Print

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

[Jon Dees]

This I don’t understand?! If anything I’ve heard users complain about it being too flexible so it’s hard to grasp...

My primary point of emphasis here is that for live work the blocks of 8 thing will feel limiting vs. the individual channel decision flexibility on an LS9. With only 32 channels you basically have 4 sockets to populate so 1 at FOH and 3 on stage, each exactly 8 channels...if you want 4 wireless, 4 dante and a 20 channel band on stage you have overtaxed your X32. It is just weird to consider coming from an LS9 with 64 DSP channels and individual configurability.

I use a QL5 at FOH attached to 3 Tio boxes and DVS for virtual soundcheck and multi tracking while the X32 lives in broadcast world where it only receives things, doesn’t act as a source for anything.

If the OP wants exotic he could buy 2 X32 things and cascade them but that would get fussy pretty quick. Lot cheaper than a QL5 though.

[Robert Lofgren]

This is the reason why aux-remap exists; To reduce/eliminate the blocks-of-8 restriction. Your setup example is possible and would even give me e.g. 6 wireless, 8 dante and 24ch from stage. You’d also get the additional usb-recorder/playback, should you need it.

Also, keep in mind that the x32 is a 38ch mixer (actually 40ch, but I personally don’t count the onboard usb-recorder/playback)and not limited to 32ch. Granted, that is way less than 64ch but if you need that many channels then the x32 is obviously out of the question and you need to spend quite a bit of money to get a system of 64ch or more.

My primary point of emphasis here is that for live work the blocks of 8 thing will feel limiting vs. the individual channel decision flexibility on an LS9. With only 32 channels you basically have 4 sockets to populate so 1 at FOH and 3 on stage, each exactly 8 channels...if you want 4 wireless, 4 dante and a 20 channel band on stage you have overtaxed your X32. It is just weird to consider coming from an LS9 with 64 DSP channels and individual configurability.

[Michael Kofei]

A fixed architecture mixer to the best of my knowledge are ones like the A&H QU and the Presonus Studiolive. These are mixers that you cannot change the digital patch of the inputs and or the outputs. The FX and auxiliary sends are also fixed.

Not true. I used to own a QU mixer and you could have changed everything once you had a stage box connected - input patch (including digital splits), output patch, effect sends and returns, etc.

Add the benefit of a custom layer, and you'd have had a very, VERY customisable mixer.

[Robert Lofgren]

Doesn’t the ql only have 8 stereo/dual-mono racks, just like the x32? I haven’t seen any provision for external inserts on the ql. I also feel that the inserts on the x32 are quite flexible, but perhaps you mean that it can only be placed on two insert points in the signal path?

Groups-of-8 are usually easily handled by the aux remap so it should be no real problem for most scenarios. Routing is very flexible, especially if you use the p16 bus for extended routing. Port routing is also available outside of the normal routing.

When it comes to the sends many people tend to miss that the sends config is per channel and not per mixbus. This gives you a great deal of flexibility. I don’t remember a single time where the pre/post in pairs ever given me any problems.

While you always want more mixbuses 16 of then ought to cover most scenarios for a 32/38ch mixer.

QL5 has 2-3x more processing racks than M32, 2x the channel count, 2x more automix channels, way more flexible routing and IO (no groups of 8, no pre/post in pairs, inputs can be sent to matrixes, true flexible inserts, auto-mixing freely patchable). This isn’t to complain about the M32, it cost half as much and does way less, which makes sense.

Unrelated - Luke, check out programming the home button to a UDK. Can’t imagine using a QL/CL without it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Samuel Rees]

Doesn’t the ql only have 8 stereo/dual-mono racks, just like the x32? I haven’t seen any provision for external inserts on the ql. I also feel that the inserts on the x32 are quite flexible, but perhaps you mean that it can only be placed on two insert points in the signal path?

Groups-of-8 are usually easily handled by the aux remap so it should be no real problem for most scenarios. Routing is very flexible, especially if you use the p16 bus for extended routing. Port routing is also available outside of the normal routing.

When it comes to the sends many people tend to miss that the sends config is per channel and not per mixbus. This gives you a great deal of flexibility. I don’t remember a single time where the pre/post in pairs ever given me any problems.

While you always want more mixbuses 16 of then ought to cover most scenarios for a 32/38ch mixer.

QL has 16x stereo/dual-mono racks, plus 8x stereo/dual-mono ‘premium’ racks for their hardware emulations and etc.

I don’t see how the aux in remap makes up for the ‘buckets of 8 problem’ except in a narrow circumstance. It’s still a huge restriction on how you route normal input/output channels in situation with stage boxes and mixed IO at FOH and on stage. This has been an issue for me, in my context, many times.

I’m aware it’s per channel, but pre/post in groups of two has been annoying to me a couple times. Not a huge deal, but it’s an objectively inflexible parameter.

Inserts on the QL are individually routable at any IO - local, card, or Dante, and can be placed at several insert points on the channel. This is substantially more flexible than the X32/M32 and is a real difference when running a waves server.

