ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Darrell McCullough on August 05, 2014, 05:57:02 PM

Title: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 05, 2014, 05:57:02 PM
Hey folks.. I am not in the pro audio field, but as a working musician, I would like to get some opinions on these two mixers. We are preparing to make the jump to a digital board, and these two (and possibly the PreSonus 16.4.2) are at the top of the list.

Pros/Cons of each? Really need to have at least 16 true mic inputs and at least 3 aux's for monitor sends.

Any info would be greatly appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Harris on August 05, 2014, 06:15:33 PM
I would add the Behringer x32 Compact to you list in place of the Presonus.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Thomas Le on August 05, 2014, 06:18:53 PM
- QU16 has everything recallable
- Touchmix 16 doesn't do recallable HA
- Studiolive doesn't do recallable faders and HA

Also consider the X32 and Si Expression.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Mike Sullivan on August 05, 2014, 06:54:10 PM
I would add the Behringer x32 Compact to you list in place of the Presonus.

+1.  I have used both, and I'm growing on the X32 Compact.  Plus you can always add the digital stageboxes to have 32 channels down the road, which is extremely handy.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 05, 2014, 07:28:40 PM
Before I make any recommendations, what are you trying to do with it?
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 05, 2014, 07:39:54 PM
Scott, we mix from the stage... usual layout of 3-4 vocals, guitar, bass, anywhere from 3-6 drum mics (depending on venue), and the occasional keys, needing either 4 inputs or 2 stereo channels. 3 monitor mixes (all active boxes, no in ears) minimum, 4 would be great. We don't use that much vocal processing, so just a reverb on the snare is about all we ever use.

As for the Behringer, I've had bad luck with their stuff in the past. Has the quality gone up, or would I be looking at repairs or replacement a couple years down the road?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 05, 2014, 07:52:38 PM
For your application of mixing from stage I'd recommend the StudioLive.  Your actual needs are modest, so no need for a lot of bells and whistles you won't use.  But here are the main points that make it right for you.

1.  Meter bridge feature utilizing the Fat Channel LED's to show you all your channel levels in the mix.  LARGE display easily readable in all conditions.  Absolutely spot-on for self-mixing.

2.  SMAART capability via VSL on a laptop or netbook for ease of EQ'ing your system, dealing with any feedback anomalies and keeping track of your various mixes.

All the candidates are good.  The StudioLive suits you better.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 05, 2014, 08:39:20 PM
For your application of mixing from stage I'd recommend the StudioLive.  Your actual needs are modest, so no need for a lot of bells and whistles you won't use.  But here are the main points that make it right for you.

1.  Meter bridge feature utilizing the Fat Channel LED's to show you all your channel levels in the mix.  LARGE display easily readable in all conditions.  Absolutely spot-on for self-mixing.

2.  SMAART capability via VSL on a laptop or netbook for ease of EQ'ing your system, dealing with any feedback anomalies and keeping track of your various mixes.

All the candidates are good.  The StudioLive suits you better.

Bingo!  Some of the other choices offer features you will probably never use and are more complex to set up.  As a musician you need to concentrate on your playing and not be distracted by your equipment.  With the Studiolive all your inputs and outputs are pre-configured.  Some see that as a limitation but for a working musician that wants to concentrate more on playing than trying to be a soundman, it is a blessing. If you don't believe me, check out some of the other forums where you can 
read 500 pages of people trying to figure out how to use their X32!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 05, 2014, 08:57:22 PM
FWIW, I use a Qu-16 now for my work and will be picking up a TouchMix 8 for briefcase jobs. 

I'd still want a StudioLive in your situation.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 05, 2014, 09:31:24 PM
Yeah, and I have an Expression III, but for mixing
from stage, and about 90% of my live sound gigs, my Studiolive is still my first choice!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 05, 2014, 09:47:48 PM
I see that there are still some Studiolive 16.4.2's available, but it seems like an ideal size.. Why was it discontinued?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Thomas Le on August 05, 2014, 09:53:58 PM
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SLM164AI/
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 05, 2014, 10:20:27 PM
I see that there are still some Studiolive 16.4.2's available, but it seems like an ideal size.. Why was it discontinued?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Forum member Bob Cap had some SLives for sale.  Search the members for his posts or search the Marketplave for "mixers for sale".
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 06, 2014, 07:34:57 AM
I see that there are still some Studiolive 16.4.2's available, but it seems like an ideal size.. Why was it discontinued?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was replaced by the AI model. With the AI models you can connect a router directly to the board and don't need a computer.  If you don't plan on using the Ipad app it's  not a big deal and you can find some really good deals on the 16.4.2.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Steve Garris on August 06, 2014, 05:08:16 PM
Have you looked at or considered the Mackie DL1608?  I know of many bands & clubs using this board with great success.

