ProSoundWeb Community
Church and H.O.W. – Forums for HOW Sound and AV - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Church and HOW Forums => Church Sound => Topic started by: Fred Dorado on February 19, 2019, 06:57:51 PM
-
Posting for some thoughts as I am having trouble pulling the trigger.
There are a few things going on and I will try and summarize. We are a smaller church around 130 avg attendance. I have been here a little over a year and we are seeing some growth. Our building seats 102, so we have 2 services. Last year we made them identical so no transition.
We are about to start small remodel project that will take several months. We are moving our main bathrooms and creating a new entrance.
While we do that we will be holding Sunday services at the local school, and going to one service (seats about 350-400 for service). Bringing both services together at least for a while. We are also folding the cost of going to the school in the remodel budget.
Because of the size of our building and the desire to be more accessible and in our community we feel called to do Sundays at the school and the bonus of the remodel is we get a trial run. Apparently the bathrooms have needed to be done for 10-15 years. So besides already experiencing a little growth, there will be excitement about getting that done.
We are praying that the school experience (We did it at Easter and it was great) will lead us to want to stay there on Sunday mornings.
Band is Keys, Electric, Acoustic, Drums, Violin, 3-5 vocals. Hoping to add a bass soon. So pretty simple. The reason for the snake is ease of setup. Put that in a rack in middle of band, plug directly in and use SQ5 at FOH connected to computer, some wireless.
Now, to my issue.
I looked at a ton of stuff and decided on a Allen and Heath SQ5 and AR2412 and rack mount headphone amp.
As I talked to our main sound guy/head Elder about options, one of the reasons we went with the SQ5/ar2412 was it was very portable, easy to setup and wouldn't really outgrow it and if we decided not to do portable services we could swap it for our GL2400 and outboard and free up a few seats in our current building.
My problem is the cost. By the time I get the mixer,snake, rack mounts and cases etc I'm in the 4500-5k mark. The A&H personal mixers are pricey so adding those down the road seems extra.
I start looking at the QU series and wonder if the expand ability and features of the SQ are worth it. Especially with some used options out there. Or the Behringer X32 compact which I think can expand more than we would need. I definitely trust A&H more and loved the GLD80 I had at my old church.
We are also adding a Spanish ministry in our building. Not sure that will make a difference, but processing.
that is just going through my head.
Hopefully there is enough info and someone can chime in with thoughts
-
So what is keeping you from using a board like the X32? Just the trust of A&H? At this level, the boards are all pretty reliable (except Soundcraft, forget that SI series.) The reason a lot of people go for the Behringer unit is for affordability and community support, which are terrific reasons to go in that direction. You can get an X32 with the stage snake and all the goodies for half of the bid of the A&H. It really comes down to workflow and how locked-down you want your boards to be. I used to hate Behringer but the more I got to see what that X32 can do, the more I became open to it.
What factors are most important for you and your team in this decision?
----
Samantha Potter
Audio & Production Engineering
-
So what is keeping you from using a board like the X32?
Please go to your profile and change the "Name" field to your real first and last name as required by the posting rules displayed in the header at the top of the section, and in the Site Rules and Suggestions (http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/board,36.0.html) in the Forum Announcements section, and on the registration page when you registered.
Mac
admin
-
priorities
Portability
Easy & fast Setup
Ease of use for volunteers
expand ability
I want to say sound quality, but I'm guessing for the mixer we wouldn't notice that much difference
I really liked on the GLD we had that we could pretty much patch anything anywhere, so setting it up for volunteers and service/worship team transitions was easy.
So what is keeping you from using a board like the X32? Just the trust of A&H? At this level, the boards are all pretty reliable (except Soundcraft, forget that SI series.) The reason a lot of people go for the Behringer unit is for affordability and community support, which are terrific reasons to go in that direction. You can get an X32 with the stage snake and all the goodies for half of the bid of the A&H. It really comes down to workflow and how locked-down you want your boards to be. I used to hate Behringer but the more I got to see what that X32 can do, the more I became open to it.
What factors are most important for you and your team in this decision?
----
Samantha Potter
Audio & Production Engineering
-
So, what is the budget for desk & stage box now that you have heard lots of comments.
