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: Bob Cap on February 04, 2019, 06:00:49 PM
-
We are replacing an LS9/32 that was in a truck accident. Now I know it's a love hate relationship with mixers. This one has served our area and level of clients just fine.
If you were going to replace it. What would you buy that you feel would work well in this level of ats and BE's?
Thanks
Flame suite on...
-
Obligatory pedantic swerve----shouldn't that be Flame SUIT? Unless you're speaking of oh, I don't know, maybe a boring SuperBowl half-time show, but with lots of cool flames?
-
Behringer X32. You could get 2 of them for the cost of what you likely paid for 1 LS9/32.
Everyone knows them, they are more feature-rich than the LS9/32, albeit a lower channel count. Screen's about the same size, tho!
-
How about starting with defining what constitutes “this level of ats and BE's”. Also helps to know if you are trying to push your way up in your market or sitting tight at the level of work you’re doing?
-
I guess if I could type it would help.
We are located in Tropical Northern Minnesota. And since I've been doing this since 1971 I plan on staying at the level I'm at. I do primarily performing arts venues up tp 1500 seats in the winter and county fair gigs in the summer.
I know there are a pleather of small digital mixers out there. I've been looking for the past week or so. Everything from Yamaha's to Midas to Behringer.
For the last several years our LS9/32 has keep everyone pretty much happy. Since we need to replace it I'm wondering what you guys would replace it with.
The hell with a flame suit....I'm tough enough...I can take it.
-
For the last several years our LS9/32 has keep everyone pretty much happy. Since we need to replace it I'm wondering what you guys would replace it with.
The hell with a flame suit....I'm tough enough...I can take it.
We replaced our LS9 3 years ago with a Midas M32 and have been really happy with how it has worked out. Pretty much any visiting BE will be able to run it. It has the same OS as the Behringer X32. It does have better, longer lasting, faders. You can get one for under $3,500 all day long. Additionally, the D32 stage box is cost effective and sounds great.
That was my 2.5 cents worth...inflation.
Bill
-
What's the budget for replacement? That's really going to drive the options.
-
I have an LS9/32 that I use for festivals. Given that, I have done some thinking of what would I buy to replace it if I didn’t already have something...
I would get an A&H SQ7.
Why?
Last year I replaced my 01v96 with an SQ5. Admittedly I was biased in that I owned a GLD and the stage boxes could be used with the SQ.
Initially I was disappointed in that several features I expected were not yet implemented. However, most of what I wanted is now there with recent firmware and there are rumors of another upgrade soon. Right now I am pretty happy.
As a 01v96 replacement, the SQ5 is great. Same physical size but more local mic inputs and more outputs and I can use a digital stage box and mix & match.
The SQ7 gets the huge fader count of the LS9/32 (which I love for festival work), more local I/O and able to use both the d-snake stage boxes (48k) or the new 96k boxes if that is important to you. Like the SQ5 (and GLD & d-live), the layers are fully customizable. For example, I have a Corp event in May that I just configured the SQ5 for (nice to do in winter) that has inputs for wireless, & lectern, playback and video, a pair of group masters, and 3 matrix masters all on one layer. Inputs come in local and via stage box as do my outputs. Nice, one cat5e to run to front.
Anyway, I love my LS9 but I really love the SQ5 & GLD. Oh, and I feel they are a bit more affordable than the Yamaha replacements.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
The direct upgrade/replacement from Yamaha for the LS9-32 would be the QL5, which is a very nice mixer though not as cheap as the options mostly being presented.
-
I decided to go with a Midas M32R and the D32 Stage Box. A smaller form factor to be mobile and yet have the functions of the full sized M32. MHO
-
The direct upgrade/replacement from Yamaha for the LS9-32 would be the QL5, which is a very nice mixer though not as cheap as the options mostly being presented.
