live monitor mixes QU 24

Qu Qu Feature Suggestions
1

Will it be possible on future firmware updates to have indipendent PEQ on mixes 1 through 10 or at least on 5/6 7/8 9/10

I’m thinking this will depend on the processing power of the chip in the board…

Right now to achieve Indie PEQ I can manage 4 channels of seperate PEQ by sending individual channel outs through a mix and re inputting on a channel further down the master strip…(1 mix per input)

I can achieve about 4 or 5 indipendently EQ’d sources in monitors in this way…(one mono monitor mix)

If the proccessing power of chip in the board would support seperate PEQ on every channel on every mix it’d be brill…if it does not obviously this is a pipe dream!

can someone tell me if the chip power is suffucient to support this on firmware upgrades or am i dreaming the impossible …

2

I think you are asking for separate EQ for each and every input channel, and then on each monitor mix as well.

I would be willing to bet that nobody’s consoles do this… not even Digico.

A pipe dream??? I believe yes,

3

While we’re at it, let’s put a couple of FX slots on each channel? :slight_smile:

In all seriousness though, the DSP power requirement is a vast order of magnitude greater if you wanted processing on every crosspoint. Even then, will the user manage to keep track in their head of all that is going on?

I think the future of fully independent EQ of monitors lies within distributing the task, ie a ME series device with Qu levels of power…

DC

4

That’s an awful lot of DSP, and I can’t think of significant benefits, any benefits…

5

As far as I know the only console that can do this is Software Audio Console (SAC). I don’t know of any hardware console that can do this.

6

What am I missing. The console already does this.

7

The request is for individual Channel PEQ per Mix (what I’ve never seen on any desk), not for PEQ within each mix (what we have).
Needed some time to get this as well… :wink:

8

Oh. Now I get it. Geez. Talk about over EQ. There is a reason why it’s not there. It’s called hanging yourself. Absolutely no reason for that.

9

Hi…

Given the replies so far I’ve had another thought…

I understand that the power of the chip wouldn’t support PEQ on all Mix channels seperately…totally get it… SO…

Effectively (with my patch cord solution) in an ideal world I’m partitioning the QU24 in two…Chans 1 through 12 FOH – Chans 13 through 24 monitors…

Right now I’m using all the mixes to patch inputs 1 through 12 bringing them back up on the “monitor side” of the board…13 through 24

I have 8 mix busses to do this (leaving Main LR for FOH and mix 9/10 for monitor output…)

This gives me 8 seperate PEQ’s for the “duplicate” inputs + signal 1 through 12 so I’m missing 4 PEQ’s…

All good that’s what I need and it works fine…

What I guess I’m trying to get at is…Instead of phisicaly using patch cords and using up all the mix busses is it technically possible to introduce into a firmware upgrade the facility to re route say input 1 including its signal (from its pre EQ source) to chan 13 (and on and on through 24) so we have 1 through 12 as FOH and 13 through 24 which can then be routed to a “monitor mix” output say… mix 9/10

Wondering if the power of the chip will sustain a routing thing something like that…sort of an AMM but slightly different concept?? and are the internal chip connections there to sustain something like that…

Having said all that…It’s working fine with patch cords but I’m using up all my mix busses to make it all work…

Well there it is…

Many thanks for taking time to look this over…

dave

10

it’s called a stagebox.
I’d suggest that if you’re running that many channels that more monitor mixes would serve your musicians better than additional eq…

11

so is that a Monitor mixer ‘with-in’ a FOH mixer?
There were some analogue mixers around that could run a different EQ [per channel] to the monitor busses. Mackie was one of them although limited… from memory

So what is the real issue?
Not so good instruments or Mics’
Or not so good actual monitor speakers?

12

It occurred to me that the line-in sockets are pretty much (DC-blocking caps and pad resistors aside) wired in parallel with the XLR sockets.

If you are using only XLR sources, your line-in sockets are free to become direct-outs. It would all depend on whether the additional impedance of two lots of pad resistors would load the source down too much or not.

Essentially, if it works, you could get a short 12-way balanced TRS loom and connect line-in 1 to line-in 13, line-in 2 to line-in 14, etc… to get your monitor splits.

Or just do what everyone used to do “back in the day” and just use a load of XLR Y-cables.

Or, specifically with Qu, you could buy a digital stage-box which would allow you to use the in-built input patching.

Lots of ways to skin this particular cat.

Cheers,

John.

13

Hi J…

Many thanks for your constructive reply…

I’m wondering whether I’d need to solder up my patch cables in some sort of "bridging"mode or whether I could use straight forward TRS Jack to Jack patch cables…I’m going to go ahead and try this with straight ahead cords and see what happens…

The “Y” cable solution wads actually one of my first thoughts so thank you for that…I’d also looked into a passive splitter box and an active splitter box (which is a very expensive solution although a correct one…)

I can see that on the GLD system with an A&H stage-box the sourses can be patched and sorted to multiple inputs…I can see that the QU manual seems to suggest that a similar “onboard” patch can be achieved on the QU system…Wondering if that’s correct or whether this only applies to the GLD system…

I’m guessing that it only applies to the GLD system…

If so…

A) Stage box solution is good but expensive

B) Patch cords the way I have it using onboard mixes works…

C) Patch cords using line-in method to be tried…

D) Firmware upgrade to internally duplicate channels on QU system probably unlikely…

If all this is correct I guess what we have here is a complete summation of the situation…

I’ll perform the “line out test” and see what happens…

To be clear…

I’m wanting to mix 4 seperate acoustic artists… Vox & Acoustic guitar who are onstage one by one during the course of an evening and give them all a front of house mix and a “mono monitor mix with totally seperate EQ” (I can give them seperate reverb using one FX engine for out front and one FX engine for mons only)

With seperate EQ I can get the best sound possible for each act with control over any resonant “problem” frequancies onstage with the maximum of “space” intimacy AND Volume both onstage and in the house. IE… The mixes will move some serious acoustic air Both on the bottom end, where it counts and clarity on top…in the house AND onstage

Well there it is…Hey…and thanks to all who have been contributing to this thread…

Peace Luv and “More tone (and magic) for your dollar” to all!!

Sharpie

14
C) Patch cords using line-in method to be tried..
I experimented with this BEFORE any gig and i just found ther signal level to low and then of course you have to crank the gain and the returning second input! Hence you bring the hiss up in my old ears unaccepatable levels of hiss? Might have been ok for a moniotr mix in the old skool days however I dont think that would cut it these days. Need to remember its a microphone level you are splitting there!

So your last reply you have finally said the issue:

4 Accoustic guitars on stage with sep EQ mix’s into fold back wedges.
There are a lot of variables in that!

15

E) Simple good old fashioned Y leads to give an analogue split into two channels of the desk.

I do this sometimes when not using my AR2412 & it works great and costs very little

16

If you are going to try my suggestion of using the line-in as a direct-out, you must use a balanced connection on TRS jacks otherwise you will un-balance the source coming in on the XLR socket.

17

But your direct out is going to be through a 50 db pad and blocking caps.

18

So your mic would be 100db down by the time it hits the second mixer.