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: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Ron Cayman on July 05, 2018, 07:33:19 PM
-
Hi all,
I'm in the market for a new mixer and can't decide between Yamaha QL1 and Allen & Heath SQ5, so I'd love some thoughts and insight from you guys who've worked on the above boards.
As you've noticed I'm looking for a rack-mountable mixer with as much processing power as possible, easy to work on and stable. Rider acceptability is a bonus. 70% of my company's work is theatre (from 2 actors and recorded tracks to 16 actors + live band) while the rest is live music shows and corporate events.
QL1 pros as I see them: proven product, very stable, user-friendly, Dante, rider-friendly
QL1 cons as I see them: old, not as much processing power as SQ5, high price
SQ5 pros as I see them: very powerful, future-proof, reasonable price
SQ5 cons as I see them: not a proven product, not so much user-friendly (I absolutely f***ing hate multi-touch drag-n-drop interface), not rider-friendly (yet?)
Do you see where I'm going with this? My only concern with the QL1 is its age, which affects its price vs processing power ratio. Otherwise I'd go for it. If only Yamaha would come out with a new QL range...
Any thoughts?
Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.
-
QL series isn't old at all. The X32 is at least 2 years older. (2014 vs 2012).
You'll have no problems with the QL series, they're rock solid and a proven product. If you're looking for more bang-for-the-buck, look at the M32 or SQ series.
-
Personally I will take the QL over the SQ any day of the week. So would any touring guy if they had to pick between the two. An added bonus is that a CL file will translate.
JF
-
I love the QL series. Very flexible, includes a great auto mixer. It's not lacking in processing.
-
Hi all,
I'm in the market for a new mixer and can't decide between Yamaha QL1 and Allen & Heath SQ5, so I'd love some thoughts and insight from you guys who've worked on the above boards.
As you've noticed I'm looking for a rack-mountable mixer with as much processing power as possible, easy to work on and stable. Rider acceptability is a bonus. 70% of my company's work is theatre (from 2 actors and recorded tracks to 16 actors + live band) while the rest is live music shows and corporate events.
QL1 pros as I see them: proven product, very stable, user-friendly, Dante, rider-friendly
QL1 cons as I see them: old, not as much processing power as SQ5, high price
SQ5 pros as I see them: very powerful, future-proof, reasonable price
SQ5 cons as I see them: not a proven product, not so much user-friendly (I absolutely f***ing hate multi-touch drag-n-drop interface), not rider-friendly (yet?)
Do you see where I'm going with this? My only concern with the QL1 is its age, which affects its price vs processing power ratio. Otherwise I'd go for it. If only Yamaha would come out with a new QL range...
Any thoughts?
Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.
Yamaha is almost everybody's "second choice". The CL/QL sound different from their similarly positioned ancestors, the M7 and LS/9 and most mixerpersons like the difference. We're probably replacing our Avid Profiles and SC48s with CL-series mixers.
Are you or your staff the only persons who will operated this mixer? If so, buy whatever you fancy and don't look back. If others will be using the desk, see first paragraph.
Whether or not the QL1 surface has enough faders is up to you, but I'd like a bit more real estate...
-
Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.
Not sure why the brain in the box is an issue, but I will say that for theatre work, the d-live scene management is incredible and would make theatre shows a snap.
-
Between the QL and the SQ is a tough choice. You have nailed most of the comparisons though. However, you will find the SQ sonically superior when running the DX racks. This is not only my opinion, but there is the math to back it up. 96kHz with variable bit depth and a 96bit integer. This means that more of the original data is retained throughout the processing path.
Having said that, the Yamaha QL is no slouch and is certainly a corporate board of choice with plenty of flexibility and a solid feature set. The qL can also be expanded to allow for a higher channel count and the Yamaha scene management for theatre will probably be a little more developed at this point in their collective life cycles.
There are also a couple of minor annoyances on the SQ currently, although very minor. I am sure they will be addressed quickly as the firmware is in it's infancy. That said, there is a significant price difference.
-
Hi all,
I'm in the market for a new mixer and can't decide between Yamaha QL1 and Allen & Heath SQ5, so I'd love some thoughts and insight from you guys who've worked on the above boards.
As you've noticed I'm looking for a rack-mountable mixer with as much processing power as possible, easy to work on and stable. Rider acceptability is a bonus. 70% of my company's work is theatre (from 2 actors and recorded tracks to 16 actors + live band) while the rest is live music shows and corporate events.
QL1 pros as I see them: proven product, very stable, user-friendly, Dante, rider-friendly
QL1 cons as I see them: old, not as much processing power as SQ5, high price
SQ5 pros as I see them: very powerful, future-proof, reasonable price
SQ5 cons as I see them: not a proven product, not so much user-friendly (I absolutely f***ing hate multi-touch drag-n-drop interface), not rider-friendly (yet?)