If I were looking for something to directly replace the LS9 in terms of functionality, sound quality, and feature set, I would go for the SQ7 in that price range (QL5 is a WAY better product than the LS9, and the price reflects this). The SQ7 is a step up from the LS9 in just about every respect. Sure, everyone knows how to use the Midanger / Behr-as, but a new board without a touch screen in this age is a backward move imho. Even the checkout stand at the grocery store has a touch screen.
-
I would caveat the Yamaha QL as being more a corporate-oriented mixer. It sounds good and has many top end features, but it is slightly slower to navigate with. I would not be at home with it doing live bands. For talking heads, it is the bee's knees though.
For dual purpose work, the Midas M32 is very hard to beat. It has great performance and features and a great price.
I think the newer SQ line from A&H would probably spec out better than the Midas M32, but it is only just starting to pick up traction. I have not used one yet and I am not a fan of the QU, which is probably why I am not so turned on by the marketing for the SQ line. I almost got the GLD a while back and am sort of glad I held off. It didn't get as popular as the hype seemed to suggest it would. I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.
-
Not universally loved here I get but to my ear the Soundcraft SI boards just sound musical in a way that many of the others out there do not. The workflow on the SC boards is also very ‘analog’ feeling.
The app is in my mind substandard. The rest of the package makes up for it.
My .02, hopefully worth more ;-)
-
I would caveat the Yamaha QL as being more a corporate-oriented mixer. It sounds good and has many top end features, but it is slightly slower to navigate with. I would not be at home with it doing live bands. For talking heads, it is the bee's knees though.
For dual purpose work, the Midas M32 is very hard to beat. It has great performance and features and a great price.
I think the newer SQ line from A&H would probably spec out better than the Midas M32, but it is only just starting to pick up traction. I have not used one yet and I am not a fan of the QU, which is probably why I am not so turned on by the marketing for the SQ line. I almost got the GLD a while back and am sort of glad I held off. It didn't get as popular as the hype seemed to suggest it would. I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.
I'm not sure why you would consider a QL to be oriented toward corporate work. A QL5 is a huge upgrade from an LS9-32 and is instantly familiar if you're used to the workflow. QL5 has easily double the "rack" processing over the LS9 and even does some things the CL5 doesn't do. It's easily my preferred console for all of the gigs I previously used an LS9 or even M7 for.
I've never liked the X32/M32 form factor compared to LS9-32. I don't care for flipping fader banks when mixing a band. There's some workflow and ergonomic issues that drive me nuts (Knobs on surface not in the same sequence as on the display).
-
I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.
It's like night and day between the two levels. I was less than impressed with the Qu Series as well. After demoing an SQ, it seemed to me that the SQ Series is really what the Qu Series should have been to begin with. Having somewhat recently been in the market myself, the choices were really either get an M32 for its widespread acceptability, get an SQ for a similar price but added features/flexibility, or go with a higher-level board all together such as a dLive or similar-level offering from another manufacturer.
-
I would caveat the Yamaha QL as being more a corporate-oriented mixer. It sounds good and has many top end features, but it is slightly slower to navigate with. I would not be at home with it doing live bands. For talking heads, it is the bee's knees though.
For dual purpose work, the Midas M32 is very hard to beat. It has great performance and features and a great price.
I think the newer SQ line from A&H would probably spec out better than the Midas M32, but it is only just starting to pick up traction. I have not used one yet and I am not a fan of the QU, which is probably why I am not so turned on by the marketing for the SQ line. I almost got the GLD a while back and am sort of glad I held off. It didn't get as popular as the hype seemed to suggest it would. I have always liked A&H, but the QU is what made me realize I don't like fixed format mixers. Overall I wasn't impressed by it, so it made me doubt the other higher end A&H offerings.
The M32 is actually also getting long in the tooth too these days. Depending on who uses the mixer, popularity may not play into it.
I understand the “corporate “ label on Yamaha desks. You just don’t see them in mid level band mixing. That said, the QL series are really nice, just pricey.
