Q-SYS Corner

[Steve Guttag]

Q-SYS Designer Software 10.0 has been announced and should be available either late-May (we're almost there) or early June. The big announcement with QDS 10 are the UCI and Scripting licenses will be no-more. However, not all hardware will make it to QDS 10. A notable one is the I/O frame, which is key to using Dataport amplifiers (if you want the Dataport features). Note, the Core 510 is not dropped so it is possible to use it as a peripheral. The TSC-7 is also dropped. Here is the current list:

Planned Deprecation: Q-SYS version 10.0

Starting with Q-SYS v10.0, the following hardware will no longer be supported.

• Core 1100
• Core 3100
• Core 110f w/ 2GB RAM (shipped approximately up until 2017-APR)
• I/O-8 Flex
• I/O-22
• I/O-Frame
• PS-1600G/H
• PS-1650G/H
• TSC-7t
• TSC-7w
• PTZ-12x72
• PTZ-20x60

Note: Some of these products will continue to be supported until June 2028 to honor our warranty periods. During this time, support will be limited to bug fixes and security updates via an LTS branch.

[Steve Guttag]

I should also mention...Q-SYS just announced THREE new Cores:

The Core 24f. This is the replacement to the Core 110c/110f. It has the same analog I/O and GPIO as the original 110 plus it has two RS232 ports. It has an LCD screen instead of the OLED one. However, all of the new Cores feature not just the 2 QLANs but two AUX LANs so control and other non-high bandwidth communication can be segmented out. Channel count moves up to 160x160.

The Core X10 and X20r sort of replace the 510c/510i and 610. The Core 510 was the last of the card based Cores and is "available while supplies last." With the deprecation of the I/O frame, the era of supporting the Dataport based amplifiers like the DCA is coming to a close, as far as utilizing the Dataport. As mentioned previously, you can still use a Core 510 as an I/O frame with one of the new Cores as the host.

The X10, like the 510, supports 256x256 channels. The peripheral count jumps into the stratosphere of 256+ peripherals.

The X20r, like the 610, supports up to 384x384 channels, which really covers the just about all cinemas for 7.1 audio. The "r" in this Core's name stands for "redundant power supply." So, two power cords on this one.

The new lineup can be found here:
https://www.qsys.com/products-soluti...ys/processing/

[Leo Enticknap]

Great. So here goes for more forced obsolescence. If, say, an IOFrame or a TSC-7 bites the dust and you have to upgrade to a component that is only supported by version 10 or later, you will also have to replace all the other hardware in the system that is only supported by 9 or earlier. And by retiring the IOFrame and the only model of core that takes cards, I guess they're trying to push sales of QIO boxes.

I'm guessing that you're watching their launch webinar thing. I'm scheduled for the one that starts at 11.

[Steve Guttag]

I was on the 11am (East Coast Time) one.

The problem with the I/O frame, as they explained it to me, is that it is a PPC based hardware and they wanted to make a clean break on the QDS10 and beyond platform. QDS 9.13, which will be the new LTS branch, once they fix it well enough to be an LTS will support the I/O frames and the TSC 7. So, you will have an LTS version that supports TSC-7, all Cores 610 and older and I/O frames.

If one wants to support DCA amplifiers in Q-SYS in QDS 10 and beyond, including with the new Cores, what I see is that you either have a Core 510 or use a Core Nano as your go-between. That is, have a Core Nano running QDS 9.13.x LTS as well as the I/O Frame using 9.13 LTS as well. Then let any new Core talk to the Nano via QLAN Transmitters. Using Control Links and even QLAN Receivers, you could get Dataport information back. But yes, you are starting to extend that bridge a bit far to support them. It will still be cheaper than re-amping to CX-Q, if you have DCAs already...but it is getting more awkward.

Or, just stick to 1-4 screens on a Core Nano (if your "old" hardware is limited to the DCAs and I/O frame). You can be traditional and use 1 Nano per screen with an I/O frame and your DCA amps (plus a DCIO or QIO-AES for AES3 input). You can definitely still do it. You can also use the Core 24f and wire the DCA up as straight up analog amps and use the GPIO to turn them on/off but not monitor them.

[Elia Orselli]

Another interesting thing (more from a commercial point of view) is that v10 and v9.13.x LTS will end the need of UCI and scripting licenses for all new and existing devices.
And with v10 there will be android uci support, finally.

[Leo Enticknap]

He claimed that 80% of cores have separately bought UI and scripting licenses, and that therefore it made sense to bundle them in the new models. So the 20% of buyers who aren't using either will now have to pay more, but for the rest of us it's a win. I've only ever done one design that didn't use either, out of 40-50 in total.

