Dear Allen&Heath, please, make SB with SQ inside!
Folks, please, confirm that it will be very profitable action for Allen&Heath!
There have been many requests for this (or a Pac version).
It would be interesting to know how many inputs/outputs different people would want.
Presumably any version would have the St inputs, USB & headphone out + the expansion card slot.
I think 16/8 would be enough for me, as I’d want to use a full desk, rather than a screen, for anything with large channel count anyway. If it could go on stage and be used a simple stage box for larger shows, I’d certainly want one.
But I can also see situations in which a smaller version (even with no built in I/O for installs) would be used with remote I/O.
Larger versions will always be wanted by some people, but would 32 (or even 48) inputs ever really get much use?
So, what would others want to see?
I think the best variant of SQ-SB or SQ-PAC will be with the same configuration as has SQ-7 but without faders.
But input sockets have to be as on QU-SB or Combi TRS/XLR in quantity 16/8
I mean SQ core 32 - configuration from outside like on QU-SB (QU-PAC) but inside configuration like SQ-7.
I have both a QUsb and a SQ5 with a DX168 stage box. Total reliance on wi-fi control has e few inherent risk factors that the trustworthy motorized faders and encoders do not present. For my solo guitar/vocal shows the QUsb was pretty much a perfect fit: set the desired values and leave it alone. This was also an acceptable tool for a few of the session ready Bluegrass bands I have worked with for years. However in the event very much manipulation of the processing values are needed the response lag becomes highly problematic. Last march I did a three day turn key audio/video of the stage show “Joseph & T A T R C”: It was , with out question, the most difficult job I have undertaken in my 5 decades in the business. The reason was this was the first stage show I had attempted with the I-Pad only controlled QUsb: the subject “Lag” made what otherwise a wonderful gig a very hard job!
A SQsb will work well for some gigs however the question is whether or not the improved SQ processing creates enough demand for it to replace the QUsb—maybe yes-- maybe no.
Hugh
Yes, Hugh, you are right - control application for QU-SB could be much better but a snake cable for FOH (CAT5 or CAT6) to PC or Mac with Touch screen not a bad solution in this case.
In any case I hope for SQ-SG our loving Allen&Heath has chance to make better control application.
If a SQ-SB option were to be available, I’d like to see at least 4 soft keys on it, to allow local playback/recording controls, scene advance/go and at least one “emergency” mute group. This is pretty much my starting point for anything I use the Qu-Pac for. I guess any act mixing themselves would want the footswitch too.
But for operation, I’d probably go with a laptop wired in, + a tablet or two, most of the time.
Id actually favour a non preamp 1HE of 2HE Version of the sq, at max something like 8/4 + some TRS in/outs.
Make ist as small and cheap as possible!
Cause lets face the facts, why would we all all choose a SQ - Pac over Qu? enhanced DLive Processing and optional Preamps + the availabilty of Option cards like waves and Dante!
Id grab one of those instantly despite having a sq 5 <3
Hi Maw92,
Look on motu 1248…
About SQ-SB - I think, it will be more profitable for A&H only to remove from SQ-5 all faders… The rest of SQ-5 will be without changes. Maybe only TRS/XLR inputs will be changed (on my wish:-)
Hey Folks,
Maybe somebody has information about plans of A&H for SQ-SB and SQ-PAC - please, mention it here. It is allow to make this topic more active.
Without our activity A&H thinks that it is not interesting for us…
QU-serie is practically closed for improvement - nothing will happend with it.
We have to ask about improvement of SQ-serie in direction “low cost”.
Hey Allen&Heath! Did you see New Midas Heritage-D Air
Maybe your answer will be SQ-SB or SQ-PAC ?!!
We are waiting…
A SQ-SB would be great, especially as the QU-SB is looking a bit old now!
Dear A&H,
Could you tell me when comes for sell SQ-SB or SQ-PAC?
Best regards
+1000
@Alex_Petrov_59 et al,
We are always working on new products (as well as developing current products) though never confirm/deny what these are.
So although we would never be able to answer “Could you tell me when comes for sell SQ-SB or SQ-PAC?” I can say that it’s something we get requested every now and then, and seem to be getting more requests for again recently.
Many of those I’ve spoken with about the format see that either a Qu-Pac or Qu-SB will do everything they actually want to do right now, with a few exceptions (e.g. where an option card is required) and it’s understandable that future proofing means getting more channels than might be required today (i.e. if using 32 channels - or 38 channels with the stereo inputs - Qu-Pac or Qu-SB will be fine until you suddenly need a few more). Oh… and the XCVI processing of course!