If the users of the LS9 are used to 32 faders, then a desk with fewer might mess up workflow.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
The Yamaha boards have their own unique workflow/OS. If you know it great, visiting BEs unfamiliar with it will have trouble. A local venue with a nice Meyer system had a QL and replaced it with an M32 so more folks could jump on and use it.
I'm kind of partial to the Soundcraft due to the more obvious control surface and less button pushes for things like EQ. And more flexible than the Qu boards. Although the SQ looks very nice.
-
1 more vote for soundcraft si series for easy to use and sound quality..
-
I want to love the Si mixers. They sound good, the expansion capability is there. FX by dbx and Lexicon. A client has one and I'd rather mix on it than the other choices in their venue but it's still kind of frustrating to think I'm navigating to a setting or preference only to find myself at a dead end. It's one of those "I know I can do this, but how" things.
And the screen in tiny. Sorry but at my age more screen area is usually a good thing.
-
Sure, everyone knows how to use the Midanger / Behr-as, but a new board without a touch screen in this age is a backward move imho. Even the checkout stand at the grocery store has a touch screen.
A touch screen isn't necessarily a positive thing. With a little practice, muscle memory can get you around when you have physical buttons to press. With a touch screen, you've got to focus your eyes on the screen the entire time you're operating it. I like the fact that the X32 does NOT have a touch screen to get finger printed up.
If you do want touch screen control, the iPad app on the X32/M32 really is tough to beat. While not perfect, it's one of the best designed, IMO. Very straightforward operation and easy to get where you need to be without any sliding screens or fancy gestures needed.
-
+1 for the SI boards. My entire shop is SI based. Have had an x32 sitting on the shelf just in case....it's still sitting there ;)
-
I would buy a M32 or a Pro1 depending on how many channels I needed.
-
We replaced our LS9/32 with an M32 + DL32 and we couldn't be happier. The X32/M32 software is incredibly feature rich as compared to the admittedly old LS9 series. In my opinion, the question to ask yourself is; will I need more than 32 mic inputs? If you're answer is no, then the M32/DL32 combo is pretty hard to beat.
As others have mentioned, there are remote mixing apps for both iOS and Android, and that applies to the Q mix app for musicians too. I find that I can mix 90% of our show from the 8 DCAs, so layer flipping is really not a big deal to me. Granted, I'm using the console mainly for one band, but I think 16 faders plus 8 DCAs is enough of a control surface for festival work. The X32/M32 is so common you should be able to find one in your area to play with. As to pricing, last fall Sweetwater direct mailed me a limited time offer for a brand new M32 + DL32 stage box for $3,500. That deal may not be available, but it shows you what kind of bargain you can try for with the baby Midas these days.
I own an SI Performer 2, but I cannot recommend that platform. The console is fine, but Soundcraft has not released updates for it, and it lags the X32/M32 feature set by quite a bit. The one thing it does have going for it is channel count. And a trim knob per channel on the Performer series, which I can see being valuable for festival work. There are some pretty good deals out there on used GLD mixers with stage boxes now. I'm not sure what the feature gaps are between the GLD and SQ boards, but others here can tell you if a used GLD mixer is a good move or not.
-
I want to love the Si mixers. They sound good, the expansion capability is there. FX by dbx and Lexicon. A client has one and I'd rather mix on it than the other choices in their venue but it's still kind of frustrating to think I'm navigating to a setting or preference only to find myself at a dead end. It's one of those "I know I can do this, but how" things.
And the screen in tiny. Sorry but at my age more screen area is usually a good thing.
Ditto all that. Add to it the mediocre remote control options available for Si.
I sold my Impact for a Qu32 the minute that Mixing Station Pro supported it. Board before that was an LS9-16.
I'm quite happy with the Qu. It's effortless for guest engineers, including ones who have never mixed on digital.
I'll probably jump to SQ once they add a de-esser and a multiband compressor.
I really dislike mixing on any X/M32 physical desk. The platform is OK, but the user interface is horrible.
