Targeted mostly for musicians / bands, but I can also see this machine having a role as a dedicated producing mixer for electronic musicians / live-acts. It also has multitrack SD recording, it’s a USB audio interface, it has a compressor and limiter on each output, 4 fx slots for each input, and is very simple to use.
Interesting, but they should have made all of the inputs combo jacks instead of half XLR, half combo.
Looks cool, but no thunderbolt…what a shame, same like the q pac. Looks a bit more lightweight though. I am spoiled with the x96 … more practical for me. If i would operate a bit more in a band context, this would be it.
1050 for the mid sized thing is a very good price… and the weight … only 3 kg… thats a game changer!
You don’t need thunderbolt to run 20+8 channels of 96khz audio.
Sure, but its lower latency, for a hybrid setup, its a factor.
For latency, I’d rather they gave us Dante over that Ethernet port, but obvs they’re doing neither on a piece of budget hardware like this. Could still be tempted by the 20, though, but I’ll need to see the manual first.
Yeah, with dante it would have been a little more attractive, still for a small band its a sick board. But for an electronic live pa… i would miss faders, not sure about midi in and mapping.
I’ve been using the Qu-16 for years, and it’s been rock solid and perfect for both electronic music recording and livestreaming. This looks fantastic.
Sure, you don’t “need” it. But everyone is making the switch to usb c ports, why does A&H have to be quirky? I suppose the argument can be made that USB B is sturdier but still. It seems like an odd design choice.
It’s not just the connector.
The reason they can sell this mixer at this price point is that it’s built around the same generation of FPGA core and has significant hardware components in common with the SQ and now Avantis and AHM series. Those are based around USB 2.0 and thus USB B ports, as the standard requires. Moving to a core that supported USB 3.2, let alone thunderbolt would mean a complete hardware revision. It would add a significant amount to the bill of materials cost, $20 there turns into as much as $200 in retail price, and that’s before you take into account the significant R&D costs that would have to be amortized in building out a new generation of mixer core. This product can only exist because that R&D price has been paid. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the price for the CQ-20B double to $2k if they had to pay for the r&d of a new core from it, and it wouldn’t sell the numbers at that volume needed to justify the development.
sigh, whyyyy did they do this?!
That seems reasonable. And honestly, the only connector I use and like other than C is B at this point so I’m not that annoyed with it.
They now put the manual online with detailed things it can (and can not) do, detailed input/output strip, FX, audio specs, etc: https://www.allen-heath.com/media/CQ_User_Guide_V1_1_0_iss1.pdf
Does anyone know if there is any good reason not to connect synths to those XLR inputs? This seems to be a question that keeps confusing people, including me. Someone says its perfectly fine, and someone keeps saying its not.
The main concern is engaging 48v phantom power on those inputs
I’m not sure if the CQ has scene filters, but in the SQ series it’s possible to block the preamps from changing settings while switching patches. This can avoid accidentally switching to a saved configuration with phantom power engaged
A concern could be that a synth output is a line level output which then always will go through a mic pre-amp. In some applications you don’t want this as it could add coloring / noise to the signal. But as we all spend €1000,- for an Analog Heat or other “analog warming devices” anyway I don’t really see a problem here 
Note that modern pre-amps have a very lineair frequency response and insanely low noise floor compared to “budget” pre-amps 20 years ago, especially those from “premium” brands as Allen & Heath.
The CQ’s also have one or more dedicated stereo TRS line-in inputs.
Another concern is that this mixer has balanced inputs only and most synths have unbalanced outputs. In the studio this is mostly not an issue, except when you are using long cables which are more prone to interference.
This can be solved easily by DI’s to create a balanced signal.
And the last but not least concern is already mentioned by @Bloop: Watch out for 48V phantom power on those inputs!
Thanks guys! I think in some mixers, phantom power goes automatically on when you plug in an XLR cable, and in that way, you could easily damage your synths.
The reason i asked is that CQ-18T seems like the perfect mixer for me, but there are not enough TRS-ins. So you are saying that probably the best way to use those XLR inputs is to use DI boxes between the mixer and synths?
This is seldom the case, mostly you need to activate the phantom power manually.
The TRS and XLR inputs on the CQ-18T are all balanced inputs, only the connector is different. So in any case you will need a DI box to create a balanced signal if the synths are unbalanced. (Check this first, Elektron boxes have balanced outputs for example).
If your main application will be the studio with short(ish) cables, then you could also just use TR(S) to XLR adapter cables. Go for a DI when you encounter any noise or interference problems.
If you can afford to, it wouldn’t hurt to use DIs as a safe way to never get 48v into your synths. Although cheap DIs can colour the sound
I have all my balanced synths connected with TRS-XLR cables, then for everything else modified some cables to make unbalanced connections as described in the Rane Soundsystem Interconnect guide.
Anyone using these in their studio yet? I’ve always lusted for the qupac but these look like a nice compromise at a lower price. I’m currently using a Model 12 but it takes up a little too much real estate in my modest home studio and the 18 or 20 would give much better i/o than the tascam while still being smaller.