16 real channels, 6 monitor outs, global reverb & delay all in a compact briefcase-like case . You would need an iPad and a router (no pc). I've been using mine for about 1.5 years now, sold my analog stuff.

You can download the app (Master Fader) for free to check it out.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 06, 2014, 10:32:44 PM
I would recommend an X32 Rack, or Producer with an iPad Mini and a iPad microphone clamp.

The Presonus is not a bad mixer, but turning around on stage to fiddle with a mixer is very cumbersome.  I have video of myself doing it back when I was using a MixWiz, so I can conclusively say that not only is it a clunky way to mix, but that using the iPad from directly in front of you is much better.

I also prefer the verbs in the X32 over those in the StudioLive series; however, I would point out that I haven't heard the AI version.

I struggled between the X32 Producer, Qu-16, and the X32 Rack.  My goals were to lighten the load out and load in, take up a minimal amount of room on stage, and be able to easily mix from an iPad clipped to my mic stand.

At the time I made my choice, the Qu-16 did not support an iPad app or DCA's which took it out of the running (it now has both, so you should consider this option as well IMHO).  In the end, it came down to size and weight.  The X32 Producer does have a full complement of motorized faders, but I had already decided that turning around to adjust things on the physical mixer wasn't working for me, so I went all in with a rack mixer.

One more item on the StudioLive.  Without motorized faders, if you do any adjustments from your tablet, those changes will not be reflected in the physical fader positions.  If you have any desire at all to control things from both a remote application and the physical interface, then I would highly recommend a digital mixer with motorized faders.

The Soundcraft Expression Si is also worth a look.

The X32 Rack will be your most powerful and least expensive option .... if you can give up a physical interface completely.  If not, then it is more of a toss up between the X32 Producer, Qu-16, and Expression Si.

To answer your question about the quality of Behringer X32 line mixers ..... The X32 family is the exception to the rule.  I have had many Behringer failures (small mixers, DI, etc) fail in my past, but the record of the X32 is really quite good.  The sound quality is excellent, and the features are outstanding.  Oh, my MIDI foot pedal "FCB1010" has also been a rock solid piece of gear as well.  Still, I generally stay clear of Behringer gear, but I can vouch for the quality and durability of the X32 products.  If you do a search, you will find that the X32 has a very solid record in the field.

Good luck in your decision!  It is a great time to be looking into a new digital mixer as options abound ;)
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Peter Morris on August 07, 2014, 05:01:01 AM
Hey folks.. I am not in the pro audio field, but as a working musician, I would like to get some opinions on these two mixers. We are preparing to make the jump to a digital board, and these two (and possibly the PreSonus 16.4.2) are at the top of the list.

Pros/Cons of each? Really need to have at least 16 true mic inputs and at least 3 aux's for monitor sends.

Any info would be greatly appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are only really 2 to consider – Qu16 and X32 compact. The Qu16 is easy and simple to use. The X32 is more powerful, but not as simple to use.  If you are making adjustments on stage while you’re playing the Qu16 is probably your best option. If you have a competent sound engineer, probably the X32.

You can use these with the Qu http://www.allen-heath.com/ahproducts/me-1/ or these with X32 http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/P16-M.aspx
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Olewiler on August 07, 2014, 06:59:33 AM

Pros/Cons of each? Really need to have at least 16 true mic inputs and at least 3 aux's for monitor sends.


Every mixer mentioned here fits this critieria. Depends what else you want it to do. Some, like the DL1608 have no way to add anything outboard. Maybe that matters to you, maybe it doesn't.  Some of these have subgroup capability. If I was plugging the same equipment into it every night, I'd want it to recall the pre-amp/gain settings.

If you think you're going to be mixing from an iPad mounted on a mic stand, I would download every app, mount your ipad on your mic stand and see which one seems easiest to use in the middle of a show. 

The Mackie has the biggest display for the faders but it's easy to forget whether you're looking at the FOH or one of the aux mixes. The Presonus allows you to view 12 faders at one time, while all the others only let you view 8.  The faders on the QU-16 app "seem" smoother to me than the others.

If you think you're going to be physically mixing on the control surface rather than the iPad I'd study them and determine which surface you think will be easier to find your way thru in a live situation. Download all the manuls for these and study them.

Unless someone has literally used every digital mixer they cannot really say that one will sound better than all the others, or should be ruled out or that it's emperically easier to use.  If you've already narrowed it down to the original two you asked about, ignore all the responses, including this one that mention other mixers.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Bob Leonard on August 07, 2014, 08:15:08 AM
For the sake of simplicity, functionality, ease of use and sound quality I use a Soundcraft Expression 1 for my stage mix. I understand and agree with many of the comments above but speed, simplicity, reliability and sound quality are critical to this application. I am still a pro level player, and although my bus riding days are over when I chose digital I needed a board that would support an on stage mix, could be quickly reconfigured for mixing other acts, had to be reliable without question or thought, and had to be friendly enough so that almost anyone could properly use the board with very little training. The board also needed to expand easily, and all the Expressions will expand to 66 input channels. My choice today would still be the Expression.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Simon Hutson on August 07, 2014, 08:35:25 AM
Unless someone has literally used every digital mixer they cannot really say that one will sound better than all the others, or should be ruled out or that it's emperically easier to use.