-
I have an SI Expression 3 with stagebox. I really enjoy mixing on it. I found that it was the easiest of the "lower end" consoles to mix on. I have also ran into situations where i needed multiple input from the stage and locally. Not having to assign inputs in blocks of 8 really helped with this situation. I think my final channel count was 45 inputs + effects + ST inputs. I just wish the VISI Remote app actually followed the console fader page and not have to scroll all the way to the right to get to the ST inputs even though they might be on fader 1 of the console. Not having a tap button for delay on the app kinda sucks.
At my regular job we demoed an M32 with stage box and nobody really liked the workflow.
-
The big pitfall I see with the QL is that almost all of the navigation is done via the touchscreen. That is fine and all, but in order to get back to the main view, you have to click the icon for the view you're currently on. No home button per se I guess you could say. If you are on another page and you push the EQ knob, it will home the screen but it will not go to the EQ window unless you click the EQ again. It almost always requires two taps to get where you need to go. It is just a slower mixer to navigate. Which, for live bands can be cumbersome. I can move around on the LS9 just fine, I owned one, but I find navigation on the QL to be slower. Other things like routing is a little off. The mixers Omni output section places the physical outs on the last tab in the output section. Most all of the routing and signal options prioritizes the Dante and digital signals first as opposed to the internal onboard physical I/O's. Amazing mixer, just a little slower to navigate.
The Midas M32 is amazing when you consider what it can do for the price it does it at. It is simple enough that you can almost surely take one look at it and get how it works. It has a very nice WYSIWYG in the physical layout that corresponds with the menu tabs for each channel strip. The routing is a little odd because of bad verbiage but makes sense enough.
-
I love my SC Performer, extremely flexible, sounds great.
The touch screen is mostly for setup and patching, so it's size really isn't an issue during a mix.
I hate that Soundcraft seems to have abandoned us, though.
No new firmware for a LONG time, shitty ap.
Hopefully Mixing Station will happen soon.
Or a port of the UI app.
To those who expressed interest, any progress on the wireshark dump???
-
The big pitfall I see with the QL is that almost all of the navigation is done via the touchscreen. That is fine and all, but in order to get back to the main view, you have to click the icon for the view you're currently on. No home button per se I guess you could say.
You can assign one of the user-defined keys to be the Home button.
-
I love my SC Performer, extremely flexible, sounds great.
The touch screen is mostly for setup and patching, so it's size really isn't an issue during a mix.
I hate that Soundcraft seems to have abandoned us, though.
No new firmware for a LONG time, shitty ap.
Hopefully Mixing Station will happen soon.
Or a port of the UI app.
To those who expressed interest, any progress on the wireshark dump???
My hierarchy right now is
QL5
SQ7
SQ5
M32
X32
If you are used to the flexibility of ins and outs on the LS9 then the fixed architecture of the X/M32 will really throw you. Also no custom layers on the X/M boards which gets really inconvenient. The new Dante 16x8 stagebox for the SQ boards can greatly simplify architecture as well for getting I/O in the right spot.
[rant]
Harman appears to have laid off all of the Si line workers...note the Si desks are rehashes of the Si Compact which were rehashes of the Si1 which is a pivot off the Vi desks from Studer about 10 years ago...and Studer Switzerland was closed down around the same time they introduced the original Si desks. IMHO giving money to Harman right now is like setting it on fire
[/rant]
-
My hierarchy right now is
QL5
SQ7
SQ5
M32
X32
If you are used to the flexibility of ins and outs on the LS9 then the fixed architecture of the X/M32 will really throw you. Also no custom layers on the X/M boards which gets really inconvenient. The new Dante 16x8 stagebox for the SQ boards can greatly simplify architecture as well for getting I/O in the right spot.
[rant]
Harman appears to have laid off all of the Si line workers...note the Si desks are rehashes of the Si Compact which were rehashes of the Si1 which is a pivot off the Vi desks from Studer about 10 years ago...and Studer Switzerland was closed down around the same time they introduced the original Si desks. IMHO giving money to Harman right now is like setting it on fire
[/rant]
Samsung just pumped $84M into Harman Pro. What they do with it remains to be seen but consolidation of Harman brands and facilities was disclosed in their annual reports starting around 2007.
