The New Addition. SQ+

SQ SQ General Discussions
21

I have to agree with Jarbriel. Really doesn’t affect me for the most part; my SQ will do every job I need it to do.

But after my EOL problem with Presonus (which pushed me to buy my SQ) I would be pretty mad if A&H quit supporting it. My Presonus panel was ELO’d less than 5 years after it debuted.

Already got that out of the way with A&H but there are old Mackies being served and certainly, five years life on a multi-thousand dollar panel is shameful

Reassure us, A&H, that EOL is many years off. Oh, and thank God I didn’t fall for the plug-in plot on my SQ. I can’t be mad about that, although I can understand those who would be.

D.

2 Likes
22

As an existing SQ user, I want to say upfront that I do not have a problem with SQ+ existing.

A hardware refresh makes sense. A larger screen, additional processing headroom, RackUltra FX, and a refreshed interface are all valid additions for new buyers. SQ+ looks like a useful product.

My concern is what this means for the original SQ platform.

Many of us bought into SQ not just as a piece of hardware, but as a long-term professional platform: show files, apps, stageboxes, option cards, training, workflows, routing habits, remote control, recording setups, and trust all build around it over many years.

SQ+ now raises an important question:

Is the original SQ range still an actively developed professional platform, or is it now mostly a maintenance branch?

I fully understand that some SQ+ features are hardware-dependent. The 9" screen cannot be backported. Extra RackUltra FX processing may require additional hardware. That is fair.

But many improvements users are asking about do not appear obviously hardware-dependent, for example:

  • SQ MixPad / SQ4You / SQ-Control improvements

  • scene and show workflow improvements

  • copy, paste and reset workflow improvements

  • more SoftKey and SoftRotary options

  • metering and routing refinements

  • UI quality-of-life improvements adapted for the 7" screen

  • better cross-compatibility between SQ and SQ+

  • clearer show/scene portability guidance

  • possibly Feedback Assistant or similar practical live-sound tools where technically possible

The concern is not that SQ+ has exclusive hardware features. The concern is whether general software development now moves mainly to SQ+, while original SQ users only receive fixes and compatibility updates.

That would feel risky for platform trust.

The Qu Classic to new Qu transition is easier to understand because that was a clearer generational jump. The jump from SQ to SQ+ feels more incremental: useful, but not enough to make the original SQ feel obsolete. SQ is still a strong, modern and widely used professional console.

So I think many existing SQ users would really appreciate clear answers to these questions:

  1. Will original SQ continue to receive meaningful non-hardware-dependent feature and workflow updates?

  2. Which SQ+ features are genuinely hardware-limited, and which could realistically be backported?

  3. Will SQ MixPad and SQ+ MixPad now develop separately, or will original SQ users continue to benefit from app improvements?

  4. What is the intended long-term show and scene compatibility between SQ and SQ+?

  5. Was any upgrade path for existing SQ owners considered, such as a processing card, service upgrade, discounted add-on bundle, or other goodwill option?

  6. Is Feedback Assistant being considered for SQ / SQ+, especially since CQ and the new Qu range already include similar assistive tools?

I am asking this because I like the SQ platform and want to keep trusting it. The products are excellent. But in pro audio, long-term software support is part of the product. Users do not just buy the box. They buy into a platform.

A clear statement on the future of original SQ would go a long way.

7 Likes
23

I’d like to chime in with my two euros as well regarding this major update:
Like most other SQ- owners or users, I, too, am faced with the question: Do I need to take action now?

I could easily treat myself to a new SQ+, just for the fun of it, and offload my old one, albeit at a financial loss.
But does that actually make sense?

Okay, there is a larger (and possibly more daylight-readable?) display, but that’s really about it (for me), as there are no other major breakthroughs.
I don’t need more processing power - the console always sounded great just as it was.
I find the existing effects to be high-quality and perfectly suited to supporting live music.
And as for add-ons, I’ve already purchased and paid for every single one I actually need or wanted to try out.