So we do get it, and Mark posed some great questions, but what would be really useful to know is not just what you’re thinking of regarding I/O or features but why.
If we do create something in this kind of format for the SQ range, it needs to be useful to as many engineers as possible and even in this short thread you can see how tricky that might be - with just 5 users involved in the discussion, there’s already “0 local I/O” vs “SQ-7 I/O”!
Cheers,
Keith.
I have a SQ5/DX168 combo and have a QUsb for small quick set-ups. The 24/96K sonic audio quality of the DX168 is clearly better than the 24/48K QUsb pres and converters. The question of whether or not the improved sonic quality of a DX168 is a sufficient reason to replace the QUsb is really what we need to consider. It is highly un-likely I will be a buyer of a SQsb to replace my QUsb. The primary reason is I can put both the SQ5 & DX168 in a Gator suit case for very easy portability and the current price point of the QUsb is properly aligned with similar 24/48 devices. The certain increase in price point for a SQsb will have to be justified by the number of folks that are willing to pay for the given amount of sonic improvement: IMO it will have to be a marketing move to meet competitive movement into the 24/96K that at this point we have not seen!
Hugh
I would really love to see a SQ version of the QU-pac. I think all the benefits from SQ over QU are obvious, and much more future ready (dante, 96khz, processing… and so on). Besides that, QU still doesnt have a proper remote control app for Android which I find a huge drawback (and yes, I know there is a 3rd party app). So for me, all these drawbacks keep me from buying an A&H rack mixer these days, since I’m buying such a device for years to come, it needs to have the modern benefits like stated above.
Now, enough with the whining. What would I like to see then? I think the outter form-factor of the QU-pac is already nearly perfect. A lot of customizable buttons, channels easily accesible, not to overcomplicated for beginner users. The QU-pac i/o is sufficient for small gigs, its also great for the smaller fixed installations. So in my opinion just copy-paste (with SQ features ofcourse). Need more i/o? just add a stagebox… Speaking of fixed installations, I would like the mixer to be “power cycle proof” so switching it off without proper shutdown (which can happen a lot in fixed installs without professional operators) would not harm the device or running software. (not saying this is an issue now, but I can imagine it could be) The SQ app is already great in my opinion (and android too) so just make it work also for the rack version. Since I don’t want to be dependant on my mobile device, I would say the physical controls are a must.
As I’m reading this, I think i’ve just requested an SQ version of the QU-pac 
It would be perfect for my needs and I would buy it tomorrow knowing i’m future ready with all the SQ advantages. Just goes to show how good the QU-pac already was, it just needs an 2021 SQ update. I know a lot of other people are waiting for it too. Please A&H, make it happen!!!
SQ-SB and SQ-PAC for small bands +1000
My proposal for structure of SQ-SB is very easy:
– take SQ-5 and cutoff all faders, buttons and display;
– from backside view of SQ-5 nothing changes except XLR inputs – they have to be Combi XLR/TRS
That is it. Software is the same. Cards are the same.
Form factor is stage box with 19” rack volumes
Dear All! Let’s discuss of the structure of SQ-SB rack mixer - it will helps to Allen&Heath to understand what an optimal structure has to be… but don’t forget about costs and end price.
Please remember the potential gig killing wifi limitations: they are very real and will prevent universal acceptance of any protocol that is restricted to the poor dependability of the router world and it’s inherent latency issues.
The major change I would support is a new controller that abandons the XLR inputs on the SQ5. but deploys D-Live D/A converters for all of the out puts along with the present FPGA processing. The pres and converters on the DX168 are clearly superior to the SQ’s: this along with the many advantages of keeping the capture as close as possible to the performers on stage make the DX168 stage box one of the best Quality/Value bargains available anywhere in the market.
Where I differ with the SQsb request is the unilateral nature of the request. The investment involved in retooling the DX168 to include the features that have been described in this thread will be much easier and less expensive to accommodate in a two box scenario that offers professional redundant controls. A “DL Mini Control Module” that is cat6 connected with knobs and faders along with the wifi capability, that we all enjoy using, offers professional processing controls and world class sonic quality from the existing DX168 stage boxes.
It is my belief a controller module of this type will find a much broader market demand with far less development investment that the SQsb that has been requested.
Hugh