SQ or Avantis Saved Presets

SQ SQ General Discussions
1

Hi, we have been tasked to do a complete redesign of a school assembly hall and our experience is mostly with older technology. My distributor suggested we consider the AH SQ7 or Avantis products and all the benefits were very obvious to me.

The assembly hall configuration will be changed on a regular basis. As a result it looks the route we will end up going is Dante with a mixer (SQ or Avantis), a couple of DT168s and Active Martin Audio speakers with Dante cards (CDD-LIVE).

The most regular use case will be for a standard assembly hall with a lectern mic and very basic PA configuration.

My question is; would it be possible to save certain configurations, more specifically, with their relevant channel assignments. There will be staff who handles the stage productions but in most cases it will be used by staff who will not have experience with the the desk console, so we want to limit their interactions with the mixer to basic control.

In an ideal world whenever the stage production staff has finished an event, they should simply be able to reload a saved configuration and it will assign all of the relevant Dante I/Os back to a configuration that looks familiar to the day-to-day staff.

My instinct says that it would obviously do that, but I just wanted to have confirmation.

Thanks

2

The consoles certainly have scenes and shows that can be loaded which are like “presents” for the all of console’s settings. You can use these files to effectively load a preset that will change the console’s setting to whatever you need. Show files are the “parent layer” and Scene files are under the Show files (and Scenes are saved as part of the Show file). Normally you would design a Show file for each different event you have in the venue and then the scene files will be available to make smaller changes during the event. Loading a different Show file would also load a different set of scene files, so each show is completely independent from each other.

I will say that the Avantis line has a much more robust Show/Scene system than the SQ line. If this is important for you, I would probably recommend the Avantis over the SQ for this reason alone. The SQ console for example only has space to save ONE Show file on the internal memory. You can load other Show files, but those files have to be saved on an external device like a USB drive or an iPad. The Avantis has room for 500 Show Files in it’s internal memory making it much easier to create and load Show files. In addition, the Show/Scene system on the Avantis allows for much more fine tuning/control over what is loaded/changed when a file is recalled. Again, this makes the Show/Scene system on the Avantis much better than what is available with the SQ models.

On a different subject, I would question the decision to go with Dante stage boxes. If the console and stage boxes are going to be used in the same room, I would suggest NOT using Dante stage boxes. Dante will add a layer of complexity that certainly is not going to be welcome in an environment where volunteers are expected to run the system. Using the Allen & Heath DX/GX stage boxes will create a more simple system and not cost as much either. It’s really a win/win IMHO.

I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t use Dante at all. Including a Dante card for the console is smart and even using Dante with the Martin speakers would be fine. I just wouldn’t suggest using Dante for the stage boxes because of the added complexity.

PS - the console’s Show/Scene files won’t include any settings that need to be set up in Dante Controller. So loading a show file can change the internal routing in the console (including the routing to/from the Dante card in the console), it will not change any Dante settings or routing in Dante Controller. Your volunteers would need to also load a Dante Controller preset if there was so reason the patching in Dante Controller needed to be changed. Honestly that shouldn’t occur very often, but it is important to understand.

4

Thank you so much for your detailed reply.

I think the very last paragraph addresses my concern. I am specifically interested in the Dante IOs being assigned into mixing channels on the console.

The day to day use would probably have basic PA mics on say the first 8 channels. On show nights those 8 mics will not be used and they would be in the way. Channel 1 - 8 would be re-assigned to more relevant inputs so as to occupy the easier accessed channels. Once the show is over, the 8 mics previously on Input 1 - 8 should be re-assigned to their previous channels on the console so that the day to day user do not have to search around the interface to control those 8 mics and/or speakers.

By the sound of it this can only be done with Dante Controller and once assigned cant be saved and recalled in the SQ/Avantis without also using the Dante controller presets?

How would this be different using DX Stage Boxes? Could I achieve what I want with GX? If we were to go down the GX route we will probably use the DX Hub. Would you be able to easily load a specific Stagebox (say the one with the 8 day to day mics) into channels 1 - 8 by simply plugging it into a specific port on the Hub?