You mention you liked using a GLD80. I have both GLDs & an SQ5. The SQ has pretty much all the same characteristics and lots of local I/O too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
For the price of the Allen Heath bid you could just about get anX32, and a stagebox and and x32rack ( Portable) and the ( X32 rack can be used as a stage box also. sounds like a easy decision to me
-
Yep, this is what I had been thinking would be a good idea. When 2 mixers can be connected.
For the price of the Allen Heath bid you could just about get anX32, and a stagebox and and x32rack ( Portable) and the ( X32 rack can be used as a stage box also. sounds like a easy decision to me
haven't had that many comments.
I have 4k sitting in the bank for sound equipment. plus can go a little extra if needed, but could always use other sound stuff too.
So, what is the budget for desk & stage box now that you have heard lots of comments.
You mention you liked using a GLD80. I have both GLDs & an SQ5. The SQ has pretty much all the same characteristics and lots of local I/O too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Don't forget you should also allow budget for UPS for all three and maybe a few decent Android or iPad tablets in case somebody breaks or walks off with one .
the X32 can be controlled through Android and iPhones also
-
I use an X32 several times a week and own a GLD-80.
Can you get a good mix on an X32? Absolutely! Does it have a lot of functionality? Yes! Is it cheap, obviously. For the price, it is a great board.
However, I would steer you towards the A&H stuff (SQ 5, used GLD80). While you probably will not notice a sound difference between the two here are some things I have noticed:
As far as pricing is concerned through a good dealer I was actually able to get my A&H stuff cheaper than Behringer... (for what prices were at the time, and considering stage boxes).
I find the patching on A&H to be much more convenient. the X32 has a bad habit of doing things by blocks of 8 or pairs of 2. Can this be worked around creatively? Usually yes, it still is a headache though. Blocks of 8 are how the stage racks work. With my GLD-80 I have ran 3 stage boxes at the same time (plys the very limited surface I/O), and I can pull inputs from anywhere. Routing to busses (pre/post fader) linking/ganging channels (or matrices and busses), and a large amount of other facets are in pairs on the X32.
Suffice to say that you cannot put things wherever you want either (layer layout) with the X32, and if you do not have a computer handy with software and need to change a scene on X32 it certainly is not drag and drop. Not a huge issue, but can make for a frustrating hour or two if you end up redoing your files at any point.
Gld80 can be locked down with a password while the X32 cannot.
I have NEVER heard a P16 sound good. Can you get a decent mix on them? Yes, however, they just do not sound great. I have taken the same Nord Piano 3 with the exact same Radial ProD2, running no channel EQ/Comp stereo to the ears and there is a massive difference in fidelity between P16's and Avioms (the old A16IIs!). It is night and day.
The p16's are the main reason I would steer clear of the Behringer infrastructure. To get to another type of ear system (going over Dante or something) you will end up spending more than the X32 cost new in conversions (card/distribution rack).
I am not sure about the SQ5, but with the GLD80 you can use Aviom A16II's which are very cheap used, although personally, I would say the A&H units have a lot more to offer, if at all possible avoid IEM mixers without Ethercon connectors.
Also fair warning the P16's tend to drop like flies. I have worked with three churches in the past few years that have P16's, at any given time almost half of them were broken! None of these churches use them heavily either. One place where I currently work has 5 working out of 10. I am not a repair guy, and I am getting a different system rather than bring them to repair center incessantly.
Even though the X32 is great for the price, I have much more confidence in the stage boxes and choices available for monitoring on the A&H side. Even if you are not buying monitors right now at some point you probably will be.
All said and done eventually you will probably be spending $5-8 with a console, stage racks, and an IEM system. Whatever system you choose make sure you are not $4k in the wrong direction when you are wanting to purchase the IEM system. buy once, cry once.
Also one more minor note on the sound is I really dislike the sound of the stock channel compressors on the X32 (the fx rack plugins sound much better), however with A&H you get some nice sounding options on every channel, no need to go using up your fx rack.
-
Thank you. This is perfect. These are the reasons I wanted to go with the SQ5 over the X32 or even the QU
I use an X32 several times a week and own a GLD-80.
Can you get a good mix on an X32? Absolutely! Does it have a lot of functionality? Yes! Is it cheap, obviously. For the price, it is a great board.