I found this comparison of the Presonus, Soundcard, Behringer and Roland digital mixers helpful when narrowing down my choices.

http://youtu.be/zaK-yaGB0BA (http://youtu.be/zaK-yaGB0BA)

Best regards, Simon
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 07, 2014, 01:50:42 PM
I would recommend an X32 Rack, or Producer with an iPad Mini and a iPad microphone clamp.

The Presonus is not a bad mixer, but turning around on stage to fiddle with a mixer is very cumbersome.  I have video of myself doing it back when I was using a MixWiz, so I can conclusively say that not only is it a clunky way to mix, but that using the iPad from directly in front of you is much better.

I disagree.  I mixed from stage for years, sometimes six nights a week and never found it "clunky or cumbersome".  I always had the board beside me so there was no turning around. With the great metering on the Studiolive, you have a view of everything that is happening and all the faders are immediately accessible.  Why add the complexity and potential failure of an Ipad app when you need as little distractions as possible when playing?
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 07, 2014, 02:02:24 PM
I would recommend an X32 Rack, or Producer with an iPad Mini and a iPad microphone clamp.

I'm going to agree with Chuck on this.  An iPad is possibly the worst interface for real-time mixing while playing.  It's too small to see and offers only a partial view of the virtual surface. You really need to SEE what's going on to reinforce auditory perceptions from behind the mains.  Touch screens are WAY more finicky than knobs and faders.  Set the mixer beside you and you don't have to turn around.

The pad is okay for tweaks to your monitors perhaps, but for the main mix you really want the largest, brightest meter bridge display you can get.  The StudioLive wins in this respect, hands down.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 07, 2014, 02:05:22 PM
Yeah, I don't mix from stage anymore but I use the iPad app for my Studiolive and Soundcraft Expression a lot and really like it.  However, I would never limit myself to a system that is totally dependent on an iPad or any other tablet.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Bob Leonard on August 07, 2014, 08:26:28 PM
Mixing from the stage with an Ipad? Just a disaster waiting to happen.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Jonathan Betts on August 07, 2014, 08:29:37 PM
I do it all the time with the DL 1608 playing drums. No issues whatsoever.

Clip from this past weekends show. Not playing drums here but set gain and levels from stage on the drums before this act. 

http://youtu.be/zf7rp4LxrJc
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 07, 2014, 10:30:38 PM
Some great advice/opinions here, but you guys haven't really helped much, lol! I guess, in the end, it just comes down to features and price point. In the video comparing the 4 consoles, I thought the X32 sounded best, but I think it has too many features that I'd never use. Coming from the analog world, it seems the PreSonus would be best, as it's laid out more like an analog board, and doesn't seem as intimidating.

Man... This is tough! I still have a month or so before I need to purchase. Looks like I'll be online a lot! Thanks, everyone!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 07, 2014, 11:05:59 PM
Some great advice/opinions here, but you guys haven't really helped much, lol! I guess, in the end, it just comes down to features and price point. In the video comparing the 4 consoles, I thought the X32 sounded best, but I think it has too many features that I'd never use. Coming from the analog world, it seems the PreSonus would be best, as it's laid out more like an analog board, and doesn't seem as intimidating.

Man... This is tough! I still have a month or so before I need to purchase. Looks like I'll be online a lot! Thanks, everyone!

Welcome to the Lounge...

If you were expecting a clear-cut opinion regarding one model, sorry.  Lots of choices these days and each offers a slightly different implementation of similar or identical features.  Based on features alone it might be hard to differentiate.

I'm not a StudioLive fan.  Don't let the pseudo-familiar front panel "look" fool you, there are still controls and access that lurk beneath the surface so it's not as "analog" as it might appear.  I've mixed on it and hated it.  With over 30 years of analog experience and going on 10 years of digital mixing across multiple platforms, I thought I could figure it out when asked to mix a band while the owner sorted out issues on the stage end of the snake.  There's nothing wrong with the way it sounds and the EFX were acceptable, I just had problems getting around on it.

