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: Samuel Rees on April 03, 2013, 02:19:25 PM
-
http://youtu.be/sOIRvcotbmk
Got this from A&H just now. Interesting.
-
http://youtu.be/sOIRvcotbmk
Got this from A&H just now. Interesting.
Very interesting, looks like a compact digital board; another x32 competitor maybe?
-
I got that email too. It does look interesting. The GLD is already competing with the X32. It could be an iLive2 I suppose, but the form factor doesn't look right. The video doesn't give much to go on. It has a screen, and motorized faders.
-d
-
Seems like more of the mix wiz form factor, I'm thinking a mackie and studio live 16:4:2 competitor.
-
Seems like more of the mix wiz form factor, I'm thinking a mackie and studio live 16:4:2 competitor.
A digital Mixwiz could be fun...
-
A digital Mixwiz could be fun...
If its a digital mix wiz, I'll have one really soon. I love my GLDs.
And no, the GLDs are not meant to compete with X32s.
-
The video say's nothing so any and all speculation is moot.
-
Totally wild speculation. Just wanted to post it for anyone who wasn't on the email list but might be interested!
-
The shape of it will make for a bulky flight case.
-
Seems like more of the mix wiz form factor, I'm thinking a mackie and studio live 16:4:2 competitor.
I hope so! I am in the market for a new digital mixer. I would love to replace my MixWiz with this new mixer if the price were competitive.
-
Gosh, would I love to see an affordable A&H digital board!
-
http://youtu.be/sOIRvcotbmk
Got this from A&H just now. Interesting.
What a tease
-
What a tease
(http://dbmisc.s3.amazonaws.com/ahwhat.gif)
-
Rumor I heard a while back was that the GLD was planned to expand downward to compete in the Soundcraft/Presonus/X32 market.
-
Rumor I heard a while back was that the GLD was planned to expand downward to compete in the Soundcraft/Presonus/X32 market.
The rumor I heard a while ago was that the technical and production aspects were already there to do that but since it potentially opened up their digital console offerings to different markets and users A&H was struggling with how to best address some of the potential associated support and distribution/sales aspects. A little difficult to justify having someone qualified to answer complex technical questions on the iLive products answering too many "and where do I plug in my microphone?" questions.
-
http://youtu.be/sOIRvcotbmk
Got this from A&H just now. Interesting.
I was getting ready to buy a Studiolive this summer. Now I'll wait and see what this is about. I love my GL2800 but it's a little heavy for a lot of what I do.
-
<wild speculation>
--Mix Wiz size
--16 channel faders (motorized)
--16 mic preamps
--8-10 outputs
--capable of mixing 32 channels
--16ch of ADAT i/o for expansion
--32(input) channel ethernet digital snake capable
--USB/Firewire multitrack recording/virtual sound check capable
--iPad control
--PC/Mac control
--all the "normal" digital mixer features per channel
--plenty of built-in effects with several "slots" for simultaneous effect usage
--Scribble strips
--reasonable price (close to x32/SL/expression pricing)
</wild speculation>
-
<wild speculation>
--PC/Mac control
</wild speculation>
One would hope they included it but seeing as it hasn't happened for the GLD yet I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
One would hope they included it but seeing as it hasn't happened for the GLD yet I wouldn't hold my breath.
In addition to that, I highly doubt that they will use any adat expansion on any of their consoles other than on the by using the MMO Card which has 24 Adat output but no inputs. Adat is pretty much obsolete considering all the digital snake/stage box options on today's consoles.
I heard that the initial design had no expansion card slot at all. That could have changed.
I am really hoping it will be compatible with my GLD stage boxes! If it were to have maybe 16 local inputs and the ability to use an AR2412 that would be awesome.
-
I am really hoping it will be compatible with my GLD stage boxes! If it were to have maybe 16 local inputs and the ability to use an AR2412 that would be awesome.
I've got my finger on the trigger......
-
Compatibility with existing GLD gear would be cool, but I wonder if they will. Pricing and features would have to be very careful.
-
Compatibility with existing GLD gear would be cool, but I wonder if they will. Pricing and features would have to be very careful.
Came across this....
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/musikmesse-2013-news/826379-allen-heath-launches-qu-16-compact-digital-mixer.html (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/musikmesse-2013-news/826379-allen-heath-launches-qu-16-compact-digital-mixer.html)
-
Sweet!
(http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/musikmesse-2013-news/339458d1365527549-allen-heath-launches-qu-16-compact-digital-mixer-qu-16.jpg)
-
Sweet!
(http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/musikmesse-2013-news/339458d1365527549-allen-heath-launches-qu-16-compact-digital-mixer-qu-16.jpg)
It looks like 4 mono mixes and 3 fixed stereo mixes?
I am looking at it from my phone though. Just more speculation before all the info tomorrow.
-
Looks nice, for sure. Screen has Soundcraft Si vibes.
-
ALLEN & HEATH LAUNCHES Qu-16 COMPACT DIGITAL MIXER
Allen & Heath will be unveiling Qu-16, a brand new compact digital mixer with a professional feature set and an entry-level price tag, packaged in a stylish 19” rack size. Inheriting technology from the acclaimed GLD and iLive digital mixing systems, Qu-16 features total recall of settings (including 17 motorised faders and digitally controlled preamps), an intuitive Touchscreen, Qu-Drive integrated multi-track recorder, dSNAKE for remote I/O and personal monitoring, multi-channel USB streaming to Mac, Qu-Pad control app, and iLive’s renowned FX library to deliver class-leading audio quality.
Qu-16 features 16 mic/line inputs, 3 stereo inputs, 4 FX engines with dedicated stereo returns, 14 mixes (including LR, 10 aux mixes, plus 2 dedicated FX busses), 12 mix processing channels, patchable AES digital output with a further 2-channel ALT output, dedicated Talkback mic pre input, and 2-Track output.
The mixer is packed with massive processing capability. Five high speed dual core DSPs provide comprehensive channel and FX processing, with ample room for future processing updates and functionality. Five latest generation 200MHz super-efficient ARM core processors run in parallel to efficiently deliver startling performance, one to drive each of the Touchscreen and surface, the Qu Drive USB interface, USB streaming, Ethernet port, and the moving faders.
Qu-16 is equipped with a high resolution (800x480) full colour Touchscreen featuring the easy to drive ‘Touch Channel’ access to channel processing, the FX racks and all the setup and system management controls. In keeping with the iLive user interface, the SuperStrip provides control knobs for a selected channel’s key processing parameters, such as gain, HPF, parametric EQ, gate threshold, compressor threshold and pan.
Qu-Drive, the mixer’s integrated USB recorder, which works with an external USB drive, can record and playback multi-track and stereo audio .wav files. The USB interface can also be used to store scene and library data for archiving and later recall. If using the Qu-16 in the studio, there is also a USB audio streaming interface for record and playback to Mac DAW systems.
A&H’s proprietary dSNAKE low latency audio connection enables the mixer to connect over a single 120m Cat5 digital snake to a remote audio rack, such as the AR84 or AR2412, and is compatible with the ME personal mixing system.
Motorised faders provide total recall of mix levels giving the user full benefit from the scene recall system and ensuring the fader is always in the right position even when swapping between the 2 layers, which allows instant access to all channels and masters or the Graphic EQs. To customise the fader layout to suit certain applications, a third user definable layer is also available.
A free iPad app connects to the mixer via a Wi-Fi router plugged into the Ethernet control port and gives instant wireless control of the mixer’s key parameters and settings, enabling the user to tweak the PA, adjust the monitors on stage, and even mix the show from the audience.
Qu-16 also contains sixteen crystal clear AnaLOGIQ total recall pad-less preamps, optimised for transparency and low harmonic distortion. In keeping with the excellent audio quality the Qu-16 is equipped with many of the iLive pro touring series’ FX emulations, used by many engineers in place of top-end plug-ins and external FX units, including classic reverbs, gated reverbs, delays and modulators.
Glenn Rogers, MD of A&H, said: “The Qu-16 represents the best technology we could pack into a 19” unit to deliver all the benefits of professional digital mixers and I am very proud of the looks, performance, ease of use and sonic quality from this great new product. The R&D team has done a fantastic job.”
Launching at Pro Light & Sound, Frankfurt, Qu-16 will be shipping in May, SRP: £1699 ex VAT.
Link : Home | ALLEN & HEATH // WORLD CLASS MIXING
-
The board looks sweet, It is supposed to work with the gld rack but it is a 16 channel fixed surface with no layers so without more info or getting our hands on it we can't tell if it will lock out part of the inputs or allow soft patching of 16 channels. I heard it is around $2500 street in the states but don't quote me on that until I see the pricelist. I know it will be a killer board in the corporate and small gig market.
-
Love the record to USB option, 16 dedicated faders, touch screen (nice touch ;) ), rack mountable, out in May, and reasonable price ~$2600.00 according to the linked forum post.
Hopefully these will make it to my local GC so I can fiddle around with it in the next few months.
Still waiting on the official release today in Germany ;)
-
I know it will be a killer board in the corporate and small gig market.
Hard to say since Soundcraft has dropped the price of its entry level SI-expression so much that they are very competitive today. And the X32 has double more inputs (but it is written "Behringer" on it).
The SI-EX1 is also rackmountable, has 16 inputs + 2 stereo analog + AES in, has 16 outs + AES out (so rather close to the QU16, a little better on outputs and AES in). It has matrix and more auxes which can be freely configured as stereo or mono. It has configurable layers. It is also compatible with Soundcraft cheap mini stage box (but this needs an additionnal and expensive MADI card). The SI-EX1 still lacks the multitrack however, which is supposed to be released soon but at which price ? And you cannot have both stagebox and multitrack.
It appears that the QU-16 is more limited than the SI-EX1, so it has to be cheaper. Sure the QU-16 will satisfy many users in its price target, but the SI-EX1 offers more for not that much more expensive.
-
It is also compatible with Soundcraft cheap mini stage box (but this needs an additionnal and expensive MADI card).
I believe that you get the card "free" if you buy the stage box.
-
Hard to say since Soundcraft has dropped the price of its entry level SI-expression so much that they are very competitive today. And the X32 has double more inputs (but it is written "Behringer" on it).
The SI-EX1 is also rackmountable, has 16 inputs + 2 stereo analog + AES in, has 16 outs + AES out (so rather close to the QU16, a little better on outputs and AES in). It has matrix and more auxes which can be freely configured as stereo or mono. It has configurable layers. It is also compatible with Soundcraft cheap mini stage box (but this needs an additionnal and expensive MADI card). The SI-EX1 still lacks the multitrack however, which is supposed to be released soon but at which price ? And you cannot have both stagebox and multitrack.
It appears that the QU-16 is more limited than the SI-EX1, so it has to be cheaper. Sure the QU-16 will satisfy many users in its price target, but the SI-EX1 offers more for not that much more expensive.
Hey Nick,
Nice summary.
I was waiting for specs and details to be published today, but it appears that you are correct. I am wondering a few things:
Did A&H fix the display issues they have been having or did the QU 16 inherit the problem?
How usable is the mixer with the remote application?
... and most importantly, how good does it sound?
I haven't heard the new Soundcraft mixers, but the StudioLive is weak in vocal efx IMHO, the X32 has excellent sound and efx (but as you say .... has the word "Behringer" on it).
The equivelent X32 (Producer) isn't out yet, and isn't expected until Q3 by the latest speculation. The A&H board may well beat it to market placing it up against the Soundcraft Expression Si .... which as you say appears to be a somewhat more powerful board.... but I wonder how the sound compares.
-
Sweet!
(http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/musikmesse-2013-news/339458d1365527549-allen-heath-launches-qu-16-compact-digital-mixer-qu-16.jpg)
Glad to see they didn't screw the pooch on the EQ
(like Soundcraft did by leaving out the Q on the high and low bands of the EQ)
-
it is a 16 channel fixed surface with no layers
And just where did you get this (mistaken/wrong) information????
Any other misconceptions you'd like to foist on the Forum?
-
And just where did you get this (mistaken/wrong) information????
Any other misconceptions you'd like to foist on the Forum?