What I really would have wished for (or even expected) instead, however, was a redesign focused on better live workflow …

  • … such as more encoders:
    The SQ-5 and SQ5+ boast a grand total of 9, whereas even the more affordable QU2.0 series, thanks to its dedicated EQ section, offers double that amount, with 18; even the only 12-fader Avantis Solo features 16.
  • … such as a proper channel metering display - one consisting of something more than just that single “patented” cost-cut LED.
  • … such as a reliable SD card drive - a feature that has already made its way even into its “little brother”, the QU2.0 series.
    (I wonder if the issues with the USB-A-Drive will still keep the same.)
  • … and I fear there is still no RTC - presumably justified by the same old reasoning: it’s too expensive for a console in this price range, and also the batteries might leak!
  • … and something as a normal MP3 player still seems like a pipe dream.
  • … on the bright side, however, I was delighted to see the good old USB-B port making a return appearance also on the 2026 model.
    So all in all, a very traditional approach! )

At first glance, I thought the Master Fader button lit up.
Wow - imagine if the faders actually could that, perhaps to signal an SOF assignment!
But alas, it appears to be merely a colorful graphic print and no innovation.

Of all my modest personal and also my supported feature suggestions - none of which depended on processing power! - it seems that, in the nearly three years I’ve been here, only two have actually been addressed.
So why should I hope that things would suddenly be any different in this regard with an SQ+?

And since I typically have a control app running on a larger screen right beside me anyway, I honestly can’t find a compelling reason why I should switch consoles now.
But perhaps I’m also the only one who feels that way …

1 Like
24

Ditto. The SQ has everything I NEED, though there are certainly things I would like added. My biggest gripe, is that I only bought it a few months ago, and I got all the add-ins. If I had waited, I would have paid roughly the same for an improved board, with all the same add-ins.

25

Hi all,

There are quite a few points here, so I’ve tried to group some and apologies if I miss any…

they expect us to buy an entirely new console now?
Worse, you can’t even transfer your existing plugin licenses over, so inevitably we have to pay for plug-ins we already paid for.

  • No. The new ‘+’ models are an addition (hence the tag line) to the range, as an option for those who want/need the extra processing power or RackUltra FX. And no - one of the main reasons for the PlusPack offer (which includes everything you could have possibly purchased and more) was so anybody who does want to upgrade to a ‘+’ model and already purchased Add-Ons, wouldn’t have to purchase those Add-Ons again.

will the ‘old’ SQ still get feature and firmware updates? Is the original SQ range still an actively developed professional platform, or is it now mostly a maintenance branch? Will original SQ continue to receive meaningful non-hardware-dependent feature and workflow updates?

  • We never promise updates or give ETA’s and obviously cannot update consoles forever. However, we support consoles for as long as we possibly can with hardware and software, for example, there was a fairly recent GLD maintenence release, and GLD has been discontinued for quite a few years.
    With feature updates it’s slightly different, and depends on what’s actually possible. Specifically with SQ - as an example it would have been in everyone’s best interest if we could have offered the CompStortion Add-On, but with the number of cycles available in the hardware it was not possible to add the extra processing in every channel that it requires. If we do somehow find a way to achieve this in the next few years then, we would absolutely add it in a feature update, but what we didn’t want to do was say ‘here’s a version of CompStortion that’s not quite as good as the one from dLive/Avantis’.
    One of the reasons for SQ+ firmware ‘jumping’ to V2.0, was to allow space for updates to the original SQ if and when possible.
    Also worth noting that SQ+ has been in development for almost 2yrs and we worked on and released V1.6 for the original SQ during that time, so there has never been any thought of abandonding original SQ users.

is there going to be a firmware upgrade path, or another long wait for the SQ+RACK?