I like the new Core 24f having four NICs in it. That will enable the separation of Dante or Visionary Solutions from Q-LAN and AES67 audio, with all the switching and clocking gotchas that involves.

[Marin Zorica]

He claimed that 80% of cores have separately bought UI and scripting licenses, and that therefore it made sense to bundle them in the new models. So the 20% of buyers who aren't using either will now have to pay more, but for the rest of us it's a win. I've only ever done one design that didn't use either, out of 40-50 in total.

I like the new Core 24f having four NICs in it. That will enable the separation of Dante or Visionary Solutions from Q-LAN and AES67 audio, with all the switching and clocking gotchas that involves.

Expanding Dante and overall channel capacity is big plus for sure, and getting back GPIO! But, let's hope packing all that features in one device would not rise price much from current 110f pricing. I expect maybe 20% compared to 110f packed with full dante licence.

[Steve Guttag]

Why do you think either Dante or AES67 will travel on an Aux port? They never have. Aux Ports handle non-sync audio like WAN and Control. I don't believe that they will handle either AES67 or Dante.

image.png

In my opinion, the Core 110v2 is way overpriced, as it is. Back when I could sell a Core 110c or 110f for $2K, there was a good bang for the buck. It is now a LOT more than that. In fact, it has been quite a while since I sold a 110 as I have moved over to the Nano for most things. The Nano has the same processing power of the 110 and since I like redundancy, none of the burden or cost of the 110. It isn't that I can't see the value of a 110 or 26f, it is just a pricey solution, in my opinion, unless you are really going to use all 24-channels of analog. I just don't use a lot of analog anymore.

They do claim that it will be cheaper to buy Cores with the includes licenses than it currently is to buy the Cores and then the licenses separately. Then again, there was just a price hike (including licenses) so we are comparing pre-raised prices.

[Marin Zorica]

Also, one more. None of New cores can't di 96k processing?

[Leo Enticknap]

Why do you think either Dante or AES67 will travel on an Aux port?

The new Core 24f has four NICs, labeled A through D:

image.png

None of them are labeled Aux, so maybe they can all be used for networked audio and clocking? I can't find an answer on the spec sheet, though.

[Marcel Birgelen]

We've been running Q-Sys on VMWare for a while now, which actually works pretty fine, as long as you have your VMWare infrastructure in check.

But as many as you may know, VMWare has been acquired by Broadcom and has since made licensing and support cost go up three to five fold for some customers...

We've been implementing Proxmox as an alternative, but I've not yet tried to move any Q-Sys systems onto it. Proxmox uses the KVM hypervisor, which is officially supported by Q-Sys, but I was wondering if anybody around here has any hands-on experience with "Q-Sys vCore" and Proxmox.

[Steve Guttag]

The new Core 24f has four NICs, labeled A through D:

image.png

None of them are labeled Aux, so maybe they can all be used for networked audio and clocking? I can't find an answer on the spec sheet, though.

You were looking in the body text...it is up in the upper-left in the feature section:

image.png
Yes, having a port one could dedicate for Dante would have been nice.

[Leo Enticknap]

In that case, the labeling on the rear panel of the unit is unhelpful: no way to see which are the media ports and which are the aux ports.

In any case, with that configuration, you could use one port for Q-LAN, the second for Dante, the third for Visionary Solutions (given that Q-Sys doesn't actually process video data beyond thumbnails: it's just for control), and the fourth for management. But if you're using redundant Q-LANs and there is Dante and/or AES67 to handle as well, you would be forced to double up, and therefore jump through all the switching and clocking hoops.

[Steve Guttag]

No arguments on any of your points!
It is my belief that there will be a "QIO" type hardware solution for Dante. And, who knows, they may have labeled the ports like that because they do plan to allow for clocked audio on them, at some point (though I would have preferred an alternate labeling or provide stickers, if that day ever comes to relabel them).

[Marcel Birgelen]

The way I interpret the specs is: You have the traditional Q-LAN A and Q-LAN B port and port C and D is what used to be called AUX A and AUX B for "non-time-sensitive" applications.

It has to be software limitations though, there are no specific DSPs in any of the recent hardware cores, other than maybe on the specific I/O cards, but not on the Ethernet interfaces themselves. That's also why those units can be virtualized. Maybe, in the future, they plan to allow for a more flexible assignments and that's why they simply branded those Ethernet interfaces A to D.

In software, this probably comes down to Ethernet port A and B running in "interrupt" mode, while C and D run in a much more CPU-friendly polling mode.