It has three layers, two are fixed, one is custom.
For those of us wondering if it can mix more than 16 mic inputs from an AR2412, it appears from reading deeper into it that you can use the AR2412 for all the (16) mono input and the 3 stereo inputs. No additional mono channels at this time. Hopefully they'll increase that to 24 mono channels by giving the ability to add 8 onto the custom layer.
-
It has three layers, two are fixed, one is custom.
For those of us wondering if it can mix more than 16 mic inputs from an AR2412, it appears from reading deeper into it that you can use the AR2412 for all the (16) mono input and the 3 stereo inputs. No additional mono channels at this time. Hopefully they'll increase that to 24 mono channels by giving the ability to add 8 onto the custom layer.
Or to fully expand it to allow complete use of the 2412 and the 8/4 expander.........
-
Or to fully expand it to allow complete use of the 2412 and the 8/4 expander.........
Isn't that called the GLD? ;)
-
Isn't that called the GLD? ;)
Not quite. As you know, the GLD will expand to 40 inputs from stage boxes. I think that you can also use the 4/4 console inputs as well. Or do 32 from the stage and use one of the 8 input modules at the board if you want to expand the local input count. That, combined with the larger, non-rack-mountable control surface, puts it squarely between the Qu and the iLive.
Nice family of consoles, though.
-
I do not see and specifics on matrix sends... Has anyone seen any specifics if outputs can be setup as a matrix send?
Sean
-
Specifics will be up on the website today, a few additional features include (4 effects engines from the GLD and iLive series), new QU drive USB recorder allows 16 mono + stereo mixdown all on the same USB media (great for virtual soundcheck without a computer)
Its also a DAW controller and has a USB 2.0 Port on the back with a 24x22 USB interface (so yes you can use it in the studio, or to control things like Pro Tools, Logic, Sonar, ETC) it is plug and play MAC CORE OS drivers.
The D Snake allows direct connection of ME-1 personal monitor system as well as GLD/AR boxes, being the unit can mix 18 sources, you will mix/match which i/o to chose from the available inputs
Total Recall with show and scene filters with 100 Snapshot scene recalls
The Matrix will be same as in GLD and iLive you can assign any output to a Matrix, (I.E. Mains, Stereo Groups, etc, Pre/Post)
The system has 16 Mix busses across 12 assignable XLR outputs plus AES, overall its a very feature packet little console.
Street price will be UNDER $2500
I do not see and specifics on matrix sends... Has anyone seen any specifics if outputs can be setup as a matrix send?
Sean
-
I believe that you get the card "free" if you buy the stage box.
The 16/8 channel stagebox is cheaper than the MADI card itself. I doubt the MADI card is included in the price. If you want to use a stagebox and if the QU-16 is capable of using all the inputs, this becomes a much cheaper solution compared to the SI-EX + Mini stagebox.
Concerning sound, I do not worry much about it. SI-compact have decent sound, low price X32 have decent sound, A&H has been making decent mixers for a long time,... It appears harder and harder to make a bad sounding digital console today, at least for live aplication.
-
It has three layers, two are fixed, one is custom.
For those of us wondering if it can mix more than 16 mic inputs from an AR2412, it appears from reading deeper into it that you can use the AR2412 for all the (16) mono input and the 3 stereo inputs. No additional mono channels at this time. Hopefully they'll increase that to 24 mono channels by giving the ability to add 8 onto the custom layer.
They made specific reference to their being DSP to spare for upgrades.
-
The 16/8 channel stagebox is cheaper than the MADI card itself. I doubt the MADI card is included in the price. If you want to use a stagebox and if the QU-16 is capable of using all the inputs, this becomes a much cheaper solution compared to the SI-EX + Mini stagebox.
Again, the card for the console is included. Read the brochure on soundcraft's site.
-
After looking at the information on their website it looks like a nice board. My only complaint is that it can't be expanded to 24-32 channels. For the band I work with to upgrade our mixer we'd have to get something with an increased channel count from out current 16 mono channel analog board. We can easily use all of our inputs(and wish for a couple more) depending on the instrumentation the band decides to use. Normally we run around 13-14 channels but the band likes to add instruments(second ele. guitar, banjo,more vocals, etc...) when we do gigs besides our normal Tuesday night church service. Yeah having more effects, comps/gates on each channel, and all the other features it has would be awesome but with the x32 compact/rack/producer coming out later this year having the ability to mix 32 channels with the addition of a stage box, I'd say the x32 makes more sense for us(just my opinion, I'm pretty sure the A&H board is better quality and they definitely have a better reputation).
-
The 16/8 channel stagebox is cheaper than the MADI card itself. I doubt the MADI card is included in the price. If you want to use a stagebox and if the QU-16 is capable of using all the inputs, this becomes a much cheaper solution compared to the SI-EX + Mini stagebox.
Concerning sound, I do not worry much about it. SI-compact have decent sound, low price X32 have decent sound, A&H has been making decent mixers for a long time,... It appears harder and harder to make a bad sounding digital console today, at least for live aplication.
I don't believe that the Qu 16 will have "bad" sound. I agree with you that it is becoming normal for digital mixers to have decent preamps and transparent sound.
I am wondering if the differentiation will be in how easy it is to make the mixer sound good. The DL1608 for instance has pretty bad efx built in. I have heard some complain about the quality of the X32 compressor.
It seems like a pretty good bet that the A&H will do well. I just want to hear it with my own ears and run the workflow myself.
-
The DL's effects are quite serviceable if you know what you are doing.
-
Anyone hear anything about being able to make all of the mix outputs stereo?
I see:
12 Mix Outputs (LR, Mono Mix 1-4, Stereo Mix 1-3)
I would think you can make Mix's 1-4 linked stereo so that you can have 6 Stereo IEM mixes (including the LR mix) total.
feature wise, the X32 still looks better.
-
The DL's effects are quite serviceable if you know what you are doing.
The section in bold type should be added to a lot of posts carping on the "quality" of various features. IMNSHO, the adage "it's a poor workman who blames his tools" is "sticky-quality".
-
Anyone hear anything about being able to make all of the mix outputs stereo?
I see:
12 Mix Outputs (LR, Mono Mix 1-4, Stereo Mix 1-3)
I would think you can make Mix's 1-4 linked stereo so that you can have 6 Stereo IEM mixes (including the LR mix) total.
feature wise, the X32 still looks better.
It "looks" like the X32 will not rack-mount.........
-
IMNSHO, the adage "it's a poor workman who blames his tools" is "sticky-quality".
When the topic is getting an acceptable end result, then yes any half-way decent tool can do the job (pun intended).
When arm-chair quarterbacking about which tool is the best, then that statement is an excuse to cover up crappy tools. Seems like many of these posts are more about relative quality and capability of various tools, than on executing a job adequately.
Not disagreeing with the statement, just making sure it's applied in the correct context.
-
It "looks" like the X32 will not rack-mount.........
That is why I was really hoping this new A&H would hit a home run with this one. Rack mount + expand to 32 channels would be fantastic. Seems like they could make a significant dent in the market with that combination.
-
Again, the card for the console is included. Read the brochure on soundcraft's site.
My mistake, I thought the statement was concerning the card included in the stagebox itself.
It "looks" like the X32 will not rack-mount.
The X8 does:
http://www.ziggysono.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8573
::)
-
That is why I was really hoping this new A&H would hit a home run with this one. Rack mount + expand to 32 channels would be fantastic. Seems like they could make a significant dent in the market with that combination.
You seem certain that the initial software for this console will not be updated to offer more features/expanded channel count. Are you absolutely sure about that?
-
When the topic is getting an acceptable end result, then yes any half-way decent tool can do the job (pun intended).
When arm-chair quarterbacking about which tool is the best, then that statement is an excuse to cover up crappy tools. Seems like many of these posts are more about relative quality and capability of various tools, than on executing a job adequately.
Not disagreeing with the statement, just making sure it's applied in the correct context.
Good morning, Caleb.
At the risk of side-tracking the thread topic, I'll indulge myself to add to the "poor workman" view:
As usual, it's risky for someone to post that "this/that sucks" when said item/feature is part of a system. As a system stage or component, it may or may not be as effective as one would wish, but in the case of FX I would also look at what is feeding into it. Worst case scenario is clipping the input before routing the channel to the FX bus.
But the choice of the mic will have a lot to do with what sound is produced by the FX patch. A modern "cut through the roar in the bar" vocal mic with a "Swiss Alps" boost between 4.5K and 10K will produce different results on a reverb patch than an RE20.
So when a post comes along with "the XXXX mixer EFX suck", one would wonder how this judgement could be made without plugging a source into it. Is it possible that the source has something to do with it??????
-
That is why I was really hoping this new A&H would hit a home run with this one. Rack mount + expand to 32 channels would be fantastic. Seems like they could make a significant dent in the market with that combination.
That would be a LS9-16 and a couple pres
-
You seem certain that the initial software for this console will not be updated to offer more features/expanded channel count. Are you absolutely sure about that?
The info on their website seemed pretty vague about the max channel count; even if it could just hit 24 mono channels with a stage box it would be much more appealing to me(or anyone else coming for a MixWiz type 16ch rack mount board who needs/wants more channels). I hope a software upgrade increases the channel count; i'd be nice to have another option when it comes time for my band to upgrade our mixer (which is probably a ways off).
Sent from my Milestone X using Tapatalk 2
-
That would be a LS9-16 and a couple pres
Except it would sound good. :p
-
The info on their website seemed pretty vague about the max channel count; even if it could just hit 24 mono channels with a stage box it would be much more appealing to me(or anyone else coming for a MixWiz type 16ch rack mount board who needs/wants more channels). I hope a software upgrade increases the channel count; i'd be nice to have another option when it comes time for my band to upgrade our mixer (which is probably a ways off).
Sent from my Milestone X using Tapatalk 2
That is really what I was getting at. It wasn't clear if the dsnake option meant expansion or simply another avenue for getting your 16 inputs to the mixer. I would hope it would be something they can add if not implemented now.
It just seems like they would be more clear on that when announcing a product, especially considering what the competition offers at this price point.
Obviously they need product separation from the GLD. I get that.
As I stated in the other thread, I am really excited for this product. I just have concerns over what appears to be a lack of a feature (or at least doesn't explicitly say yay or nay). Thats all.
Jared
-
Except it would sound good. :p
If you can't make a LS9 sound good, you can't mix. :p right back at ya!
-
I would imagine that it either has more inputs to mix than is clear, or they'll come in an upgrade. All the competitors except StudioLive have more input to mix.
Wild, crazy speculation.
-
I would imagine that it either has more inputs to mix than is clear, or they'll come in an upgrade. All the competitors except StudioLive have more input to mix.
Wild, crazy speculation.
I'll reply here to all, not just you.
I have a MixWiz 14:4:2 in a "production rack" which I use mainly for live radio remotes. With a footprint of less than five square feet I can have nearly 40 inputs on a console which most people would say "has only 10 mic inputs".
Use your heads for something other than a hat-rack and see what you can do with the feature set instead of complaining that a 16 channel mixer is limited to the particular feature set which is the nominal defining term for the model.
So far as I can see, with a little engineering creativity, there are 3 more mono or 3 more stereo inputs over and above the 16 "mic channels". That comes to 19 channels.
Those of us who like to travel light often carry a small sub-mixer as part of the kit for use as needed. Just because things have "gone digital" doesn't negate a lot of the old "analog-dog" tricks.
By the "it doesn't come with all the bells and whistles" reasoning, guitar players wouldn't have pedal boards. They'd have an instrument that had all the FX built in and an iPad app to allow them to tweak things on-stage.
-
Hopefully there are better aux routing capabilities in this unit. IMO the DL and Soundcraft Expression have missed the mark on this. Not being able to keep dynamic changes out of monitor mixes is crap when doing everything from FOH. I would assume that these mixers are intended more for FOH than side stage monitor desks.
-
I love the look of this mixer with a GLD in inventory as well. You'd have the flagship mixer, but also a smaller mixer both compatible with your existing digital snake and with preamps on board.
