Your point about purchasing a console based not just on I/O but on feature sets is well taken.
Your point about the need to understand a company’s full product stack is not well taken. If I’m in the market for a $1K console it’s not my job to look at A&H’s $3K, $10K and $50K consoles and play a game of 5-dimensional mental chess to deduce their product stratification strategy.
It is my job to look at other ~$1K consoles from other brands and decide what works for me. Sadly, this is tricky because these feature lists are not standardized and it’s difficult for a buyer to make a fully informed decision without hands-on time or in-depth critical reviews, which are a rarity. Several CQ buyers came from other brands and automatically assumed that those features – some of which are available on consoles costing half as much – would be available on the CQ, only to be disappointed. That’s not a damning critique of the CQ because it still has its USPs.
I think the A&H team does a fantastic job when it comes to just about everything on all lines. I use DLive at church, CQ for my band soon to be SQ Rack, and install all makes and models due to bid job specifications. I unfortunately have to install the other brands. I can tell anyone where different brands fall short of any A&H product. Folks should do more research and think their usages out more before purchasing a certain desk. It’s my personal opinion that some people see how powerful say the CQ is but then desire more when it’s not possible. At this point in my 55 years on the planet, I am A&H for life!!!
It is mainly your wording.
You put statement like if you would detain the true, like if you were actually working for A&H and also like if you were in charge of the moderation here, advising people not to ask features for the reason you mentioned.
This was the feeling I had when reading your post.
That made me react, maybe over react.
I can see now that you have add that this only your personal opinion.
I respect that.
Just see my reply as my personal opinion too.
I’ll be happy to exchange with you again in the forum.
WIlliam.
It’s just typical forum “gatekeeping” where someone wanders around and asks forum members not to post what they want to. Just ignore this guy, enjoy your consoles, and hopefully A&H will continue to update them with features and options that are doable.
Keep in mind, the Ui16 is a $400 mixer. I would compare the CQ20B vs. other $900-$1K mixers.
The Ui24R is frequently available for $1K, and has good preamps (unlike the Ui16), subgroups, matrices, per-channel tap points, Hi-Z inputs, amp modeling, dbx AFS, a 31-band output GEQ on top of the AFS, channel safes, and a proper FX interface.
The StudioLive 32R is $950. Subgroups, matrices, per-channel tap points, etc. etc.
The X32-Rack is $980. Let’s not even go there.
So within the competitive landscape the CQ mixers have a pretty serious feature deficit. And that deficit wasn’t something I expected. For example, I couldn’t even fathom that a digital mixer wouldn’t have subgroups. I didn’t even think of looking it up.
All that said, to me the CQ18T with its built-in surface and backpackable form factor is just something uniquely useful (the TouchMix 16 is terrible). Plus A&H is known for their robust build quality and excellent customer support. That has to come with a premium price tag. I just wish there were literally a premium price tag instead of a severe feature deficit. I would happily pay the premium.
But the way things are, it’s very natural for customers to expect features available even in $400 mixers. So to all the loyalists, apologists, astroturfers and gatekeepers – please let us be.
A&H is clearly marketing the CQ with claims like 96kHz operation, high-quality preamps, studio-grade processing etc. All of which go far beyond the needs of the “non-audio” users you described.
If the console is truly meant to be a tool for non-technical operators, then those specs are overkill. They probably don’t care about all of that. If A&H wants to position the CQ series as a premium-quality console, then it’s reasonable for users to expect basic professional functionality, even in a compact format.
The frustration comes not from misunderstanding the product, but from a mismatch between how it’s marketed and how it’s functionally limited.
There is an economy of scale that comes by bringing your entire product offerings in line with each other. Moving the CQ and QU 5/6/7 series consoles to the same FPGA 96k architecture as their other systems, using the same preamps and other components across multiple lines, etc, etc, etc likely benefits Allen and Heath as much as it does the customers.
So while A&H is obviously going to tout those specs in their marketing material, you can’t read too much into it (with regard to A&H motivations in using those components). Their decision to make those changes was likely a purely financial one. By reducing the differences in parts, manufacturing processes, R&D, etc, etc, etc they very well may have actually increased their overall profitability by using the components/upgrades that they did.
Honestly you have a very valid point about how the CQ is marketed. While I understand that A&H wants to put the CQ’s best foot forward, I agree that their marketing focus seems flawed.
It’s like the R&D team that developed the console in the first place and the marketing team trying to sell the consoles today have a different idea of who the console is designed for.