Remember, Der Kapitalist told us that globalization was going to be our friend. What it means is that the race for the cheapest labor and land continue without delivering benefits to end users other than price.
-
I really dislike mixing on any X/M32 physical desk. The platform is OK, but the user interface is horrible.
The Midas M32 [...] has a very nice WYSIWYG in the physical layout that corresponds with the menu tabs for each channel strip.
This is why I find threads like this so fascinating (and why UI design is so hard).
(And that's to say nothing of the divide between people who extol the virtues of a console UI that "feels like analogue", and those who are happy that the days of analogue are basically over.)
-Russ
-
This is why I find threads like this so fascinating (and why UI design is so hard).
(And that's to say nothing of the divide between people who extol the virtues of a console UI that "feels like analogue", and those who are happy that the days of analogue are basically over.)
-Russ
I think the people who like the feel of analog are happy to see it gone also. :o
-
The big pitfall I see with the QL is that almost all of the navigation is done via the touchscreen. That is fine and all, but in order to get back to the main view, you have to click the icon for the view you're currently on. No home button per se <Snip>
Program a User Define Key to be the home button. It could change your life.
-
At the price point, the X32 is a no brainer. I don’t like many things about it, but it has the features relevant to running a live gig we all need. I think the Qu isn’t bad, but aux mixes are a pain and I don’t like the fx. Sq series looks better. The X32 needs library presets that you use asstarting points, the eq is otherwise cumbersome.
-
If you are used to the flexibility of ins and outs on the LS9 then the fixed architecture of the X/M32 will really throw you.
This I don’t understand?! If anything I’ve heard users complain about it being too flexible so it’s hard to grasp...
-
??? The X/M32 isn't fixed architecture, at least not in the sense of digital mixers. Everything the LS9, M7 and QL stuff does, the X/M32 can do with a couple of exceptions. The only differences I really know of is no direct to matrix routing and output blocks being only configurable in blocks of 8 to a stage box.
A fixed architecture mixer to the best of my knowledge are ones like the A&H QU and the Presonus Studiolive. These are mixers that you cannot change the digital patch of the inputs and or the outputs. The FX and auxiliary sends are also fixed.
-
??? The X/M32 isn't fixed architecture, at least not in the sense of digital mixers. Everything the LS9, M7 and QL stuff does, the X/M32 can do with a couple of exceptions. The only differences I really know of is no direct to matrix routing and output blocks being only configurable in blocks of 8 to a stage box.
The aux sends can only be assigned Pre/Post fader in pairs. Not a big deal, but like the block of 8 issue, it is another small way to differentiate the X/M32 from other digital platforms.
-
??? The X/M32 isn't fixed architecture, at least not in the sense of digital mixers. Everything the LS9, M7 and QL stuff does, the X/M32 can do with a couple of exceptions. The only differences I really know of is no direct to matrix routing and output blocks being only configurable in blocks of 8 to a stage box.
A fixed architecture mixer to the best of my knowledge are ones like the A&H QU and the Presonus Studiolive. These are mixers that you cannot change the digital patch of the inputs and or the outputs. The FX and auxiliary sends are also fixed.
QL5 has 2-3x more processing racks than M32, 2x the channel count, 2x more automix channels, way more flexible routing and IO (no groups of 8, no pre/post in pairs, inputs can be sent to matrixes, true flexible inserts, auto-mixing freely patchable). This isn’t to complain about the M32, it cost half as much and does way less, which makes sense.
Unrelated - Luke, check out programming the home button to a UDK. Can’t imagine using a QL/CL without it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
At the price point, the X32 is a no brainer. I don’t like many things about it, but it has the features relevant to running a live gig we all need. I think the Qu isn’t bad, but aux mixes are a pain and I don’t like the fx. Sq series looks better. The X32 needs library presets that you use asstarting points, the eq is otherwise cumbersome.