However, I would steer you towards the A&H stuff (SQ 5, used GLD80). While you probably will not notice a sound difference between the two here are some things I have noticed:
As far as pricing is concerned through a good dealer I was actually able to get my A&H stuff cheaper than Behringer... (for what prices were at the time, and considering stage boxes).
I find the patching on A&H to be much more convenient. the X32 has a bad habit of doing things by blocks of 8 or pairs of 2. Can this be worked around creatively? Usually yes, it still is a headache though. Blocks of 8 are how the stage racks work. With my GLD-80 I have ran 3 stage boxes at the same time (plys the very limited surface I/O), and I can pull inputs from anywhere. Routing to busses (pre/post fader) linking/ganging channels (or matrices and busses), and a large amount of other facets are in pairs on the X32.
Suffice to say that you cannot put things wherever you want either (layer layout) with the X32, and if you do not have a computer handy with software and need to change a scene on X32 it certainly is not drag and drop. Not a huge issue, but can make for a frustrating hour or two if you end up redoing your files at any point.
Gld80 can be locked down with a password while the X32 cannot.
I have NEVER heard a P16 sound good. Can you get a decent mix on them? Yes, however, they just do not sound great. I have taken the same Nord Piano 3 with the exact same Radial ProD2, running no channel EQ/Comp stereo to the ears and there is a massive difference in fidelity between P16's and Avioms (the old A16IIs!). It is night and day.
The p16's are the main reason I would steer clear of the Behringer infrastructure. To get to another type of ear system (going over Dante or something) you will end up spending more than the X32 cost new in conversions (card/distribution rack).
I am not sure about the SQ5, but with the GLD80 you can use Aviom A16II's which are very cheap used, although personally, I would say the A&H units have a lot more to offer, if at all possible avoid IEM mixers without Ethercon connectors.
Also fair warning the P16's tend to drop like flies. I have worked with three churches in the past few years that have P16's, at any given time almost half of them were broken! None of these churches use them heavily either. One place where I currently work has 5 working out of 10. I am not a repair guy, and I am getting a different system rather than bring them to repair center incessantly.
Even though the X32 is great for the price, I have much more confidence in the stage boxes and choices available for monitoring on the A&H side. Even if you are not buying monitors right now at some point you probably will be.
All said and done eventually you will probably be spending $5-8 with a console, stage racks, and an IEM system. Whatever system you choose make sure you are not $4k in the wrong direction when you are wanting to purchase the IEM system. buy once, cry once.
Also one more minor note on the sound is I really dislike the sound of the stock channel compressors on the X32 (the fx rack plugins sound much better), however with A&H you get some nice sounding options on every channel, no need to go using up your fx rack.
-
Portability
Easy & fast Setup
Ease of use for volunteers
expandability
Disclaimer:
I have to come clean and say that I do not like the A&H digital boards. I'm just getting around to tolerating them and that's only because of their custom layers on the iPad app. So, taste aside, I will try to lay out what I think are logical reasons to go the Behringer route:
Portability
The X32 compact gives you 95% of the bang of the full-size X32 at a lower price point. For your purposes, there's no reason you can't use the X32 compact. Right now, on Sweetwater, you can get the X32 compact touring package for $3400 list and it includes the console, a case, an S32 stagebox with a case, 150' shielded ethercon to connect to the stagebox, and a furman power conditioner. That's a lot of stuff. A touring package is made for portability. You could just pop the top off of the X32 compact, plug in the ethercon and set everything else up on stage. It even leaves you with $1500 extra to purchase odds and ends. Setting this up would be easy and fast, which brings up your next focus...
Easy and fast setup
Doesn't get much easier than running one cat6 cable from FOH to the stage and simply popping the top off of the tour case that the board sits in.
Ease of use for volunteers
X32 is likely the most community-supported board on the market. It's very easy to use and the iPad app is even easier. Everything is laid out for you, like on many boards. Another user mentioned a lot of IEM stuff, but I don't recall reading about that in your original post. Monitors are a breeze to run from this board and I highly recommend letting the sound human run monitors instead of letting the band do it themselves like on a personal-mixer style setup. There are countless videos, forums, articles, threads, posts, and journals about everything X32 related. Once you set up the backend -- which might be considered the only "weird" part -- it can be left and forgotten about. The only thing you can't do on this board that others can is locking up the board to give limited functionality to volunteers.
