ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: your characterizations of Si PERFORMER 3 and QU-32 mixes - ie, *AUDIO ONLY*  (Read 18404 times)

Carl Wetter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Durham, NC

Not quite the same, but I own an A&H QU16 and a Soundcraft Si Impact. For my tastes, I like the sound of the Soundcraft better. The QU16 is not bad by any stretch, though and I think it is quite a bit easier to use.

I should say that the inability of the QU series to re-assign outputs was a disappointment for me. I didn't do my homework on it and thought I was getting 10 assignable outputs instead of 4 mono and 2 stereo (outside of the main L/R). Just saying it may be a concern with the QU32 as well.
Logged

Brian McMahan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99

Isn't it more of features and work flow - than sound? Ease of use? I'm sure they both sound great-

I wouldn't question any of this, Dustin.  Depending on the operator, particular feature sets are likely to be seen as crucial to obtaining good results.  I also assume that the consensus here will be that either board allows for an acceptable mix (all other variables being equal, and in capable hands).
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 01:17:04 am by Brian McMahan »
Logged

Brian McMahan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99

I'm getting ready to make the switch to digital myself - a daunting task trying to decide between the options

Yessir.  I'm in the same boat.  Trying to make it less daunting.  :)


Brian

sent via iOS + Tapatalk
Logged

Bill McIntosh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
  • Louisville KY

I have a SI Performer 1, really like it.
Sounds good and comes with a nice 32 channel stagerack that doesn't cost a fortune.
Pm sent to Brian.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

Logged
Opinions are like belly buttons.  Everybody has one, but not all are suitable for public display.

Ken Braziel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146

A requirement for me is the ability to dot inputs to create true monitor mixes. Can the Soundcraft do this?

Can you explain what this means? I've never heard this terminology.
Logged

Dustin Campbell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146

From what I reading - leaning toward soundcraft- now which one - impact or expression just not sure -


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Banning CA,

Brian McMahan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99

Pm sent to Brian.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

Thanks Bill!  I was wondering... ;)


Brian

sent via iOS + Tapatalk
Logged

Brian McMahan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99

Can you explain what this means? I've never heard this terminology.

Same goes for me.  (Google no comprende "dotting inputs".)


Brian

sent via iOS + Tapatalk
Logged

Roland Clarke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 818

I've used the qu16, but understand it's the same thing with less channels.  That was only one occasion and I've used the Soundcraft performer a few times.  All digital desks these days are pretty good for sound quality and I would usually suggest that the one with the workflow that is better for you should be your choice, however, the Soundcraft was the easier desk to use and sounded good.  Personally I wouldn't buy the qu if it was for me to use.  The Soundcraft is a great little desk and in my view the best in it's class.  Not sure if this helps or not, but it's my honest opinion and I've seen quite a few others that share this view.
Logged

Stephen Kirby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3006

I think John is referring to the ability to take one input and assign it to parallel channels so that he can process FOH and monitors separately.  e.g. heavy compression on a vocal channel for FOH but not in the monitor.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.038 seconds with 24 queries.