I own a pair of X32 Racks and think the architecture bang-for-the-buck is excellent but I sold my X32 Compact console years ago as [begin_broken_record] I can’t see owning a console that does not have a user-definable (custom) fader layer[/end_broken_record]. My normal venue has a QU24 and I totally agree on its above stated limitations (no scribble strips, fixed routing, etc) but it does allow one custom fader layer which, coupled with a tablet running MixingStation, has allowed me to make my peace with it. Besides, using a Sharpie on board tape lets me connect with the analog days that predate my experience base. Looking forward to a SQ upgrade some day. Just my amateur 2 scents.
-
SC Performer has 80 channels to mix, PEQ and dynamics on every input, PEQ and GEQ on every output.
All layers are customizeable, duplicate faders, VCA, FX masters, whatever you want, wherever you want.
8 VCAs, 8 mute groups, head amp knobs, etc.
If only they would support it!
Dev-Core is working on a Mixing Station app for it, thugh.
-
This I don’t understand?! If anything I’ve heard users complain about it being too flexible so it’s hard to grasp...
My primary point of emphasis here is that for live work the blocks of 8 thing will feel limiting vs. the individual channel decision flexibility on an LS9. With only 32 channels you basically have 4 sockets to populate so 1 at FOH and 3 on stage, each exactly 8 channels...if you want 4 wireless, 4 dante and a 20 channel band on stage you have overtaxed your X32. It is just weird to consider coming from an LS9 with 64 DSP channels and individual configurability.
I use a QL5 at FOH attached to 3 Tio boxes and DVS for virtual soundcheck and multi tracking while the X32 lives in broadcast world where it only receives things, doesn’t act as a source for anything.
If the OP wants exotic he could buy 2 X32 things and cascade them but that would get fussy pretty quick. Lot cheaper than a QL5 though.
-
This is the reason why aux-remap exists; To reduce/eliminate the blocks-of-8 restriction. Your setup example is possible and would even give me e.g. 6 wireless, 8 dante and 24ch from stage. You’d also get the additional usb-recorder/playback, should you need it.
Also, keep in mind that the x32 is a 38ch mixer (actually 40ch, but I personally don’t count the onboard usb-recorder/playback)and not limited to 32ch. Granted, that is way less than 64ch but if you need that many channels then the x32 is obviously out of the question and you need to spend quite a bit of money to get a system of 64ch or more.
My primary point of emphasis here is that for live work the blocks of 8 thing will feel limiting vs. the individual channel decision flexibility on an LS9. With only 32 channels you basically have 4 sockets to populate so 1 at FOH and 3 on stage, each exactly 8 channels...if you want 4 wireless, 4 dante and a 20 channel band on stage you have overtaxed your X32. It is just weird to consider coming from an LS9 with 64 DSP channels and individual configurability.
-
A fixed architecture mixer to the best of my knowledge are ones like the A&H QU and the Presonus Studiolive. These are mixers that you cannot change the digital patch of the inputs and or the outputs. The FX and auxiliary sends are also fixed.
Not true. I used to own a QU mixer and you could have changed everything once you had a stage box connected - input patch (including digital splits), output patch, effect sends and returns, etc.
Add the benefit of a custom layer, and you'd have had a very, VERY customisable mixer.
-
Doesn’t the ql only have 8 stereo/dual-mono racks, just like the x32? I haven’t seen any provision for external inserts on the ql. I also feel that the inserts on the x32 are quite flexible, but perhaps you mean that it can only be placed on two insert points in the signal path?
Groups-of-8 are usually easily handled by the aux remap so it should be no real problem for most scenarios. Routing is very flexible, especially if you use the p16 bus for extended routing. Port routing is also available outside of the normal routing.
When it comes to the sends many people tend to miss that the sends config is per channel and not per mixbus. This gives you a great deal of flexibility. I don’t remember a single time where the pre/post in pairs ever given me any problems.
While you always want more mixbuses 16 of then ought to cover most scenarios for a 32/38ch mixer.
