Print

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

[boburtz]

The direct upgrade/replacement from Yamaha for the LS9-32 would be the QL5, which is a very nice mixer though not as cheap as the options mostly being presented.

If I were looking for something to directly replace the LS9 in terms of functionality, sound quality, and feature set, I would go for the SQ7 in that price range (QL5 is a WAY better product than the LS9, and the price reflects this). The SQ7 is a step up from the LS9 in just about every respect. Sure, everyone knows how to use the Midanger / Behr-as, but a new board without a touch screen in this age is a backward move imho. Even the checkout stand at the grocery store has a touch screen.

[Luke Geis]

I would caveat the Yamaha QL as being more a corporate-oriented mixer. It sounds good and has many top end features, but it is slightly slower to navigate with. I would not be at home with it doing live bands. For talking heads, it is the bee's knees though.

For dual purpose work, the Midas M32 is very hard to beat. It has great performance and features and a great price.

I think the newer SQ line from A&H would probably spec out better than the Midas M32, but it is only just starting to pick up traction. I have not used one yet and I am not a fan of the QU, which is probably why I am not so turned on by the marketing for the SQ line. I almost got the GLD a while back and am sort of glad I held off. It didn't get as popular as the hype seemed to suggest it would. I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.

[Mal Brown]

Not universally loved here I get but to my ear the Soundcraft SI boards just sound musical in a way that many of the others out there do not.  The workflow on the SC boards is also very ‘analog’ feeling.

The app is in my mind substandard.  The rest of the package makes up for it.

My .02, hopefully worth more ;-)

[Matthew Knischewsky]

I would caveat the Yamaha QL as being more a corporate-oriented mixer. It sounds good and has many top end features, but it is slightly slower to navigate with. I would not be at home with it doing live bands. For talking heads, it is the bee's knees though.

For dual purpose work, the Midas M32 is very hard to beat. It has great performance and features and a great price.

I think the newer SQ line from A&H would probably spec out better than the Midas M32, but it is only just starting to pick up traction. I have not used one yet and I am not a fan of the QU, which is probably why I am not so turned on by the marketing for the SQ line. I almost got the GLD a while back and am sort of glad I held off. It didn't get as popular as the hype seemed to suggest it would. I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.

I'm not sure why you would consider a QL to be oriented toward corporate work. A QL5 is a huge upgrade from an LS9-32 and is instantly familiar if you're used to the workflow. QL5 has easily double the "rack" processing over the LS9 and even does some things the CL5 doesn't do. It's easily my preferred console for all of the gigs I previously used an LS9 or even M7 for.

I've never liked the X32/M32 form factor compared to LS9-32. I don't care for flipping fader banks when mixing a band. There's some workflow and ergonomic issues that drive me nuts (Knobs on surface not in the same sequence as on the display).

[Jeff Lelko]

I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.

It's like night and day between the two levels.  I was less than impressed with the Qu Series as well.  After demoing an SQ, it seemed to me that the SQ Series is really what the Qu Series should have been to begin with.  Having somewhat recently been in the market myself, the choices were really either get an M32 for its widespread acceptability, get an SQ for a similar price but added features/flexibility, or go with a higher-level board all together such as a dLive or similar-level offering from another manufacturer. 

[Rob Spence]

I would caveat the Yamaha QL as being more a corporate-oriented mixer. It sounds good and has many top end features, but it is slightly slower to navigate with. I would not be at home with it doing live bands. For talking heads, it is the bee's knees though.

For dual purpose work, the Midas M32 is very hard to beat. It has great performance and features and a great price.

I think the newer SQ line from A&H would probably spec out better than the Midas M32, but it is only just starting to pick up traction. I have not used one yet and I am not a fan of the QU, which is probably why I am not so turned on by the marketing for the SQ line. I almost got the GLD a while back and am sort of glad I held off. It didn't get as popular as the hype seemed to suggest it would. I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.

The M32 is actually also getting long in the tooth too these days. Depending on who uses the mixer, popularity may not play into it.

I understand the “corporate “ label on Yamaha desks. You just don’t see them in mid level band mixing. That said, the QL series are really nice, just pricey.

If the users of the LS9 are used to 32 faders, then a desk with fewer might mess up workflow.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Stephen Kirby]

The Yamaha boards have their own unique workflow/OS.  If you know it great, visiting BEs unfamiliar with it will have trouble.  A local venue with a nice Meyer system had a QL and replaced it with an M32 so more folks could jump on and use it.

I'm kind of partial to the Soundcraft due to the more obvious control surface and less button pushes for things like EQ.  And more flexible than the Qu boards.  Although the SQ looks very nice.

[Jain John]

1 more vote for soundcraft si series for easy to use and sound quality..

[Tim McCulloch]

I want to love the Si mixers.  They sound good, the expansion capability is there.  FX by dbx and Lexicon.  A client has one and I'd rather mix on it than the other choices in their venue but it's still kind of frustrating to think I'm navigating to a setting or preference only to find myself at a dead end.  It's one of those "I know I can do this, but how" things.

And the screen in tiny.  Sorry but at my age more screen area is usually a good thing.

[Brian Jojade]

Sure, everyone knows how to use the Midanger / Behr-as, but a new board without a touch screen in this age is a backward move imho. Even the checkout stand at the grocery store has a touch screen.

A touch screen isn't necessarily a positive thing.  With a little practice, muscle memory can get you around when you have physical buttons to press.  With a touch screen, you've got to focus your eyes on the screen the entire time you're operating it.  I like the fact that the X32 does NOT have a touch screen to get finger printed up.

If you do want touch screen control, the iPad app on the X32/M32 really is tough to beat.  While not perfect, it's one of the best designed, IMO.  Very straightforward operation and easy to get where you need to be without any sliding screens or fancy gestures needed.

[ProSoundWeb Community]