Do you see where I'm going with this? My only concern with the QL1 is its age, which affects its price vs processing power ratio. Otherwise I'd go for it. If only Yamaha would come out with a new QL range...
Any thoughts?
Edit: By the way, reason for not going for the dLive is that its brain is in the stage box, which isn't good for my needs.
What digital consoles do you have experience with? I had an SQ6 on loan from a sound company that wanted me to evaluate it for them. I also wanted to write a Mixer file for Palladium for it. It is in my opinion not ready for theatrical use, nor do I think with the A&H way of dealing with scenes will it ever be as smooth to use for theater as it should be.
If they ever enable external control (most likely MIDI over TCP/IP) it might be controllable with a program like Palladium and then I can see using it for theater. I really like the user definable layers but the logic of the SQ is annoying to me. But that might just be because lately I have been using two Midas M32 mixers with Palladium for theatrical shows. In the past I have used many different digital mixer for musicals. BTW Palladium can control up to 3 mixer at a time and they don't all have to be the same model or from the same manufacturer.
I also just used a Yamaha CL5 for a POPs concert and I really need more time on one to properly evaluate it for theater use. BTW there are presently mixer files for Palladium for a bunch of Yamaha consoles but not one for the QL series that I am aware of. I don't know if the CL mixer files would work.
-
I love the QL series. Very flexible, includes a great auto mixer.
Which, as I understand it, Yamaha actually licenses (as opposed to another manufacturer alluded to here who merely "flatters" Mr. Dugan).
Dave
-
Also throwing this in the mix is that the SQ doesn’t have a offline editor, to me that would be a noticeable dealbreaker.
-
If I needed the desk for theater work today, then the QL is it. Much more mature scene and show management.
If I were planning and budgeting for later this year, then the choice would depend on the content of the 1.3 firmware for the SQ due out in the fall sometime.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
We're probably replacing our Avid Profiles and SC48s with CL-series mixers.
Why? If you don't mind, I'm curious to know the reasons behind the decision.
Are you or your staff the only persons who will operated this mixer? If so, buy whatever you fancy and don't look back. If others will be using the desk, see first paragraph.
Me and my techs will be using the mixer pretty much 70-80 % of the time, but I still wanted you guys opinions to make the "best" or rather smartest purchase I can.
Not sure why the brain in the box is an issue, but I will say that for theatre work, the d-live scene management is incredible and would make theatre shows a snap.
A lot of venues where I'm working offer only analog multicore cable from the stage to the house position, and I will not always have the option to set up a CAT5/6/7 cable, or carry a CDM32 up with me (which as you know is the smallest stage box available). And, purchasing a dLive with DM0 is just not worth it...
What digital consoles do you have experience with?
I've worked with pretty much everything in the market -- all of Allen & Heath's products, Yamaha's M7, LS9, CL and QL, Soundcraft's older Vi models, Midas Pro and M32, DiGiCo SD series and Avid Profile and SC48.
The best user interface in my opinion can be found on the Yamaha CL/QL series. By far. But again, I'm hesitant because of the extremely powerful engine inside the SQ series compared to the QL series when also taking into account their price points. I might just wait for the next firmware update of the SQ as some of you suggested... I hope it'll be soon.
Anyway, thank you guys for your comments! Keep them coming :)
-
Hi Ron-
We're replacing the Avid desks as part of our regular replacement cycle. The Venue 3.x series is EOL for all practical purposes - you can't get key modules from Avid.
We're a shop where our consoles are operated by tour personnel most of the time and having what shows up on riders is important. We're keeping our Avid desks for the time being as they are still requested, but the writing on the wall is plainly visible.
-
If your core business with your mixers is theater then I would avoid the SQ. As has been mentioned in a previous post in this thread the Scene management of the SQ series is not well executed for theater - there is no offline editor and a user cannot change the order of scenes.
I am an SQ user and a Qu owner, and as much as I love the consoles I would not use them for theater if I needed to use a lot of scenes for mic pickups because of the Scene management issue.
However I would absolutely choose these consoles for corporate and music gigs. Also, I do think their Automatic Mic Mixer algorithm is terrific. I used it on a high-profile combat audio gig that was a staged reading of a script by the cast of some television show. I had no time for sound check with the cast, no access to the script and 23 wireless headset mics. The Automatic Mic Mixer was the perfect tool for this. It worked flawlessly.
I have also read that Allen&Heath are taking pre-orders on the Dante card for the SQ series.
-
If I needed the desk for theater work today, then the QL is it. Much more mature scene and show management.
If I were planning and budgeting for later this year, then the choice would depend on the content of the 1.3 firmware for the SQ due out in the fall sometime.
As near as I can tell, the SQ is at least a year away from being what I would consider functional.