It wasn't immediately clear from the release, unless I misread something - would it be possible to use the dsnake system as a digital split? I feel like maybe not, because I think I remember the setup for digital split with the GLD involving an expansion card? Any input from GLD users?
-
I also find that the tendency for some to say that "if you are talented, you can make it sound good" is disingenious.
With that same logic, you could argue that there is no point in purchasing a Taylor guitar because a truly GOOD musician could make a $100.00 beginner acoustic sound acceptable.
I am more than willing to state that most of you here can mix better than I can. For a weekend warrior that mixes from stage, I am pretty decent, but hardly a pro.
Having said that, for me, and others like me, it is really important that I be able to get a good sounding mix easily.
Surely there is nothing wrong with desiring a piece of equipment that makes this possible is there?
-
I also find that the tendency for some to say that "if you are talented, you can make it sound good" is disingenious.
With that same logic, you could argue that there is no point in purchasing a Taylor guitar because a truly GOOD musician could make a $100.00 beginner acoustic sound acceptable.
I am more than willing to state that most of you here can mix better than I can. For a weekend warrior that mixes from stage, I am pretty decent, but hardly a pro.
Having said that, for me, and others like me, it is really important that I be able to get a good sounding mix easily.
Surely there is nothing wrong with desiring a piece of equipment that makes this possible is there?
I think the point is that if you have s
-
I'll reply here to all, not just you.
....
Use your heads for something other than a hat-rack and see what you can do with the feature set instead of complaining that a 16 channel mixer is limited to the particular feature set which is the nominal defining term for the model.
Don't get me wrong. I love the vibe of this product. I don't want to be confused with being anything but positive. I've used and loved MixWiz' as much of us have. I love lots of brand confidence in A&H. Just speculating that their might be even more to come, mostly based on the fact that they said 'there's room in the DSP for more to come' (paraphrased).
-
With that same logic, you could argue that there is no point in purchasing a Taylor guitar because a truly GOOD musician could make a $100.00 beginner acoustic sound acceptable.
Look at it this way:
If the $100.00 guitar can be made to sound as good as the Taylor, why buy the Taylor?
I have several acoustic guitars ranging from a "play it in the rain" beater up to a hand-made dreadnought model. The one I play the most is a Harmony Sovereign which sold for $70.00 new.
But then, I am a truly GOOD musician.......
-
I think the point is that if you have s
Postus Interuptus?
-
I'll reply here to all, not just you.
I have a MixWiz 14:4:2 in a "production rack" which I use mainly for live radio remotes. With a footprint of less than five square feet I can have nearly 40 inputs on a console which most people would say "has only 10 mic inputs".
Use your heads for something other than a hat-rack and see what you can do with the feature set instead of complaining that a 16 channel mixer is limited to the particular feature set which is the nominal defining term for the model.
So far as I can see, with a little engineering creativity, there are 3 more mono or 3 more stereo inputs over and above the 16 "mic channels". That comes to 19 channels.
Those of us who like to travel light often carry a small sub-mixer as part of the kit for use as needed. Just because things have "gone digital" doesn't negate a lot of the old "analog-dog" tricks.
By the "it doesn't come with all the bells and whistles" reasoning, guitar players wouldn't have pedal boards. They'd have an instrument that had all the FX built in and an iPad app to allow them to tweak things on-stage.
No one said we wouldn't find a way to make it work. Again it could just be as simple as stating clearly what it can and cannot do in the spec list. As of right now it is vague if it cannot be expanded or not.
And no, I don't expect manufacturers to ask me personally what I want out of a product. But I do expect them to know what the competitors are bringing to the table. If they choose not to include a feature for whatever reason, that is their choice. But it is still my opinion that to not include an option to expand at this price point, given that the competition does include that option, is a mistake. I dont know if it does or doesnt at this point and I hope that is made clear soon.
I am all for being creative and working within the parameters you are given. Even if the Qu does not expand channel count I can still find a use for this mixer and ways to work around it. I am not saying this is a bad product because it doesn't meet my every need. All I am saying is that as a potential customer, it could be a a deciding factor in choosing this product over another.
For me I am looking for a rack mountable digital console that has a minimum of 16 mic channels. Currently this leaves me with 2 options, the Presonus and Soundcraft Expression. Neither of which excite me for various reasons. Sure I could make either work, but honestly I would rather have an analog console over those 2. The Behringer options are still out there and while I am perfectly comfortable mixing on the X32, I am not sure I want 8 layers of faders and no scribble strip on the X32 Producer.
So I am really excited about the Qu. It looks to be a great product and all I really want is clarity on what it can do so that I can determine if it is a solution for me.
Jared
P.S. I really do respect you Dick. You have taught me a lot and I am not trying to argue or belittle this product, or even demand that they consult me on product design. I am simply stating that I would be disappointed if it didn't have what I was hoping for.
-
So I am really excited about the Qu. It looks to be a great product and all I really want is clarity on what it can do so that I can determine if it is a solution for me.
Jared
Patience, Grasshopper.
They aren't even shipping yet.
In the meantime, check this out and imagine how it applies to discrete judgments made in the time-stream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
-
Postus Interuptus?
Hah! I at the gym and I dropped my phone! Others made my point.
-
Hah! I at the gym and I dropped my phone! Others made my point.
Just don't drop it in the shower!!!!
-
Looking at the latest info posted I see a few things that stood out:
- Mute groups but apparently no DCAs.
- No dedicated scene access (Save/recall/increment/decrement) buttons, however you may be able to assign the user defined buttons for that purpose.
- Only 1/3 octave GEQ on the L/R and 10 main mixes, apparently no parametric option, and conversely 4 band PEQ only and no GEQ for the stereo buses. So apparently no PEQ for floor wedges.
- You can record and playback all 16 mono inputs direct from a hard drive via USB but apparently can record only one selected stereo input of the three available and playback only to Stereo 1. You can also stream Inputs 1-16, L/R and three selected stereo mix bus pairs via USB to a Mac (and playback 16 mono and three stereo signals), but apparently no PC compatibility.
- Compatibility with the dSnake stage boxes and ME personal mixers but the stage boxes are apparently limited to remoting, not expanding, the I/O.
- A third Custom layer but no electronic scribble strips. Not a big deal as is but seems potentially more relevant if a version was developed with expanded I/O capability (along with the 18 USB channels needing to also increase).
Overall it seems to be aimed at a more specific market/application.
-
Looking at the latest info posted I see a few things that stood out:
Overall it seems to be aimed at a more specific market/application.
But it has motorized faders...
-
I love the look of this mixer with a GLD in inventory as well. You'd have the flagship mixer, but also a smaller mixer both compatible with your existing digital snake and with preamps on board.
It wasn't immediately clear from the release, unless I misread something - would it be possible to use the dsnake system as a digital split? I feel like maybe not, because I think I remember the setup for digital split with the GLD involving an expansion card? Any input from GLD users?
I was taking with Carey Davies about using the monitor out on the AR2412 as a split. I haven't tried it yet to see if it would work. The big hiccup supposedly with it is that there are 64 channels in each direction with the Dsnake, the first 20 sends are the 12 outs on the AR2412 and the 8 sends of the two AR84s. Therefore the first channel of the split would be dsp#21 of the 64 sends. Hopefully they will make a firmware update to address it a little differently. I am not sure if I could try to address channels 1-44 as 21-64 right now and get it to work.
-
Except it would sound good. :p
I love the way folks talk about Yamaha consoles. Do consoles sound different? Yes, in subtle ways.... but for the most part any console within a price category will have similar trade-offs, some more audible and some more feature-related.
I've had multiple desks on the same PA, same venue, same show and heard stellar mixes on LS/9 and shit mixes on Venue. Whatever relative "sonics" exist within the desks were irrelevant.
Folks that rave about a boutique preamp or compressor or whatever are doing so not because the device is transparent, but because it colors the sound in a way the the user finds appealing. Might it be that the Yamaha "sound" is, in fact, clean and clear and transparent... but what the user wants is a particular type of coloration; does that mean the Yamaha is defective or sounds bad? No, it means that the user desires something else.
I want to send the various wankers and whiners a Peavey MD series mixer and say "when your mix sounds good on this we'll let you mix on the LS/9."
-
I love the way folks talk about Yamaha consoles. Do consoles sound different? Yes, in subtle ways.... but for the most part any console within a price category will have similar trade-offs, some more audible and some more feature-related.
BTW my :p was supposed to be a sarcasm/joke button. And I agree with your response.
-
I want to send the various wankers and whiners a Peavey MD series mixer and say "when your mix sounds good on this we'll let you mix on the LS/9."
I remember my first time on a digital console. I was wishing it was a Peavey MD series console!!!!
-
First,
Thanks Brad for that great overview. That helps quite a bit in the absence of any more documentation than we currently have.
I am all for being creative and working within the parameters you are given. Even if the Qu does not expand channel count I can still find a use for this mixer and ways to work around it. I am not saying this is a bad product because it doesn't meet my every need. All I am saying is that as a potential customer, it could be a a deciding factor in choosing this product over another.
For me I am looking for a rack mountable digital console that has a minimum of 16 mic channels. Currently this leaves me with 2 options, the Presonus and Soundcraft Expression. Neither of which excite me for various reasons. Sure I could make either work, but honestly I would rather have an analog console over those 2. The Behringer options are still out there and while I am perfectly comfortable mixing on the X32, I am not sure I want 8 layers of faders and no scribble strip on the X32 Producer.
So I am really excited about the Qu. It looks to be a great product and all I really want is clarity on what it can do so that I can determine if it is a solution for me.
Jared
P.S. I really do respect you Dick. You have taught me a lot and I am not trying to argue or belittle this product, or even demand that they consult me on product design. I am simply stating that I would be disappointed if it didn't have what I was hoping for.
Right there with you. Great post.
I guess we will just have to wait for more clear documentation to come out at this point.
@Dick,
If the $100.00 guitar can be made to sound as good as the Taylor, why buy the Taylor?
Because it can't be made to sound as good .... which may make the comparison to mixers incorrect and a bad case for my argument.
Perhaps speakers would be a better idea. If a speaker sounds bad out of the box, you can eq it, cross-over and dual drive it, time align it, phase align it, etc, etc until you get it to sound good.... at least someone like you could.
Isn't it better if you just plug it in, hook it up, and it sounds good?
In the case of mixers, I think Tim had it right:
Folks that rave about a boutique preamp or compressor or whatever are doing so not because the device is transparent, but because it colors the sound in a way the the user finds appealing. Might it be that the Yamaha "sound" is, in fact, clean and clear and transparent... but what the user wants is a particular type of coloration; does that mean the Yamaha is defective or sounds bad? No, it means that the user desires something else.
Not withstanding the Yamaha reference (the only local band I know that uses an LS9 sounds fantastic to me and I have no reference to how they might sound with any other mixer), what sounds "good" to one person may not sound "good" to another.
I have grown used to the sound I get with my MixWiz and M-OneXL with respect to vocals..... kind of warm yet transparent. The ease with which I can get as similar a sound out of one of the new digital mixers is one of my big purchasing points. The other is how well I can record, remix, save and recall settings remotely so I can mix from stage and get the best possible results with as little effort as possible (my most important qualification).
I still have some work to do. I am considering the X32 Producer .... but it isn't out yet, this new A&H mixer, The StudioLive 16.4.2 and the Soundcraft Expression Si. I have only heard and played with the X32 and StudioLive, and only heard the StudioLive in a gig.
Hopefully I can weed through and get the best mixer for me out of all of these new and exciting products :)
It is a good time to be getting a new mixer. There is so much happening recently in this area of live sound!
-
@Dick,Because it can't be made to sound as good ....
You are mistaken. Or maybe not. I'll believe you if you say you can't make it sound as good. I cannot believe you if you say it can't be done.
What you pay for a piece of gear does not necessarily dictate what you can get out of it. Anyone (with enough money) can buy a Stradivarius. Few can play it to its capacity......
-
I was taking with Carey Davies about using the monitor out on the AR2412 as a split. I haven't tried it yet to see if it would work. The big hiccup supposedly with it is that there are 64 channels in each direction with the Dsnake, the first 20 sends are the 12 outs on the AR2412 and the 8 sends of the two AR84s. Therefore the first channel of the split would be dsp#21 of the 64 sends. Hopefully they will make a firmware update to address it a little differently. I am not sure if I could try to address channels 1-44 as 21-64 right now and get it to work.
