If someone isn’t switched on enough to be able to handle an external unit well…….?
2: The WiFi is fine by most accounts and is not the sole way to control the CQ20 - it has an Ethernet port. Obviously you didn’t read enough to familiarise yourself with that fact.
Also theoretically changeable by firmware if there was a real problem.
3: The inputs and outputs are plentiful and a design choice, not a limitation.
There are many, many mixers with fewer of both.
I won’t buy a 12 channel mixer if I need 32 inputs. Pretty obvious I would think?
There is not hidden limitation.
You mentioned:
-External Power supply and Fixed number of the I/Os:
Well this is how the mixer is built. I can understand that some can see it as a limitation but you have the choice before buying don’t you ?
-Random confidence with the built in wifi ? Up to now it was never proved that there was any kind of hardware issue, only misused of it as far as I could read across all groups and forums.
-Quality of the I/Os that are available ? I still don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that the quality is poor ? Please can you develop ?
This post was originally about a remote control unit for the CQ20 and has spiralled a bit.
Excuse the pedantry……
A lot has been said about the “wall wart” but the CQ20 unit has an IEC socket, not an external psu. ?
I know Keith explained due to size constraints why the 12&18 have an external psu, makes sense to me.
I was after a very compact unit Zed10 or Flow 8 size so CQ12 or 18 are perfect!
External psu not a problem either as a third party psu could pull you out of a hole. (as it doesn’t have some weird proprietary socket)
This could be a real boon to anyone using this mixer off grid.
I do video work and all of a sudden a CQ12 or 18 becomes a very useful battery powered multi channel recorder.
I wouldn’t be surprised if A&H added some sort of battery kit/adapter as an option.
I have a Tascam 8ch unit and it’s priced not much less than a CQ12T. A Zoom equivalent is much more expensive.
The Tascam unit is a bit user unfriendly tbh, but solid.
I don’t know of any battery powered 18ch recorder out there now apart from the CQ18T???
I’m getting my Lipos charged and my soldering iron out!
There is a clear difference between professional and hobby audio gear: the ability to expand channel counts and/or a deck’s sonic capture characteristics are desirable professional console attributes. These are two of the outstanding features of A&H’s previous entry level SQ deck and the fact that external power supplies are not required for any of A&H’s 24/96K desks other than two of the CQs.
20 years ago I had a 24 channel analog A&H console with an external power supply that required two rack spaces. It was a pain in the ass to deal with and wall warts are a smaller version of the same inconvenience. I have and regularly deploy as many as six tube mics that all require external power supplies however there are several valid and specific important reasons they are required. (MY DX32 has a pair of internal hot-swappable power supplies: I guess this is the type of feature that can command a premium 4K price tag.)
Several years ago I posted a long evaluation of the improved sonic quality the DX168 D-Live pres and converters offered over the standard SQ pres. more than two years ago after purchasing 8 prime pres and 8 prime outputs I confirmed A&H’s claim of unsurpassed world class detail and transparency with the primes pre-amps and 32 bit 96K converters. Nowhere in any of my many posts have I ever insinuated anything close to poor quality of the internal pres with the SQ or CQ, however they are a long way from A&H’s best options that, unlike the SQ, are not possible to deploy with the CQ. I am certain the CQs will find professional applications even with it’s hardware limitations. The bottom line is, in a real world evaluation as an entry level product, certain limitations were necessary to reach it’s price point. Most of the CQ line has a lower price point than a bank of 8 prime out puts, and it is half of the investment required to purchase a bank of 8 prime pre-amps: nuff said!
Hugh
The criteria you think that categorises equipment as professional is an opinion not shared by many here I’d guess.
Calling the SQ “entry level” is just ridiculous.
There are thousands of QU mixers out there earning a crust, so they’re “sub entry level” and not professional then either???
I think you’re mixing “high end” & “professional”.
There are £3k radio mics and the Shure SM58 for £100, by your reckoning the Shure isn’t professional?
Billy does a job with a £40k setup.
Jimmy does the same event the next year with a £100k setup.
Was Billy not using professional equipment because Jimmy’s was more than twice as expensive?
Anyway, I’m away back to real life for a bit - happy weekend everyone???
Professional: “Engaged in a specific occupation for pay as the source of ones livelihood”
Very few of the readers of these threads are actual professional practitioners however we may enjoy developing professional audio gear and related skills for a variety of reasons. A console, desk or deck is an vital tool in audio management and to that end it’s flexibility to meet the needs of various applications becomes very important. As previously stated the CQ will find some ancillary professional applications however it’s hardware limitations will not meet extended professional requirements.
robbocurry might benefit from a close review of the audio digital revolution that has dominated the 21st century. Analog gear quickly became obsolete and generational digital processing development has left some gear less desirable. I gave my highly prized obsolete 24 channel A&H analog console to a small local church because the tax deduction was more beneficial than it’s secondary market value. My QU16 and QUsb I gave to my grandsons for their garage band endeavors because the outstanding 96K FPGA processing with the SQ5 was substantially better for my acoustic Americana music workflow. The QU16 and QUsb are certainly not obsolete, however they clearly are not as desirable as the SQ or new CQ line. Generational digital processing development is always reflected in softer secondary market value: it’s not a hardware limitation issue.
The SQ line was the second and much lower price point FPGA 24/96K processing deck offered by A&H. At that point in time it was the entry level deck of that generation and when compared to Digico and D-Live price points it was, and still is
the best quality/value available anywhere. The reason the SQ5 is more of a professional tool than the CQ is very obvious: hardware that offers expandable I/Os and real tactile motorized faders and layers.
Hugh