  • SQ-Rack is built on the original SQ hardware, there is no way to add the extra processing or RackUltra FX without changing the hardware. There is no current plan to release an SQ+Rack - the SQ-Rack was an addition to the range in the same way as the + models are, and most of the extras in the ‘+’ are suited to larger productions or situations with a FOH position that the Rack isn’t really ideal for either.
    If we hear of demand for the + features in a rack model then we’ll of course look at it, but not sure what we’d do about the screen!

Will there be an interchangeability in the near future? (of SQ ↔ SQ+ Shows) What is the intended long-term show and scene compatibility between SQ and SQ+?

  • It works in the same way as when firmware is updated, you can open Shows created on older firmware with new firmware, but not the other way around. SQ current firmware is V1.6, SQ+ initial firmware is V2.0

People were encouraged to spend money again. Absolutely predatory business practices. Thank God I didn’t fall for the plug-in plot on my SQ (on SQ Add-Ons)

  • The 30% offer for SQ users is ongoing and we put it in place because we didn’t want original SQ users to feel left out when we did the PlusPack offer. We sent it out to all registered users, even if they’d already used their 10% original discount as we didn’t want them to be annoyed that new users were offered a larger discount. We even then offered 30% off to new Qu users, because we didn’t want them to be annoyed that SQ users got an offer!
    So it was quite a shock when I saw people now saying it was some marketing trick or cash grab.
    In hindsight, we should have perhaps launched all offers at the same time.

…updated the SQ to allow for the new features? Which SQ+ features are genuinely hardware-limited, and which could realistically be backported? Was any upgrade path for existing SQ owners considered, such as a processing card, service upgrade, discounted add-on bundle, or other goodwill option?

  • The reason for the extra SQ+ models, was to add the hardware necessary for the new features. Those features are - The Source Expander, Dual Threshold Expander, CompStortion, All RackUltra FX engines and and the extra busses, channels and routing surrounding those. Yes, we did consider a lot of options for update and upgrade paths, the PlusPack for SQ+ and 30% off for SQ are all part of this.

Will SQ MixPad and SQ+ MixPad now develop separately, or will original SQ users continue to benefit from app improvements?

  • Ultimately, we’d like there to be a single app for both, but I understand from the app and test teams that this requires a lot of work.

Is Feedback Assistant being considered for SQ / SQ+, especially since CQ and the new Qu range already include similar assistive tools?

  • It’s not possible for SQ, but the extra hardware in SQ+ might allow us to implement there - FBA was planned from very early on with CQ and Qu which are more commonly used in situations where FBA is useful, with SQ I imagine we’d get a split of users saying ‘great! yes please’ and ‘I don’t need FBA, please don’t waste development time on it!’.
    So we’ll monitor demand and if more users want it than don’t, we’ll investigate.

To SQuser’s points about a redesign and what’s subjectively still missing.

  • SQ+ is an extension of the SQ range, initially conceived because we wanted to offer RackUltra FX not only to dLive and Avantis users, but for smaller shows too. As we were reworking boards and needed the extra screen real estate, we took the opportunity to add a few more things and rebuild the GUI at the same time. But you’re right, we did stop short of adding some things that ultimately would have pushed the price up too much and we wanted to get as close as possible to the original SQ price points.

Thanks,
Keith

6 Likes
26

Thanks Keith, this is a helpful and appreciated clarification!

I think the key thing many original SQ users needed to hear was that the original platform has not been abandoned, and that V2.0 on SQ+ leaves room for original SQ updates where possible.

I fully understand that RackUltra FX and some processing features need the new hardware. I still hope A&H can bring as many non-hardware-dependent workflow, app, scene and quality-of-life improvements as possible to original SQ over time, because that would go a long way in maintaining platform trust.

2 Likes
27

Well, I feel a little better. One question re. the major add-ins that are too hardware intensive, Could they be implemented on a limited basis, say 5-10 channels only? I don’t see needing anything on every input. I would be happy with a only few expanders.

1 Like
28

I’d love to sample some of those effects, they look very well done. My little Qu-5 mixer has its own, I get it. But wow the candy aspect… Gate, expander, saturation… Nice. I’m not running my sound as a pro in any way, so it’s just me doing audio experiments all the time during Livestream.

