Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Andrew Broughton

Andrew Broughton

Senior
Feb 2, 2011
917
5
18
Back Lounge
www.checkcheckonetwo.com
I'm wondering if someone has a QL console and would be interested in checking something?

On the CL editor, I can assign a channel insert to send to an FX slot, and the insert return does not need to be enabled. The FX return can go back to a pair of channels. (handy for an fx on a single channel without using up a mix)

On the QL editor, if you assign a channel insert to an FX, the insert return automatically sets to the same FX and you can't change it.

However, if you open a file in the CL editor, assign the channel insert to an FX input, but leave the insert return unassigned and save that file, you can open that file in the QL editor and the insert return stays the same (unassigned). You can even unassign and reassign it without the return assigning in the QL editor if the file came from the CL editor.

I'm wondering what happens on the QL console, whether an insert send can be assigned separately from a return.
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Andrew Broughton said:
I'm wondering if someone has a QL console and would be interested in checking something?

On the CL editor, I can assign a channel insert to send to an FX slot, and the insert return does not need to be enabled. The FX return can go back to a pair of channels. (handy for an fx on a single channel without using up a mix)

On the QL editor, if you assign a channel insert to an FX, the insert return automatically sets to the same FX and you can't change it.

However, if you open a file in the CL editor, assign the channel insert to an FX input, but leave the insert return unassigned and save that file, you can open that file in the QL editor and the insert return stays the same (unassigned). You can even unassign and reassign it without the return assigning in the QL editor if the file came from the CL editor.

I'm wondering what happens on the QL console, whether an insert send can be assigned separately from a return.
Click to expand...

I have a QL here and I can't seem to assign insert ins and outs separately..
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Frederik Rosenkjær said:
I have a QL here and I can't seem to assign insert ins and outs separately..
Click to expand...
If you're game, you can try creating a test file on the CL editor that has the send assigned but the return unassigned, or you can download this test file I created on the CL editor already and load it into the QL.
It has the insert send assigned to FX 1 and the return unassigned on channel 1.
Insert Test.CLF
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Andrew Broughton said:
If you're game, you can try creating a test file on the CL editor that has the send assigned but the return unassigned, or you can download this test file I created on the CL editor already and load it into the QL.
It has the insert send assigned to FX 1 and the return unassigned on channel 1.
Insert Test.CLF
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - I can't do this right now, as the console is part of a musical theater setup and I'd rather not load entire console files right now.
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Andrew Broughton said:
I'm wondering if someone has a QL console and would be interested in checking something?

On the CL editor, I can assign a channel insert to send to an FX slot, and the insert return does not need to be enabled. The FX return can go back to a pair of channels. (handy for an fx on a single channel without using up a mix)

On the QL editor, if you assign a channel insert to an FX, the insert return automatically sets to the same FX and you can't change it.

However, if you open a file in the CL editor, assign the channel insert to an FX input, but leave the insert return unassigned and save that file, you can open that file in the QL editor and the insert return stays the same (unassigned). You can even unassign and reassign it without the return assigning in the QL editor if the file came from the CL editor.

I'm wondering what happens on the QL console, whether an insert send can be assigned separately from a return.
Click to expand...

Does this imply that you are already using the channel direct out for something else? The DO has the added advantage of a relatively easy to access level control.

Mac
 
Last edited:
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Just a thought: Maybe it's possible to just insert the FX to the channel, both ins and outs, and then assign the FX-unit outputs to other channels at the same time? I think the insert is sending out signal even if it's not swtiched on.
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Andrew,
There is a slight difference in how CL & QL respond when inserting a Rack device over a channel (depending on which Rack device you've mounted) and perhaps it's by design, but maybe it's a bug. I suspect the latter, but I need to confirm with my engineers in Japan.
In both CL & QL you can freely assign an outsert separate from its return depending on which device in the Rack you're using. The default for QL in FX Rack 1 is the Comp276 where in the CL it is a RevX. It seems that any of the devices at the bottom of the list in the EFFECT TYPE pop-up as well as Premium Rack devices react this way. These are all VCM, Virtual Circuitry Modeling, devices. (Technically, so are the RevX devices, which is why I think the current implementation may be a bug.)
On both the CL and QL series, if this is your preferred way to get to a Rack device, you can mount a RevX (for example) to that RU and do the channel outsert patch, and then change the device to one of the VCM/Premium Rack devices and the patch you made will remain in place.
I will discuss this with our engineers and respond back here when I get a confirmation of a bug or a reason for the difference in the way these different types of devices respond to an outsert patch.
Best regards,
k
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Aha!
It looks like it's not really a bug, because once I changed FX1 to a Reverb rather than an inserted comp, the insert out is not locked to the insert in channel. So, it seems the problem was because the default FX in the rack are different between the CL and the QL.