Expandability
There's room for two digital snakes plus the local I/O on the X32 compact. If you ever wanted to get the full-size X32 all your files would transfer over nicely, and all your equipment would work the same. No hassle. There is also built-in multitracking with the X32 series so if you wanted to start doing that, it's a fantastic option. Just plug in Logic or Pro Tools or some DAW of your choice, and the computer sees the X32 as a soundcard, voila.
I don't see many reasons to not invest in an X32 series. Affordability, expandability, and community support are my personal biggest factors and are often the biggest factors for churches. There's just so much you can do for such little cost. Other companies have yet to hit that same mark quite yet, in my humble opinion.
-
Only earlier post of the other name console I don't know if you realize it but there's I believe six different compressor options that are emulations us some very popular compressors so
-
Only earlier post of the other name console I don't know if you realize it but there's I believe six different compressor options that are emulations us some very popular compressors so
This is what I mean, I did not specify that there are 6 available in my post. To the point the stock sounds better than the X32 (IMO), and you have 5 other options on every channel (which do sound good and work differently), and you are able to do parallel compression on every channel, which I do not believe the X32 can do (unless there is an option I haven't found).
In the grand scheme this is minor, however in the same room, with the same speakers, and the same band I feel like my mixes on the GLD80 have been a little better. This is subjective and maybe no one else would notice? :P
-
priorities
Portability
Easy & fast Setup
Ease of use for volunteers
expand ability
I want to say sound quality, but I'm guessing for the mixer we wouldn't notice that much difference
I really liked on the GLD we had that we could pretty much patch anything anywhere, so setting it up for volunteers and service/worship team transitions was easy.
My experience is that it is easier to train a volunteer onto a SQ5 than X32. Allen Heath workflow is a much more logical transition from analog workflow. But it really depends on if your area is a X32 town or A&H town, if you know what I mean.
SQ5 is expandable to 48 channels and it fits in a 19” rack case.
SQ responds faster, both because it’s FPGA, and its faders move faster. These result in quicker operation during critical moments.
SQ sounds better than X32, if you have an opportunity to A-B the two.
SQ has lower failure rate.
As far as I am concerned, the only advantage of X32 over SQ is the graphical LCD scribble pad. SQ shows only words and color; X32 has graphics.
-
I really thought I was set to order the sq5 and move.
Here is where I am at.
looking at the SQ5, snake, mounts and cable I am looking at about 4k- that isn't a problem, but doesn't leave much for other stuff like case, cables
Looking at some refurbished X32's Compacts on ebay through Behringer. Come with warranty etc. If I can put in offers for $1,500-1,600 for the set, I am going to go that way. If I have to buy new, I will go with SQ5.
for $2,500 difference I feel like that is worth the loss of features and potential reliability issues. If it were 1,000-1,500 I would go SQ.
-
I really thought I was set to order the sq5 and move.
Here is where I am at.
looking at the SQ5, snake, mounts and cable I am looking at about 4k- that isn't a problem, but doesn't leave much for other stuff like case, cables
Looking at some refurbished X32's Compacts on ebay through Behringer. Come with warranty etc. If I can put in offers for $1,500-1,600 for the set, I am going to go that way. If I have to buy new, I will go with SQ5.
for $2,500 difference I feel like that is worth the loss of features and potential reliability issues. If it were 1,000-1,500 I would go SQ.
If you haven't yet ask mike Pyle (he is on the forum) for a quote on the SQ5. His services are stellar and his pricing has always been great. He may be able to get you better pricing.
-
Mike is great, I have bought from him before and his service and pricing are awesome. He is who I got my quote from.
so, I ended up buying the X32 compact from MusicGroup on Ebay. I got a good deal and if I don't like it I will return it or probably sell it, but I think will work for us. Ended up being less than half of what A&H stuff would have been and I thought that was worth the risk,
If you haven't yet ask mike Pyle (he is on the forum) for a quote on the SQ5. His services are stellar and his pricing has always been great. He may be able to get you better pricing.