QL5 has 2-3x more processing racks than M32, 2x the channel count, 2x more automix channels, way more flexible routing and IO (no groups of 8, no pre/post in pairs, inputs can be sent to matrixes, true flexible inserts, auto-mixing freely patchable). This isn’t to complain about the M32, it cost half as much and does way less, which makes sense.
Unrelated - Luke, check out programming the home button to a UDK. Can’t imagine using a QL/CL without it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Doesn’t the ql only have 8 stereo/dual-mono racks, just like the x32? I haven’t seen any provision for external inserts on the ql. I also feel that the inserts on the x32 are quite flexible, but perhaps you mean that it can only be placed on two insert points in the signal path?
Groups-of-8 are usually easily handled by the aux remap so it should be no real problem for most scenarios. Routing is very flexible, especially if you use the p16 bus for extended routing. Port routing is also available outside of the normal routing.
When it comes to the sends many people tend to miss that the sends config is per channel and not per mixbus. This gives you a great deal of flexibility. I don’t remember a single time where the pre/post in pairs ever given me any problems.
While you always want more mixbuses 16 of then ought to cover most scenarios for a 32/38ch mixer.
QL has 16x stereo/dual-mono racks, plus 8x stereo/dual-mono ‘premium’ racks for their hardware emulations and etc.
I don’t see how the aux in remap makes up for the ‘buckets of 8 problem’ except in a narrow circumstance. It’s still a huge restriction on how you route normal input/output channels in situation with stage boxes and mixed IO at FOH and on stage. This has been an issue for me, in my context, many times.
I’m aware it’s per channel, but pre/post in groups of two has been annoying to me a couple times. Not a huge deal, but it’s an objectively inflexible parameter.
Inserts on the QL are individually routable at any IO - local, card, or Dante, and can be placed at several insert points on the channel. This is substantially more flexible than the X32/M32 and is a real difference when running a waves server.
16 bus + 8 matrix is a reasonable number of busses, and both consoles have the same basic configuration on that. However, being able to route inputs to matrices is a huge added flexibility I use very often, especially in the corporate context. As a monitor desk where all-post works, you get true 24 busses which I have used and is valuable in my context.
I sense I may be provoking some X32/M32 defense here, but I don’t think it’s necessary! I think they’re reasonable consoles with pretty good features for a very competitive price. I understand many people won’t value these features, but some will and they’re worth mentioning. I do work all the time on a QL that couldn’t be done at the same level, or at all, on an X32.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
New SI Impact landing today. Looking forward to an updated app either from SC or Dev-Core. Honestly, SC should save their development assets and just hire The Dev-Core guy, show him the UI 24r and and say ‘get to work’.
As a long time software guy, it is almost always cheaper to hire expertise than build it and the ‘not invented here’ syndrome can be a costly one...
-
I will say that while we are comparing two mixers that essentially stand in the same class, they are far from an apples to apples comparison. The QL 5 is $12,000 on the low-end in cost. The M32 with a stage box can be had for around $4,500 or so. The M32 costs 1/3rd what the QL does as a full system. If you want a stage box with the QL, add another $7,000!!! So yeah, I have no qualms with the fact that there are a couple limitations on the much less expensive systems that still kicks butt.
Keep in mind that for probably 95% of the work we do, the block of 8 limitations isn't likely to seriously affect us. There is also the fact that you can still route the XLR's on the back of the mixer to do something. Now if you are filling all 16 outputs on the stage box and you need to feed a delay send from FOH, you can do it, it will just be in a less than the conventional way.
We tout the QL as having 64 channels, but when was the last time you ran all 64 channels? You can copy a whole layer down, but not many of us ever actually ran two RIO racks and filled every possible hole the QL/CL has. I used to run my LS932 with the layers copied down so I could do double duty with it for FOH and Monitors. I sold the LS9 in favor of the M32. I have not been disappointed. The M32 is not fixed format to the degree where it hinders or changes the way I need to profile 95% of the events I do. It can be worked around.