16 bus + 8 matrix is a reasonable number of busses, and both consoles have the same basic configuration on that. However, being able to route inputs to matrices is a huge added flexibility I use very often, especially in the corporate context. As a monitor desk where all-post works, you get true 24 busses which I have used and is valuable in my context.

I sense I may be provoking some X32/M32 defense here, but I don’t think it’s necessary! I think they’re reasonable consoles with pretty good features for a very competitive price. I understand many people won’t value these features, but some will and they’re worth mentioning. I do work all the time on a QL that couldn’t be done at the same level, or at all, on an X32.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mal Brown]

New SI Impact landing today.  Looking forward to an updated app either from SC or Dev-Core.   Honestly, SC should save their development assets and just hire The Dev-Core guy, show him the UI 24r and and say ‘get to work’.

As a long time software guy, it is almost always cheaper to hire expertise than build it and the ‘not invented here’ syndrome can be a costly one...

[Luke Geis]

I will say that while we are comparing two mixers that essentially stand in the same class, they are far from an apples to apples comparison. The QL 5 is $12,000 on the low-end in cost. The M32 with a stage box can be had for around $4,500 or so. The M32 costs 1/3rd what the QL does as a full system. If you want a stage box with the QL, add another $7,000!!! So yeah, I have no qualms with the fact that there are a couple limitations on the much less expensive systems that still kicks butt.

Keep in mind that for probably 95% of the work we do, the block of 8 limitations isn't likely to seriously affect us. There is also the fact that you can still route the XLR's on the back of the mixer to do something. Now if you are filling all 16 outputs on the stage box and you need to feed a delay send from FOH, you can do it, it will just be in a less than the conventional way.

We tout the QL as having 64 channels, but when was the last time you ran all 64 channels? You can copy a whole layer down, but not many of us ever actually ran two RIO racks and filled every possible hole the QL/CL has. I used to run my LS932 with the layers copied down so I could do double duty with it for FOH and Monitors. I sold the LS9 in favor of the M32. I have not been disappointed. The M32 is not fixed format to the degree where it hinders or changes the way I need to profile 95% of the events I do. It can be worked around.

Now I am not a big fish in the pond, so my needs are relatively lax compared to a larger production house that is doing an arena filled with front fills, out fills, delays, record feeds et all and needs a fully customizable mixer format that allows multiple show flow formats to be done from a single mixer. Most of us are not that, however. I work for those types of companies and even still, it is rather rare that I have to get super crazy with my bussing.

[boburtz]

I will say that while we are comparing two mixers that essentially stand in the same class, they are far from an apples to apples comparison. The QL 5 is $12,000 on the low-end in cost. The M32 with a stage box can be had for around $4,500 or so. The M32 costs 1/3rd what the QL does as a full system. If you want a stage box with the QL, add another $7,000!!!

I have to agree with Luke on the pricing comparison, although I disagree with his assessment that the QL is pigeon-holed into a corporate class mixer. We use the QL5 for multi-band stages running monitors from foh all the time, and I don't find it lacking much of anything for that purpose in terms of tactile user interface. I find the touch screen to be a marvelous convenience which adds to the expedience of control. That being said, the OP is asking about replacing an LS9 with a modern equivalent. There is no mention of price, but presumably we are talking about LS9 type pricing (~$7-8k). If price is no concern, the easy answer is QL5. It's Yamaha's own answer to this very question, and imho the best console in this discussion. If price IS a concern, QL5 probably doesn't belong in this discussion, because it is in a different price bracket, marketed to a different production level. I think, at current pricing,  the Allen & Heath (SQ) is the best option right now for its flexibility, feature set, sound quality, and support system.  The Behringer/Midas is a good product for the price, and if you can work within its (few) limitations, it's a great value. If you want to step up a little bit in functionality, get the Allen & Heath. If you can justify the cost, get the Yamaha. If your replacement is chosen with reason, I don't think you'll be disappointed with any of these.

[boburtz]

As a monitor desk where all-post works, you get true 24 busses which I have used and is valuable in my context.

No sure what you meant by this, but on the QL each matrix send from input channels can be pre or post fade, selectable per input channel, just like the auxes. It truly is a flexible 24 aux board.

[Samuel Rees]

We tout the QL as having 64 channels, but when was the last time you ran all 64 channels?

I don’t know about *all* 64, but I use 32+ all the time. I did a festival the other day which was ~48 channels or so plus some utility stuff on a QL5 (and a CL5). I’ve done countless shows using the 33-64 layer as a double patched monitor layer on QL5s and LS9s. Even smaller channel count shows, having the flexibility to have everything double patched in advance without any planning is excellent. This was part of what made the LS9 great, IMHO.

For me, the features on the QL are worth the purchase price. I recognize for many people like yourself, they are not. Luckily there is a broad market of consoles available for people with different needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ProSoundWeb Community]