This is my first foray into the A&H ecosystem. I run a record label/studio and looking upgrade a small live/session room with a Dante-first/compact mixer setup so that we can patch into our other mix/control rooms.
After spending considerable amount of time debating between the QU-5D + DT-168 vs SQ-5+ w/ 64ch Dante Card, I am leaning towards to QU-5D + DT-168. We will not be taking the mixer on the road nor do we care about any DEEP/RackFX stuff.
Where I am torn on is that the QU-5D series only has 16 Dante channels. What I cannot seem to find any information is any details on QUxD + DT-168 configurations. Every bit research I have done so far does not appear to have these two products listed as a standard workflow, it’s always SQ + DT-168. Cost is not a concern, however, I feel that SQ+ will be overkill for our needs.
I would appreciate if anyone could chime in to provide any information as to if I go with QU-5D + DT-168, am I missing something obviously wrong here (meaning, is no one else out there running this setup)?
As an FYI, I am not interested in DX-168 unit at all. The DT-168 is only a few hundred more, and (to me) is a more future proof investment as I can use it for many other applications outside of the A&H ecosystem.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, but I can’t quite see what the problem might be yet.
A QU-5D features a 16x16 Dante interface.
If, as I understand it, If, as I understand it, you want to use just a single DT-168 with it and nothing else, then it should be possible to configure it fully.
What are you still missing?
Thank you for responding. I am not saying that there is an issue per se, I guess I am just questioning if there are many people using the new QU Series with DT-168, or are they not bothering with that (maybe because it will tie up all of their Dante I/O) and are going with the DX series instead.
Thinking about it more after I made this post, I am still leaning towards the QU6 + DT-168, but still pondering SQ6+ plus 64x64 Dante card + DT-168 and just calling it a day.
Unfortunately, this combination is not possible; you would need a QU-xD in any case.
And if you are connecting only this single stagebox, this combination is likely the most cost-effective option.
However, since you evidently plan to use Dante for other purposes as well and your budget is not a concern, I would recommend acquiring an SQ- or SQ+ console equipped with a 64x64 Dante card.
Do note, however, that the Dante card’s fan may increase operating noise - a factor to consider in a sensitive studio environment.
Yes, I meant QU6D. Much appreciated for the info on the Dante card noise. Even though this is the “live” room that is definitely a consideration for tracking.
There are a lot of downsides to using Dante stage boxes - especially in a live environment. The proprietary stage boxes are faster, more reliable, and cost less so it is not surprising that the vast majority of people use them over the Dante boxes.
Using Dante boxes sounds like the ultimate “future proofing” way of doing things, but if you end up mixing different brands, you end up having to use a bunch of different “control” software to have access to non-Dante settings like preamps gain, polarity, phantom power, etc, etc, etc. This extra layer of software is annoying to use - especially in a “live” setting where time is always at a premium.
That being said, you should have no problem using the DT168 box with the A&H QU+ Dante mixer. However you will be limited to that single Dante box and if you need more I/O than what the console and Dante box can use, you will be forced to use the A&H non-Dante stage boxes to add more I/O.
Thank you for chiming in, much appreciated. Yes, my research did uncover the need to use A&H’s control software for the DT’s if I use them outside of their ecosystem. I think it is prudent for me to revise my thinking on the DX’s IF I choose to go the QUD route. If I go SQ+ route, I’ll probably still go DT.
And just to be clear - this is a Dante “issue”, not an A&H issue. The Dante protocol does not account for preamp settings, so each manufacture is required to come up with their own solution - which generally aren’t compatible with each other.
Using an A&H Dante box with a Digico console will require the use of the A&H control software. Likewise using a Digico Dante stage box with an A&H console will require the use of the Digico software, etc, etc, etc.
I would actually take that for granted and would sooner suspect that perhaps only the apprentice might have forgotten to conscientiously update all the publications in this regard … )
What is the reason to go for Dante? Do you want to record with a Laptop an DVS (Dante Virtual Soundcard) or other existing equipment? Then i would take the SQ-Series, because of the 64x64 channels. The 16x16 seams a bit limited for me.
We work with Dante (and Yamaha-desks) in a art-university, thats perfect. For some samall things at home a went for a QU5 without Dante, thats fine with the 32x32 USB-interface.
Hello there… Our main studio control room computer has an RME 512 x 512 Dante PCIe card that we can track into. However, tracking into the control room is not always an option, and we need this live/recording/production/mix room to be more self-service for our artists. In that room right now we are tracking with 4 x cascaded UAD Apollos via Thunderbolt into laptops, which is SUPER cool as we can track 40 analog channels up to 24bit/192kHz and also utilize UAD unison plugins. Ultimately though, this workflow is not very tactile.
Our preferred A&H product for this room is actually the Avantis, which is what we REALLY would like to purchase but it falls short in a key area for our desired workflow. As you know, the Avantis Solo fader count is on the smaller size (we could live 12, but 16 would be ideal), but what we cannot live with is no local multitrack recording to computer option (with Avantis not having any USB/Thunderbolt recording option). Yes, the SQ+ is the next tier down, but honestly the max 48 channel count doesn’t really cut it (for us) either. Any solution using DVS is also not an option.
So the short answer is; we’d rather spend the dollars on the “best top-of-the-line portable low-footprint solution” that fits our specific use case, or just go super “basic” until the right product presents itself. Settling for something “in the middle” just doesn’t interest us. Avantis might seem like a strange choice given that I labelled SQ+ “overkill” in my initial post, but it actually fits us better as a longer-term investment with its higher available Dante channel count.
We’ve looked at every compact digital console currently on the market including Yamaha DM3 (too small/low IO, but we are keeping tabs on the rumored DM5), Tascam SonicView (too new/untested and has no DAW control), the list goes on. Putting the order in this week for the QU-5D+DX168 (not the DT based upon advice given in this thread), so “basic” it is…