Now I am not a big fish in the pond, so my needs are relatively lax compared to a larger production house that is doing an arena filled with front fills, out fills, delays, record feeds et all and needs a fully customizable mixer format that allows multiple show flow formats to be done from a single mixer. Most of us are not that, however. I work for those types of companies and even still, it is rather rare that I have to get super crazy with my bussing.
-
I will say that while we are comparing two mixers that essentially stand in the same class, they are far from an apples to apples comparison. The QL 5 is $12,000 on the low-end in cost. The M32 with a stage box can be had for around $4,500 or so. The M32 costs 1/3rd what the QL does as a full system. If you want a stage box with the QL, add another $7,000!!!
I have to agree with Luke on the pricing comparison, although I disagree with his assessment that the QL is pigeon-holed into a corporate class mixer. We use the QL5 for multi-band stages running monitors from foh all the time, and I don't find it lacking much of anything for that purpose in terms of tactile user interface. I find the touch screen to be a marvelous convenience which adds to the expedience of control. That being said, the OP is asking about replacing an LS9 with a modern equivalent. There is no mention of price, but presumably we are talking about LS9 type pricing (~$7-8k). If price is no concern, the easy answer is QL5. It's Yamaha's own answer to this very question, and imho the best console in this discussion. If price IS a concern, QL5 probably doesn't belong in this discussion, because it is in a different price bracket, marketed to a different production level. I think, at current pricing, the Allen & Heath (SQ) is the best option right now for its flexibility, feature set, sound quality, and support system. The Behringer/Midas is a good product for the price, and if you can work within its (few) limitations, it's a great value. If you want to step up a little bit in functionality, get the Allen & Heath. If you can justify the cost, get the Yamaha. If your replacement is chosen with reason, I don't think you'll be disappointed with any of these.
-
As a monitor desk where all-post works, you get true 24 busses which I have used and is valuable in my context.
No sure what you meant by this, but on the QL each matrix send from input channels can be pre or post fade, selectable per input channel, just like the auxes. It truly is a flexible 24 aux board.
-
We tout the QL as having 64 channels, but when was the last time you ran all 64 channels?
I don’t know about *all* 64, but I use 32+ all the time. I did a festival the other day which was ~48 channels or so plus some utility stuff on a QL5 (and a CL5). I’ve done countless shows using the 33-64 layer as a double patched monitor layer on QL5s and LS9s. Even smaller channel count shows, having the flexibility to have everything double patched in advance without any planning is excellent. This was part of what made the LS9 great, IMHO.
For me, the features on the QL are worth the purchase price. I recognize for many people like yourself, they are not. Luckily there is a broad market of consoles available for people with different needs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No sure what you meant by this, but on the QL each matrix send from input channels can be pre or post fade, selectable per input channel, just like the auxes. It truly is a flexible 24 aux board.
I forgot even the channel to matrix were selectable pre/post!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Everybody, thanks for all the input.
The toss up is either the Yamaha or the Midas.
We'll see what the insurance company wants to do....
I am more of a Yamaha guy. Years of a PM4000 and onward.
But the main use of this mixer is for visiting BE's....
This is always a great place for info!
-
Everybody, thanks for all the input.
The toss up is either the Yamaha or the Midas.
We'll see what the insurance company wants to do....
I am more of a Yamaha guy. Years of a PM4000 and onward.
But the main use of this mixer is for visiting BE's....
This is always a great place for info!
-
I have an LS9/32 that I use for festivals. Given that, I have done some thinking of what would I buy to replace it if I didn’t already have something...
I would get an A&H SQ7.
So would I. Having seen the SQ series at an Allen and Heath training day, My opinion is that they are ahead of the competition at around the same price.
A company local to me who I sometimes work for is getting two SQ7s. The DX168 and Dante was the decider. The company owner described it as Digico functionality without the Digico price.
I will probably get an SQ5 for myself. I don't personally need any of the extra functionality, but I think it's the best option at the moment.
Steve.