5

I think you are overlooking a basic fundamental concept of digital consoles that is very different than analog consoles. This is the fact that I/O can be plugged in just about anywhere and then “routed” to a particular channel or source in the software of the console. This means that a source plugged into Input 1 of a stage box can be used anywhere. It could be assigned to channel 1 on the console, but it doesn’t have to be.

This is different from an analog console where if you wanted a source to appear in channel 1, you had to physically plug that source into channel 1’s preamp. Now that source can be plugged into any physical input available in the system and you simply connect that input to channel 1 in the console’s software. It’s an internal audio connection, not an external hardware link.

This means that there is no need to constantly be plugging in sources into different stage boxes just because you want to use them on different channels. You could have 8 wireless mics plugged into the system using any method (local I/O on console, a DX stage box, a DT stage box, etc, etc, etc) and assign those 8 wireless mic sources to any channel you want. If you want them to appear in channels 1-8 for normal “speaking” events, but want them located after band channels in a larger event (let’s say channel 24-32) that is no problem either. Again, all this is done with software, not by physically changing where the mics are plugged in. The mics should always be plugged into the same inputs on the same stage boxes regardless of what channels you want to assign the mics to.

All of this routing could/should be set up and saved on a Show by Show basis. Each show file can have different I/O routing assigned. This holds true even if you use Dante stage boxes. (Dante sources must also be routed in Dante Controller, but you don’t have to change routing like this in that software. You could easily change the routing assigned to the Dante card in the console using the console’s Show file. If you needed to change other Dante routing not related to the console’s Dante card, that would have to occur in Dante Controller software).

Long story short, your need to assign 8 wireless mics to different channels depending on the event should be handled internally in the console’s “I/O” or “Routing” page. There is no need to physically plug/unplug sources or change what stage box their are plugged into to make these changes. With digital consoles these types of changes are easily done in software, and don’t require hardware level changes.

PS - I will note that you don’t really have a good concept of the available I/O that A&H offers and when each device should be used. For example, you can’t use a DX Hub with a GX4816. This is very common because the available I/O in the A&H ecosystem is very extensive. There are a lot of choices and it takes quite a while for people to become proficient in “what to use and when”. I say this not to pass judgement on you (again we all started with zero knowledge), but just to make sure that you don’t make some rash decisions without fully understanding how the system works together. Hopefully your integrator would stop you from making a mistake, but feel free to run ideas of potential equipment purchases here so that we can confirm if you have selected the correct equipment for the job.

1 Like
6

Thank you again for explaining that. I was aware that you cant mix DX and GX. I ‘m not sure why I mixed those two in my last email. Our initial intent was to go DX but the Dante is more appealing to the IT Manager who oversees the project.

The idea of Stageboxes slotting into default positions in the desk arose from the fact that the Stagebox will not be stationary. Nor will the mixing desk.

To give you a full overview (which I should have done from the outset):

  • Main rack behind the stage will house one DX/DT168 and DX Hub/Switch. This will be connected to the Microphones XLR/Dante and active XLR/Dante speakers.
  • The mixing desk will move around the venue into 3 possible locations depending on the orientation of the room
  • Secondary Stagebox(es) DX/DT168 will move around the venue, depending on the location of the band

This means that the physical assignment of ports will change depending on where they are patched in around the venue. I am not sure if the DX168 units has a physical address (like a MAC address) that retains the physical assignments of the input/outputs, even when moved around the venue. My understanding is that the DX Hub assigns the the channels into the desk depending on where they are plugged into the DX Hub. The idea of slotting them into certain default positions (say Channel 1-16) I think could potentially be addressed, depending on where they are patched into the DX Hub. (Have I got this totally wrong?) So once I saw that this could potentially go wrong if not patched into the DX Hub correctly we started exploring the Dante route where the assignments move with the Stagebox?

If my assumption is correct and your suggestion that physical ports can be saved in any configuration; we could move the Stagebox(es) as we like and simply load the relevant show file to remap the physical ports to the user interface?

7

OK. I now understand what you are trying to accomplish.

You are correct that plugging a non-Dante stage box into different ports (either on the console, or different DX hub ports, etc) will change the inputs those sources are assigned to. To phrase it the opposite way, plugging a non-Dante stage box into the same port will always assign the sources of that stage box to the same input numbers. For example, a DX168 box plugged into the first port of a DX Hub will always be assigned inputs 1-16, a DX168 box plugged into the second port on the hub will always be assigned to inputs 32-48, etc.