-
Mike is great, I have bought from him before and his service and pricing are awesome. He is who I got my quote from.
so, I ended up buying the X32 compact from MusicGroup on Ebay. I got a good deal and if I don't like it I will return it or probably sell it, but I think will work for us. Ended up being less than half of what A&H stuff would have been and I thought that was worth the risk,
Yes, that was a huge point I was making in my long post above. It's so much cheaper for only a few differences. If you and your team are using parallel compression on channels then you have a lot more talented volunteers than I've ever seen. Be careful not to use extra processing just because you think you should. Have a reason for every tool.
I think you'll like the X32 even though it is not the quality of a ~$5k board (which it isn't trying to be.)
-
Disclaimer:
I have to come clean and say that I do not like the A&H digital boards. I'm just getting around to tolerating them and that's only because of their custom layers on the iPad app. So, taste aside, I will try to lay out what I think are logical reasons to go the Behringer route:
Portability
The X32 compact gives you 95% of the bang of the full-size X32 at a lower price point. For your purposes, there's no reason you can't use the X32 compact. Right now, on Sweetwater, you can get the X32 compact touring package for $3400 list and it includes the console, a case, an S32 stagebox with a case, 150' shielded ethercon to connect to the stagebox, and a furman power conditioner. That's a lot of stuff. A touring package is made for portability. You could just pop the top off of the X32 compact, plug in the ethercon and set everything else up on stage. It even leaves you with $1500 extra to purchase odds and ends. Setting this up would be easy and fast, which brings up your next focus...
Easy and fast setup
Doesn't get much easier than running one cat6 cable from FOH to the stage and simply popping the top off of the tour case that the board sits in.
Ease of use for volunteers
X32 is likely the most community-supported board on the market. It's very easy to use and the iPad app is even easier. Everything is laid out for you, like on many boards. Another user mentioned a lot of IEM stuff, but I don't recall reading about that in your original post. Monitors are a breeze to run from this board and I highly recommend letting the sound human run monitors instead of letting the band do it themselves like on a personal-mixer style setup. There are countless videos, forums, articles, threads, posts, and journals about everything X32 related. Once you set up the backend -- which might be considered the only "weird" part -- it can be left and forgotten about. The only thing you can't do on this board that others can is locking up the board to give limited functionality to volunteers.
Expandability
There's room for two digital snakes plus the local I/O on the X32 compact. If you ever wanted to get the full-size X32 all your files would transfer over nicely, and all your equipment would work the same. No hassle. There is also built-in multitracking with the X32 series so if you wanted to start doing that, it's a fantastic option. Just plug in Logic or Pro Tools or some DAW of your choice, and the computer sees the X32 as a soundcard, voila.
I don't see many reasons to not invest in an X32 series. Affordability, expandability, and community support are my personal biggest factors and are often the biggest factors for churches. There's just so much you can do for such little cost. Other companies have yet to hit that same mark quite yet, in my humble opinion.
Hi Sam and welcome to the forums! Especially since if i agree with everything you wrote here 100 percent, right down to not really liking the A&H offerings nearly as much as most people seem to. :)
Looking forward to hearing more in the future. So long as you continue to agree with me. :)
-
Hi Sam and welcome to the forums! Especially since if i agree with everything you wrote here 100 percent, right down to not really liking the A&H offerings nearly as much as most people seem to. :)
Looking forward to hearing more in the future. So long as you continue to agree with me. :)
Thank you, Brian! Happy to be on the forums.
In A&H's defense, I haven't played with the SQ series yet and have only had to deal with QU.
So I might like them! I just dislike QU.
Good to e-meet you, so long as we continue to mutually agree on opinions :)
-
I haven't played with the SQ series yet and have only had to deal with QU.
So I might like them! I just dislike QU.
I did a test-drive of the SQ7 right when it was first coming out. I think it's a great desk for the money. They've done some interesting things with the design, and I really like what they did with the faders. They feel solid and smooth and they will likely hold up a long time. They're mounted on their sides so anything falling in doesn't get ground into the tracks, it just drops out. Smart. And the cycle rating is much higher than many other desks in the price range.
Overall I think it's a solid investment. I didn't love everything about the desk (can't swap Dyn and EQ order, for one) and I'm not a HUGE fan of the workflow but that's purely a personal preference. With time I think I would get used to it. I was in the market at the time and I strongly considered investing in the SQ7.
That being said, all told you're going to be spending a bit more than an X32 so depending on the financial reality of the individual, it may or may not be considered a viable alternative.
