I’m not against multiple Ipad control - I can see that in some situations it would be useful, but I wonder if the single Ipad control isn’t such a big deal?
I mix a number of bands and variety shows and run foldback from an analogue FOH mixer - no remote control possible. Apart from a couple of times back and forth from mix position to stage during sound check to get the overall levels right, I find it easy to manage foldback from FOH. I rarely get requested for a monitor mix change from the stage before, during or after a show. I often get complements for my stage sound (and I don’t ever get on a stage during a show).
True, if each performer had their own ipad control, they could mix their own monitor and take the pressure off me. But I find that monitor mixes don’t tend to change much during the show. Is it not possible for the performers to share a single ipad on stage?
or just have someone in control of the iPad so they can make the changes,
I too agree, mixes rarely change if they are setup beforehand with a reasonable quickie “soundcheck”
I would still prefer numerous iPads so my monitor engineer can have one and I can have mine at the QU console at FOH for various features as it rests in it’s reserved spot.
It’s not overkill to me. In my situation allowing each member of my band to control their own and only their own monitor mix is a god send. It saves me (also our drummer) from having to adjust their mixes as things change from venue to venue and set to set. We lost this feature when I UPGRADED to the QU-24 and it’s the only thing we miss. Its available on the GLD and iLive series so it shouldn’t be difficult to add to the QU series. If you don’t want your customers or band member to use it you could disable it.
As a programmer, I could do some speculations… I think the difficulty of adding a feature basically depends on the chosen design inside the software. It can be very challenging to change things afterwards. We simply can’t know without knowing the details and it’s also not the customer’s business.
Still, I’m all for it. Apart from the scenario with multiple iPads as monitor controllers, there are other things, not only nerdy TCP/IP foot switches, to be used in parallel with iPads. One could want multiple connections for other reasons such as having an extra display, e.g., for the RTA, on a computer or iPad while using another iPad as the actual remote control.
for these “hand-made” devices, it is quite easy to build a “master” conected by tcp to the QU16, and multiple slaves connected to the master, so the QU16 sees only one device
for these “hand-made” devices, it is quite easy to build a “master” conected by tcp to the QU16, and multiple slaves connected to the master, so the QU16 sees only one device :-)
I in deed have considered this option. But it’s not true that it is quite easy. After all, a safe implementation of such a program would need to be aware of the full MIDI implementation of the Qu-16. For example, switching mute on/off on a channel involves sending (or receiving) two note-on events. Hence, it must be ensured by such a program that Qu messages encapsulated into multiple MIDI events are not split in the middle and mixed up if multiple clients send the same information simultaneously.
Furthermore, the Qu can be requested to send a parameter dump or the current meter status (creating plenty of traffic) - if one iPad requests meter status, and the other doesn’t - what to do? Send all data to both? Keep track of which one requested what?
It’s not impossible, but doing this properly is a lot more work than one might think at a first glance.
I almost wonder whether a proxy would be easier - so you connect a proxy (maybe something running on a Raspberry Pi (other low cost hardware is available) which connects to the QU-* and allows connections from multiple devices - so band members could have “mix n” login, and FOH could have everything - maybe with a second connection showing the RTA and meters?
This is a no brainer and should have been put in a long time ago. MANY bands and churches use in ear monitors. For each user to be able to bring up his or her’s personal mix is huge. Even the OLD Presonus boards allow this. The new Mackie DL32r is boasting this and they are not even out yet. It will allow 10 devices and like the Presonus, allow you to lock out certain parts which prevents a member from accidently grabbing the wrong mix. Also, they have an iPHone version for the personal mix.
I’m telling you, this missing feature will cause people to go with other brands. I almost did myself but I figured it was a new product and hopefully they will release a version soon. Still waiting!
Me too, still waiting! We’re using a custom-made TCP/IP foot switch with the Qu16, but we can’t use an iPad simultaneously. Not so great.
Can the Qu16 talk TCP/IP and USB-MIDI simultaneously? That would perhaps be a workaround, but it turned out that accessing the MIDI-USB from the RaspberryPi embedded computer in the foot switch is tricky (should be somehow possible, though).
Still, I don’t regret that we chose the Qu16. It is powerful but simple enough to do basic adjustments (like monitors or managing feedbacks on the GEQ) on stage in between two songs.
So please, people at A&H, make this good console a heavenly console and give us multiple TCP/IP connections!
I believe the USB Midi can be used at the same time.
I’d be happy with a Proxy software solution at the moment, but I’d rather the desk supported multiple connections directly.
Most people are looking at limited control - so a few faders controlling a mix output - not a full fat connection. It would be nice to get a level meter (mix AFL) out to the user as well…
Don’t forget iPhone/iPod Touch QU-Pad apps too.
Most people I know own iPhones (and they are always in their pocket unlike iPads in pockets) and to enable users to simply have them adjust SOLELY their own monitor mix would be great.