Thank you for clearing this up.
I guess while I have you here, ARE there any differences in capability between the CL and QL other than I/O and Mix counts, excluding of course the QL's Dugan functionality which I understand will be available on the CL as well.
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

The other main differences between CL & QL are that CL series consoles have an output meter that is available for the user to see the output meters at all times, QL has no dedicated output meter bridge other than on than when you are on the Master layer or that view of the Meter on the screen.
CL has 3 MY-card slots, QL has 2.
CL can use an external power supply, QL cannot.
The Selected Channel is much larger on CL than on QL.
There are dedicated Assignable Knobs on the surface for every channel on CL, not for QL.
CL has 4 user Defined Knobs on the surface, QL's are on the screen.
Certainly there is the local I/O difference between the 2 series.
QL has port-to-port patching, CL does not, will not.

Hope this helps!
Kevin
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

kevin kimmel said:
The other main differences between CL & QL are that CL series consoles have an output meter that is available for the user to see the output meters at all times, QL has no dedicated output meter bridge other than on than when you are on the Master layer or that view of the Meter on the screen.
CL has 3 MY-card slots, QL has 2.
CL can use an external power supply, QL cannot.
The Selected Channel is much larger on CL than on QL.
There are dedicated Assignable Knobs on the surface for every channel on CL, not for QL.
CL has 4 user Defined Knobs on the surface, QL's are on the screen.
Certainly there is the local I/O difference between the 2 series.
Click to expand...
Basically UI differences, but no functional differences?

QL has port-to-port patching, CL does not, will not.
Click to expand...
So the CL cannot do this even with a firmware update?

Hope this helps!
Kevin
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Thank you!
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Actually the CL series consoles do not have the path to allow for port-to-port patching. On CLs, you must use a console channel to then be able to assign that input to a Dante path. On QL series, a console channel is not required to be able to patch to Dante, offering true port-to-port patching.

An example would be when there are 4 audience mics located near FOH. They are for a recording which is taking place on a computer at the monitor console. With CL, the AR mics would get plugged into, let's say, the Omni inputs on the FOH CL. In order to be able to get those mics to the computer doing the recording, the mics would have to be patched to console inputs, say 69-72. The Direct Outs of those channels could then be patched to Dante paths and at the computer in monitor-world, they could be patched from Dante to NuendoLive. In this example we used 4 CL channels, and running the risk of an accidental bus of those mics to the PA, which would result in horrible results, as you can imagine.

With QL, the mics would also plug into the console, but those ports on the QL then can be assigned directly to Dante, and never have to be patched to console channels; no Direct Outs needed. Port-to-port allows QL to be an active "through" box, if you will.

k
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Is this a hardware limitation or something that might come into place when the version 3 firmware 'unifies' the two lines of console software. In fact, is that a correct assessment of the upcoming firmware promised for "early 2015" that it will offer the same functionality between CL and QL consoles within the hardware limitations more so than they are currently?

kevin kimmel said:
Actually the CL series consoles do not have the path to allow for port-to-port patching. On CLs, you must use a console channel to then be able to assign that input to a Dante path. On QL series, a console channel is not required to be able to patch to Dante, offering true port-to-port patching.

...
k
Click to expand...
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Riley Casey said:
Is this a hardware limitation or something that might come into place when the version 3 firmware 'unifies' the two lines of console software. In fact, is that a correct assessment of the upcoming firmware promised for "early 2015" that it will offer the same functionality between CL and QL consoles within the hardware limitations more so than they are currently?
Click to expand...

There is not as much reason to have port to port patching on a CL, they only have 8x8 I/O on them anyway. A QL can be used as a stagebox for a CL so the patching is more important.

You can patch port to port between any Rio devices with Dante Controller.

Mac
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

Riley,

Mac makes a good point, and to answer your question, this is a hardware limitation on CL. But otherwise, there will be much more, if not otherwise complete, unification.

k
 
Re: Yamaha CL vs QL inserts

What would really help things is if the patching could be opened up so all rack inputs could be patched not only to Channel direct outs, but also to Dante signals. Rack outputs as well.

Using up channels and mixes shouldn't really be necessary to get into and out of a rack device.
 
Top Bottom