I mixed a support act on their Soundcraft Expression, didn't hate it.  All I had to do was unmute channels and push faders.  The user interface was more like other compact digital mixers than the Presonus and I was able to get around on it quickly.  The EQ section was nice enough (I'd have liked 4 fully parametric bands, but I survived) sounding and didn't hear anything to dislike.  Some of the FX are ports of Lexicon code and I like Lexicon :)

I own an X32 that I find to be a great value for the price, it sounds plenty good for the money.  Coming from a Yamaha and Digidesign/AVID background I'd have thought the UI would be easy to understand.  The functions themselves are easy, but finding the combination of controls to access some of the deeper things (things beyond using the default setup) is like finding Easter eggs after your big brother re-hid them from you before you woke up.  Under the hood it's fairly sophisticated and if one of the default setups meets your needs there is no reason to go mucking about.  I think the EFX are decent (the rich plate is very Lexicon-ish and the LA2A plug in is effective although not terribly authentic).

Not used the QU, but if you're at all interested in it I suggest you spend some time reading posts by Dick Rees.  He owns or has owned StudioLive, currently uses QU, and has owned other small mixers, digital and analog; he's got a lot of perspective to offer.  He's also a performing musician and live-to-broadcast event mixer.

The new kid is the QSC.  I haven't seen one in the wild and there hasn't been much hands-on discussion yet on the forums.  Edited to add:  because they haven't been released for retail sale yet.

All of the mixers I've used *might* be right for your needs, even the Presonus.  I suggest you download the owners manuals for the models you're interested in and start reading.  Come back to PSW and use the Search Tool if you find something you don't understand; start a new thread if you can't figure it out.  Ultimately it's about workflow and how much you're willing to change the ways you've done things.  Make no mistake, you WILL be learning new tricks, old dog. ;)  Seriously, though, once you figure out how to navigate the UI, almost any of them will probably suffice.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

edit ps.  In addition to reading the manuals I suggest downloading any control software or stand-alone/stand-along editor software so you can get a feel for how the UI functions.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Holtzman on August 08, 2014, 12:09:16 AM
Some great advice/opinions here, but you guys haven't really helped much, lol! I guess, in the end, it just comes down to features and price point. In the video comparing the 4 consoles, I thought the X32 sounded best, but I think it has too many features that I'd never use. Coming from the analog world, it seems the PreSonus would be best, as it's laid out more like an analog board, and doesn't seem as intimidating.

Man... This is tough! I still have a month or so before I need to purchase. Looks like I'll be online a lot! Thanks, everyone!

I think the lack of motorized faders makes the Presonus a non starter.  The procedure to sync with the remote control is tedious.

If you can live without physical faders (and many have) the DL-1608 can't be beat.  WRT the X-32 as Tim said, it has everything and they seem to be releasing software at a pretty good clip.  You don't have to use all the effects but as your knowledge increases would you not rather have the extra "headroom".  I too have a lifetime of analog experience.  Some older digital boards like the Tascam DM series, LS-9 vintage stuff and I am still finding features and improved work flows.  I mix on the X32 almost exclusively now.  If I don't have a good FOH position I often leave the X-32 on stage and just use an iPad and a laptop.

Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: John Chiara on August 08, 2014, 01:50:04 AM
I'm going to agree with Chuck on this.  An iPad is possibly the worst interface for real-time mixing while playing.  It's too small to see and offers only a partial view of the virtual surface. You really need to SEE what's going on to reinforce auditory perceptions from behind the mains.  Touch screens are WAY more finicky than knobs and faders.  Set the mixer beside you and you don't have to turn around.

The pad is okay for tweaks to your monitors perhaps, but for the main mix you really want the largest, brightest meter bridge display you can get.  The StudioLive wins in this respect, hands down.

If you don't trust an iPad what would you trust? I have been using the X32 Rack exclusively for the past 2 months for all kinds of shows from single set shows to all day festivals. After a number of comparisons, I can reliably mix rings around the Presonus iPad app OR the console. A appropriately set up X32 iPad gives me access to every operation. The metering is ALWAYS on the screen. You switch ANY function on the SL and your input metering disappears until you search out and press the small and surrounded "input" button. The SL FX are really limiting. I just convinced another local group to go with the X32 Rack. One big plus is if they can afford me or someone to mix the show, we can actually adjust everything from the audience. I arrived late to a show a few weeks ago with one of my " X32 Rack Bands" and I just sat at the bar, signed on and had complete control in seconds. I mixed a show last week on a SL...after having update the mandatory MacBook...supplied by me...outdoors for about 1000... 10 piece band....and not having access to preamp gain on the iPad was MADDENING! No DCA's.....Can't adjust FX returns....if you accept chowing 2 subgroups to do so.....at the same time as instrument and vocals...etc...etc.......it's 2014. And the fact that the computer runs the console is dangerous IMO. We had a power interruption on the break and I had to retype channel names on the MacBook...PITA!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Tom Roche on August 08, 2014, 06:49:33 AM
If you can live without physical faders (and many have) the DL-1608 can't be beat.
I have to admit that the DL1608 works great for our band.  I love the very small footprint and believe it's rather intuitive to operate.  My band leader makes a few minor adjustments during our shows, but nothing that requires constant monitoring/tweaking.