A Dante stage box should be more “static” in it’s input assignments because the assignments are based on the MAC address of the stage box and it doesn’t matter where the box is plugged in. “Dante box A” should always have inputs 1-16, “Dante Box B” would always have inputs 17-32, etc.

In practice, I see little difference between the two. You can set up your non-Dante boxes to work similar to Dante boxes. Just label you non-Dante boxes and cables with a color that corresponds to a label on the DX Hub port they are a suppose to plug into. As long as the “blue” box is plugged into the blue port, you will always get the same input assignments. You can even label the stage box with these input numbers just like you might with a Dante stage box.

I feel like you expect to move the stage boxes around for each event to ensure that you always use inputs 1-16 first. There is no reason to do this IMHO. There is no correlation between input numbers on the stage box and the channel numbers being used in the console, so there is no need to add the complexity of moving a stage box around to ensure you use inputs 1-16 at every show. For example, you can still set up the console to use channels 1-16 even if the actual inputs from the stage boxes fall outside of inputs 1-16.

Personally I would set up my stage with several stage boxes positioned in critical areas (stage right, stage left, drum riser, etc) and not “move” them show to show. There is a consistency that is achieved when you know that plugging into the first input on the drum rise stage box will always correlate to input “X”. When this consistency is combined with the use of Show files, it is very easy to preprogram/save events and reload them the next time the event happens. If you expect your users to have to move Dante box A (inputs 1-16) around every event, (ie it needs to be on the drum riser for one event, and stage right for another event, and front of stage for another event, etc, etc, etc), you loose this consistency and it can easily lead to routing errors when someone doesn’t move a box to the correct location when this event is set up differently than the last event.

If you are just going leave you stage boxes in the same relative location on stage all the time and then simply connect each source to the use the closest box, there is even less reason to use Dante stage boxes. Certainly the added complexity that the Dante protocol adds isn’t worth it IMHO for this type of use case.

8

I figure I should go into some detail about why I don’t like using Dante stage boxes when non-Dante stage boxes will work just as well in a given situation.

First, let me start out by saying that Dante is not unreliable when it is set up correctly. However there is no question that it is less reliable than the proprietary A&H protocols used with their non-Dante stage boxes. Those non-Dante stage boxes are literally plug and play due to their “point to point” design. Of course you have to route the audio in the console properly in the console, but you only have to do get that right in one place vs having to get it right in two places with Dante (in the console and in Dante Controller). Outside of a routing problem, the only other problems you might experience are hardware failures - either the cable being used is bad, or a problem with the devices/ports being connected - hence the “plug and play” reliability.

That being said, there is a disadvantage to using the proprietary non-Dante stage boxes. The point to point design that brings simplicity & reliability to the system also means that you need direct connections between the devices and the console. You cannot use switches (generally speaking) and you need enough ports on the console to support all the stage boxes that you need. This means you also need to play close attention to the overall system design to make sure you have enough direct connections to support all of the I/O that you need. There is physical limit to the number of boxes you can add to a system due to this “point to point” design. So while the point to point design is more reliable, it also isn’t as flexible.

Dante on the other hand is a true network solution. This means that you do not need a direct point to point connection. You can use switches and other devices to create a network for the Dante devices to sit on. Because there is no point to point requirement, in theory there is no limit on the number of Dante devices that you add to the system. The network design of the Dante system certainly provides some flexibility that the point to point systems don’t have.

However this network design of Dante also adds complexity to the overall system. This complexity adds additional failure points that simply don’t exist with the point to point systems. As noted earlier, there are two places that Dante audio must be routed correctly. Dante devices also are prone to the same hardware failures that the non-Dante system might have - cable issues, port failure, etc. However there are MANY more ways that a Dante system can have problems vs the proprietary systems like incompatibility with network switch (usually from some setting not being correct), clocking problems, firmware management, etc, etc, etc. Not only that, but the complexity that the fully networked solution brings also adds a bit of latency to the transmission of audio. Now it is not enough to worry about, but it is another way the non-Dante boxes out perform the Dante alternative. Lastly the Dante boxes are quite a bit more expensive than their non-Dante counter parts.

