Rack mount SQ version similar to QU-sb would be wonderful for a growing number of bands who are imbracing separate monitor mixers, especially IEMs. Since I play in the band, I have little need for the physical faders, and, I could even fly with the mixer in one carry-on and the IEM setup (wireless and Me) in another. SQ options for all those stereo mixes is a real advantage over QU. Not to mention Dante and other means to connect with a variety of FOH systems we encounter.
This is probably in A&H future plans. Anybody else like to see this happen sooner rather than later?
I would like an SQ Pac version based on the form factor of the Qu Pac.
That said I could really be tempted with a “SQ Mini” something with maybe
8 faders, 6 layers,8 local inputs and outputs, D Link jack, one card slot and a
couple 1/4 inch IO jacks.
Physical back panel space could be a limiting factor!!
Please think about exactly what you are asking for: The SQ processing protocol is very far advanced beyond the QUsb comparison you are alluding to. I own and use both a QUsb and an SQ5. I know all too well the benefits and short commings of both. If A&H could offer a full function FPGA processing I-Pad app they would already have it available in the SQ as well as their other upscale models. (D-Live & Advantis) There are clear and and understandable reasons why tactile controls are the primary function on all A&H upscale stage box controllers. I-Pads are an ancillary tool, not an ideal primary control protocol.! As I have stated on several occasions if an SQsb is absolutely needed, then put a SQ5 on the stage floor and do your thing with an I-Pad. The foot print is not that much bigger and all of the function you are requesting & more are currently available in an SQ5.
Hugh
Please think about exactly what you are asking for: The SQ processing protocol is very far advanced beyond the QUsb comparison you are alluding to. I own and use both a QUsb and an SQ5. I know all too well the benefits and short commings of both. If A&H could offer a full function FPGA processing I-Pad app they would already have it available in the SQ as well as their other upscale models. (D-Live & Advantis) There are clear and and understandable reasons why tactile controls are the primary function on all A&H upscale stage box controllers. I-Pads are an ancillary tool, not an ideal primary control protocol! As I have stated on several occasions if an SQsb is absolutely needed, then put a SQ5 on the stage floor and do your thing with an I-Pad. The foot print is not that much bigger and all of the function you are requesting & more are currently available in an SQ5.
Hugh
Do not compare the potential SQ-SB with the QU-SB. The QU-SB is more or less a toy compared to what the X32 Rack offers. That should be the device to act as a blue print for a SQ-SB design.
For me A&H should not only pack the IO and processing of the SQ5 into a rackmountable housing without physical controls. A&H should furthermore extend the possibilities with some of the features of the X32.
+1, But would like it to include an HTML5 based interface that can be used with any device, just by pointing a web browser at the mixer’s IP address. Another company does this with their rack mixer and it’s a great feature. No more app store/play store, no more OS compatibility problems.
The biggest Disadvantage of a HTML based remote control is that you cannot use hardware controller with such an “app”. The second is that the “app” relies not only on the mixer itself but also on the current version of the browser. Building a portable HTML user interface which works with a wide range of operating systems and browsers is far more complicated that build several native remote control apps.
We are now almost two years into long delays (6 to 9 months) in delivery of DX168s or SQ5s here in the USA. Any expectation of a new special purpose SQsb is farting in the wind given todays world trade problems. If the SQ advances are very important to your working needs then put an SQ5 on the stage floor and control it with your I-Pad. The SQ5 VS SQsb footprints would be very similar!
IMO if some of the 48K behringer features suit you better than the SQs then by all means buy it: or pick up an existing QUsb that is sonically similar and also is a 48K protocol. I am certain any suggestion to emulate any behringer product would not be well received in the A&H board room.
Hugh
Great concept to improve products by simply ignore good ideas from others. Thats how it should be. Everything is fine as long as the sonic quality of the premium preamps is fine. Congratulations, yiepee.
+! for this also. I rarely need a control surface but still want the processing capabilities of the SQ5. I’ve gotten so used to doing this even with Dlive hardware at some of the venue’s I work at, if a SQ-SB came out I’d be buying it in a heartbeat.
