Hello everybody
I’m very interested in the new sq line, nevertheless I’m now in the need to buy a rack format mixer (i.e. x32 rack size) . Is it in the plan? If Yes: will it be in the 2k budget? and when approximately will be announced ?
An additional question: MTK recording : My understanding is that SQ will have only recording function on board (no laptop needed) not MTK playback to enrich performances … is that correct ? Do you plan to add this function in the future ?
Thanks
Hey Gsus4th,
There is nothing planned at present, though we have definitely had quite a few requests already!
Both the Qu-Pac or Qu-SB are suitable for most situations though, and so I’d be (genuinely!) interested to know which features of the SQ you’d need in this form-factor that they don’t provide?
Regarding the multitrack recording on SQ-Drive - you can use this for recording or playback, and channels are fully patchable, so you could indeed use this to add prerecorded audio in your performance.
Thanks,
Keith.
Hi Keith.
Can you confirm whether the SQ-Drive (onboard multitrack, similar to Qu-Drive, on the top of the console near the phones socket, not the 32x32 CoreAudio compliant interface on the rear of the console) is limited to 18 tracks like Qu-Drive, or can it do more?
There wil also be a dante card in the future, this allows also computer playback to 48 channels.
Hi cornelius78,
Currently SQ-Drive records stereo or 16 tracks at 96kHz direct to disk. We will be looking at adding the option of a higher track count with a lower sample rate in the future too.
Thanks,
Keith.
Thanks for that Keith. Higher track count at lower sample rate would make sense, especially if people are going to use AR\AB stageboxes, which AFAIK are clocked at <96kHz anyway.
Hi Keith
I’m not surprised that you are receiving quite a few information requests concerning a future SQ-Rack. If you exclude the Pro User segment, more and more people are getting confident with virtual fader approach giving a chance to such a kind of format in the <2k price segment.
I’m considering the two rack brothers in the QU line, but as you can easily imagine while in the process to buy something new you first take look at what is new on the market.
Now here’s the list of my wishes:
Guess the next move is on Behringer side… the X32 - although it has been a game changer - now is suffering the years, they are just milking the cow with the new Sd card… until someone will launch something really new… will it be you?
I think this is psersonal, i prefer the interface of the qu above x/m32
The display in the m32r isn’t usable but you need it for al funtions.
In my opinion room and system tuning is something you do with your ears and in the system processsor (a mixing console isn’t a system processor)
Use your ears, otherwise get into an another business.
The number of input’s is always not enough, if you need more, buy an extra rack.
If you pay for a renault you can’t expect the comfort of a rolls royce
Don’t forget I/O card capability.
Hi Showtime
Bad day ain’t ? … a bunch of people who dare to say silly things and - upon request – also to answer! Ah too bad… a Sound Pro like you forced to read such a bunch of nonsense…
Don’t know if you are part of A&H Group… (hope not), nevertheless I kindly ask you to be patient 
In order:
By the way… I can afford two Rolls Royce [one for the mixer and one for the extra rack] but the places where I have fun with music have no room enough to park ‘em!
In the end… my suggestion:
Enjoy your job, you are a lucky man, you live with music a common language that has thousand of dialects and unwritten rules and where there are no newbees… Use all the senses that you have available (not only earing) and respect other people thought.
End of my arguing there will be no more replies.
Take care
A rack model makes more sense than a odd shaped stand alone units like Qu-Pac or Qu-SB.
It saves time, router + wireless gear etc can stay in the same rack.
I operate a B*** X32 Rack and it has a really nice feature: it doubles as a stagebox, with is good for several reasons (good value, redundancy etc).
A rack model with 24/12 ins/outs would be great. 32/16 would be awesome.
Why’s everyone talking about rack mounting as if you can’t rackmount the Qu-Pac or Qu-SB?
Firstly for Ryan.
I rack mount my Qu-SB.
In the same SKB ‘shallow’ 4U rack case, I also have a Furman power conditioner, Wifi access point (Airport Express), optical out to a DAC feeding the Qu-SB St-1 input for AirPlay music streaming, a DMX ArtNet bridge and Chauvet 1-to-4 channel DMX splitter… thus I run both sound and lighting control over the same WiFi network from my iPad(s).
Love it!!!
The reason a Sq-5-SB appeals greatly is that it looks like I could have two of them linked together, one as a stage box for the other, giving me the option of one larger rig or two smaller ones depending on event size etc.
Plus I could add a xx168 expansion module for a full 48 channels in should I need it. Oh yes, and I can add a Dante module for remote (wired) recording / playback. Sweeeeeet!!!
I’d also hope that the SQ range will include an offline Mac editor as do the other upper end consoles do. Perfect-a-mundo!!
My request for a Sq-SB?
Just take the rear of the Sq-5, keep it flat and not sloping, chop the excess height back to a clean 4U fit, and keep the depth close to the Qu-SB if at all possible.
