Allen and Heath is very purposeful in the feature set they offer with each console in their lineup. The A&H ecosystem starts with very basic consoles with a very basic feature set, and each “step up” in the console line up adds more and more features until you get to the “fully featured” DLive series.
The CQ (and the QU, SQ, and Avantis) feature request section is filled with requests that will never be considered by A&H. Often because the processing power required for those features simply isn’t available, but also because it would break the “feature lineup” that A&H has obviously carefully crafted.
While this “problem” seems to be very prevalent with CQ users, I see it with every console lineup from A&H. If you need more granular features than the CQ offers, then you need to step up in the console lineup to a product that offers those features. It doesn’t matter that you “only need 10 inputs” - if you want the features that are only available on the DLive then you need to buy a DLive. If you need features that aren’t available on the CQ or QU series consoles but are available on the SQ, then you need to buy an SQ, etc, etc, etc
Long story short, you shouldn’t expect the same features available on the SQ, Avantis, or DLive to be available on the CQ console. If you are looking for a feature that is not available on the CQ, but is currently available on other model in the A&H lineup, you probably bought the wrong console. If A&H had the desire and ability to add that functionality to the CQ devices, they would have already done it. Now if it is completely new functionality that isn’t available on ANY of the current A&H lineup, then that is a different story.
Of course this is just my personal opinion and doesn’t reflect any official stance by A&H or anyone else for that matter…
Yep. When I worked on R&D for theater and architectural lighting systems (back in the dark ages ) the console and controller lines did just that. You want the features of the gold-plated model? Buy it.
I hear you, I agree, but I decide to let people express themself about feature request, it doesn’t hurt anyone even if one can believe sometime that they are not possible.
The fact that some feature might or might not be implement is not our business.
Not reacting make my life easier and feature request forum more readable.
I also realize that for some people, the CQ console might be their first digital console purchase. They are probably ignorant about what features they want/need until they start using it. It’s one of those “don’t know what your don’t know” situations.
But the industry as a whole (and us as individuals) need to do a better job at educating people on how to select a digital console. 9 times out of 10, a inexperienced person is going to only look at channel count/available I/O and not consider anything other functionality. While a buyer certainly needs to understand their channel count and I/O needs and make sure the console they select will meet their needs both now and in the reasonable future, it’s just a small part of the total system.
You have to look at ALL of the features/capabilities of a console when comparing different options. If you focus only on I/O and channel counts, you are missing about 95% of the functionality of the console and will likely make the wrong decision about what console to purchase.
Very well said, and about time that someone said it.
Unfortunately, in a few days, this thread will be buried and the cycle of newbies will repeat with requests to add UltraFX and a DM64 to the CQ series.
Have the CQ18T, and it has the exact features needed (and more that just make it a joy to use) for what we purchased it for.
Does it have every cool feature / convenience one would want in a portable, digital mixer? No, but is has quite a bit. We also have a SQ as the main workhorse, again, bought for the features and capabilities it offers. I agree, if A&H wanted to throw everything into one/two console lines (fixed setups and portable products), they would’ve. Nope, they have many options for many situations.
IMO, the SQ Rack provides a possible portability for a step-up in class to the CQ line. However, i really like the CQ and what it offers for our needs. Everything else it can do above that is just a bonus.
If a console doesn’t have what you need, keep looking at options until you find it.
So why doesn’t Allen and Heath generate a comparison list so customers can easily see why A & H created each line of products and why they should choose from a certain level of product? And especially to give to those of us who sell their products!
It might get pretty unwieldy however since many of the differences are very granular in nature. For example one console might allow certain functionality on a gate while another console offers different functionality… Multiply that by every different function and you could have a very long list/comparison.
I understand the loyalty in this discussion, but I find it very hard to believe some features are just not possible. They may not be possible right now, but future development may still make things possible. It’s also perfectly acceptible for someone coming from a relative dinousaur like the UI24r, or one of the Mackie devices, to think that A&H could manage something like sub-groups on more modern hardware, and to be disappointed when they say that they can’t do it “right now.”
Add to that the simple omission of some very important settings in the reverb controls that makes the CQ feel more like a toy, and you should be able to see why people are complaining about features. You shouldn’t have to “step up” to a $3k machine to get pre-delay on your reverb. It’s not 1989 anymore.
I don’t think it’s all that helpful to rant about what people should or shouldn’t expect.
I believe most people asking for features aren’t necessarily comparing the CQ vs. other offerings within the AH product stack, but against offerings from competing brands at similar price points.
What drew me to the CQ-18T was the quality of life enabled by the built-in glass mixing surface, the stable WiFi transponder and the backpack-friendly packaging. This means I don’t have to transport an awkward stagebox-shaped mixer + a router + an iPad – along with all the interface and power cables – to a rehearsal. Home studio space is also super clean. And of course, with solid sound and build quality, it’s completely gig-worthy.
