ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16  (Read 47458 times)

Darrell McCullough

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2014, 04:41:17 PM »

Tom, honestly... the QSC really looks like a great unit. I'm a bit leary of buying anything like that in the first generation, though. I like coming in after the bugs have been worked out. But maybe that's why the release was pushed back... just maybe they're going to have the bugs all worked out.

Right?:-)
Logged

Tom Roche

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 626
  • Behind the Zion Curtain
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2014, 07:58:03 PM »

Tom, honestly... the QSC really looks like a great unit. I'm a bit leary of buying anything like that in the first generation, though. I like coming in after the bugs have been worked out. But maybe that's why the release was pushed back... just maybe they're going to have the bugs all worked out.

Right?:-)
That's normally a concern of mine, too, so completely understand any hesitation.  However, I'm willing to take that chance based on my experience with other QSC products I've used through the years.  If a defect/bug is uncovered, I'm confident they'll make it right.
Logged

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2014, 08:49:12 PM »

We used the Mackie 1608 for a short time... our bass player got one, then had a terrible car accident and is no longer playing. Won't sell any of his gear, though.  Smart guy.

Having said that, it seemed to work fine, but in that particular project, I wasn't mixing... he was.

The problem with the Mackie, as far as I can see, is you need to buy a router and have an iPad dedicated to it. Once you've spent all that, might as well have another board with real faders, etc.

Still.. that's also an option. This really comes down to something like "what's your favorite pizza?", doesn't it? 10 people, 10 different favorites. I'll take the advice of downloading manuals and trying to get hands on some of these.

Thanks again, everyone!

There are a few questions you have to ask yourself IMHO.....

Is there somewhere on stage next to you where you would feel OK with a large rack with a mixer on it for you to mix with.  For me, having the mixer controls on a small and unobtrusive iPad was a very good answer.  I sing lead and play rhythm guitar, so that puts me out front where I didn't want any gear on stage (other than my guitar EFX pedalboard).

How important is money?  You have already said that the Expression Si is a bit steep.  The least expensive option at this time would be the DL1608, a used iPad, and a $30.00 router (~$1000.00).  Next would be the X32 Rack, same said router and iPad (~$1200.00), next would be the X32 Producer, router and iPad (~$1500.00), next would be the Qu-16 router and iPad (~$2000.00), then the StudioLive 16.4.2 AI and iPad (~$2500.00) {note that prices reflect what you can get a new unit for if you ask around ... ie slightly below MAP}.

How important is size and weight?  The DL1608 is by far the smallest and lightest followed by the X32 Rack, then all the other top mounted mixers.

As pointed out, if you want to use any external equipment (I don't btw since I am quite content with the outstanding quality of the processing and efx in the X32 units), then the DL1608 is out of the running.

If multi-track recording of shows (and virtual sound check capability), then the Qu-16 is at the top of the heap with its integrated multi-track recording direct to a USB stick (with selected USB sticks only).  All the others require an external computer to do the same trick.

I would like to take a little time to discuss ease of use.  It has been my experience that ease of use is usually mixed in with the discussion on ease of setup.  They are not the same.

The X32 is easier to USE (IMO), but not as easy to setup.  The reason for this is because of its many routing options, grouping, DCA's, and its more feature rich capabilities.  It can do more, therefore it is more difficult to initially setup than a mixer that can do much less.

The X32 is easier to use (IMO), because of features like DCA's, scribble strips, sends on faders (both channels and buses), Off-line editor, multiple remote capabilities, full control from the remote iPad app, Android support, PC, Mac and Linux support, etc, etc.

The Qu-16 excels in ease of use IMHO.  The StudioLive without motorized faders or recallable head amps, and a very limited screen interface is simply not as easy to get around on as the Qu-16 .... nor is it as functional IMO.

If you really are only considering the TouchMix and Qu-16, I would absolutely go with the Qu-16.  QSC has some good stuff, but I don't know that I would want to be the first in line for their new mixer ;)
Logged

Larry Sheehan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Georgetown, TX
    • San Gabriel Sound
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2014, 01:02:31 AM »

There are a few questions you have to ask yourself IMHO.....

Is there somewhere on stage next to you where you would feel OK with a large rack with a mixer on it for you to mix with.  For me, having the mixer controls on a small and unobtrusive iPad was a very good answer.  I sing lead and play rhythm guitar, so that puts me out front where I didn't want any gear on stage (other than my guitar EFX pedalboard).

How important is money?  You have already said that the Expression Si is a bit steep.  The least expensive option at this time would be the DL1608, a used iPad, and a $30.00 router (~$1000.00).  Next would be the X32 Rack, same said router and iPad (~$1200.00), next would be the X32 Producer, router and iPad (~$1500.00), next would be the Qu-16 router and iPad (~$2000.00), then the StudioLive 16.4.2 AI and iPad (~$2500.00) {note that prices reflect what you can get a new unit for if you ask around ... ie slightly below MAP}.

How important is size and weight?  The DL1608 is by far the smallest and lightest followed by the X32 Rack, then all the other top mounted mixers.

As pointed out, if you want to use any external equipment (I don't btw since I am quite content with the outstanding quality of the processing and efx in the X32 units), then the DL1608 is out of the running.

If multi-track recording of shows (and virtual sound check capability), then the Qu-16 is at the top of the heap with its integrated multi-track recording direct to a USB stick (with selected USB sticks only).  All the others require an external computer to do the same trick.

I would like to take a little time to discuss ease of use.  It has been my experience that ease of use is usually mixed in with the discussion on ease of setup.  They are not the same.