-
I did a test-drive of the SQ7 right when it was first coming out. I think it's a great desk for the money. They've done some interesting things with the design, and I really like what they did with the faders. They feel solid and smooth and they will likely hold up a long time. They're mounted on their sides so anything falling in doesn't get ground into the tracks, it just drops out. Smart. And the cycle rating is much higher than many other desks in the price range.
Overall I think it's a solid investment. I didn't love everything about the desk (can't swap Dyn and EQ order, for one) and I'm not a HUGE fan of the workflow but that's purely a personal preference. With time I think I would get used to it. I was in the market at the time and I strongly considered investing in the SQ7.
That being said, all told you're going to be spending a bit more than an X32 so depending on the financial reality of the individual, it may or may not be considered a viable alternative.
Yeah, in interest of full disclosure, i too have't actually laid hands on the SQ series and may like it a bit more than i expect to.
I do think that A&H offers a LOT for the money. I've just not loved the basic workflow of the desks i've worked with in the past. Totally a subjective thing though. Not really based on any significant reservations as to their value.
-
Thank you, Brian! Happy to be on the forums.
In A&H's defense, I haven't played with the SQ series yet and have only had to deal with QU.
So I might like them! I just dislike QU.
Good to e-meet you, so long as we continue to mutually agree on opinions :)
I have both an SQ & a GLD and while there are some differences they are both great. A friend has a QU and I am not a fan of the input routing restrictions.
Now that I have the SQ I need to sell one GLD as I don’t need two of them.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
In A&H's defense, I haven't played with the SQ series yet and have only had to deal with QU.
So I might like them! I just dislike QU.
I am not a fan of QU series, I would not mix on them by choice, would take an X32 over it any day.
-
Totally a subjective thing though. Not really based on any significant reservations as to their value.
That's pretty much it, isn't it? Objectively, it's how many inputs and what's your budget, but beyond that it pretty much reduces to what the operator feels most comfortable working on. So much back and forth over consoles these days, and it seems to me much like arguing over what type of sandwich is best.
I own the consoles I own because I like working with them. I could never tell another human what is a good fit for them, only share my experiences and preferences.
-
The OP has made his/her decision. For those following this thread, I will add the following, while admitting I'm an A&H guy from original Mixwiz thru QU-16, QU-SB, and now SQ5...
The total cost of operation goes well beyond the mixer. In fact, one could argue that mixer brains could be configured as Loss Leaders, sort of like digital printers, where the real cost is ink! With mixer brand decisions, one must get some projection of the performance and costs of some combination of stage-boxes, IEM systems, Dante connectivity, analog connectivity, cabling, racking, wireless, etc.
From a performance perspective, rather than strictly cost, the total system may be limited by the weakest link in the chain. A good number of these band and church posters seem to mention a current IEM use or an expectation of moving to IEMs. The brand and model must supply enough mixes right out of the box, or the user must purchase add-ons.
As other have suggested, the whole A&H SQ line is WAY more flexible in routing than the QU. That being said, I can provide six stereo IEM mixes out of a QU-SB costing $900 street, assuming one already has a tablet like IPad. I do this by changing groups to mixes, which can be left alone by volunteers or band members or edited via free phone apps. For wireless IEMs, I use MiPro Mi-909s, which could be discussion for another thread. For wired IEMs, one could use any number Me-1 or Me-500 units. Of course, the cost of all this stuff begins to dwarf the initial cost of the mixer.
I have read in this thread and in other forums a fair bit of dissatisfaction with the Behringer P16 personal monitor mixer. Is that a weak link in the Behringer chain that tips the balance in favor of something more expensive like A&H? For me, YES. For others, it is your decision to make.
Maybe with Dante or other universal connectivity advances, we will get to the point where one can mix and match the best stuff at a variety of price points, but many Dante enabled add-ons are so currently expensive that it makes the initial worrying about the cost of a mixer kinda ludicrous.
Not difficult to understand why someone would have trouble pulling the trigger.
-
Agreed, this was part of the decision also. With the SQ5 the ME series would not be an option. We planned on going with rack mount headphone amp and still will. I am going to pick up a p16 to try out, because now we have lots of room for other stuff.
I have played with the SQ5 and had my hands on one yesterday, I know I would have preferred that. If the Behringer doesn't work out, we can return/sell it and get the SQ5.