I'd love to hear more about this. Seems odd that is hypothetically possible, but no formal A&H stance about dsnake splits.
-
The section in bold type should be added to a lot of posts carping on the "quality" of various features. IMNSHO, the adage "it's a poor workman who blames his tools" is "sticky-quality".
Is there a super glue option Dick?
Well, now that I've waited for the trees to shed their leaves it will be nice to be able to choose from a variety digital boards. Still leaning towards the Soundcraft though, but who knows what else will be around in another 6 months. ;)
-
Is there a super glue option Dick?
Well, now that I've waited for the trees to shed their leaves it will be nice to be able to choose from a variety digital boards. Still leaning towards the Soundcraft though, but who knows what else will be around in another 6 months. ;)
Wish Soundcraft hadn't left out the Q on the low and hi EQ bands.
It looks very interesting other than that.
The user interface looks like it would be as user friendly as anything out there.
Love to somehow compare the different digi boards
A digital mixer shootout would sure be interesting.
Don't have a clue how one would effectively compare them though.
Seems like it would take a lot of resources to have enough gear for multiple people to play.
-
I'll probably never move to this from my MixWiz 16:2 which is already in many ways overkilll for my application (but overkill which I appreciate in terms of having backup channels, and a comfort level that I can accommodate just about anything I need to, that is thrown my way) and I love a lot about this mixer, but I still see a couple of things I would like to add to it. I don't see this on other desks either, at least not in this market either though.
1) crossover. I had an iTech 8000 which had crossover built into the DSP and it seems like a no brainer to me that if you have stereo and mono outputs, and in this case even more in the form of mix outs, that you would provide a way to apply the crossover right there. One could build quite a versatile array of output options relatively easily it seems. If you wanted to do a bi-amped tops mono mix, you could apply a 3-way mono with the L/R operating as hi and mid with the mono out operating as your sub out, or for the other most common need, stereo L/R crossed over as mid/high stereo, and the mono as mono sub out. Of course with 10 outputs, one could do even more elaborate things, but those two would cover I think 90% or better of the market and save having to have another piece of gear -- the crossover.
I thought about the idea of using the EQ to do a faux crossover but it seems maybe guys like Sigfried Linkwitz and his friend Riley know a bit more about this stuff than dolts like me.
2) limiter. Going from memory, it seems I recall the x32 having this feature, but don't remember if it has any at all, and if it does, if they are inputs, or outputs. I would love to see good adjustable limiters built into the outputs. Again, this seems like a basic feature. I do see that this is more of a user preference item compared to crossovers though. With crossovers there's a finite set of choices unless you get into esoteric options which may or may not exist AFAIK. With limiters, it would seem each mfg has their own way of doing things so bundling this on a desk might not be as desirable.
Having said that, if I were buying new, I might consider the Qu16 over the MixWiz because even with the two "oversights" I mention above, it has a lot of features that eliminate other rack gear meaning its higher price isn't as much over the MixWiz as it would appear at first glance assuming one would have purchased that other gear. Gates, compressors and EQ come to mind right off the bat. For my setup, I also have a splitter which I use as a poor man's pressbox and the extra mix-outs fill this need considering the number of feeds I supply (1 or 2 so far). Those items alone, add up to close to the price difference based on what I've seen (under $2500). So with the added features like the USB and digital stage snake option, it would seem like the logical choice.
-
I'll probably never move to this from my MixWiz 16:2 which is already in many ways overkilll for my application (but overkill which I appreciate in terms of having backup channels, and a comfort level that I can accommodate just about anything I need to, that is thrown my way) and I love a lot about this mixer, but I still see a couple of things I would like to add to it. I don't see this on other desks either, at least not in this market either though.
1) crossover. I had an iTech 8000 which had crossover built into the DSP and it seems like a no brainer to me that if you have stereo and mono outputs, and in this case even more in the form of mix outs, that you would provide a way to apply the crossover right there. One could build quite a versatile array of output options relatively easily it seems. If you wanted to do a bi-amped tops mono mix, you could apply a 3-way mono with the L/R operating as hi and mid with the mono out operating as your sub out, or for the other most common need, stereo L/R crossed over as mid/high stereo, and the mono as mono sub out. Of course with 10 outputs, one could do even more elaborate things, but those two would cover I think 90% or better of the market and save having to have another piece of gear -- the crossover.
I thought about the idea of using the EQ to do a faux crossover but it seems maybe guys like Sigfried Linkwitz and his friend Riley know a bit more about this stuff than dolts like me.
2) limiter. Going from memory, it seems I recall the x32 having this feature, but don't remember if it has any at all, and if it does, if they are inputs, or outputs. I would love to see good adjustable limiters built into the outputs. Again, this seems like a basic feature. I do see that this is more of a user preference item compared to crossovers though. With crossovers there's a finite set of choices unless you get into esoteric options which may or may not exist AFAIK. With limiters, it would seem each mfg has their own way of doing things so bundling this on a desk might not be as desirable.
Having said that, if I were buying new, I might consider the Qu16 over the MixWiz because even with the two "oversights" I mention above, it has a lot of features that eliminate other rack gear meaning its higher price isn't as much over the MixWiz as it would appear at first glance assuming one would have purchased that other gear. Gates, compressors and EQ come to mind right off the bat. For my setup, I also have a splitter which I use as a poor man's pressbox and the extra mix-outs fill this need considering the number of feeds I supply (1 or 2 so far). Those items alone, add up to close to the price difference based on what I've seen (under $2500). So with the added features like the USB and digital stage snake option, it would seem like the logical choice.
The X32 at least can do this as follows (I think):
- Create 4 (or 6 for a 3 way) sub mixes
- On the low sub mix, use the parametric eq to create a high cut filter (thus passing only LF)
- On the hi mix, use the parametric eq to create a low cut filter (thus passing only HF)
[li]Use the routing to send these sub mixes to seperate XLR outputs
[/li][/list]
This is possible on the X32 because each of the 4 band parametric eq can be set to low cut,low shelf, PEQ, VEQ, high shelf, and high cut.
I don't know how great a cross-over this would make since you currently have no control over the slope of the cross-over in the "cut" modes (or I don't know how to do it ;) ).
It may be possible to do this with the other consoles as well, but I haven't had enough time playing with them to figure it out. None of the other consoles have as flexible a PEQ as the X32, but their may be another way to do it that I haven't figured out.
@ Dick,
You are mistaken. Or maybe not. I'll believe you if you say you can't make it sound as good. I cannot believe you if you say it can't be done.
What you pay for a piece of gear does not necessarily dictate what you can get out of it. Anyone (with enough money) can buy a Stradivarius. Few can play it to its capacity......
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. There are considerable differences to my ear of a high end Taylor and a GC $100.00 special acoustic guitar. It wouldn't matter if you were playing "Tom Dooley", I could easily hear the difference.
This is the same for some mixers as well. I had a little cheep Behringer mixer in my basement for parties (I do DJ and Karaoke parties in our sub). The little guy died on me after a few years (which is BS since it was the easiest work load for any mixer possible), and I replaced it with a ZED 10Fx. Anyone could hear the difference in mixers, and I seriously doubt even a pro like you could have made the Behringer sound anywhere near as good as the ZED.
I do get what you are saying .... that there are lots of people that simply don't know how to mix well and therefore complain that their mixer/instrument rack is not good.
There are cases where a better piece of gear simply makes getting good sound easy to do.
No one would expect to be able to make a pair of cheep speakers sound as good as a pair of Meyer's .... no matter how good you are ;)
-
I don't know how great a cross-over this would make since you currently have no control over the slope of the cross-over in the "cut" modes (or I don't know how to do it ;) ).
Hmmm... feasable but sounds like enthusiast solution to me.
If slope is not selectable, there are strong chances that it is too low for filtering. Usualy low cuts are at 12dB/octave, while one prefer 24dB/octave for filtering. I did not find the slope in the X32 manual. Also, a dedicated crossover will allow to choose between linkwitz-riley, Butterworth or Bessel curves. There is no indication for that of the X32.
Console limiters are often peak limiters, while a good processor will have both RMS and peak limiters.
However crossover built into the console is not sci-fi, Yamaha's MY8-LAKE prove it.
-
Hmmm... feasable but sounds like enthusiast solution to me.
If slope is not selectable, there are strong chances that it is too low for filtering. Usualy low cuts are at 12dB/octave, while one prefer 24dB/octave for filtering. I did not find the slope in the X32 manual. Also, a dedicated crossover will allow to choose between linkwitz-riley, Butterworth or Bessel curves. There is no indication for that of the X32.
Console limiters are often peak limiters, while a good processor will have both RMS and peak limiters.
However crossover built into the console is not sci-fi, Yamaha's MY8-LAKE prove it.
There may well be a board some day that also includes all of the functions of a proper crossover/DSP, but until that time I'll stay with the likes of a 4800, or the MY8. Even a 260 is far superior to a band aid solution. File that under the right tool for the job.
-
There may well be a board some day that also includes all of the functions of a proper crossover/DSP, but until that time I'll stay with the likes of a 4800, or the MY8. Even a 260 is far superior to a band aid solution. File that under the right tool for the job.
There was actually a Lake card available for the old Mackie digital desk.
I know the EAW digital mixer had audio measurement tools onboard, don't know about actual DSP audio paths for system alignment, though.
-
Did the EAW board ever exist? I only remember seeing it on the web site.
-
Did the EAW board ever exist? I only remember seeing it on the web site.
There was one that went on tour. It may have been the only one.
Mac
-
There was one that went on tour. It may have been the only one.
Mac
You are correct. I remember reading that Foreigner took one out on tour. I wonder what happened.
JP
-
I know the EAW digital mixer had audio measurement tools onboard, don't know about actual DSP audio paths for system alignment, though.
The onboard measurement of the QU-16 is claimed to be a RTA, not a dual FFT, so not the most useful for system alignement. Presonus offers a customized version of Smaart (as do many other high end consoles, but the StudioLive is cheap). It runs on an external computer, not directly on the console. But most of us bring at least a laptop, don't we?
-
Hmmm... feasable but sounds like enthusiast solution to me.
If slope is not selectable, there are strong chances that it is too low for filtering. Usualy low cuts are at 12dB/octave, while one prefer 24dB/octave for filtering. I did not find the slope in the X32 manual. Also, a dedicated crossover will allow to choose between linkwitz-riley, Butterworth or Bessel curves. There is no indication for that of the X32.
Console limiters are often peak limiters, while a good processor will have both RMS and peak limiters.
However crossover built into the console is not sci-fi, Yamaha's MY8-LAKE prove it.
Hi Nicolas,
You are correct. A "real" cross-over would have all those things. I think that some of the cross-overs can do 48db/octave which would be a pretty sharp curve.
Using the current capabilities of the paradigm that at least the X32 has, it would be easier to implement these slopes and filter types as part of the eq section rather than a new dedicated GUI ..... but then it would be easier to USE if it was done right ;)
-
The onboard measurement of the QU-16 is claimed to be a RTA, not a dual FFT, so not the most useful for system alignement. Presonus offers a customized version of Smaart (as do many other high end consoles, but the StudioLive is cheap). It runs on an external computer, not directly on the console. But most of us bring at least a laptop, don't we?
It's not there for system alignment. It's for quickly viewing feedback frequencies for faster workflow for the mixer person.
-
You are correct. I remember reading that Foreigner took one out on tour. I wonder what happened.
JP
Yep, Don Dodge was running it. It sounded great, but he is one of the best engineers I've worked with.
-
The onboard measurement of the QU-16 is claimed to be a RTA, not a dual FFT, so not the most useful for system alignement. Presonus offers a customized version of Smaart (as do many other high end consoles, but the StudioLive is cheap). It runs on an external computer, not directly on the console. But most of us bring at least a laptop, don't we?
What color and finish do you like for your audio consoles?
-
What color and finish do you like for your audio consoles?