The TouchMix isn't available yet; it's supposed to come out next month.  Check out the videos on QSC's website for more info.  The TouchMix has what I'm looking for and I trust QSC quality, so I'm buying the 16-ch board as soon as it's available. 
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 08, 2014, 06:50:24 AM
I think the lack of motorized faders makes the Presonus a non starter.

For the OPs purpose this makes NO difference whatsoever.  End of story in that regard.


What  DOES make all the difference for him is the 3" tall, selectable meter bridge and the built-in SMAART-ability.  These two features are the most helpful FOR THE OP and none of the others have them...making all of them "non-starters" FOR THE OP.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Mark McFarlane on August 08, 2014, 06:50:42 AM
I do it all the time with the DL 1608 playing drums. No issues whatsoever.
...


+1. Mackie has an excellent iPad app that is stable, simple, intuitive and I've had no problems the few times I've used one. The X32 iPad app has been slightly flakey for me but with LOTS more power and features.  I wish my GLD had as good an iPad app.  I primarily use a GLD which is pure joy to mix on the surface. The GLD iPad app sucks. I have an X32 Rack permanently set up in my rehearsal space. I'm contemplating picking up a DL 1608 for smaller gigs, and as a backup for the GLD. Its cheaper than an extra stage box for the GLD.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Bob Leonard on August 08, 2014, 08:24:04 AM
OP,
Every response you get is going to be biased toward the board used by the responding person. That said I've mixed from or provided a stage mix for over 15 years now and been through any number of analog boards. My move to digital was not a trivial matter to me with a pretty flawless performance reputation at stake, and the process took almost 2 years to accomplish.

Granted the number of digital boards available was scant as compared to today, but in comparison there is nothing I would change about my choice. The Expression has everything I need now and enough expansion capability to carry me into the future even with a single expansion port, and the board is rock solid. The best part to me was spending far less than half my budget and having money to put into other parts of my system.

That's my choice, and yours may be different, but 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 08, 2014, 09:24:08 AM
Thanks, guys. Having people with hands on experience give their opinion is extremely valuable,  and I appreciate it!

The Expression may be a tad out of my price range, and unfortunately, no one in my area has one to check out. The PreSonus and QU-16 are front runners, Soundcraft a close second. More research!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Holtzman on August 08, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
I have to admit that the DL1608 works great for our band.  I love the very small footprint and believe it's rather intuitive to operate.  My band leader makes a few minor adjustments during our shows, but nothing that requires constant monitoring/tweaking.

The TouchMix isn't available yet; it's supposed to come out next month.  Check out the videos on QSC's website for more info.  The TouchMix has what I'm looking for and I trust QSC quality, so I'm buying the 16-ch board as soon as it's available.

I look forward to the review.  Not having an iPad as a theft target makes me far more comfortable to leave one at a corporate event.  The 1608 just rides around in a bag in my car for emergencies.

Mackie got the software right, like you said, intuitive.  Hard act to follow.

Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 08, 2014, 11:26:46 AM
If you don't trust an iPad what would you trust? I have been using the X32 Rack exclusively for the past 2 months for all kinds of shows from single set shows to all day festivals. After a number of comparisons, I can reliably mix rings around the Presonus iPad app OR the console. A appropriately set up X32 iPad gives me access to every operation. The metering is ALWAYS on the screen. You switch ANY function on the SL and your input metering disappears until you search out and press the small and surrounded "input" button. The SL FX are really limiting. I just convinced another local group to go with the X32 Rack. One big plus is if they can afford me or someone to mix the show, we can actually adjust everything from the audience. I arrived late to a show a few weeks ago with one of my " X32 Rack Bands" and I just sat at the bar, signed on and had complete control in seconds. I mixed a show last week on a SL...after having update the mandatory MacBook...supplied by me...outdoors for about 1000... 10 piece band....and not having access to preamp gain on the iPad was MADDENING! No DCA's.....Can't adjust FX returns....if you accept chowing 2 subgroups to do so.....at the same time as instrument and vocals...etc...etc.......it's 2014. And the fact that the computer runs the console is dangerous IMO. We had a power interruption on the break and I had to retype channel names on the MacBook...PITA!

I trust the iPad and I use it alot, I just wouldn't want to mix on it exclusively.  Would you? And while a WiFi connection can be pretty reliable most of the time, no connection is as reliable as fingers on the faders.  You and others seem to be forgetting the OP is a working musician and will be mixing from stage while playing.  He has NO need for an iPad.  Your day to day mixing experiences and requirements have very little relevance to his needs.  I know some of you guys love your X32's but you have to accept the fact that there are other choices that may work better for other users!