Today I'd go QL in a heartbeat.
-
Hi Eric and Dan, thank you very much for your input!
I finally went with the QL1, Dante, Yamaha and everything in between.
Thanks for all the helpful info guys.
-
Hi Eric and Dan, thank you very much for your input!
I finally went with the QL1, Dante, Yamaha and everything in between.
Thanks for all the helpful info guys.
Good choice.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
there is the math to back it up..... 96kHz with variable bit depth and a 96bit integer. This means that more of the original data is retained throughout the processing path.
Really? How so?
-
I would prefer you go to QL than SQ, I kinda feel meh with this board (and a bit annoyed that some fx require further purchase and non-transferable). The onboard pre-amp is about equivalent to Qu series, tho you get better sound if you use DX rack.
-
I've not used the QL1, but mixed on the QL5 and the SQ5 a lot over the past year. QL has more DCA's (16 versus 8 ) and matrix routing (8 versus 3) than the SQ, buses/groups (16 versus 12) The SQ does not support DCA spills, not the best if your doing theater work. Subjective...I get a along a bit better with the SQ workflow, but YMMV. Offline editor capability for QL is far ahead of SQ, but the SQ is making improvements every cycle. If I were mixing FOH for live music along with mixing auxes (12 or less) for monitors the SQ would be the preference, if mixing FOH only then probably a toss up, but slight favor to the SQ with DX boxes, although if the output routing is complicated the QL would be better. If I was mixing theatre the QL would
be the preference.
-
QL has more DCA's (16 versus 8 ) and matrix routing (8 versus 3) than the SQ, buses/groups (16 versus 12)
Just clarifying here, as I think there are differences on how each console handles busses/groups. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
- While the SQ only has 3 matrix sends to QL's 8, those sends are all stereo. QL is mono, but can be linked in stereo pairs.
- While Yamaha gives you 16 buses (or Aux) and Allen and Heath "only" gives you 12, the SQ's busses are stereo. To get the same operation out of your Yamaha, you would have to link the aux sends, and you will max out at 8. Furthermore, if you are running FX on auxes, the SQ has 4 dedicated sends for those FX. On the Yamaha, you would have to use 4 out of your 16 available busses to get an equivalent amount of FX sends. In other words, which desk has more available aux sends is going to vary based on your application.
A couple of things that are pro's for the SQ5:
- SQ5 is 48 full processing input channels to QL1's 32.
- SQ series has quite a few digital stagebox options: DX168, AB168, AR84, AR2412, GX4816, DX164-W, DX012. QL has RIO or TIO only, and no "stagebox" form factor
- If you load an SQ with a Dante card, the dante I/O capability is 64x64. QL1 is half that @ 32x32
- If it is important to your production, You can load a 64x64 Waves card in an SQ. On the QL you only get 16x16 for each waves MY card. Won't matter at all if you don't use waves though...
- SQ5 has 3 convenient stereo line inputs directly on the console: 2x stereo TRS and 1x stereo 1/8". It also has a dedicated talkback input directly on the console. To get these inputs into the QL1, you have to either: use your mic input channels on the back of the surface, or add a Line-In option card.
- SQ5 has 4 more XLR outs, on the surface, compared to the QL1.
- SQ5 is almost 10 pounds lighter than QL1: 23.1 lbs vs. 32.4lbs. It is also not as tall (7.8" high as opposed to 10.7" high) This is probably very important if you are going to fly the desk, as cased the SQ5 can get on the plane, cased, as standard checked baggage under 50lbs. QL1 would need an impressively lightweight case (under 18 lbs) to make that 50lbs limit). Doesn't matter at all if you don't have to fly.
- Today, the SQ5 cost is approximately 42% less than a QL1.
The QL1 is a nice sounding little desk with a workflow familiar to anyone who has ever used an LS9, M7, or CL console. If you are choosing between QL and SQ, and you need comprehensive automation/scenes today, The QL is still going to have the edge. If you need a desk that can be hired out, QL1 is still going to have the edge.
-
- SQ5 is 48 full processing input channels to QL1's 32.
Not to nitpick but the QL1 can do up to 48 inputs by using 32 channels of Dante plus the on board inputs patched to the stereo FX returns. Handy if you have some stereo inputs and you NEED to have 48 inputs. The FX can still be used by inserting on the mix and assigning the mix to L/R.
-
Not to nitpick but the QL1 can do up to 48 inputs by using 32 channels of Dante plus the on board inputs patched to the stereo FX returns. Handy if you have some stereo inputs and you NEED to have 48 inputs. The FX can still be used by inserting on the mix and assigning the mix to L/R.
If we throw in stuff like that, technically SQ can process anywhere from 48-80 channels depending on stereo/mono configuration and using group & FX as inputs...
But I do see your point and the clarification it brings.