Now I understand that there will be times that a Dante solution is the best choice for any number of reasons. But when all things are equal and the non-Dante solutions work just as well as the Dante solutions, I will choose the non-Dante solution every time for the extra reliability that those systems provide over the Dante alternatives. This is especially important when looking for my main stage boxes because any issue with them will cause catastrophic consequences to any ongoing event.

Long story short, why wouldn’t I choose the most reliable, least latent, and least expensive option when choosing stage boxes? Again, there are times when a Dante solution is needed due to it’s extra flexibility, but in all other cases I am choosing the non-Dante option every time.

9

Thank you again for your detailed reply.

I think what you say makes total sense in terms of adding unnecessary complexity so will have a rethink about how to approach this. I think the reason the IT manager is keen on Dante is the promise of more flexibility. I think in this case it may very well be unnecessary considering how much flexibility the relatively small venue will ever need.

As for the Stageboxes; The reason we intend to move these boxes are 1. Cost of multiple Stage boxes 2. they will never be left in any one location because the venue is totally repurposed and moved around.

I think the big take away for me from this is that the Stagebox located behind the stage that will house the day-to-day inputs will (should) always be stationary in the DX Hub. This means it will always occupy the same physical port assignments, and when the show files are loaded, map correctly to the relevant user interface channels on the desk. This means my day-to-day use can be recalled by anyone without much understanding and be ready to go straight away, irrespective of whether the stageboxes are present or not.

Thank you very again much for taking the time to explain this to me!

10

I think you understand the points I was trying to make. Just to clarify however, I am not suggesting that you can never move or remove the various stage boxes from the stage depending on the actual event going on. You certainly can and should do this.

In my mind however, I would have the stage “prewired” for several stage box locations that make the most sense in your venue. Generally speaking, this might be “stage right”, “stage left”, “drum riser”, etc.

These locations would be hardwired into the system (and using a DX Hub or DX Link is a perfect device for this) and those connections should not need to be changed or repatched (which helps reduce the complexity). Day to day, the staff would simply plug in or remove a stage box at the various preset positions as needed. If you had all of the same model of stage box (DX168 for example), they could grab any stage box and plug it into any location and the physical I/O on the stage box would always correspond to the same input and output numbers in the system (ie port “1” on the “drum riser” stage box will always correspond to input “X” in the system - regardless of which box they grabbed and plugged in).

Not to add complexity to an already complex situation, but you also have the flexibility of “daisy chaining” a second stage box to any/every “primary” stage box. For example, if you needed more than 16 inputs at “stage right” for an event, you can simply plug a second DX168 into the first DX168 and have access to another set of I/O. The I/O of this cascaded stage box would also be assigned a static set of inputs and outputs which continues the “consistency” element of this type of setup.

All of these “static assignments” are laid out out in the DX/GX System Guide. If you haven’t downloaded and read that manual yet, it is definitely required reading IMHO. https://www.allen-heath.com/content/uploads/2023/05/DX-GX-System-Guide-ISS_5.pdf

Hopefully that helps!

11

I agree that, unless you are sending or receiving audio from another location, dante make little sense. Also the ease of re-mapping the input and output channels on the surface is ridiculously easy, plus you have multiple layers (banks) to play with. You could dedicate one fader bank for your standard setup, and another for the odd ones. Your speakers shouldn’t require dante input to function, and that seems like one of the drivers for the dante decision (and for IT to get involved). Also, don’t rule out analog sub-snakes! Plus you can still use the local inputs on the console, and mix and match. The main reason I got the SQ was this input flexibility.

12

I would ensure you put together your requirements specification first before deciding on the solution. This is where most people go wrong - especially where the ‘bulk’ of the use cases are with inexperienced operators.

I would also strongly advise keeping the audio network as far away from IT as possible. You (literally) want a separate network as far as the mixer desk/stage boxes are concerned.

We marry our SQ7 with the IT network at one controlled point. The only reason we do this is so that our Worship team can have remote access for controlling their own foldbacks and for the A/V team to remotely control the mix during setup. We do this through Virtual Private Networks (VPN).

Be aware that some people (when they have been connected to a local WiFi network at a venue) have been ‘hacked’.

Dave