ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: SiEx1 vs Qu-16  (Read 832 times)

Luis Tinoco

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:13:15 pm »

 
SiEx1 pro's:
 - very easy to use and clearly arranged
 - faderglow
 - groups
 - matrices
 - solo bus
 - gate has side chain
 - customizable layers
 - audio interrogate
 - levels on each knob
 - MIDI socket
 - expandable with stage box
 - recording to windows and mac supported
 
SiEx1 con's:
 - highs and lows only shelving
 - no direct USB recording
 - no direct USB playback
 - recording card a bit expensive
 - iPad app

Qu-16 pro's:
 - 4 band channel EQ
 - direct USB recording
 - direct USB playback
 - 16 faders per layer
 - iPad app

 Qu-16 con's:
 - recording to windows not support
 - no MIDI socket
 - stage box doesn't change channel count
 - no groups
 - no solo bus only PFL
 - fixed channel names on the mixer, even when storing scenes
 - channel EQ bands difficult to read (one color, no freq/gain point in the graph)
 - only one small LED for each layer, both blue
 - mix and LR buttons with only one tiny LED, all blue
 - custom layer has no own button
 - firmware still unfinished

Any other thoughts about their functionality?

Concerning sound quality, this is my impression:
Qu16: Sounds ok, just somehow the 'contour' of the tracks is a bit unsharp, like an old photo where the borders of the objects begin to blur. I had the impression that hearing a whole band the sound of the different instruments kind of melted together a bit. But the overall impression was good.
SiEx1: Very sharp sound, nice bass. Unfortunately I found something annoying and unnatural around 10kHz that messed it up for me when I tested it. My overall impression of its sound was 'dead', as I already posted in another thread. But I found this unit so well designed from an usability point of view that I'm still considering it and willing to believe that what I heard isn't that important or even existent... I have yet to test this unit again under better test conditions.
(I'm not a sound tech, sorry for this maybe esoteric sound description)

Anyone compared these two units and has any further comments?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 05:23:25 am by Luis Tinoco »
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3639
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2013, 11:15:20 pm »

I have never heard of anyone complaining about the hi/low shelving once they've used a Soundcraft channel strip, which has been their design since about 1971.

I can't explain why you might think the sound of the board is "dead". My impression is the sound of the board is comparable to my APB, or even better. Perhaps once you have some time on the board, but in any case the Expression and Si series is far from "dead" sounding.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the board supports Windows. Maybe with the off line configuration tool, but not the remote app.

The Soundcraft channel count can be expanded to 66 channels regardless of frame size. The QU-16 is a 16 channel mixer.

I didn't buy my Expression to record with.

Assign any channel to any output.

14 mix, 4 matrix, 16 channels out.

Very easy to use and understand touch screen. Effects, compressors, etc. are all very high quality and work very well.

Easy to attach second board monitor solution using DOGS. Lot's more.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........

Now touring nursing homes in a neighborhood near you..

Nils Erickson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 145
  • San Francisco
Re: SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2013, 02:27:39 am »

I'm going to agree with Bob on this one, I wouldn't describe it as dead sounding at all.  What was the source and rig?  Same one for testing both desks?     

I have not compared the sound on both, but I have worked on many Soundcraft and Allen and Heath desks.  Both brands make good products.  Perhaps your solution lies in finding what has the right feature set, since both desks likely sound good enough for their price point.  For me, work flow and ease of use would be equally important when choosing between them.

Cheers,
Nils
Logged

Alex Thompson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
    • Central Ohio Sound
Re: SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2013, 11:15:01 am »

I noticed immediately with my Soundcraft (compact 16) that I noticed I was making fewer cuts in the high mids vs. with the Presonus SL24.  Perhaps if one is not used to a neutral sounding preamp/console the sound could easily be described as "dead" sounding.




Logged
Alex Thompson
Joy Audio Visual, LLC
d.b.a. Central Ohio Sound
www.centralohiosound.com

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Washington, D.C.
SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2013, 11:51:47 am »

I noticed immediately with my Soundcraft (compact 16) that I noticed I was making fewer cuts in the high mids vs. with the Presonus SL24.  Perhaps if one is not used to a neutral sounding preamp/console the sound could easily be described as "dead" sounding.

I speculate this may be the case as well. I find the console to be neutral/flat, perhaps leaning towards "warm" if anything at all when the pres are gained up. Seems like there has been a pretty good batch of digital converters and etc components hitting market in the last few years for lower end products, many with very "flat" characteristics to my ears. X32 sounds very flat to my ear as well.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 11:56:41 am by Samuel Rees »
Logged
SoundCraft Si Compact 24

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12265
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2013, 02:13:16 pm »

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I don't want my mixers to "sound" like anything.

Having heard Avid VENUE, X32 and Digico SD8 all driving one of our rigs on the same night, same room... I can say I heard nothing different between them that could be attributed solely to the mixing consoles electrical designs.
Logged
When they spit, do you wash their floors
And pray that they don't spit no more
Or, rise up children, life goes on and on
Wise up children, life goes on and on

dick rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4792
  • St Paul MN
Re: SiEx1 vs Qu-16
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2013, 02:38:57 pm »

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I don't want my mixers to "sound" like anything.

Having heard Avid VENUE, X32 and Digico SD8 all driving one of our rigs on the same night, same room... I can say I heard nothing different between them that could be attributed solely to the mixing consoles electrical designs.

People perceive things in funny ways:

I have owned two red vehicles in my life, the first a 1961 Austin Healey 3000 and the second a 1968 Ford F150.  They both had two doors, a 300 CI six cylinder engine and a four speed manual transmission.  I drove both within the legal speed limit.  I got stopped regularly by the police in the AH, never got stopped in the Ford.  FYI, I was never issued a ticket...just stopped.  The sports car "looked" faster, I guess.

I prefer my mixers to be "blue".
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 03:03:29 pm by dick rees »
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.122 seconds with 23 queries.