Blue and shiny ;)
I guess what sounds pleasing to one person doesn't always sound good to another.
-
Blue and shiny ;)
I guess what sounds pleasing to one person doesn't always sound good to another.
The question was addressed to Nicolas and was rhetorical.
-
And the bad news......
Either A&H or AMS has adjusted the dealer cost higher than what was originally expected. Still very affordable. I'll be getting one.
-
Dick,
May I state that at the present time my favorite mixer color is tan. I may not have all of the bells and whistles that many people seem to need these days, but 20 channels in a rack with a dbx 4800 makes for decent sound at least. Maybe not as good as those high end Presonus rigs I see referenced above, but enough to get by I guess.
I have a mouse from Braintree whispering in my ear, and I tend to think we have yet to see everything that's coming from Soundcraft. Can I have an amen brother!
-
There was one that went on tour. It may have been the only one.
Mac
The rumor/pepper mill said there were at least 2 complete mixers and enough modules and chunks of hardware to have built a very few more, but the desk that went out with Don was the only one to be found "in the wild."
I expect a pepper mill to be more reliable that the rumor mill, though.
-
There is the forever hypothetical Yamaha LS9 replacement, too!
-
You are correct. I remember reading that Foreigner took one out on tour. I wonder what happened.
JP
Dave rat had one right after they moved the micro wedge to eaw that he used at a demo they did at the lighting show here in Orlando. I think he kept asking for his h3k back.
-
What color and finish do you like for your audio consoles?
Hm, I don't know exactly what it means but I do not understand every English subtleties (not my mother tongue). This is espacially true on jokes.
But my remark seems unclear so let's clear it:
kristianjohnsen was talking about onboard measurement on the EAW. My point was to make it clear that there are many kinds of measurement tools with different purposes. Some console integrates Smaart. The Presonus does not integrate it but there is a customized version to run on a PC. I was just pointing that the RTA included in the QU-16 could not compete with a dual FFT, so one should not think these are equivalent features. Maybe the difference between RTA and dual FFT is obvious for every single member of this forum so my remark was useless.
BTW, you can use a RTA to analyze a system. You can even set delays roughly (the hole at the crossever frequency should disappear). I did it before learning Systune. I can compare the RTA and FFT curves in Systune and usually they are not that different. So a RTA will help to setup a small sound system if that is all what you have. But it is much less reliable than a FFT, you have no clue on where it is not relaibale, and it can make things worse in rare occasions.
Anyway there is a free version of Systune and usually we bring a laptop everywhere, so not having the Dual FFT included is just no choice criteria, as the console colour. Is this what you meant, Dick ?
Sorry if I am writing small talk.
-
Anyway there is a free version of Systune and usually we bring a laptop everywhere, so not having the Dual FFT included is just no choice criteria, as the console colour. Is this what you meant, Dick ?
Very close.
I am very tired of posts lamenting the "lack" of features on sound gear, features which make no sense when their inclusion would raise both R&D and production costs when trying to lower the price point of the product in the first place. IOW, you get what you pay for OR you pay for what you get.
The SMAART junior stuff on the SLive is useful to me as a "super-RTA" to keep an eye on the monitors when mixing them from FOH. Beyond that, there's nothing for which use(s) it is touted that cannot be done quicker and just as well by ear. Who needs to use it to set the delay for you? You measure the distance between your mains and your delays and program it into your delay, then listen and tweak for final adjustment. You need SMAART to do this? I think not.
So "features" hyped for marketing purposes or an enhanced "gee whiz" factor make as much difference to me as the color of the console.........very, very little.
-
OK, but tan is my color. Plus it has more features than my wife's Kenmore washing machine. That has to count for something.
-
Well, I wasn't saying the QU-16 "lacks" the FFT option. Again, I was just saying the RTA, marketed by A&H (it is in the feature list) should not be over considered. If it were not there, the console would worth the same. The fact that the SL has Smaart is not really an argument. What I pointed is that A&H's RTA is even more useless (less useful?). It is just there to enlarge the feature list.
I agree that a console of that price will not have everything. I am not at all bothered by my SI-Compact lacking full parametric on highs and lows, or only global pre/post. I am bothered by people claiming they would never mix on a SI-compact just because of the EQ. I find this to be minutiae compared to what makes a great show. Please, find me a black backdrop to hide the concrete wall and get me two PAR cans to replace those neon lights. Then we might focus on the EQ. I am also bothered by people claiming "This feature is not present, I would never buy it". What is the point of such a claim when you were not to buy a console and have no need to arbitrate between several constraints (including price)? I understand this is what "armchair quarterbacking" means.
I never meant the QU-16 is crap because it does not have something the competitors have. Conversely, competitors do not have features present on the QU-16 (4 band full parametric for example). There is a difference between saying "the QU-16 has this and not that" and "the QU-16 has not that, it's crap". I find interesting that we compare the features of similar priced console to see the differences. It is even useful to compare consoles of different prices, to look at what you get when you pay more. A thread like this one mainly compares the compromises made by the manufacturers. Otherwise there is very little to say. Dick, what else did you expect? I feel you read more than I wrote, and extrapolated to what usually annoys you to read.
Concerning the FFT, I find it very useful. I cannot measure the distance between the tweeter and the woofer of my coaxial speakers with a ruler. I can measure it with an impulse response. Once this is done, I find the FFT useful to measure each frequency band response and to equalize them. I find it useful to set the bands at a same level acoustically. I find it useful to equalize the whole system with the ability to see the impact at different locations in the venue. A good thing is Systune free allows for multi mic. I find it useful to give me data more objective than my ears.
Probably my ears are not trained enough to setup a system without a FFT. But that is mainly because there is absolutely no reason I would not use a FFT today, and I wasn't doing sound during the previous millennium when it did not exist. Young sound guys do not know how to use their ears for sound system setup? This is progress. This has been a long time since young people lost the know-how of cutting stones before the hunt. Most of us would not live long in the Stone Age.
I never felt I needed a RTA to track feedbacks. My Systune is configured as a SPL meter during the show. Fortunately, the bands I mix are pro enough to keep a low stage sound level.
-
Consumers decide what is "useful" for themselves.
If you are going to develop a product, it is important to accurately gauge your market competitors and their features/capabilities.
The idea that "features" don't matter (say a dual FFT ;) ). doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to you, or perhaps even others that want the mixer for the same purpose you do, doesn't mean it isn't going to cost A&H some sales because they don't have it.
I mix from stage while I play. The lack of MIDI control for me for scene changes is nearly a non-starter. If I were mixing remotely .... not so much (or not at all).
I find the lack of a more flexible channel eq a pretty serious oversight myself.... especially when other mixers in this price range have it.
The lack of extension of channels (if that is actually true) would also be a pretty serious oversight IMHO. I don't need it. 16 is plenty for me... but there are LOTS of others that this would be a non-starter for.
I really like A&H. I have owned my MixWiz for over 10 years. That doesn't mean I wont give them an honest review of features in their new digital mixer.
I personally am sick and tired of people telling me (and others) what features we DON'T need and that if we weren't so stupid, we could make what features we have work.
-
Consumers decide what is "useful" for themselves.
If you are going to develop a product, it is important to accurately gauge your market competitors and their features/capabilities.
The idea that "features" don't matter (say a dual FFT ;) ). doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to you, or perhaps even others that want the mixer for the same purpose you do, doesn't mean it isn't going to cost A&H some sales because they don't have it.
I mix from stage while I play. The lack of MIDI control for me for scene changes is nearly a non-starter. If I were mixing remotely .... not so much (or not at all).
I find the lack of a more flexible channel eq a pretty serious oversight myself.... especially when other mixers in this price range have it.
The lack of extension of channels (if that is actually true) would also be a pretty serious oversight IMHO. I don't need it. 16 is plenty for me... but there are LOTS of others that this would be a non-starter for.
I really like A&H. I have owned my MixWiz for over 10 years. That doesn't mean I wont give them an honest review of features in their new digital mixer.
I personally am sick and tired of people telling me (and others) what features we DON'T need and that if we weren't so stupid, we could make what features we have work.
I spent years working on mixer product definitions as my day job and listening to customers tell me "if you just add this one extra feature it will be perfect". Except that every customer had a different one feature I needed to add. :o
The customers do decide in the marketplace by voting with their purchases.
The marginal feature mix for successful products is as much art as science, but the customers en mass ultimately define the mix and get what they support. Feature set and incremental cost to deliver those features is sometimes influenced by the platform technology. It is obviously easier to add inexpensive features, as long as they have some utility. A new product with no hooks to talk about gives the sales guys ulcers.
JR
-
I spent years working on mixer product definitions as my day job and listening to customers tell me "if you just add this one extra feature it will be perfect". Except that every customer had a different one feature I needed to add. :o
The customers do decide in the marketplace by voting with their purchases.
The marginal feature mix for successful products is as much art as science, but the customers en mass ultimately define the mix and get what they support. Feature set and incremental cost to deliver those features is sometimes influenced by the platform technology. It is obviously easier to add inexpensive features, as long as they have some utility. A new product with no hooks to talk about gives the sales guys ulcers.
JR
John,
Thanks for your response.
I agree with your assessment completely. I do product development in my engineering area as well and know first hand what you are talking about.
It is always a slippery slope when you start telling your customers that they don't need a feature they are asking for. This is especially true if one or more of your competitors have this feature already. This behavior can result in loss of sales, sometimes quite precipitously.
A new product with no hooks to talk about gives the sales guys ulcers.
That is spot on IMHO. This is what surprises me most about the Qu 16. As far as I can see, the only "hook" it has is that it is a digital mixer by Allen & Heath in the rack-mountable MI market.
According to my score card on the Qu 16, the only feature it currently excels in is multi-track recording since it can do this with only a USB hard drive attached. I believe all competitors in this range are less powerful and/or flexible. X32 can only record direct with a stereo output to USB (currently), Soundcraft can only record with an add in card and an external computer, Presonus with an external computer, X32 multi-track only with an external computer.
Does the name "Allen & Heath" necessarily mean that it will sound better and be more durable than its direct competition? It seems like A&H has bet that it does.
I do like that it has 16 independent channel faders (as does all the competition except the X32 Performer ... again, nothing that would pop out above the crowd).
-
According to my score card on the Qu 16, the only feature it currently excels in is multi-track recording since it can do this with only a USB hard drive attached. I believe all competitors in this range are less powerful and/or flexible. X32 can only record direct with a stereo output to USB (currently), Soundcraft can only record with an add in card and an external computer, Presonus with an external computer, X32 multi-track only with an external computer.
Does the name "Allen & Heath" necessarily mean that it will sound better and be more durable than its direct competition? It seems like A&H has bet that it does.
You need you read the literature very closely and you will see the differences. You will also notice what it is not trying to be.
1. The Qu16 is not trying to compete with the X32 or the Soundcraft consoles. A&H has the GLD for that and the GLD is so much more of a console than those.
2. It has recall able headamps and moving faders. A&H specifically makes mention of this. They are comparing this console directly to the SL16 without mentioning it by name.
3. There is no possible digital snake option with the SL consoles regardless of how many inputs can be used from the stage box.
4. The Qu16 has recording features that put it one step a head of the SL, again they are obviously trying to set this console up to compete very favorably against the SL.
It appears quite obvious to me that they are directly going head to head with the Studio Live and none others. Another thing you would not know unless you had inside information. You can not buy a GLD at the local big box music store. You CAN buy the Qu16 there when they begin shipping.
-
You need you read the literature very closely and you will see the differences. You will also notice what it is not trying to be.
1. The Qu16 is not trying to compete with the X32 or the Soundcraft consoles. A&H has the GLD for that and the GLD is so much more of a console than those.
2. It has recall able headamps and moving faders. A&H specifically makes mention of this. They are comparing this console directly to the SL16 without mentioning it by name.
3. There is no possible digital snake option with the SL consoles regardless of how many inputs can be used from the stage box.
4. The Qu16 has recording features that put it one step a head of the SL, again they are obviously trying to set this console up to compete very favorably against the SL.