However, I was not aware that this capability would come at a significant reduction in features relative to other brands on the market, sometimes at much lower prices – routing and tap-point flexibility, subgroups, and an actual FX interface instead of the silly Fisher-Price UI that I can’t even parse.
I still think it’s a unique little beast, but it’s feature deficit cannot be ignored. I think many of the feature requests I’ve seen on these forums are entirely reasonable. Nobody is comparing this to dLive – they are comparing this to other ~$1K mixers.
This here is the crux of the issue for me - the form factor of the products being tied to the feature sets. There are applications where the channel count is low and there are benefits to a very compact form factor, but the processing needs are demanding and the budget is flexible. Why should I have to drag an Avantis Solo or CDM32+surface out for a gig with a lectern mic, playback, and a couple of lavs just so that I have access to the PSE plugin or an expander, for example? And the feature disparity also cuts the other way as well - If I’m doing multitracking, I would really prefer not to step up beyond the SQ series, since Avantis and DLive need external hardware for multitrack. But then I’m back to a reduced feature set even if the budget is there.
For many of the gigs I do, something the size of the Yamaha DM3 would be perfect, with a 24-32 channel engine, 16-24 buses with DLive-style flexibility, onboard multitrack, and Avantis-level processing. The SQ5 series close, but has limitations with bus flexibility and processing capabilities. I understand that processing power isn’t free, and I’d be OK with pricing in the middle of the SQ range. But this doesn’t fit nicely into the heavily segmented product portfolio that A+H seems to be pursuing, so I won’t hold my breath.
When I bought the CQ20, the reasoning was to get a well supported mixer with better pre-amps.
I was moving from the Ui16 and before the CQ range was launched, I was ready to buy a Ui24.
In buying the CQ20, I lost mix groups, mute groups and a GUI that use HTML5, Independant of OS and usable on many older devices.
I gained a smaller footprint, much better pre-amps, 96 KHz sampling and the FBA. With the advent of the 1.2 firmware update, I gained back some of those.
I think the point of the thread is, buy on what you need and by all means make feature suggestions, but if the CQ range does not suit your needs, don’t buy it. If A&H do not make a mixer that does, go elsewhere. To me the delineation of the A&H range makes a lot of sense. In fact looking at others, Tgeircrange lineups look very confusing. C mm
To be honest, both statements are true. Reading the feature requests sometimes makes me wonder what people are smoking, however there are things on both Soundcraft and Behringer compact mixers that are not available to the CQ range.
The point I am trying to make however is that Allen & Heath CONSCIOUSLY made the decision to leave those items out of the CQ series. A&H didn’t forget how to program a mute group or sub groups, or a reverb pre-delay on the CQ. They decided those features were more of a stumbling block than a needed feature for their intended target market. The problem lies when people outside of the “intended market” purchase the console thinking it is what they need when in fact it is not designed for their use case.
Now it’s possible that if enough people complain/request a certain feature, it might be implemented at a later date, but people shouldn’t buy a console with the “hope” that a feature will be added at a later date.
This is obviously MY opinion of the “intended market” of the CQ series, but it is designed not just as a small form factor console, but rather a small form factor console that is overly simplistic to use. This means the feature set is very small with only very basic controls exposed to the end user. It is designed to be less intimidating to use by “inexperienced” people than other consoles in the market. These are people who normally don’t mix audio. Their primary role/job is something completely different for the organization, but they get thrown into mixing sound when it is required. That is who the CQ Series is designed for.
Long story short - if you want a “pre delay” on your reverb - clearly the CQ series console is not designed for you.
Initially there was no mute group… now there is.
Initially there was no custom fader… now there is.
Initially there was no DCA… now there is.
Initially midi was not implemented… now it is.
All that became available because of the input made in the “CQ Feature request forum” by :
This community deserve enthusiastic support, not what you have stated in your initial post.
So, do like me, add your vote on every feature request and stop philosophy.
The worse we can expect is improvement… … with the help of the community.
Feature request that can’t be implemented won’t be implemented.
Unless you are an A&H developer you can’t judge, whatever your knowledge in audio engineering and digital mixer.
Whatever you believe some feature can be implemented or not, it is not you to judge.
I take the opportunity to quote here a reply from A&H rep MarkF that you all might have seen in another feature request post:
What exactly about my initial post do you have a problem with? After all, it has nothing to do with any specific feature requests, nor does it suggest that people should stop posting feature requests.
What my initial post was intended to do is simply remind everyone that the channel count and I/O count are not the most important things that you want to base your purchasing decisions on. People need to look at the entire ecosystem and feature set of any console they are considering purchasing, and only then can they accurately decide if a console is the right fit for their needs.
Making sure that people think about how Allen & Heath structures their console lineups and help them have realistic expectations about what each level of console might or might not offer is a VERY beneficial thing and DOES actually support the community.
) the console and controller lines did just that. You want the features of the gold-plated model? Buy it.