ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i  (Read 1621 times)

Craig Smith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« on: May 03, 2014, 03:09:00 am »

I hesitate to post this but I honestly couldn't find any posts comparing the two mixers.  Tell me to go read some books if need be.

About 1.5 years ago I bought an 01v96i.  It's an amazing piece of equipment and not as hard to use as I thought it would be, although it's bitten me a couple times.  I don't use it that often so have to re-familiarize myself with it a little each time.  And there are a few things it doesn't have or I don't like.

There are now many options in that category, and I'm looking in particular at the Qu-16.  I'll have to spend several weeks reading the manual and posts, but I'm wondering if any former 01v users now have a Qu-16 and have any particular comments.

Thanks.
Logged

Mike Christy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
  • Southern Maine
    • Pisces Sound
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2014, 07:20:48 am »

For my 01V96 replacement Im looking at the Qu-24 myself (will actually allow 24 channels via d-snake, unlike the Qu-16). From my readings the Qu series seems much more straight ahead than the 01, like the other new dig introductions, they seem to have condensed as much as possible on to the control surface - so if you can twiddle rack knobs, you now just have to push a select button first then twiddle away. By comparison, on the 01 Im using a laptop and Studiomanager for control 100% of the time - I never use the 01's hardware knobs.

The only thing Im not liking about the Qus is the channel mute mechanism with sends... I need to read more about that....

Here's Dicks thread on the 16:

http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=145634.0

Mike
Logged
Pisces Sound
Southern Maine

Bradford "BJ" James

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2014, 12:25:21 am »

I hesitate to post this but I honestly couldn't find any posts comparing the two mixers.  Tell me to go read some books if need be.

About 1.5 years ago I bought an 01v96i.  It's an amazing piece of equipment and not as hard to use as I thought it would be, although it's bitten me a couple times.  I don't use it that often so have to re-familiarize myself with it a little each time.  And there are a few things it doesn't have or I don't like.

There are now many options in that category, and I'm looking in particular at the Qu-16.  I'll have to spend several weeks reading the manual and posts, but I'm wondering if any former 01v users now have a Qu-16 and have any particular comments.

Thanks.

I sold my 01v's several years ago, but still mix on one once in a while. QU16 is much easier to navigate. More intuitive, easier to run wirelessly, graphic Eq.....I could go on. It's modern.
Logged

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1537
  • Washington, D.C.
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2014, 12:51:12 am »

The fact that you can't soft patch outputs blew my mind. I hope I wasn't mistaken, but I tried to put matrices from a QU24 out a AR2412 and I couldn't find a way to even after RTFM. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It was otherwise pleasant. FX sounded top notch. Felt well made. Much more modern, smooth, open feeling UI than the 01v96. Didn't like the aux setup with the 4 mono 4 stereo. RTA thing was pretty clever. Graphic EQ access was good, but they should have put the higher octave range first, because you almost never need to use the bottom 1.6 octaves but semi regularly will use the top few. This probably worked better on the QU16 where it was more like first half / second half.
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4391
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2014, 12:21:02 pm »

Any of the newer current under 3K boards are a number of steps up from the venerable 01. In the world of "ease of use" though I might put the Soundcraft boards in the lead.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........

Now touring nursing homes in a neighborhood near you..

Craig Smith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2014, 11:52:51 pm »

Thanks everyone.  I had read some of Dick's thread but need to find more time for all 21 pages.  Can't soft-patch outputs?  One of the reasons I bought the 01.  I guess I need to read the manuals for all those boards, like I did with the 01 before I bought it.

Unfortunately I'm not sure if I can get much for mine.  I waited 5 years for something else to come out, only to see several a few months after I bought it.  I guess that's the way it is in audio.
Logged

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1537
  • Washington, D.C.
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2014, 01:38:54 am »


Thanks everyone.  I had read some of Dick's thread but need to find more time for all 21 pages.  Can't soft-patch outputs?  One of the reasons I bought the 01.  I guess I need to read the manuals for all those boards, like I did with the 01 before I bought it.

Unfortunately I'm not sure if I can get much for mine.  I waited 5 years for something else to come out, only to see several a few months after I bought it.  I guess that's the way it is in audio.

In fairness, I guess it's because there is a fixed bus structure with enough outputs so there isn't much need to (there is already an output per bus on the back). It's just when you hook up the AR2412 the matrix outputs could need to be moved. Unless I'm mistaken. For the rental / venue / touring market, I don't think there will be much tolerance for losing original digital features like output patching. Bands and solo operators, churches and etc, might appreciate Allen Heath's choice of simplicity over flexibility.
Logged

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2535
  • St. Paul, MN
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2014, 11:50:46 am »

The fact that you can't soft patch outputs blew my mind.
I own a pair of 01v96s that I bought over a decade ago.  This was the best value mixer for about 8 years - nothing could touch it for features per dollar. While owning these and using them to great effect, I listened to 10 years of whining about how hard to use they were.  Once you get your patching set up, the 01v is about the same as most other digital boards to use - select what you're working on, then adjust your setting, but that didn't stop the complaining.

A&H released the Qu-series as a digital MixWizard, and it is easier to use, in part because of a more modern UI, and partly because it doesn't go as deep as the 01v (or other modern boards).

I find your comment more telling about the mindshare shift in the last 10 years of folks embracing digital and being willing to menu-dive, rather than damning of the Qu-series.  A&H made intentional decisions about what to include and what not to, based on their understanding of what users would need in that size and cost structure, and I suspect wanted this product to be a bridge to analog guys entering the world of digital, and sometimes more isn't better. 

All that said, A&H certainly knows how to make big-boy mixers with all of the routing and processing features a person can want.  Several of them have already made their way into various newer products via software updates after the fact, so it is indeed possible that this is coming. 

We customers are relentless. 
Logged

Mike Christy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
  • Southern Maine
    • Pisces Sound
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2014, 12:29:45 pm »

I just want to know why they painted the stage box Heil purple?
Logged
Pisces Sound
Southern Maine

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1537
  • Washington, D.C.
Re: Qu-16 vs. 01v96i
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2014, 12:30:58 pm »


A&H made intentional decisions about what to include and what not to, based on their understanding of what users would need in that size and cost structure, and I suspect wanted this product to be a bridge to analog guys entering the world of digital, and sometimes more isn't better. 

Certainly quite intentional. I think it will work out for them too - despite my patching shock :). I don't think I'm they're target audience. Soundcraft made similar moves valuing simplicity over complexity. Behringer sort of did the opposite. Everybody is choosing their angles.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.103 seconds with 23 queries.