It appears quite obvious to me that they are directly going head to head with the Studio Live and none others. Another thing you would not know unless you had inside information. You can not buy a GLD at the local big box music store. You CAN buy the Qu16 there when they begin shipping.
Hi Ryan,
The GLD appears to be around $8500.00, so I would agree with you that the Qu 16 is not in the same market at $2600.00
I also agree that the Qu 16 is in direct competition with the StudioLive 16.4.2, although with the current pricing of that mixer being ~ $1800.00, It might be a bit of a stretch to put the Qu 16 in the same exact market.
Where I don't quite agree is with the Soundcraft Expression Si 1 ($2500.00) and the X32 Performer ($2000.00) are not in direct competition.
All of these mixers are 16 mic pre digital mixers. All but the SL 16.4.2 have motorized faders and recallable preamp gains. All of these mixers have multi-track record and playback capabilities (although the Expression Si requires an additional MADI card to do it). All of these mixers can be had between $2000.00 and $3000.00.
The X32 Performer and Expression Si can be extended to 32 channels through a digital snake, while the SL 16.4.2 can be "linked" to another 16.4.2 (which isn't really the same thing and not that cost effective IMHO) while the Qu 16 can not.
The Expression Si 1 has a fully 2 band parametric eq with the HF and LF having frequency and gain, but not Q. The Qu 16 has a full 4 band parametric eq, and the X32 has a 4 band parametric eq with each band capable of being set to low cut, low shelf, peq, veq, high shelf, or high cut. The StudioLive has 4 full parametric bands with limited Q adjustment.
I believe that every one of these mixers are pretty good. The StudioLive is the least feature rich, but then it is by far the oldest design.
If the Qu 16 was designed to be a StudioLive 16.4.2 killer, I think they did a good job of getting it done (albeit at a significantly higher price).
I would also give it the nod (in features) over the Expression Si 1. Both are at a very similar price point, but the Qu 16 has the ability out-of-the-box to do multi-channel recording to and from USB (and I like the channel eq a bit better on the Qu 16).
IF you can ignore that the X32 performer has a big "Behringer" stamp on it, this mixer has more expandability, more efx engines, more mix buses, ...... pretty much more of everything.... and it is priced at only $2000.00. If they haven't changed the internals from the original X32, the sound is very good as well.
I would also mention that the Yamaha 01v96i is also a contender in this market at $2400.00 and is the only mixer in this class that records at 96KHz (all others max out at 44/48Khz). This doesn't matter to me, but it may to some.
I have only scratched the surface here with the feature comparison. The amount of features these mixers have is dizzying :) I would say that FOR ME, the ease of setup for these mixers (easy to hard) would go as follows:
SL 16.4.2 < (Expression Si = Qu 16) < X32 Performer < 01v96i
Once these mixers have been setup, the in-use effort varies only a little IMHO. If you have to setup differently often (sound providers), then this is a pretty big deal.
If I have something incorrect in my data here, someone please let me know. The setup and usability assessment is purely my own opinion and may not be without valid arguments.
-
A QU-16 Q&A posted on the GLD forum says the dsnake will be able to be used as a split with a GLD, but this feature won't be ready at launch.
-
SI is 16 outs, QU is 14. SI has four stereo ins, QU has three.
The X32 Performer and Expression Si can be extended to 32 channels through a digital snake, while the SL 16.4.2 can be "linked" to another 16.4.2 (which isn't really the same thing and not that cost effective IMHO) while the Qu 16 can not.
The Expression 3 is actually less expensive than an Expression 1, plus a MADI card, snake, and stage box if you need 32 mic ins.
I also agree that the Qu 16 is in direct competition with the StudioLive 16.4.2, although with the current pricing of that mixer being ~ $1800.00, It might be a bit of a stretch to put the Qu 16 in the same exact market.
Where I don't quite agree is with the Soundcraft Expression Si 1 ($2500.00) and the X32 Performer ($2000.00) are not in direct competition.
Yes, this market segment is getting very interesting, and these are all arguably in the same.
-
SI has four stereo ins, QU has three.
Interestingly, the manual for the Si says that it had 6 stereo in's, but I guess thats a typo
"• 4 Matrix mixes that can operate in mono or stereo.
• 14 Aux mixes, 6 of which can operate in mono or stereo.
• 6 stereo inputs.
• 4 user-assignable fader layers.
• Colour touch screen."
-
The Si Compact has 4 but they are all occupied by FX returns if you use all 4 processors. Even if you have inputs to mix left over, only 4 one fader stereo channels. This may or may not be the case with the expression.
-
The Si Compact has 4 but they are all occupied by FX returns if you use all 4 processors. Even if you have inputs to mix left over, only 4 one fader stereo channels. This may or may not be the case with the expression.
Actually, a question that I have been asked about the stereo ins, from the owners of the desk I got to play with was, "are the 4 jack inputs actually stereo inputs by themselves or are they only stereo when used in pairs? i.e. 1-2 and 3-4" I ASSumed that each jack input would be a stereo input when supplied with a stereo source over a TRS jack but the owners are trying this and only getting signal from one side (unless they use 2 inputs). Looking through the manual, I havn't spotted if the inputs are linked or not??
(Clarification; Talking about the Si Exp 2 here)
-
A QU-16 Q&A posted on the GLD forum says the dsnake will be able to be used as a split with a GLD, but this feature won't be ready at launch.
This is also possible with Si and any of the larger Soundcraft desks. Follow up question to myself: if the Qu-16 and a GLD will be able to split via dsnake, will 2 GLDs?
-
There may well be a board some day that also includes all of the functions of a proper crossover/DSP, but until that time I'll stay with the likes of a 4800, or the MY8. Even a 260 is far superior to a band aid solution. File that under the right tool for the job.
Sorry for jumping in late.
The X32 has crossover filters, BU6, BU12, BS12, LR12, BU18, BU24, BS24, LR24 available across the matrices.
Sidhu
-
Sorry for jumping in late.
The X32 has crossover filters, BU6, BU12, BS12, LR12, BU18, BU24, BS24, LR24 available across the matrices.
Sidhu
Thank you for pointing that out. They hid it pretty well ;)
So you could use matrix mixes to create a 2 or 3 way stereo or mono cross-over (true cross-over) and routing to the 8 outs and/or the 6 aux outs.
On the topic of expansion to 32 channels, I only know of the pricing on the X32 line where the digital snake is capable out of the box, and only the S16 expansion is needed at $500.00.
An X32 producer with an S16 would then provide a full 32 XLR input mixer at $2500.00. I would state that I don't think that this is a reasonable configuration since the X32 producer does not have LCD scribble strips, and each layer is only 8 channels. The X32 compact does have scribble strips, but can not be rack mounted ....and is $2500.00. I was trying to keep my discussions on the Qu 16 competitors to other rack mounted 16 XLR channel input mixers.
I would say that the Expression Si seems to be more feature rich than I realized before. The Qu 16 may be very closely matched to the Expression Si in features.
Then there is the emotional aspect. Lets face it, an A&H 16 channel rack mount mixer is just cool to have .... and it looks cool too ;)
-
I think the Qu-16 looks like a fantastic product. While the criticism of the missing features is fair, I'm not sure how relevant it is. The questions that the A&H R&D team asked were less likely "What do people want in a low-end digital console?" but rather, "Which low-end digital consoles are usual MixWizard buyers purchasing, and what do they want in a low-end digital console?" Just judging from what I've seen local bands using and the features they chose to highlight, I would guess they found that most would-be MixWizard purchasers who went digital went with Presonus. The second question they would ask would be "What features on the Presonus board are the reasons they're choosing to buy it over the MixWizard & the Presonus' other competitors, where do they think that board is lacking, and what features are they not using?" Then "What can we do to make our product stand out from its most popular competitor?" Looking at it this way, I think the feature set makes a lot of sense.
-
I think the Qu-16 looks like a fantastic product. While the criticism of the missing features is fair, I'm not sure how relevant it is. Criticism of the "missing" features is irrelevant.
Fixed.
-
I get drawn into these threads because I really am seeking information, but the amount of pontification from some posters is mind boggling! It's amazing to me how some with so little actual experience think their opinions are so important to us that they can't resist expressing them!
Hint: If your post cannot fit on the screen without scolling, you might be a pontificator. ;)
-
Actually, a question that I have been asked about the stereo ins, from the owners of the desk I got to play with was, "are the 4 jack inputs actually stereo inputs by themselves or are they only stereo when used in pairs? i.e. 1-2 and 3-4" I ASSumed that each jack input would be a stereo input when supplied with a stereo source over a TRS jack but the owners are trying this and only getting signal from one side (unless they use 2 inputs). Looking through the manual, I havn't spotted if the inputs are linked or not??
(Clarification; Talking about the Si Exp 2 here)
They are not "stereo" as in two signals carried over one TRS cable. They are "stereo" as in two connections on the back of the board can be processed and controlled on 1 fader. You have to plug Left into one, right in the other. Stereo plugs as you imagined them only really exist in live sound gear as headphone outputs.
-
If your post cannot fit on the screen without scolling, you might be a pontificator. ;)
Chuck.....
Are you referring to a post in this thread? None of the 13 pages contain any posts which require scrolling.......or "scolling"......... Perhaps the display settings on your computer need to be changed.
Edit:
I see you apparently meant vertical scrolling. That never bothers me. It's the side-to-side stuff that bugs me. Once I invoke the "ignore" option, such posts are as short as can be.
-
Hint: If your post cannot fit on the screen without scolling, you might be a pontificator. ;)
Wadda ya mean, I can't be a pontificator? I got this cool pointy hat...
-
I think the Qu-16 looks like a fantastic product. While the criticism of the missing features is fair, I'm not sure how relevant it is. The questions that the A&H R&D team asked were less likely "What do people want in a low-end digital console?" but rather, "Which low-end digital consoles are usual MixWizard buyers purchasing, and what do they want in a low-end digital console?" Just judging from what I've seen local bands using and the features they chose to highlight, I would guess they found that most would-be MixWizard purchasers who went digital went with Presonus. The second question they would ask would be "What features on the Presonus board are the reasons they're choosing to buy it over the MixWizard & the Presonus' other competitors, where do they think that board is lacking, and what features are they not using?" Then "What can we do to make our product stand out from its most popular competitor?" Looking at it this way, I think the feature set makes a lot of sense.
Hey Taylor,
I agree with what you said. This sounds like a perfectly plausible explanation for the feature set on the Qu 16.
When the Qu 16 features were decided on, the SL 16.4.2 had been around for a while, so the questions you pose could easily be answered. As I stated, as a 16.4.2 killer, the Qu 16 really fits the bill.
The only flaw I can see in this rationale is that when the Qu 16 features were being decided on, and the 16.4.2 was the big new thing which traditional MixWiz owners were buying (like I nearly did), there was no X32 Producer (or X32 period) to compare it to.
The same flaw exists in the features of the Soundcraft Expression Si (in fact, the more I learn about the Qu 16 and Expression Si, the more these mixers start looking nearly the same to me).
I get drawn into these threads because I really am seeking information, but the amount of pontification from some posters is mind boggling! It's amazing to me how some with so little actual experience think their opinions are so important to us that they can't resist expressing them!
Hint: If your post cannot fit on the screen without scolling, you might be a pontificator.
My last post looks like one you may be talking about. It's OK, you can call me out by name if that is what you think I am doing.
I wouldn't put any time into these threads at all if I were not looking into a new digital mixer myself. There isn't a white paper written on this subject where someone can go and look-up all the caveats of the different 16 channel, rack mountable, digital mixers in the $2000-$3000 price range, so I look up features from various sites and post them. Sometimes this takes more than a page to do. Perhaps I missed some forum rule?
Additionally, this forum is one where people are encouraged to express their opinions. The experience level varies from person to person, but all opinions are allowed. Perhaps you were thinking of some other forum.
-
They are not "stereo" as in two signals carried over one TRS cable. They are "stereo" as in two connections on the back of the board can be processed and controlled on 1 fader. You have to plug Left into one, right in the other. Stereo plugs as you imagined them only really exist in live sound gear as headphone outputs.