29

I guess that need the addition of a management layer what is using extra resources as well.

30

If Keith were so inclined, he would certainly repeat himself:

We have no plans to assign processing on an ad hoc basis; this has been done by others, and the feedback is that most engineers hate it. I guess because at the point they want to do one more thing, they find they’ve run out. (source)

… even though A&H does something similar, for example, in the case of de-essers, which you can only use a maximum of 8 times in SQ-.
I am certain that if they truly wanted to implement something like this, they would have found a solution for it.

And in the case of a paid expander upgrade, it would even cost only about one-fifth as much if you only had to pay for 10 instances instead of 48.
That way, the price wouldn’t be driven up unnecessarily. :wink:

31

So would ‘engineers’ be happier with none or 8?

32

In my opinion, sound engineers would be happier with 8 expanders than with none.
For A&H’s engineers, however, the opposite is likely true.
I see no reason why - after years of hesitation - they should suddenly invest time and money into this, after they have now integrated great expanders into the SQ+ - a feature intended also to serve as a purchasing incentive for the new models.

2 Likes
33

Prima di tutto grazie per aver raccolto le varie opinioni degli utenti e aver risposto
Ho posto questo quesito su yotube, e te lo ripropongo qui.

considerato che la usb-b la si reputi più “longeva e resistente” della usb-C, come mai non avete pensato di sostituire almeno la usb-A in usb-C? (anche se nella QU avete sostituito USB-B con USB-C).
Inoltre, come mai non avete pensato di aggiungere come fatto nella versione QU un ingresso SD (vera genialata per QU)?
Ti ringrazio in anticipo se risponderai.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to reply to the previous users.
I asked this question on YouTube, and I’d like to ask it here as well. Considering that USB-B is generally regarded as more durable and long-lasting than USB-C, why didn’t you at least consider replacing the USB-A port with USB-C? Especially since on the QU series you replaced USB-B with USB-C.

Also, why didn’t you consider adding an SD card slot like you did on the QU series? That was a brilliant idea for the QU.

Thank you in advance if you reply.

35

If we buy the RUFX bundle, will we have to pay for the two missing algos (compared to dlive pack) once AH releases them?

1 Like
36

I bought my SQ5 5 years ago. This new unit is more than 150% more in price than what I paid.

With that glaring math there are no features so amazing and good to justify buying this.

37

An SQ-5 priced at approximately 1210,- € (excluding VAT) - possibly even with add-ons - was (even used) truly an bargain, also five years ago.
You were really very lucky. :+1:

1 Like
38

The amount of markup and price increases is the point of the post.

39

There is no current plan to release an SQ+Rack - the SQ-Rack was an addition to the range in the same way as the + models are, and most of the extras in the ‘+’ are suited to larger productions or situations with a FOH position that the Rack isn’t really ideal for either.
If we hear of demand for the + features in a rack model then we’ll of course look at it, but not sure what we’d do about the screen!

I think this is a miss, and indicates that A&H might not have a good grasp of why folks were asking for an SQ-Rack in the first place. In the space I work in, the SQ-Rack’s value is that it is the same processing and show file format as the larger SQ consoles. This means that it can be used as a backup console for the primary larger console (same stageboxes, same show file), or used as a compact programming platform for a show to run on a larger console. And these aren’t hypothetical - I know of folks using the SQ-Rack for both of these applications (since it’s roughly half the size of the SQ-5).

And of course, there’s also the fly rack scenario for folks where the DLive doesn’t make sense (I know of someone who went with SQ-Rack instead of DLive due to size and the onboard multitrack - they wanted the extra processing power of DLive, but the overall packaged system was enough larger to be a deal breaker).

An SQ-Rack+ with full file compatibility with the older SQ series would fill these same roles, and I suspect could replace the existing SQ-Rack.

1 Like