The SQ-0 would be like a QU-Pac, the SQ-1, 2 and 3’s would be like the SQ-5, 6 and 7 respectively but with no (or limited) pre-amps on-board for those of us who will never need the on-board pre-amps because we use stage boxes only. Especially now since the new S-Link card is available.
Oh! Or SQ-0 = QU-SB, SQ-1 = QU-Pac, and SQ-2/3/4 would be with the no/limited preamps.
I thought the SQ5 was the one with the limited preamps already…
SQ-PAC would be awesome - any plans to make one A&H???
Hi all,
We have no current plans for an ‘SQ-Pac’, though it has been requested a few times!
In most situations the Qu-Pac will do everything that’s required (and more), but that’s not to say we would never look into an ‘SQ-Pac’ in the future.
Thanks,
Keith.
Hey Keith,
a definite +1 when voting for an SQ-pac. it would be the perfect backup desk for us SQ converts. I have replaced all of our desks with the SQ series (they sound freaking awesome!) plus DX168s and S-link cards ordered for FOH/mon splits - waves card and waves server in the pipeline when funds permit! so taken to the product in a big way! the ability to carry a spare desk in a small flightcase (minimal Van space!) would be great. if a beer or Cider (do a lot of Cider festivals) was spilt into one of the desks I could swap it out recall the show and carry on. I am sure the qu-pac is also great but its the recall of an SQ show on the back up mixer that would be the HUGE selling point for me.
PS really loving the SQs - fantastic products! loving your work sirs!
I have no use for a SQ-Pac. But I’d really welcome it, because it would mean the iPad app has to get a lot more features we all miss right now.
I would love to see a lighter version of SQ-6 or 7 with just a couple preamps! “GLD-Style” 
Nearly ever use it without a stagebox…
2 Pre amps (or 3 with Talkback) the stereo inputs on TRS, 2 XLR outputs & AES out. Killer as a take to festival surface.
Maybe not worth building a version of the 5 like this (though, I’d like one), but something with the surface format of the 6 or 7 would be very useful indeed.
Hiya Keith
The thing that’s seriously compelling about a rack mount SQ compared with the Q is the card slot capability - particularly with Dante - and using it as a really capable sub mixer or for comms… a bit like a DM0 light! +1 vote from me!
A +1 for am mixengine-only version of the SQ (similar to the QU-SB or QU-Pac). But first of all, let’s release the 1.3 Firmware and the SQ-Director;-)
That’s me too. Awaiting SQ consoles with less inputs and outputs.
Reason simple: less space, weight, compact. Just a few inputs to connect someting like outboard gear, link another desk from a guest engineer, a talkback mike at FOH plus a few outputs like for same outboard gear, L/R, direct hookup to delayed speakers and such.
For me like 6 in, 6 out tops works for all occasions. But could even live with 4 in+out. The rest would just be completely redundant and still unused when the console reaches its retirement age.
Hi Keith
To me, H&H is really missing an opportunity leaving the SQ fader-less (whatever you want to call it) field to competitors. Q PAC is not an alternative for people that are looking for sound quality even in small venues. H&H was the first offering a 96Khz machine on a middle-low level size/market, and a 24/32CH fader less version of SQ (great Mixer) with its sound quality would have been a smash.
Last year you said that the fader-less version was not in your plan, now you confirm the same line and - again - I personally think you are very wrong. In the meantime, I’ve bought a rack mixer from an H&H competitor, but I still keep on expecting you change your position on the subject.
regards
Luca
Keith, would you also say there are no plans for a SQ-sb (similar to QU-SB) at this time?
One area where I know the QuSB and QuPac tend to come up a bit short is as a portable IEM system. Being able to arbitrarily assign all outputs to a series of stereo mixes rather than have locked down mix assignments like the QuSB would be huge by itself.
I have a Qu-SB at the moment and on reflection, I’d vote for a SQ-4 with 8x8 in/out, or even an SQ-3 with 4x4 i/os.
Both in a SQ-5 form factor.
That way I’d use my Qu-SB as my initial stage box for the SQ-3/4, eventually upgrading with 2x DX168 or a DMx.
One request though, would be for an AES input alongside the AES output…
Hi Keith,
let me notice some points why the Qu-PAC isn‘t an option.
-
The Qu-Pac does not allow free patching of the outputs.
-
The Qu Series does not offer a Dante Option.
I bought a Qu-Pac to test it. The plan was to use several ones in different rooms of our church because of the simple user interface and the App „Qu-Control“. But not being able to route different busses like eg matrix 1/2 for the delayline to the local outputs is very strange. The is an K.O. criteria for using Qu-PAC. Adding an AB Stagebox in the controlroom where I need no further inputs, only output is a waste of Money and Space. Also it will lower the number of Stageboxes I would maybe need to use on stage. (The controlroom with amping is opposite of the stage).
But while the SQ series does not offer a similar configurable app „SQ-Control“ and there is no 19“ rackversion with an easy front interface and less rackheight like the QU-Pac I have no solution for fixed installations in our venue.
If I could use Dante on Qu-PAC I could build a network to distribute audio to all the rooms. The would be the bonus point for an SQ-PAC Version.
An SQ-sb or SQ-Pac would be great. I would love to have the sound, convenience and featureset of an SQ console in a small and light rack format. Allen & Heath leaves the field to Behringer x32 Rack, Yamaha TF Rack and the wonderful Presonus Studiolive Rack Versions (which are also Audiointerfaces and Stageboxes to their Mixer lineup with faders). Is A&H concerned to cannibalize sales of the dLive CDM Series for install purpose? Let us upvote this thread to make a statement, how welcome an SQ Rackmixer would be!
Cheers
I’d buy a SQ-sb or SQ-Pac and still keep my SQ5.