ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5  (Read 13022 times)

Ron Cayman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« on: July 05, 2018, 07:33:19 PM »

Hi all,

I'm in the market for a new mixer and can't decide between Yamaha QL1 and Allen & Heath SQ5, so I'd love some thoughts and insight from you guys who've worked on the above boards.

As you've noticed I'm looking for a rack-mountable mixer with as much processing power as possible, easy to work on and stable. Rider acceptability is a bonus. 70% of my company's work is theatre (from 2 actors and recorded tracks to 16 actors + live band) while the rest is live music shows and corporate events.

QL1 pros as I see them: proven product, very stable, user-friendly, Dante, rider-friendly
QL1 cons as I see them: old, not as much processing power as SQ5, high price

SQ5 pros as I see them: very powerful, future-proof, reasonable price
SQ5 cons as I see them: not a proven product, not so much user-friendly (I absolutely f***ing hate multi-touch drag-n-drop interface), not rider-friendly (yet?)

Do you see where I'm going with this? My only concern with the QL1 is its age, which affects its price vs processing power ratio. Otherwise I'd go for it. If only Yamaha would come out with a new QL range...

Any thoughts?

Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 07:43:13 PM by Ron Cayman »
Logged

Andrew Broughton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2315
    • Check Check One Two
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2018, 07:57:01 PM »

QL series isn't old at all. The X32 is at least 2 years older. (2014 vs 2012).

You'll have no problems with the QL series, they're rock solid and a proven product. If you're looking for more bang-for-the-buck, look at the M32 or SQ series.
Logged
-Andy

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle..."

http://www.checkcheckonetwo.com
Saving lives through Digital Audio, Programming and Electronics.

John P. Farrell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2018, 08:30:39 PM »

Personally I will take the QL over the SQ any day of the week.  So would any touring guy if they had to pick between the two.  An added bonus is that a CL file will translate. 

JF
Logged
FOH/PM Blackberry Smoke

Matthew Knischewsky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 635
  • Kitchener Ontario Canada
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2018, 11:08:13 PM »

I love the QL series. Very flexible, includes a great auto mixer. It's not lacking in processing.
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23736
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2018, 01:47:45 AM »

Hi all,

I'm in the market for a new mixer and can't decide between Yamaha QL1 and Allen & Heath SQ5, so I'd love some thoughts and insight from you guys who've worked on the above boards.

As you've noticed I'm looking for a rack-mountable mixer with as much processing power as possible, easy to work on and stable. Rider acceptability is a bonus. 70% of my company's work is theatre (from 2 actors and recorded tracks to 16 actors + live band) while the rest is live music shows and corporate events.

QL1 pros as I see them: proven product, very stable, user-friendly, Dante, rider-friendly
QL1 cons as I see them: old, not as much processing power as SQ5, high price

SQ5 pros as I see them: very powerful, future-proof, reasonable price
SQ5 cons as I see them: not a proven product, not so much user-friendly (I absolutely f***ing hate multi-touch drag-n-drop interface), not rider-friendly (yet?)

Do you see where I'm going with this? My only concern with the QL1 is its age, which affects its price vs processing power ratio. Otherwise I'd go for it. If only Yamaha would come out with a new QL range...

Any thoughts?

Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.

Yamaha is almost everybody's "second choice".  The CL/QL sound different from their similarly positioned ancestors, the M7 and LS/9 and most mixerpersons like the difference.  We're probably replacing our Avid Profiles and SC48s with CL-series mixers.

Are you or your staff the only persons who will operated this mixer?  If so, buy whatever you fancy and don't look back.  If others will be using the desk, see first paragraph.

Whether or not the QL1 surface has enough faders is up to you, but I'd like a bit more real estate...

Logged
"If you're passing on your way, from Palm Springs to L.A., Give a wave to good ol' Dave, Say hello to progress and goodbye to the Moonlight Motor Inn." - Steve Spurgin, Moonlight Motor Inn

Aisle 6

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2018, 06:44:44 AM »

Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.

