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: Chris Jensen on April 21, 2014, 09:20:24 PM
-
I am putting together a small mobile FOH rack that will be used around my facility. The facility is a university student union with many different rooms and events on the fly. I have chosen the Qu-16 as I am getting a GLD for a larger system and another room that I am leaning to get a QU-24, and the fact that it will mount in a 19" rack. All consoles will pair with all main systems and their installed Dsnakes this way. Either QU can act as a monitor console for the main large system if needed. I have the ability to get the Dsnake for it but not sure if it makes any sense as the snake will live in the mixer rack. I had planed to put a patch panel at the bottom of the rack for easy hookups that will essentially mirror the back of the console.
Is there any advantage to the AR snake units other than the lack of a copper snake for a single data cable? Being as they will be in the same rack I don't think an I/O panel and rack wire will approach the cost of an AR24. Is there any added ability the Dsnake offers or options it opens up on the console other than I/O? It is nice to think that I wouldn't have to solder and assemble the I/O panel, just a few rack screws and a CATX cable...
Cost is not my main concern, it's more about functionality.
-
I am putting together a small mobile FOH rack that will be used around my facility. The facility is a university student union with many different rooms and events on the fly. I have chosen the Qu-16 as I am getting a GLD for a larger system and another room that I am leaning to get a QU-24, and the fact that it will mount in a 19" rack. All consoles will pair with all main systems and their installed Dsnakes this way. Either QU can act as a monitor console for the main large system if needed. I have the ability to get the Dsnake for it but not sure if it makes any sense as the snake will live in the mixer rack. I had planed to put a patch panel at the bottom of the rack for easy hookups that will essentially mirror the back of the console.
Is there any advantage to the AR snake units other than the lack of a copper snake for a single data cable? Being as they will be in the same rack I don't think an I/O panel and rack wire will approach the cost of an AR24. Is there any added ability the Dsnake offers or options it opens up on the console other than I/O? It is nice to think that I wouldn't have to solder and assemble the I/O panel, just a few rack screws and a CATX cable...
Cost is not my main concern, it's more about functionality.
For a QU16, I think it makes no sense to spend $2k+ for a 24ch remote box to mount in the same rack and only be able to use 16ch of it. Make a patch panel (or buy one).
If you have money to burn, buy something useful (or buy me a AR84). Sheesh.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
For a QU16, I think it makes no sense to spend $2k+ for a 24ch remote box to mount in the same rack and only be able to use 16ch of it.
It does add 48V and mic input capability on the 3 stereo channels. Good for stereo pairs of mics or active DI's. I guess it's up to the end user whether that's worth it or not. I think it would add unnecessary complication by adding the 3rd input option for each channel. It may confuse people if some channels are sourced from the AR2412 and some from the local inputs and some from USB.
-
For a QU16, I think it makes no sense to spend $2k+ for a 24ch remote box to mount in the same rack and only be able to use 16ch of it. Make a patch panel (or buy one).
If you have money to burn, buy something useful (or buy me a AR84). Sheesh.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Rob, it's not that I have money to burn, it's that I want to get as many features out of the system up front as possible. I mentioned the AR24 because it would seem a single AR2412 is cheaper than 2 AR84. Also with my compliment of A&H GLD compatible consoles it seemed it could be a real quick way to make a multi track recording through another console or monitor split without breaking out the big system.
Makes sense Corey. The idea is that board inputs will not be interfaced with by users. This will be a custom rack that is built to house the mixer. For cleanliness the case will essentially hide the back of the surface to eliminate seeing most of the cables. The patch panel at the bottom will be for people to use.
This more or less answers the question that the AR units add no functionality other than being a replacement for a snake and an extension for the inputs.
Thanks guys!
Chris
-
Rob, it's not that I have money to burn, it's that I want to get as many features out of the system up front as possible. I mentioned the AR24 because it would seem a single AR2412 is cheaper than 2 AR84. Also with my compliment of A&H GLD compatible consoles it seemed it could be a real quick way to make a multi track recording through another console or monitor split without breaking out the big system.
Makes sense Corey. The idea is that board inputs will not be interfaced with by users. This will be a custom rack that is built to house the mixer. For cleanliness the case will essentially hide the back of the surface to eliminate seeing most of the cables. The patch panel at the bottom will be for people to use.
This more or less answers the question that the AR units add no functionality other than being a replacement for a snake and an extension for the inputs.
Thanks guys!
Chris
I had not heard that there was a way to use two AR84s with a QU16. Is there?
If not, then the cost isn't important.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I had not heard that there was a way to use two AR84s with a QU16. Is there?
If not, then the cost isn't important.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You're right Rob, I didn't even think about the fact that the AR84 doesn't have an expansion like the AR2412.
-
It does add 48V and mic input capability on the 3 stereo channels. Good for stereo pairs of mics or active DI's. I guess it's up to the end user whether that's worth it or not. I think it would add unnecessary complication by adding the 3rd input option for each channel. It may confuse people if some channels are sourced from the AR2412 and some from the local inputs and some from USB.
I wish there a way to get phantom power on the stereo inputs of the Qu-24.
-
I wish there a way to get phantom power on the stereo inputs of the Qu-24.
You could always use an inline 48V power supply.
-
You could always use an inline 48V power supply.
I am. Just looking for simplicity.
-
If you get a stage rack then you can use the "monitor" output to feed a digital split to a monitor console.
-
If you get a stage rack then you can use the "monitor" output to feed a digital split to a monitor console.
Really? How do you get around the wordclock issue? There was a thread about this in the A&H forum I believe.
Edited to add link: http://community.allen-heath.com/forums/topic/monitor-output-ar2412
-
Really? How do you get around the wordclock issue? There was a thread about this in the A&H forum I believe.
Edited to add link: http://community.allen-heath.com/forums/topic/monitor-output-ar2412
Interesting. We were just interested in if it would work or not so we go plugged the monitor console (Qu16) in to the mon out and set the inputs to dsnake. Played some cd track through it and worked fine, there were no funky noises or anything like that which I was expecting.
We didn't play around with it for the full gig, but there was nothing that happened that would suggest you couldn't do a split this way
To be honest I was surprised when it was working fine!