I have no illusions about the capability of the Presonus, that's why I bought a Soundcraft Expression, but the Presonus is still a good choice for many tasks.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: frank kayser on August 08, 2014, 11:46:27 AM
Op,
Adding just another voice from a small-timer...
Having mixed on just Mackie and MixWiz analog boards, I went to a studiolive 16.0.2.  I found the transition extremely easy.  I've also worked quite a bit with the 24.4.2 .   I agree with Dick Rees that the meter bridge and the Smaart capability make these very usable pieces and maybe the best for your needs. 


I will also say mixing with an iPad solves many problems - but in my opinion, nothing beats the feel of physical faders.  While the Presonus is workable with the iPad, my non-AI boards require the computer with firewire (which itself is another problem...).  The non-motorized faders are not horrible, and only come into play when using either the computer or iPad interface.  Again, not horrible, but can catch you out if not paying full attention.  Slows the workflow when changing from iPad to the SL surface. 


That said, for the small club where I work, I've recommended a Mackie 1608 - for the venue, I believe it is the right machine, not the Presonus.  Space and the various groups that would use it make it a natural there.


My next move is to sell off the Presonus 16.0.2 and my analogs and buy a A&H QU16 for most of my work, and keep the Presonus 24.4.2 for the few times I need the extra channels. 


The only thing I can say  about the Soundcraft is I've looked over the shoulder of someone mixing on one.  I liked what I saw as far as displays and workflow.  (Pretty lame, I know)  Sounded great.  I think Bob Leonard's statements might be a bit more useful than mine.   


No one answer, just like was already said.  I would agree the few that said that mixing via iPad and playing in the band may not be as workable as it seems. 


frank
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Steve Garris on August 08, 2014, 01:20:07 PM
I trust the iPad and I use it alot, I just wouldn't want to mix on it exclusively.  Would you? And while a WiFi connection can be pretty reliable most of the time, no connection is as reliable as fingers on the faders.  You and others seem to be forgetting the OP is a working musician and will be mixing from stage while playing.  He has NO need for an iPad.  Your day to day mixing experiences and requirements have very little relevance to his needs.  I know some of you guys love your X32's but you have to accept the fact that there are other choices that may work better for other users!

I have no illusions about the capability of the Presonus, that's why I bought a Soundcraft Expression, but the Presonus is still a good choice for many tasks.

I know of 8 bands in the Seattle area using the DL1608, and about half of them mix from stage. Having a wireless mixer that fits in your hand is invaluable to getting a good mix to begin with. The musician can take the iPad out in front of the mains and make adjustments before each show. Same with monitors - you can stand in front of the monitor and adjust EQ and other settings. I do not miss the days when I had to listen, then go somewhere else to make adjustments, then hope I got it right. With the DL1608 the board is in your hands where ever you are.
Additionally there are no connection issues unless you get very far away, and if you do lose connection you simply walk closer to your router and it quickly re-connects. For on-stage use there would not be any issues.

Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 08, 2014, 01:28:10 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!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Tom Roche on August 08, 2014, 04:00:56 PM
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.

You only need a router if you want to mix remotely; otherwise, leave the iPad docked to the board.  To keep costs down, one can buy a used iPad for ~ $200.  The biggest complaint I've read in the reviews for the 1608 is the low quality of the effects, but honestly haven't had a chance to mess around with them.  My biggest complaint is sometimes it's not easy to make fine adjustments on the touchscreen.

As much as I like the 1608, I'm excited about the TouchMix.  What's different about it is the built-in screen, while still providing iPad capability for remote operation.  You can use the touchscreen to adjust controls or use the master wheel to physically adjust (includes fine adjustment control as well).  It also comes with the router and a protective bag for the mixer.  So, for about the same cost as the Mackie + iPad + router + bag, you get a lot more capability.  These are some of the main points for my decision to go with QSC.  I just wish the screen were bigger as my eyesight is degrading.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough 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?:-)
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Tom Roche 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt 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 ;)
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Larry Sheehan 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Tom Roche 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).   
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Holtzman 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!
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Olewiler 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Bob Leonard 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt 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.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Richard Turner on August 09, 2014, 05:10:16 PM
Heres my suggestion

Seeing as the QSC/Soundcraft/A&H are basically similar in size, feature set and price point why not do something completely silly and base the decision on actual local dealer network and support. If you are a JBL or QSC guy why not go system complete

If you are looking to cut costs the presonus AI might be an option but I think the ship has sailed on that one, lack of motorized faders and a now clunky menu layout would lilkely leave it where it should have stayed in the first place. At home in the home recording studio.

As for the DL1608, if you are comfortable with an Ipad only solution it might be an option but in reality you will likely end up being a 2 Ipad solution if you go that route. I looked at it but just didnt trust it to be a 5 year lifespan piece.

