My last mixer was a Behringer XR12. It had a really useful feature - one input could be linked to several mixer channels. So if you are say a singer who plays the trumpet, clarinet and flute you could set up 4’different sets of gain, eq, efx, fold back etc. to suit each instrument and simply switch the mic between each of the 4 channels (by muting the others) depending on what you’re playing. The Behringer went further - a bit like the custom feature on the CQ20 but more elegant - mixer channels could be ordered however you liked; there was a matrix page where you assign the physical inputs to the channels.
+1 one for more flexibility on the routing.
1 Like
Simplicity, is the main point of CQ, you want patching, buy a Qu or SQ, it is as simple as that.
The lack of patching was actually a selling point, when they launched CQ range.
It is a feature request sub forum and
your reply is pointless, unless you are an A&H tech or programmer.
If it can’t be done, it won’t be done, …
1 Like
In that case I should have started by saying
-1 for more flexibility in patching, then my other comments would not have been pointless.
The reason I say this is the target market is moving people from analogue to digital in the simplest layout, as said in more or less those words in the launch videos. As such the fixed one socket to one process channel setup is exactly what was designed right from the begining, again I am quoting the gist of the early sales pitch, both on media, and by reps at shows.
I am not saying it is impossible, as I do not have the faintest idea of how much of the reduced size XCVI FPGA has been already been utilised, or even pre allocated for currently planned changes.
What I am saying that the clientele to whom I have so far demonstrated my CQ18T, as a simpler option to either Qu or SQ, find the lack of patching exactly what they want. As such I am probably not the only person with experience of A&H digital infrastructure, including Avantis and AHM, who would be disappointed if your suggestion were to be implemented on CQ.
This is something that could be made completely invisible to novices via a simple UI tweak. Not to mention that the CQ series already has some very well-done implementations of operating in “easy” vs. “advanced” modes.
I’m sorry but your “-1” comes across as an unwelcome attempt at gatekeeping. If the FPGA does not have resources to support patching then that’s understandable. If A&H decide to not provide the future due to artificial product segmentation in order to make higher-tier products more appealing, then that’s ok too.
What’s unacceptable is users giving non-destructive feature requests from other users a thumbs down. It’s distasteful, disrespectful and unconstructive.
1 Like
That is unfortunately happening very often, and, very often, by the same members.
I have no pb hearing argument from users explaining why a feature could be hard to implement.
But some always turn it to an unconstructive “buy something else if you’re not happy”…
The last part of highflyer190653 latest comment is even more twisted minded.
1 Like
I am very sorry you think that way, this is an open free forum where I have just expressed my view which is contrary to that of the original post . I definitely do NOT mean to be in anyway derogatory to either you or the original poster as people, just to the one concept, which in my opinion, would be a retrograde action.
Please feel free to elicit as much support for your ideas as you wish. Should they be feasible and there be sufficient support, that A&H implement them, I shall be in a minority, and work with whatever changes in firmware take place.
I still feel I have a right to express a personal opinion on possible changes, while accepting others rights to different views.
1 Like