Makes sense :) . I think one of the things threw me was the fact they are numbered 1-2-3-4 on the back with no mention of L-R like it has on the Si Compact.
Cheers
-
Hint: If your post cannot fit on the screen without scolling, you might be a pontificator. ;)
Not saying anyone here is... but the definition is funny.
-
I get drawn into these threads because I really am seeking information, but the amount of pontification from some posters is mind boggling! It's amazing to me how some with so little actual experience think their opinions are so important to us that they can't resist expressing them!
Hint: If your post cannot fit on the screen without scolling, you might be a pontificator. ;)
Be mindful that a small number or large number of posts does not indicate level of knowledge, or does a lengthy post, as in some cases detail and clarity are required. ;)
-
Be mindful that a small number or large number of posts does not indicate level of knowledge, or does a lengthy post, as in some cases detail and clarity are required. ;)
It's true, I've it tons of posts and all is got is more questions! Don't listen to a word I say....
-
And as usual the problem with these A&H mixers is that they are A&H! I mean, I find them very hard to rent here in South America where I tour. I go with Yamahas instead.
-
And as usual the problem with these A&H mixers is that they are A&H! I mean, I find them very hard to rent here in South America where I tour. I go with Yamahas instead.
Yamaha has always been a better choice for left-handed drummers........
-
Yamaha has always been a better choice for left-handed drummers........
You bet they are!!
-
And as usual the problem with these A&H mixers is that they are A&H! I mean, I find them very hard to rent here in South America where I tour. I go with Yamahas instead.
Surprising.
I guess I always thought that A&H was well respected and known in pro sound (I am not a pro sound provider, so I can not speak from experience on this subject).
If that is the case, then wouldn't Behringer be even more difficult to rent?
-
What do clients complain on? The brand name or the console range? Would they complain less if the console was a Yamaha or Soundcraft of similar type? Or would they complain less if you could provide a VI1/Pro2/SD9 for the usual price of a 01V ?
LS9, 01V, SI-expression/Performer/Compact, X32, this QU-16... all these console are used in situations were rider friendliness is usually secondary, as long as the equipment is fully working.
-
Surprising.
I guess I always thought that A&H was well respected and known in pro sound (I am not a pro sound provider, so I can not speak from experience on this subject).
If that is the case, then wouldn't Behringer be even more difficult to rent?
Right now the name of the game is familiarity. Most of the digital offerings get the job done. The difference is how much of struggle will the operator have getting the desired results. Most professionals accept Yamaha because they have a huge market share. It's hard not to run into their consoles on the road and many have already conquered the learning curve with Yamaha.
I will say that I think Behringer already has a game changer with the X32 family in the entry level market. There are more than 30,000 X32's in the field and that doesn't include products not released yet in the X32 family. As the operators of these consoles gain experience and move into profesional audio, it will be interesting to see what their influence will be on rider and purchase specifications will be. Whatever the case, I expect their influence to be large if there isn't any type of any paradigm shifting invovation in mixer technology in the foreseeable future.
JP
-
Surprising.
I guess I always thought that A&H was well respected and known in pro sound (I am not a pro sound provider, so I can not speak from experience on this subject).
If that is the case, then wouldn't Behringer be even more difficult to rent?
I suppose it depends more on what :level: of pro sound one operates at. At the level where riders magically transform from wish lists to actual technical needs, one often finds the word "NO" associated with Peavey, Behringer, and Allen-Heath (there are others but those are the Big 3). All acquired a bad reputation partly because they made equipment that lowered the price of entry barrier to the point where folks with just enough money (or credit) but not enough experience and acumen could purchase a good sized rig and try to pass themselves as a "pro" outfit. The level of service from those providers was wanting to say the least. Add to it that Behringer has had a history of dubious reliability (regardless of what one thinks of their IP shenanigans in the past) and A&H made just ONE shitty mixer 25-30 years ago that burned a number of owners and mixerpersons makes it easy for some folks to justify keeping those names on the "no" list.
Drop down a level or 2 and suddenly almost any fully functional mixer will do just fine, thankyouverymuch.
If you're at the level where you or your employees are the sole operators of any given piece of equipment, buy what makes sense for you... price, features, reliability, catchet, boutique reputation, famous designer, perceived sonic special sauce... whatever. The opinion of others is largely irrelevant if you and your clients are happy with the results.
Have fun, good luck.
Tim Mc
-
Thanks John and Tim,
Wow. I had no idea. I have heard lots of people who work with the GL's and seem to give them pretty decent press. I know that my MixWiz is not feature rich enough to make it as anything other than a weekend warrior rig, but it does a decent job of that and has been very rock solid.
I know that the Yamaha LS9 is pricey enough that it doesn't get much play in the MI weekend warrior crew I hang with, but at one step up (touring cover band), I know a couple of bands that use it... and sound pretty good to my ears with an SRX speaker rig and an LS9.
I guess it only makes sense that a brand that is popular at the bottom of the market, may not be as popular in the higher end of the market simply due to features and reliability (and usability).
John,
I hadn't thought through your scenereo, but I don't see how Behringer is going to pull this off since currently, their MI mixer is the X32 while their Pro stuff is Midas. At present, the X32 and Midas have very different support programs and work flow. I would think that Behringer would not want to do away with the well respected Midas name, although they may do away with the architecture in your proposed future if I understand it correctly.
The A&H Qu 16 says it is derived from the iLive series, but it looks pretty different to me. Do you think that they are compatible in some meaningful way?
-
Scott, don't get the wrong impression about A&H from what I said... and I went back it does seem a bit harsh at the end. I'm going to fix it to say what I meant, not what I said...
But about 30 years ago, A&H made a terrible mixer. Just ONE. Photocopiers, computers and agent files create long lives for outdated info, and some reputations are harder to live down than others. I'd bet most of the "no Allen & Heath" riders come from old info or from guys that hadn't mixed on one of the top end A&H analog desks. I thought they were pretty close to the Soundcraft mixers with similar features for about 20% less.
But because folks in a time far far away had a bad experience, the legend persists in riders to this day.
The MixWiz line has been a good thing. I'll take a MixWiz III over any compact analog mixer from Yamaha. It's a more flexible tool.
-
Scott, don't get the wrong impression about A&H from what I said... and I went back it does seem a bit harsh at the end. I'm going to fix it to say what I meant, not what I said...
But about 30 years ago, A&H made a terrible mixer. Just ONE. Photocopiers, computers and agent files create long lives for outdated info, and some reputations are harder to live down than others. I'd bet most of the "no Allen & Heath" riders come from old info or from guys that hadn't mixed on one of the top end A&H analog desks. I thought they were pretty close to the Soundcraft mixers with similar features for about 20% less.
But because folks in a time far far away had a bad experience, the legend persists in riders to this day.
The MixWiz line has been a good thing. I'll take a MixWiz III over any compact analog mixer from Yamaha. It's a more flexible tool.
Hey Tim,
The MixWiz line has gotten plenty of good press for its intended purpose (including from me). The thing is, this new breed of digital mixers seem ready to not only dethrone the MixWiz, but to replace the entire bar band PA methodology.
The SL 16.4.2 and 16.0.2 ate a good chunk of the market away already. I would argue that the SL is no match at all for the Qu 16, Expression Si, and X32 producer. I think that at the ~ $2000.00 price point, Presonus has a tough time in this competition.
There is even more problems from below. The Xi16 and DL1608 are just shy of $1000.00 and offer some real benefits over the above mentioned mixers with respect to size and price.
Between these two groups of new digital mixers, it is hard to recommend the SL. Not that the SL was a bad mixer. It just didn't stay ahead of the curve and the competition pounced.
The Qu16 could easily be chosen over anyone who would have previously purchased the SL 16.4.2. I would think that they will get quite a few sales from loyal A&H current owners who have grown to trust the name from their good experience with their current gear.
There may be a good debate between the Expression Si and the Qu16. Both of these products have a decent track record for reliability and good sound. Considering the recording capability of the Qu16, and the fully parametric channel eq, I would have to give the slight nod to the Qu16 in that matchup.
If you don't use any past history with the word "Behringer", the X32 is incredibly feature rich ..... but it doesn't have that analog work flow that the other digital mixers have. It flows more like a DAW software. Still, for the tinkerers, the flexibility may be seen as overwhelming.
Am I correct in assuming that the Qu16, Expression Si, and X32 are all capable of expanding to 32 mic inputs?
-
But if you can't effectively run a show on a mixwiz for a speech, singer/songwriter, or even a basic band with nice clear vocals and a good balance of instruments with minimal outboard, then having all those extra functions on a digital board doesn't make things any better.
-
But if you can't effectively run a show on a mixwiz for a speech, singer/songwriter, or even a basic band with nice clear vocals and a good balance of instruments with minimal outboard, then having all those extra functions on a digital board doesn't make things any better.
Bingo!
If you suck on a functional analog desk, you'll really suck on a complex digital desk....
-
Considering the recording capability of the Qu16, and the fully parametric channel eq, I would have to give the slight nod to the Qu16 in that matchup.
If you don't use any past history with the word "Behringer", the X32 is incredibly feature rich ..... but it doesn't have that analog work flow that the other digital mixers have. It flows more like a DAW software. Still, for the tinkerers, the flexibility may be seen as overwhelming.
Am I correct in assuming that the Qu16, Expression Si, and X32 are all capable of expanding to 32 mic inputs?
I agree the recording capability will help it regain some of the presonus' stronghold. Everyone seems to be all up in arms about this whole four band fully parametric EQ thing. I wonder how they survived before digital mixers were widely available. If anything, I've been using much less EQ due to improvements in speakers and speaker processing.
You hit the nail on the head with your appraisal of the X32, IMHO. It's hard for me to put aside the brand, plus I don't want a live console to feel like a DAW. And it does to me.
Currently, if I understand correctly, the QU will only mix 16 inputs. There is speculation that this may be addressed in a future firmware update. The X32 and the expressions are 40 and 66 channels to mix respectively.
For, me the Si Expression 2 one out due to its small footprint, 22 faders per layer, super easy and well thought out work flow, and expansion capabilities. Granted, I ordered it before the QU16 was released. But, from what I've seen so far, I'm not yet regretting my decision. However, if they do in fact allow for expansion to more than 32 inputs in the future it will be a serious contender.
-
You guys crack me up, comparing a 16 channel mixer to a 32, 44 or whatever, then faulting the 16 channel mixer because it doesn't have enough channels.
And by the way, the Qu16 has three stereo inputs, giving you either 19 or 22 channels depending how you count/use them.
-
You guys crack me up, comparing a 16 channel mixer to a 32, 44 or whatever, then faulting the 16 channel mixer because it doesn't have enough channels.
And by the way, the Qu16 has three stereo inputs, giving you either 19 or 22 channels depending how you count/use them.
I was simply addressing the last line in Scott's post with regards to input count. ???
But, while we are on the subject Mr. Rees, why would expandability not be a consideration when purchasing such a console? The "16" channel expression could mix 66 inputs if needed be while still being rack mountable? I think comparing the Expression 1 to the QU16 is a very "apples to apples" comparison and they will likely both be a very popular item. I've been wrong before though. 8)
-
I was simply addressing the last line in Scott's post with regards to input count. ???
But, while we are on the subject Mr. Rees, why would expandability not be a consideration when purchasing such a console? The "16" channel expression could mix 66 inputs if needed be while still being rack mountable? I think comparing the Expression 1 to the QU16 is a very "apples to apples" comparison and they will likely both be a very popular item. I've been wrong before though. 8)
If you need 32 channels, buy 32 channels. If you need more, buy more. But don't buy a Mini-Cooper and call it a poor stretch-limo.
-
You guys know I'm perfectly down with fader layers, but 66 inputs on 16 faders WITHOUT being split into banks of 8 would be a serious PITA.
-
You guys know I'm perfectly down with fader layers, but 66 inputs on 16 faders WITHOUT being split into banks of 8 would be a serious PITA.
Yea, I'm with you. I didn't say that I would want to do it, but that the capability of future expansion is a "feature" worth considering. It is not as simple as it was in the analog days when you simply specified 16, 24, 32, 48, 56, etc...... inputs.