Not sure why the brain in the box is an issue, but I will say that for theatre work, the d-live scene management is incredible and would make theatre shows a snap.
Logged

Aisle 6

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2018, 07:12:23 AM »

Between the QL and the SQ is a tough choice. You have nailed most of the comparisons though. However, you will find the SQ sonically superior when running the DX racks. This is not only my opinion, but there is the math to back it up. 96kHz with variable bit depth and a 96bit integer. This means that more of the original data is retained throughout the processing path.

Having said that, the Yamaha QL is no slouch and is certainly a corporate board of choice with plenty of flexibility and a solid feature set. The qL can also be expanded to allow for a higher channel count and the Yamaha scene management for theatre will probably be a little more developed at this point in their collective life cycles.

There are also a couple of minor annoyances on the SQ currently, although very minor. I am sure they will be addressed quickly as the firmware is in it's infancy. That said, there is a significant price difference.
Logged

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1792
  • USA SW CT 46miles from MidTown Manhattan ATCF
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2018, 10:03:14 AM »

Hi all,

I'm in the market for a new mixer and can't decide between Yamaha QL1 and Allen & Heath SQ5, so I'd love some thoughts and insight from you guys who've worked on the above boards.

As you've noticed I'm looking for a rack-mountable mixer with as much processing power as possible, easy to work on and stable. Rider acceptability is a bonus. 70% of my company's work is theatre (from 2 actors and recorded tracks to 16 actors + live band) while the rest is live music shows and corporate events.

QL1 pros as I see them: proven product, very stable, user-friendly, Dante, rider-friendly
QL1 cons as I see them: old, not as much processing power as SQ5, high price

SQ5 pros as I see them: very powerful, future-proof, reasonable price
SQ5 cons as I see them: not a proven product, not so much user-friendly (I absolutely f***ing hate multi-touch drag-n-drop interface), not rider-friendly (yet?)

Do you see where I'm going with this? My only concern with the QL1 is its age, which affects its price vs processing power ratio. Otherwise I'd go for it. If only Yamaha would come out with a new QL range...

Any thoughts?

Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.

What digital consoles do you have experience with? I had an SQ6 on loan from a sound company that wanted me to evaluate it for them. I also wanted to write a Mixer file for Palladium for it. It is in my opinion not ready for theatrical use, nor do I think with the A&H way of dealing with scenes will it ever be as smooth to use for theater as it should be.

If they ever enable external control (most likely MIDI over TCP/IP) it might be controllable with a program like Palladium and then I can see using it for theater. I really like the user definable layers but the logic of the SQ is annoying to me. But that might just be because lately I have been using two Midas M32 mixers with Palladium for theatrical shows. In the past I have used many different digital mixer for musicals. BTW Palladium can control up to 3 mixer at a time and they don't all have to be the same model or from the same manufacturer.

I also just used a Yamaha CL5 for a POPs concert and I really need more time on one to properly evaluate it for theater use. BTW there are presently mixer files for Palladium for a bunch of Yamaha consoles but not one for the QL series that I am aware of. I don't know if the CL mixer files would work.
Logged

Dave Pluke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1777
  • Northwest GA, USA
    • BIGG GRIN Productions
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2018, 11:25:13 AM »

I love the QL series. Very flexible, includes a great auto mixer.

Which, as I understand it, Yamaha actually licenses (as opposed to another manufacturer alluded to here who merely "flatters" Mr. Dugan).

Dave
Logged
...an analog man in a digital world [tm]

Flying direct to nearly everywhere out of ATL

Thomas Le

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2018, 11:49:32 AM »

Also throwing this in the mix is that the SQ doesn’t have a offline editor, to me that would be a noticeable dealbreaker.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Thoughts on QL1 vs SQ5
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2018, 11:49:32 AM »


Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 21 queries.