As for the X32, if your clients are receptive to it its the best bang for the buck but if at every mention of it you have to explain its not really behringer, they are just selling it its just not worth the savings. Honestly I wish they had of just came out with it as an entirely new brand, eg; Superdigitalmixer co. subsidary of Midas distributed by Behringer dealer network.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 09, 2014, 05:56:14 PM
Heres my suggestion

Seeing as the QSC/Soundcraft/A&H are basically similar in size, feature set and price point why not do something completely silly and base the decision on actual local dealer network and support. If you are a JBL or QSC guy why not go system complete

If you are looking to cut costs the presonus AI might be an option but I think the ship has sailed on that one, lack of motorized faders and a now clunky menu layout would lilkely leave it where it should have stayed in the first place. At home in the home recording studio.

As for the DL1608, if you are comfortable with an Ipad only solution it might be an option but in reality you will likely end up being a 2 Ipad solution if you go that route. I looked at it but just didnt trust it to be a 5 year lifespan piece.

As for the X32, if your clients are receptive to it its the best bang for the buck but if at every mention of it you have to explain its not really behringer, they are just selling it its just not worth the savings. Honestly I wish they had of just came out with it as an entirely new brand, eg; Superdigitalmixer co. subsidary of Midas distributed by Behringer dealer network.

Very good point.

I bring a laptop with an ethernet cable so that in the event that my iPad dies/gets stolen, or the wireless network is bad for some reason, then I have a ready backup.

I use a 5Ghz router to avoid the masses on 2.4Ghz and have never had an issue with either my iPad or wireless ..... although I still bring the laptop ;)
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Tim Padrick on August 10, 2014, 01:47:31 AM
I'd put the SL at the bottom of the list.  Yes, it's a good mixer.  But every time I use one I like it less.

The X32 series is the most complicated - until you have it set up.  Then it's easy to use.  A friend was recently quoted $2250 + shipping for the full size - hard to pass up.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Steve Garris on August 10, 2014, 06:48:29 PM


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.

Why should the OP care? He's just mixing his band. I just use my iPad to take a picture of the input gains. That gets me close enough, and I find there are many other variables that change the input levels needed.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 10, 2014, 07:51:06 PM
Why should the OP care? He's just mixing his band. I just use my iPad to take a picture of the input gains. That gets me close enough, and I find there are many other variables that change the input levels needed.
It is a good feature.  All big boy digitals have it, and many of the MI level digitals have it.  I applaud you on your ability to maneuver around the need for the feature, but personally, I would dearly miss the ability to control gains remotely if I didn't have it (or to recall scenes that include the gains).

Let me phrase it another way.  Why wouldn't the OP want the feature?
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 10, 2014, 08:03:48 PM
It is a good feature.  All big boy digitals have it, and many of the MI level digitals have it.  I applaud you on your ability to maneuver around the need for the feature, but personally, I would dearly miss the ability to control gains remotely if I didn't have it (or to recall scenes that include the gains).

Let me phrase it another way.  Why wouldn't the OP want the feature?

Because he doesn't need it...
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: dave briar on August 10, 2014, 08:38:09 PM
It is a good feature.  All big boy digitals have it, and many of the MI level digitals have it.  I applaud you on your ability to maneuver around the need for the feature, but personally, I would dearly miss the ability to control gains remotely if I didn't have it (or to recall scenes that include the gains).

Let me phrase it another way.  Why wouldn't the OP want the feature?
Agreed. I've come to really take it for granted on my X32 Compact and have no desire to do without. Now does one "need it"?  Definitely not. But given the state of the art in MI level consoles why go without?
  ...dave
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Bob Leonard on August 10, 2014, 11:48:19 PM
MI is a very outdated and non descriptive phrase once used to denote hardware only sold in a music store and usually not available through sources catering to professionals. Try using low cost, cheap, entry level, or other phrases that correctly describe the hardware being discussed. In this case that might be entry level, or low cost digital.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Darrell McCullough on August 11, 2014, 05:16:08 PM
I would just like to thank you all again for the input. As of now, after more reading specific to these mixers, the QU-16 is in the lead. I can source it locally, service it locally, and seems to have the right feature set.

I've got an email off to my Sweetwater sales guy, though... just in case. :-)
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: David Simpson on August 11, 2014, 05:54:06 PM
the QU-16 is in the lead. I can source it locally, service it locally.

That is a very important part of the equation as well.

I own a Qu-16 and love it more every time I use it. I have had 3 others in the past year try mine who ended up buying one of their own.

~Dave
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 11, 2014, 09:10:15 PM
@Darrell,

The Qu is a very nice mixer.  I am sure you will be very happy with it.  Make sure to get yourself a Sandisk Ultra 32Gb USB stick for recording multi-track and multi-track virtual playback.  I think this is a very useful feature and is unique to the Qu series.