The X32 is easier to USE (IMO), but not as easy to setup.  The reason for this is because of its many routing options, grouping, DCA's, and its more feature rich capabilities.  It can do more, therefore it is more difficult to initially setup than a mixer that can do much less.

The X32 is easier to use (IMO), because of features like DCA's, scribble strips, sends on faders (both channels and buses), Off-line editor, multiple remote capabilities, full control from the remote iPad app, Android support, PC, Mac and Linux support, etc, etc.

The Qu-16 excels in ease of use IMHO.  The StudioLive without motorized faders or recallable head amps, and a very limited screen interface is simply not as easy to get around on as the Qu-16 .... nor is it as functional IMO.

If you really are only considering the TouchMix and Qu-16, I would absolutely go with the Qu-16.  QSC has some good stuff, but I don't know that I would want to be the first in line for their new mixer ;)

It seems inconsistent to me to downrate the Studiolive for non motorized faders on one hand and then recommend an Ipad controlled solution.

Arguably when mixing from the stage on a studiolive, you're not going to need to re-sync the faders, since there is no one else operating it with an Ipad so the physical faders aren't ever out of their actual position.
Logged
Larry Sheehan - San Gabriel Sound

Tom Roche

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 626
  • Behind the Zion Curtain
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2014, 03:44:58 AM »

...if I may I'll suggest you choose the 3 boards within your budget you might be leaning towards and go look at them. Take time to play with them to see what they can do. Look at the web sites and download the manuals and off line editors, then go back for a second round and buy the board that feels right to you.

Have fun.

There's a lot of good info in many of the replies ... for some of us it's a lot to process and can seem somewhat overwhelming.  Any of the digital boards being discussed will do the job, which is why I think Bob's advice above is spot on (presuming the OP can actually evaluate them in person).   
Logged

Scott Holtzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7536
  • Ghost AV - Avon Lake, OH
    • Ghost Audio Visual Systems, LLC
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2014, 04:15:36 AM »

There's a lot of good info in many of the replies ... for some of us it's a lot to process and can seem somewhat overwhelming.  Any of the digital boards being discussed will do the job, which is why I think Bob's advice above is spot on (presuming the OP can actually evaluate them in person).

I certainly understand that this is a major purchase for a band or a small sound company.  You don't want to have to do it twice.

Just look forward to the day you can just buy one just to check it out!

Each of us gives advice tainted by our own circumstances and experiences so it is worth exactly what you paid for it!
Logged
Scott AKA "Skyking" Holtzman

Ghost Audio Visual Solutions, LLC
Cleveland OH
www.ghostav.rocks

Scott Olewiler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1198
  • Trust me, it will be loud enough.
    • 4th Street Sound
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #46 on: August 09, 2014, 09:46:19 AM »

The problem with the Mackie, as far as I can see, is you need to buy a router and have an iPad dedicated to it. Once you've spent all that, might as well have another board with real faders, etc.

Have the DL1608 and am happy with it, but you really would need two iPads even if you didn't mix remotely for the simple fact that if your iPad takes a sh*t, you have no way to control anything. We actually use both of our iPads for sound checks, but I would never leave home without a back up even if it never left the dock.   Full retail that's gonna run you $1800 for the mixer and 2 ipads.
Logged
We're here to deliver the sound equipment. Who has the check?

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2014, 12:22:46 PM »

It seems inconsistent to me to downrate the Studiolive for non motorized faders on one hand and then recommend an Ipad controlled solution.

Arguably when mixing from the stage on a studiolive, you're not going to need to re-sync the faders, since there is no one else operating it with an Ipad so the physical faders aren't ever out of their actual position.
There are many use cases where the lack of motorized faders is going to be a PITA.  Any remote change you make for a walk around sound check, any remote changes you make when walking around to the monitors to ring them out, etc, etc.  It isn't just the mixing from stage portion that makes this feature useful.

Aside from the lack of motorized faders, the lack of remote channel gain is also a major drawback.

I would find it difficult to recommend the StudioLive over the Qu-16, X32 Producer, and Expression Si 1 (which are its closest competitors).  It is the same price as the Qu-16 which I feel is a more feature rich offering, and more expensive than the X32 Producer which is even more feature rich than the Qu.  Only the Expression Si 1 is more expensive, but I would personally gladly pay the additional ~$500.00 for the added capabilities were I in the market for a new digital mixer.

I would agree with you that if you are thinking about something like the X32 Rack, DL1608, or TouchMix, then highlighting the weakness of the StudioLive's lack of motorized faders makes a poor argument...... but the lack of remote channel gains still does.  Additionally, if you are thinking about this group of mixers, then size, weight and price are likely a good part of your decision making criteria.  All areas where the StudioLive is at a disadvantage in this group.

In fairness, neither the DL1608 or the TouchMix have remote channel gains either.  That feature is only on the X32 Rack in this particular grouping of mixers ..... which is one of the many reasons that I own one.
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6807
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2014, 01:29:22 PM »

The MAP on the Expression Si 1 is $2495. The sell price at Sweetwater is $2195 if you call and ask for that price.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........
Proud Vietnam Veteran

I did a gig for Otis Elevator once. Like every job, it had it's ups and downs.

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2014, 04:56:44 PM »

The MAP on the Expression Si 1 is $2495. The sell price at Sweetwater is $2195 if you call and ask for that price.
Good advice regardless of the mixer chosen for sure.

While MAP (Minimum Advertising Price) will be the same no matter where you look on-line, you can frequently get lower than that by asking.  The larger stores can usually give you the better price.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2014, 04:56:44 PM »


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 24 queries.