@Hugh
Sure! Happy to jump in.
I can see how a GX2412-size/type expander would be a useful addition to many smaller or portable setups.
If it worked in a similar way to the existing GX4816, the only issues I can see would be around how the 128x128 available GX signals are split up. With the GX4816 for example, the first 64 inputs and 64 outputs are used by the onboard sockets (48/16) and the ME system (0/40). There are then two 32x32 DX ports to take up the second 64x64.
With 24/16 on board sockets then, there would a ‘loss’ of 40 possible input channels if only two DX ports were offered. However, a third port would mean that there wouldn’t be enough output channels available for the ME system…
A bigger consideration is cost. It wouldn’t be as low as half the cost of a GX4816 and would be more than double the cost of a DX168, due to the base costs before you get to the sockets/preamps/conversion of the former and the extra tech required (gigabit networking, port handling, SRC) over the latter. So for argument’s sake let’s say it’s 3/4 of the price of a GX4816… For some, I presume it might then be more attractive to get double the input channel count and all the expansion features for 30% extra or indeed a higher channel count but without the expansion features for less!
To be clear, I’m not saying it would never happen, just that there are obviously lots of things to consider.
What would be really useful to let us know is whether there is a consensus on why the suggested format would be so useful. Is it mostly about the use of the ME system alongside GX/DX preamps or is it about cost vs required channel count or is it all about portability?
Cheers,
Keith.