I am now starting to look at some other things we could use.
I also just found the right case for the x32 on craiglist for 140 vs 350 new.
Now I can get some new mics, try and figure out power, etc
The OP has made his/her decision. For those following this thread, I will add the following, while admitting I'm an A&H guy from original Mixwiz thru QU-16, QU-SB, and now SQ5...
The total cost of operation goes well beyond the mixer. In fact, one could argue that mixer brains could be configured as Loss Leaders, sort of like digital printers, where the real cost is ink! With mixer brand decisions, one must get some projection of the performance and costs of some combination of stage-boxes, IEM systems, Dante connectivity, analog connectivity, cabling, racking, wireless, etc.
From a performance perspective, rather than strictly cost, the total system may be limited by the weakest link in the chain. A good number of these band and church posters seem to mention a current IEM use or an expectation of moving to IEMs. The brand and model must supply enough mixes right out of the box, or the user must purchase add-ons.
As other have suggested, the whole A&H SQ line is WAY more flexible in routing than the QU. That being said, I can provide six stereo IEM mixes out of a QU-SB costing $900 street, assuming one already has a tablet like IPad. I do this by changing groups to mixes, which can be left alone by volunteers or band members or edited via free phone apps. For wireless IEMs, I use MiPro Mi-909s, which could be discussion for another thread. For wired IEMs, one could use any number Me-1 or Me-500 units. Of course, the cost of all this stuff begins to dwarf the initial cost of the mixer.
I have read in this thread and in other forums a fair bit of dissatisfaction with the Behringer P16 personal monitor mixer. Is that a weak link in the Behringer chain that tips the balance in favor of something more expensive like A&H? For me, YES. For others, it is your decision to make.
Maybe with Dante or other universal connectivity advances, we will get to the point where one can mix and match the best stuff at a variety of price points, but many Dante enabled add-ons are so currently expensive that it makes the initial worrying about the cost of a mixer kinda ludicrous.
Not difficult to understand why someone would have trouble pulling the trigger.
-
There's been a couple of folks on here that have had less than positive experiences with the P16, but my experience has been pretty favorable, especially when compared to the Aviom16II. The individual EQ per channel is worth it's weight alone.
It does require a little more training, especially with it's "Master Volume" that is separate from the headphone level control. And yeah, you can certainly break them if you try. But again, they are so cheap relative to the competition that it is still a pretty compelling option in a lot of cases [as you appear to be discovering].
Good Luck. Let us know how it goes.
-
Me series monitor mixers ARE definitely an option in the SQ series, either directly connected to Slink, connected to an additional SLink card, or connected to an AR2412 or AB168. Slink operates at either 48kHz or 96KHz, depending on what is attached. SQ operates internally at 96K, regardless of what is attached.
-
to clarify, not an option because of higher cost of board and higher cost of ME series.
The X32 leaves me money if I want to try the p16
Me series monitor mixers ARE definitely an option in the SQ series, either directly connected to Slink, connected to an additional SLink card, or connected to an AR2412 or AB168. Slink operates at either 48kHz or 96KHz, depending on what is attached. SQ operates internally at 96K, regardless of what is attached.
-
FPGA’s are fast. The x32 uses them as well.
I must be slow, since my x32 faders are faster than I am.
SQ responds faster, both because it’s FPGA, and its faders move faster. These result in quicker operation during critical moments.
And this is based on...?
SQ has lower failure rate.
-
I have found that many inexperienced people don’t know how to properly use the extensively available settings for the dynamics and therefor never tries to use it to scuplt a sound.
To the point the stock sounds better than the X32 (IMO)
To prove my point above - Why not try the ‘mix’ parameter to blend the dry/wet signal in the compressor.
and you are able to do parallel compression on every channel, which I do not believe the X32 can do (unless there is an option I haven't found).
-
Moot point, but I just got word that A&H will have a promo starting 3/1 involving SQ mixers and free ME-500s. They should post details HERE (http://www.americanmusicandsound.com/en/pages/promos) when they are ready to announce it.
-
well that stinks.
I still have my eye on those 1203's, just wish I could hear them, rent them, something.
