I don’t recall A&H ever even responding to this request in the forums, which seems like another omission that that I cannot understand.they stated many times that they read nearly all posts
+1 for HPF/LPF on Auxmixes
Hi All,
We do monitor feature requests on this forum and through other channels as @steffenromeiss said, and whilst we don’t always respond publicly, we regularly discuss common requests internally.
Regarding HPF on outputs, there are architectural reasons why this isn’t trivial to implement, and hasn’t been addressed so far, if we do find a solution however, development will be prioritised against other feature requests as we know you’re screaming out for it!
Thanks,
Keith.
Keith,
Thank you for the reply. Your response about architectural reasons makes so much more sense to me than than user beliefs that you ignore users or attempt to force users into more expensive products.
This does beg the question as to why you haven’t shared this exact same response much earlier. I encourage you to let us in on the status of requests that we’ve “screamed out for.”
2 observations. One. It was around from long ago on GLD. Not sure about iLive. Assuming it was so it’s not something new.
Two. I’m simple minded about things and try to think as logically as I can. For me st least it just does not seem logical that the same PEQ with HPF on the input channel could not used on the output in place of what’s there. Aren’t they basically the same architecture?
If you can convince me there is a logical and legit reason with specifics then I think folks will understand.
@barryjam - No problem. As I said, everything requested is discussed and there are three possible answers ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘maybe’. Most of the time, requests are reasonable and the answer then would always be maybe, depending on demand, and whether it affects anything else. Sometimes it’s the case that only one of two things could be put in, and because we want things like shows to be compatible on multiple firmwares, we would never put something in and then remove it. If we said yes, then later found it was not possible, we would only be disappointing users. If it’s definitely not possible, then I will sometimes say no.
@gcumbee - The HPF processing block is not part of the PEQ block, and is just displayed on the PEQ graph on input channels for convenience (having it on the PEQ graph seems a lot nicer than just having a number). It actually sits before the gate, as shown on the channel processing overview. As you probably know, one of the major benefits of the XCVI core is that we have built the architecture from scratch, with close attention to the order of processing and coherency of channels. This contributes massively to the sound of the mix on SQ (and dLive), which you see users describing variously as ‘clear’ ‘clean’ ‘transparent’ etc… So adding extra processing is not simply a case of adding some code, and is more akin to adding a row of bricks in the middle of a wall which has already been built. Tricky!
Thanks,
Keith.
Hi Keith,
is that also the reason why the order of comps, eqs, gates, etc can´t be changed, like in for example the x32?
Btw. your “new bricks in the wall” explanation is a nice metaphor and makes your point very easy understandable. From my point of view implementing a clock seemed easy to do until you explained that it is not. Keep those clarifings coming!
Cheers,
André
I happen to know some good brick layers who could do that. In fact I’ve seen bricks replaced in a wall. One at a time.
@andreschaier - That’s part of the reason, yes. You can also see that everything stays coherent whether or not things like GEQ’s are switched in.
@gcumbee - I never said it was impossible, it is on the list and high up too!
Cheers,
Keith.
Thanks Keith. That’s encouraging
Devastated! No HP on mix buses???
Went out on a whim and purchased an SQ5 to replace my x32.
I didnt do my research and just assumed a higher end console would have had staples like HP on mix buses.
To be honest I am Surprised at the amount of features Ive had had to forgo to wear an SQ badge after being an x32 user for 6 years.
Hopefully there is relief ahead with future firware revisions
?
To be honest I am Surprised at the amount of features Ive had had to forgo to wear an SQ badge after being an x32 user for 6 years.
and it was just over 6 years ago an A & H dealer laughed at me when I said the X32 was a game changer after coming back from working a Big Festival where the X32 was used as the FOH mixer!
Welcome to the brick in the wall 
+1 for HPF on Auxes please
+1
+1 this is really urgent! hpf AND lpf. also on the mtrx. I know so many people that do the crossover fro the pa on two mtrx on little gigs. it just not possible with an sq, that is intended to be used for little gigs. if i loose two bands on the peq, fine, if its an extra rack deep processing unit, fine. but i need it. now. i’m thinking about selling my sq5 because of this.
@KeithJ A&H, it’s possible to make LF to be switchable (bell, shelf and HPF) and also for HF (bell, shelf and LPF), like it’s on dLive?
+1 for HPF and LPF
tomos, that would be a good solution. by the way, that was already possible on the legacy ilive systems.
by the way, that was already possible on the legacy ilive systems.
Yes, i remember, aslo it’s possible on GLD
@Keith
The HPF processing block is not part of the PEQ block, and is just displayed on the PEQ graph on input channels for convenience (having it on the PEQ graph seems a lot nicer than just having a number). It actually sits before the gate,
Is there a reason it couldn’t be part of the PEQ block? The outputs don’t have a gate. Add HPF to the EQ “brick”, and enable the front panel controls.
Hi @nottooloud,
The same processing PEQ block/brick is used by both input and mix channel processing, so if you added HPF to this, you would have a situation on your inputs where the gate could be triggered by useless LF (e.g. traffic rumble, floor noise, mic stands being knocked…). You could use the side chain filter to deal with this, but you might want that for other reasons. You would also be sending unfiltered signal to the insert output, which would present the same problem for any external dynamic processing.
The HPF is a separate part of signal processing to the PEQ for this reason.
To speak to some of the other comments here, there are a few different parts of the signal chain that could use filters for different reasons:
1 - at the beginning (as above) for filtering unwanted signal before any other processing
[if you have HF coming through that’s affecting dynamic processing, you almost certainly have abnormal issues in your setup, so there is a case for having filtering at this point of the chain, but it’s also something that could be solved for almost all signals with a combination of HPF and sidechain filter]
2 - with the EQ for tone shaping and removing unwanted signal from any/all sends
[this seems to be the most useful, perhaps as another option in place of the LF and HF bands as tomos says?]
3 - at the output stage for use in place of a dedicated speaker processor
[a console is not a speaker/system processor, there is a reason they exist! admittedly though, there are already many features in our digital consoles that allow you to shape the sound and perform some of the functions that a speaker processor is designed for, and maybe again an option ‘beyond’ shelf for LF and HF would achieve what most engineers are looking for here?]
So… would it be acceptable to loose LF and HF bands for this?
Cheers,
Keith.