Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rob Spence]

If I needed the desk for theater work today, then the QL is it. Much more mature scene and show management.

If I were planning and budgeting for later this year, then the choice would depend on the content of the 1.3 firmware for the SQ due out in the fall sometime.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Ron Cayman]

We're probably replacing our Avid Profiles and SC48s with CL-series mixers.

Why? If you don't mind, I'm curious to know the reasons behind the decision.

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.

Me and my techs will be using the mixer pretty much 70-80 % of the time, but I still wanted you guys opinions to make the "best" or rather smartest purchase I can.

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.

A lot of venues where I'm working offer only analog multicore cable from the stage to the house position, and I will not always have the option to set up a CAT5/6/7 cable, or carry a CDM32 up with me (which as you know is the smallest stage box available). And, purchasing a dLive with DM0 is just not worth it...

What digital consoles do you have experience with?

I've worked with pretty much everything in the market -- all of Allen & Heath's products, Yamaha's M7, LS9, CL and QL, Soundcraft's older Vi models, Midas Pro and M32, DiGiCo SD series and Avid Profile and SC48.

The best user interface in my opinion can be found on the Yamaha CL/QL series. By far. But again, I'm hesitant because of the extremely powerful engine inside the SQ series compared to the QL series when also taking into account their price points. I might just wait for the next firmware update of the SQ as some of you suggested... I hope it'll be soon.

Anyway, thank you guys for your comments! Keep them coming

[Tim McCulloch]

Hi Ron-

We're replacing the Avid desks as part of our regular replacement cycle.  The Venue 3.x series is EOL for all practical purposes - you can't get key modules from Avid.

We're a shop where our consoles are operated by tour personnel most of the time and having what shows up on riders is important.  We're keeping our Avid desks for the time being as they are still requested, but the writing on the wall is plainly visible.

[Eric Snodgrass]

If your core business with your mixers is theater then I would avoid the SQ.  As has been mentioned in a previous post in this thread the Scene management of the SQ series is not well executed for theater - there is no offline editor and a user cannot change the order of scenes. 
I am an SQ user and a Qu owner, and as much as I love the consoles I would not use them for theater if I needed to use a lot of scenes for mic pickups because of the Scene management issue.
However I would absolutely choose these consoles for corporate and music gigs.  Also, I do think their Automatic Mic Mixer algorithm is terrific.  I used it on a high-profile combat audio gig that was a staged reading of a script by the cast of some television show.  I had no time for sound check with the cast, no access to the script and 23 wireless headset mics.  The Automatic Mic Mixer was the perfect tool for this.  It worked flawlessly. 
I have also read that Allen&Heath are taking pre-orders on the Dante card for the SQ series. 

[Dan Richardson]

If I needed the desk for theater work today, then the QL is it. Much more mature scene and show management.

If I were planning and budgeting for later this year, then the choice would depend on the content of the 1.3 firmware for the SQ due out in the fall sometime.

As near as I can tell, the SQ is at least a year away from being what I would consider functional.

Today I'd go QL in a heartbeat.

[Ron Cayman]

Hi Eric and Dan, thank you very much for your input!

I finally went with the QL1, Dante, Yamaha and everything in between.

Thanks for all the helpful info guys.

[Rob Spence]

Hi Eric and Dan, thank you very much for your input!

I finally went with the QL1, Dante, Yamaha and everything in between.

Thanks for all the helpful info guys.

Good choice.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Matt Marcus]

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.

Really? How so?

[Andrien (No Last Name)]

I would prefer you go to QL than SQ, I kinda feel meh with this board (and a bit annoyed that some fx require further purchase and non-transferable). The onboard pre-amp is about equivalent to Qu series, tho you get better sound if you use DX rack.

[John Roesli]

I've not used the QL1, but mixed on the QL5 and the SQ5 a lot over the past year.  QL has more DCA's (16 versus 8 ) and matrix routing (8 versus 3) than the SQ, buses/groups (16 versus 12)  The SQ does not support DCA spills, not the best if your doing theater work.  Subjective...I get a along a bit better with the SQ workflow, but YMMV.  Offline editor capability for QL is far ahead of SQ, but the SQ is making improvements every cycle.  If I were mixing FOH for live music along with mixing auxes (12 or less) for monitors the SQ would be the preference, if mixing FOH only then probably a toss up, but slight favor to the SQ with DX boxes, although if the output routing is complicated the QL would be better.  If I was mixing theatre the QL would
be the preference. 

 

[ProSoundWeb Community]