@Bob,
Quote
MI is a very outdated and non descriptive phrase once used to denote hardware only sold in a music store and usually not available through sources catering to professionals. Try using low cost, cheap, entry level, or other phrases that correctly describe the hardware being discussed. In this case that might be entry level, or low cost digital.
I agree Bob.  I am just not quite sure how to differentiate between "bottom feeder", "Ok for most bar bands", "Nearly pro gear", and "big boy" gear.

In stating MI grade, I was assuming that most music stores carry it.  For example, any of the digital consoles we have been talking about can be found at many music stores while only specialty stores would carry MIDAS or Studer (as an example).

I find it hard to use the word "entry level" or "low cost" in reference to something like the Expression Si ;)




Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 11, 2014, 09:22:25 PM
@Darrell,

The Qu is a very nice mixer.  I am sure you will be very happy with it.  Make sure to get yourself a Sandisk Ultra 32Gb USB stick for recording multi-track and multi-track virtual playback. 

Nope, sorry.

It's the Sandisk Extreme, not the Ultra. 
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 12, 2014, 10:23:39 PM
Nope, sorry.

It's the Sandisk Extreme, not the Ultra.

Thanks for the correction Dick.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Jerry Ziarko on August 19, 2014, 09:55:05 PM
The non motorized faders on the SL is no big deal. Hit the locate button and every change that has been made can be seen and easy re-synched. One downfall of the A&H is you can only use one I pad. We use a 32Ai and every member has either an Ipad or an I phone to control their monitor mix. Rotate the pad and the complete Fat channel opens up. Although as mentioned you can't control input gain from the pad, but you have control of gate, compressor/expander, 4 band eq etc etc. You also have complete control of 31 band eqs that you can assign to any output. I used a 24:4 for several years, so I know my way around the board where everything is no more than a button push away. The Ai took all that, and made it better. Once you put in the names on a channel, they stay until you no longer want them. The 32 has 4 assignable mute groups as well as a master mute. I could go on, but you see where I'm coming from. I really like this board a lot. We did do a side by side with the A&H. I love the A&H pres, always have, but not being able to control monitors from each position made this one a nonstarter. Of course you can by A&H's personal monitor system, but that includes another $500 per station as well as more cabling and A/C needs.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Bolt on August 20, 2014, 07:25:34 PM
Jerry,

Good point. I didn't realize that the Qu could only handle a single remote at this time.

If multiple wireless remotes are on your "must have" list, then I agree that the SL would be a better fit than the Qu..... but not better than the X32.  I am not sure about the Expression Si. 

Does anyone know if the Expression can handle multiple remote apps?

I am aware of the locator function on the SL and have used it.  It is a PITA compared to having motorized faders IMHO. 
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: dave briar on August 20, 2014, 09:02:10 PM
Jerry,
  --snip--
I am aware of the locator function on the SL and have used it.  It is a PITA compared to having motorized faders IMHO.
+10.   I've transitioned from a SL to the X32.  No question as to my preference of fader behavior.

   ..dave
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Scott Holtzman on August 20, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
+10.   I've transitioned from a SL to the X32.  No question as to my preference of fader behavior.

   ..dave

The bottom line is the SL sonically superior to a point that you are willing to give up flying faders?

For me personally, the answer is no.  That's why I stand behind an X32

This is a personal decision.  Opinions are useful but to a point you have to just decide which one makes your heart race without making your assh** pucker when you write the check.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 20, 2014, 09:19:52 PM
Motorized faders are pretty much necessary for sends on faders, operating layers and scene recall.  If you use none of these, then it doesn't make any difference.

When I was using a StudioLive, I didn't use scenes and the board itself has no layers nor SOF...so the point is pretty much moot.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: dave briar on August 20, 2014, 09:22:51 PM
--snip--
When I was using a StudioLive, I didn't use scenes and the board itself has no layers nor SOF...so the point is pretty much moot.
Precisely -- until you walk the room with an iPad and then return.

  ..dave
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on August 20, 2014, 09:27:43 PM
Precisely -- until you walk the room with an iPad and then return.

  ..dave

Sorry, forgot about that as I didn't use or need that function either.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: Chuck Simon on August 21, 2014, 02:03:14 AM
Sorry, forgot about that as I didn't use or need that function either.

Some people here just don't get the fact that not everyone needs or wants the same functions that they do.  That's why this type of thread always ends up with people pushing the choice that they made, the one that they bought, instead of what may be the best choice for the individual user.
Title: Re: A&H QU-16 vs QSC TouchMix 16
Post by: dave briar on August 21, 2014, 08:21:18 AM
Some people here just don't get the fact that not everyone needs or wants the same functions that they do.  That's why this type of thread always ends up with people pushing the choice that they made, the one that they bought, instead of what may be the best choice for the individual user.
Fair point Chuck -- duly noted. I'll admit I rarely go back and review a multi-page thread to assess the OP's perspective before posting. That said, I do learn a lot when others take my posts on tangents I hadn't previously considered (or can afford <wink>!)

  ..dave