-
The MixWiz line has been a good thing. I'll take a MixWiz III over any compact analog mixer from Yamaha. It's a more flexible tool.
Hell, I'll take ANYTHING over a Yamaha analog mixer.
-
Hell, I'll take ANYTHING over a Yamaha analog mixer.
Hmmm I know where a used Behringer Eurorack 2442 is that would probably make you change your mind... It has all the best features: a few dead channels, mute buttons you don't dare touch for fear of the channel never unmuting, noisy pots everywhere, buttons that don't work, etc....
I spent quite a bit of time behind a Yamaha mg166, I wouldn't say it was terrible, but our bands Mackie Onyx is much better in every way except for weight. The Mackie has definitely caused other weaknesses in our setup to become known(mainly that our mics don't work well with our lead singers voice); I never noticed before we swapped mixers(I guess the Yamaha covered up the problem with it's own problems??).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I hope this hasn't been asked yet.
But I wonder why Soundcraft didn't make it where you can control individual channel EQs from an Ipad. I downloaded their app to play with some and unless I'm looking over that screen or button, it's not there. For me, that is a deal breaker when it comes to digital boards and wireless use. For me, that makes the Allen & Heath and some of the others more appealing.
-
If you suck on a functional analog desk, you'll really suck on a complex digital desk....
[/quote]
I am now going to use this as my tag line! I will of course give dick the credit. Best line ever!
-
I hope this hasn't been asked yet.
But I wonder why Soundcraft didn't make it where you can control individual channel EQs from an Ipad. I downloaded their app to play with some and unless I'm looking over that screen or button, it's not there. For me, that is a deal breaker when it comes to digital boards and wireless use. For me, that makes the Allen & Heath and some of the others more appealing.
Its been said that those features are in the works. Is that really a deal breaker? You're literally controlling a mixer anywhere in the room via a magical touchpad and all the sudden the lack of EQ control is a 'dealbreaker'? Within my short memory as a young guy, most small rigs were lucky to have all the GEQs they needed, let alone one on every output controllable wirelessly. To each his own - you've got to decide what matters to you, but, I won't be deciding on any purchases based on that kind of feature anytime soon... grumpy old-not-old-man post over.
-
Its been said that those features are in the works. Is that really a deal breaker? You're literally controlling a mixer anywhere in the room via a magical touchpad and all the sudden the lack of EQ control is a 'dealbreaker'? Within my short memory as a young guy, most small rigs were lucky to have all the GEQs they needed, let alone one on every output controllable wirelessly. To each his own - you've got to decide what matters to you, but, I won't be deciding on any purchases based on that kind of feature anytime soon... grumpy old-not-old-man post over.
For my mixing and performing situation it is a deciding factor. When I decided to go digital, one of the reasons was so I could, more effectively, set individual channels in the house without having to run back and forth to the mixer (All of our sound is run from stage). This may not be the perfect situation, but that is how it is for my group. If I were just mixing from FOH, I really wouldn't worry that much about the use of an app even though it is nice to have.
I don't pretend to know as much about sound as many of you here on this forum. I don't give much input on topics, because I really don't feel I have much to add that could possibly be explained better by someone else. I just read, ask some questions and try to take in some knowledge so my/our sound will be, hopefully, better. Everyone's situation is different.
-
For my mixing and performing situation it is a deciding factor. When I decided to go digital, one of the reasons was so I could, more effectively, set individual channels in the house without having to run back and forth to the mixer (All of our sound is run from stage). This may not be the perfect situation, but that is how it is for my group. If I were just mixing from FOH, I really wouldn't worry that much about the use of an app even though it is nice to have.
I don't pretend to know as much about sound as many of you here on this forum. I don't give much input on topics, because I really don't feel I have much to add that could possibly be explained better by someone else. I just read, ask some questions and try to take in some knowledge so my/our sound will be, hopefully, better. Everyone's situation is different.
I think the issue is the irony of having a feature be a "deal breaker" when it didn't exist at all 2 or 3 years ago.
Oh well, I'm on my way to PAC, where I will mix from backstage for hall with a capacity of 4,000. And run back and forth as the PAC doesn't any digital mixers, with or without remote capabilities.
-
I think the issue is the irony of having a feature be a "deal breaker" when it didn't exist at all 2 or 3 years ago.
Tim,
I respect your knowledge of sound. However if I were setting out to purchase a new digital board whether it be Presonus, Behringer, Allen and Heath, Soundcraft or any other of the new digital boards I would be looking at features it has to offer. One would be the use of a wireless app to help set sound from where the audience sits. Now that is not the only feature I look for, but that is one that helps me. Will that make the board sound better, absolutely not. But it does help with what I need to do. If it came down to a Soundcraft or A&H digital board and both sounded good to me with features I needed/wanted and one has the ability to control more with an app, I would pick the one that can be controlled more with the app. Why not buy the one with the most up do date electronics if it is from a reputable company. Bottom line, I will pick the best sounding board that will work best for me and do what I need it to do.
-
I agree.
Just because technology did not exist yrs ago, does not make it meaningless today. We all carry a mobile phone.
If I were to look at a digital board, I would today look at it's remote facilities on offer. It is of great benefit in a lot of situations, and their are multiple alternatives with remote available.
Regarding analog, I happily mix on an MH2 with a small rack, and make no fuss about it. I enjoy it a lot. But if I have a digtal board without remote capability, it does seem a little handicapped now. Like having a phone without data or text capabilities.
Still, I would still do a mix as good as I anyway would, and I would still make a phonecall.
Sidhu
-
I think the issue is the irony of having a feature be a "deal breaker" when it didn't exist at all 2 or 3 years ago.
Yes, thats more what I meant.
@Kendall - I do understand that we all have to make decisions based on our needs and desires. Go for it, I didn't mean to put you down or anything. I just see deal breakers dramatically different I think.
-
One persons deal breaker may well be another persons deal maker.
-
Lots of great posts....
First, I agree. If you mix poorly on an analog mixer, you will mix REALLY poorly on a digital mixer.
Second, I asked the question about the expandability of the Qu16 because I see the ability to extend beyond 16 channels a very good one. There may well be an entire market for people who generally just need 16 mic pre's, but occasionally need 32. They may well just want the smaller sized mixer and rack format with the ability to handle larger channel counts .... albeit not as well as a real 32 channel mixer.
Third, The ability to record .... especially without an external DAW, and playback the recording as input to the mixer is a game changer for people like me who mix from the stage. Scenes can be created for different songs which are mixed exactly as you would like them, with channel eq's set to make things sound good and efx set just right for that particular song ..... and scenes can be changed remotely from stage (either by MIDI or remote tablet).
Fourth, I know I have stated that I gave a knock to the Expression Si for not having a full parametric eq ... and I have to admit that I agree that this is unlikely to have any serious effect on your sound quality. This is likely a small side not, not a full bullet point ;)
Fifth, The expression Si does not ship with the ability to record at all (from what I can tell) without a MADI card .... which looks like it goes for around 1K all by itself. This will likely be a deal breaker for many, including me.
Finally, I completely agree that the capability of the remote applications is going to become a deciding factor for many people as the internal circuitry becomes more and more a commodity in digital mixers and the sonic differences between them decreases to be negligible.
-
Tim,
I respect your knowledge of sound. However if I were setting out to purchase a new digital board whether it be Presonus, Behringer, Allen and Heath, Soundcraft or any other of the new digital boards I would be looking at features it has to offer. One would be the use of a wireless app to help set sound from where the audience sits. Now that is not the only feature I look for, but that is one that helps me. Will that make the board sound better, absolutely not. But it does help with what I need to do. If it came down to a Soundcraft or A&H digital board and both sounded good to me with features I needed/wanted and one has the ability to control more with an app, I would pick the one that can be controlled more with the app. Why not buy the one with the most up do date electronics if it is from a reputable company. Bottom line, I will pick the best sounding board that will work best for me and do what I need it to do.
I never said remote control was bad, only that of all the things that have been genuine deal breakers or gig destroyers, for remote operation to become such in a period of months is ironic.
-
Fifth, The expression Si does not ship with the ability to record at all (from what I can tell) without a MADI card .... which looks like it goes for around 1K all by itself. This will likely be a deal breaker for many, including me.
Currently, yes. And it is even more expensive, because you have to buy the MADI card for the console and the MADI interface for the PC (RME, Digico...), which is another $1K or so.
However Soundcraft has already announced a Firewire/USB card (16 channels) ans a Dante card (compatible with standard PC Ethernet port). No clue about the price.
Regarding "deal breaker"... well I use 12 of my SI-C outputs to send multitrack audio from live concert to a PC. It would be simpler with Dante or USB and I may buy the card to come. However I record for free, together with 3 video cameras. I edit one song in 4-5 hours on sundays afternoon. I am an enthusiast. If I were in a business, I would charge for this. But no band would ever pay for it. I consider this is a "plus", not a fundamental choice criteria.
-
Currently, yes. And it is even more expensive, because you have to buy the MADI card for the console and the MADI interface for the PC (RME, Digico...), which is another $1K or so.
However Soundcraft has already announced a Firewire/USB card (16 channels) ans a Dante card (compatible with standard PC Ethernet port). No clue about the price.
Also, you get the MADI card free when you buy the digital snake. And as I mentioned, the Dante card has lots of benefits it's not merely a recording card. The FireWire card is in the plans, and was described to me personally as "way past vaporware" by someone at SoundCraft Dev.
-
Also, you get the MADI card free when you buy the digital snake. And as I mentioned, the Dante card has lots of benefits it's not merely a recording card. The FireWire card is in the plans, and was described to me personally as "way past vaporware" by someone at SoundCraft Dev.
Sure, but for people who want the ability to record through a simple inexpensive USB interface, Soundcraft has missed the boat.
A&H has by far the best solution by allowing you to record straight to USB while Behringer can do stereo like this, but only multi-track with a laptop connected.
Even with the MADI cards, the Soundcraft still requires a laptop. I think A&H have a pretty great feature here.
I spoke with Behringer about this feature and they also punted with "It is coming in a future expansion card". They are not quite as crippled since the X32 ships with an existing expansion card that allows multi-track recording through USB and FireWire to a DAW as well as playback from the DAW into the mixer as input channels.
Even the StudioLive can do this. I think it was a pretty big omission on the part of Soundcraft.
-
Yep, no DCA'S. 1/3 octave on only mono & L/R Main. No scribble strips
So what?
I don't mix with DCA's, I find them to cumbersome.
-
So what?
I don't mix with DCA's, I find them to cumbersome.
Who needs DCA/VCA on a 16 channel board? That's a lot of feature$$$ when you can simply arrange your inputs so that you can use the 10 digital controllers attached to your hands.....
I'd be much more concerned about group processing rather than group control.
-
Who needs DCA/VCA on a 16 channel board? That's a lot of feature$$$ when you can simply arrange your inputs so that you can use the 10 digital controllers attached to your hands.....
I'd be much more concerned about group processing rather than group control.
It is nice to group the drums, vocals, and guitars (as an example) on DCA's .... or you can use subgroups.... which would give you your group processing (ie you could put compression on "the drums" as a group....
Was that basically your point Dick?
-
Was that basically your point Dick?
I think his point was that with only 16 inputs do you really need remote controls for the faders?
Mac
-
I think his point was that with only 16 inputs do you really need remote controls for the faders?
Mac
Thanks for clearing that up, Mac. For some reason I can't see SB's posts.......
-
I think his point was that with only 16 inputs do you really need remote controls for the faders?
Mac
Ahh. Well, I can absolutely see why you would want remote controls for the faders.
Nearly all the bars I play have no room off-stage for a mixer. If one can simply sit at a table with your iPad and control a hand full of DCA's to mix .... that really makes life simple. This solution is unobtrusive, flexible, and easy to use.
I thought the question was if you would use DCA's or subgroups to create the simple grouping for remote control.
@ Dick,
Maybe you have me filtered out ;)
-
I mixed a show Sat with the X32 iPad app and it worked about as good as I would expect. I had a 4 piece band. DCA's were
Delay return
Drums
Bass
Guit 1
Guit 2
Vocal
Reverb return