Because of features and performance. And redundancy.
Coming from the X32 system, this one is a no brainer (and a possible deal breaker).
Hi Keith,
before I will try to answer your question concerning the “I’d be (genuinely!) interested to know which features of the SQ you’d need in this form-factor that they don’t provide”-quwestion, I want to state, that I understand your aim to to go for a long product-lifecycle with the QU-racks, at least until return on the R&D-invest is secured.
On the other hand I do not have to tell you, that the immature segment of consumer-digital-mixers still follows the innovate-or-die-rule. Your competitors Presonus and Soundcraft have released the 3rd version resp. 2nd version of their rack-line recently. For the discussion let us leave aside Behringer, who is based in a different market segment, targetting on customers looking for seems-similar-to-gear for performing sounds-similar-to-music.
As for the SC UI24R, the 1st 10,000 units have been sold easily within not even six month after roll-out. Adressing the 1000-$/€ segment this must have gathered enough on revenue to pass the break-even.
The UI24R, though selling pretty well, is incorporating, compared to the QU-racks, a couple of flaws. The WLAN-support is messy, the unit is still noisy, despite of better preamps than its predecessors, and the processing features are implemented rudimentary only. No sidechaining on gate and comp, no reverb-parameters or reverb-types. But the buyers seem not to care, some are waiting for firmware updates, that probably will never show up.
The main selling points seem to be
The QU-racks do offer all these dynamics- and FX-features , but they come with double the latency and an IPad control app only. The pro community, at least in Europe, seems to be not so Apple-minded. That is imho one of the reasons why the QU-racks are often sorted out as candidates. Though they are known to be good-sounders.
Now
– the 96kHz and the 0.7ms latency of the SQ (for DAW-use)
could be arguments that can not be overheard. Even if the unit does not fit under the 1000€-barriere.
Kind regards
E.K.
sorry, should be of course
– a broad range of features, without going deep on anything
To EmanKant
I agree in toto with your rack digital mixer market close examination, with the exception of your view on the X32 Rack.
Although my position on Behringer product is aligned with yours, X32 rack cannot be considered in a different market segment; at least price is saying that.
Firstly I have to say that I’m not a Sound Pro, therefore I don’t live with music but as a musician I understand most of the issues connected with music tech.
This given and keeping it basic I would add to your list:
Basically no rack mixers now available on the market are meeting this target and that is why I was wondering if A&H was planning to put SQ sound engine on a rack with these features. So I’m torn between mixers that partially answer to my needing where I will be ready to pay something between 1,5K and 2K for a such a kind of gear.
Since A&H will not come out with a rack mounted format of the SQ what is your suggestion? I would say spend as less as possible (ui24R) and wait…
SQ-5 is rack mountable… and you have a GUI with taktile control 
what about the QSC?
Hi Steffen
Hi Gsus,
looks like we agree on most of the items. I suggest to skip the Behringer discussion, because it would be mainly on marketing strategy.
Interesting is, that Keith capsuled the whole issue as a “formfactor”-question. I watched him on the tutorial video (Keith sorry, I am talking in 3rd person, I am
not at all sure wether you will read this. In case please transform 3rd into 1st person by cognitive switching). And he claims segments totally different from the musical performance market.
He mentioned the conference-room-, church- and broadcast installations. And in these segments the rack will play a small role only, maybe none. These installs are permenantly wired, so what should a remotecontrolled rack be good for here?
When it comes to live performance in whatever locations the situation is totally different. The recent success of the racks in this application shows imho the way where it will run to. Starting in the late 1980s the areas of industrial producion automation and telecommunications have switched to manager-agent configurations, wehre the agent units are integrated locally into the production lines and are managed remotecontrolled. So in our case this means, transporting signals from stage to FOH, manipulating it there and sending it back will be an outdated approach within an minor couple of years. This will make all the big and costly consoles become obsolete.
Do not take me wrong. I do not believe, that the existing “rack-formfactor”-units will be the ones do perform this change. These all are toys compared to what will be necessary. But they will at least
serve as proof of concept.
Now, as for your question on what do do and what to buy. The UI24R is the best selling unit these days, and they look nice at first view. But imho they lack a couple of features
essential for satisfying the contemporary sound requirements. Neither FXes nor dynamics are really controllable. Just two buzzwords taken for examples: powerbox reverb and New York compression (parrallel comp.). But you can find a lot more of these missing items.
One more thing is the number of Auxes, that is more and more requested for InEars. The UI24R has got 8 Auxes, that would be 4 in stereo mode. Now, you have 24 mic preamps, but can only serve 4 people with stereo phones. Does that make sense? OK, they argue, that mono InEars is good enough and you can control your personal mix via MoreMe function on your smartphone. Imagine a performing musician messing around with his telephones on stage. That´ll be the comedy part of the show.
So I hope that maybe Keith will step into the discussion and even more maybe think the subject over.