Mostly wish I knew they could handle whole band and low end. I think they have enough output and coverage from the videos I have seen, but trying to get something without subs
Moot point, but I just got word that A&H will have a promo starting 3/1 involving SQ mixers and free ME-500s. They should post details HERE (http://www.americanmusicandsound.com/en/pages/promos) when they are ready to announce it.
-
I meant to post these earlier. OP might have decided already, but this might be helpful to other members/lurkers.
I compiled these for a client who was considering x32, m32, and sq series. They went with sq series.
Forgive my rudimentary explanations on sound quality. You can achieve a great mix on any console. The sound quality of the console is trivial compared to the mix person. That said, there is an obvious difference between the different consoles. Whether that is good or bad is up for discussion ;)
----
While you look at prices and features I want to encourage the 'buy once cry once' mentality. I think upgrading to the Midas M32 or Allen & Heath SQ6 boards will be well worth the additional initial investment. The Behringer gear is great for the price, but I'd rather see something that lasts in your church for the next 10 years.
Personally & professionally my suggestion is to go with the SQ6, it has much more future potential. You could do the upgrade in stages to help curb costs or cut back on the number of personal mixers and use the phone app instead.
I attached a facebook discussion on the M32 vs SQ6. While you do your research I encourage reading through that and joining the M32/X32 & SQ facebook groups to learn more!
In the end, both are powerful consoles and have a ton of great features and there will be night and day difference in your sound and mixing capabilities going from an analog board to digital.
Behringer Pros:
Cheap
Cons:
Cheap
Sounds worse compared to Midas
Sounds much worse compared to A&H
Midas Pros:
10yr warranty
Easy to use
Cheaper personal mixers
Fully mature
Large FX selection
Cons:
Older console
Replacement coming out next year
A&H Pros:
Much higher sound quality
Easy to use
Newer
Great future ahead
Touchscreen
Cons:
More Expensive
Low warranty
---
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2r1u5ph2dsscsms/SQ%20vs%20M32%20Discussion%20Facebook%20A%26H%20SQ%20Users%20Group1.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d2u2zpozyui6gfw/SQ%20vs%20M32%20Discussion%20Facebook%20A%26H%20SQ%20Users%20Group2.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ud4grcm2836s4rd/SQ%20vs%20M32%20Discussion%20Facebook%20A%26H%20SQ%20Users%20Group3.pdf?dl=0
-
Forgive my weary ears...
It has been mentioned a couple of times now that the x32 ”sounds worse” than pretty much everything else. Please enlighten this ’fanboi’(?) what you actually are talking about so that I might learn...
-
Forgive my weary ears...
It has been mentioned a couple of times now that the x32 ”sounds worse” than pretty much everything else. Please enlighten this ’fanboi’(?) what you actually are talking about so that I might learn...
Forgive my rudimentary explanations on sound quality. You can achieve a great mix on any console. The sound quality of the console is trivial compared to the mix person. That said, there is an obvious difference between the different consoles. Whether that is good or bad is up for discussion
Forgive my trying to distill the technical details of sound quality differences between products down to layman's terms in order to describe differences.
Forgetting the technical aspects and going by opinions...It is well documented that people perceive/enjoy the differing sound "quality" of the M32 to the X32 (and their stage boxes). It has been demonstrated that the SQ exhibits a similar difference when compared to the Behringer/Midas offerings which most attribute to being "better."
-
So it is a “vinyl sounds better than cd” kind of thing?
But is this with all in neutral (eq, dynamics, etc...) or when you start to turn the knobs where things start to differ?
What I’m thinking/wondering is if it has anything to do with the e.g. different bell-shapes of the eq curves compared to other consoles...? I usually prefer the VEQ to the PEQ setting in the x/m-mixers due to the different bell shape that is more ssl(?) like. I’ve always wanted VEQ to be the default eq.
An interesting test would be to insert f.ex. a waves channelstrip on a couple of different consoles that can do this via soundgrid, dante or similar. Doing this right then the only variable would be the analog in/out stages. This would show if the mixer dsp processing is the main factor or not.
Forgetting the technical aspects and going by opinions...It is well documented that people perceive/enjoy the differing sound "quality" of the M32 to the X32 (and their stage boxes). It has been demonstrated that the SQ exhibits a similar difference when compared to the Behringer/Midas offerings which most attribute to being "better."