Jump to content

New digital mixer. Thoughts?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I am going to be replacing my venerable MixWiz and all the accompanying analog gear to finance a new digital mixer.  I am looking at making the switch before November.  Usage will be mix from stage while playing guitar and singing lead vocal.  I do occassionally do sound for friends, but only a few times a year as a favor.

My key points are (not necessarily in order):

  1. Sound quality (particularly the built in efx)
  2. Durability/Reliability
  3. Remote scene switching
  4. Virtual sound check
  5. Remote wireless capability
  6. 6 aux/other outputs for IEMs
  7. Multi-channel record/playback
  8. DCA's
  9. Remote gain control/recall
  10. Rack mountable

My price range is $1500.00 to $2500.00.

Here are the mixers I have been considering:

Allen & Heath Qu16 ($2500.00)

Positives:

  • Assumed reliabilty based on the brand and my MixWiz.
  • Assumed sound quality based on the use of iLive efx
  • Record/Playback without an exteranl computer
  • Easy to setup and operate

Negatives:

  • Would require a new rack.
  • Current firmware does not support remote control
  • Haven't been able to hear one in use or get any feedback from reviews on the web yet.
  • Cost is on the high side

Behringer X32 Producer ($2000.00)

Positives

  • Known good sound quality
  • Good remote capability
  • MIDI remote scene change

Negatives

  • Need a new rack
  • Quality worries (founded or not) with mechanical parts

Behringer X32 Rack ($1500.00)

Positives:

  • Known good sound quality
  • Good remote capability
  • MIDI scene changes
  • Very small stage footprint
  • Very few mechanical devices to fail
  • Well protected in my existing 8 space rack

Negatives:

  • Minimal physical control surface
  • No sliders

I left off the Expression Si because getting multi-track recording/virtual soundcheck requires an additional $1000.00 MADI card.  I also left off the Line 6 digital mixer because I just can't change my workflow habits that much.

.... Thoughts?  Comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


Scodiddly wrote:

 

 

I wouldn't expect a virtual soundcheck (playing back recorded tracks from a previous show) would be any use in a situation where stage volume can reach most or all of the crowd.

 

There are a couple of uses.

First, some rooms sound very different from others due to surface tecture and geometry.  It is nice to hear how the band is going to sound and equalize it up front.

Next, since you can solo any channel you want, you can optimize your channel eq's and mix for different songs or groups of songs and then save these scenes for use at gigs.  It is like making a recording, only you are creating the mix on your live PA gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

It's a bit further out of the price range, but the Roland M200i at appear $3k might tick off most of your boxes... and if a digital snake is factored in ($1500 for an S1608 stage box) it is a bit less money total than the Qu-16.  No problem with channel count.

Multichannel recording on the Roland requires Sonar & a GigE connection.  Not as slick as the Qu-16.

The Roland's iPad app looks fabulous.

I can't make up my mind between these two, but for me, better DSP (EQ flexibility) and reverb quality seem tilted in favor of the A&H over the Roland.  I think I'm going to need to find them both and do some hands- (and ears-) on testing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


tonyman wrote:

 

 

It's a bit further out of the price range, but the Roland M200i at appear $3k might tick off most of your boxes... and if a digital snake is factored in ($1500 for an S1608 stage box) it is a bit less money total than the Qu-16.  No problem with channel count.

 

Multichannel recording on the Roland requires Sonar & a GigE connection.  Not as slick as the Qu-16.

 

The Roland's iPad app looks fabulous.

 

I can't make up my mind between these two, but for me, better DSP (EQ flexibility) and reverb quality seem tilted in favor of the A&H over the Roland.  I think I'm going to need to find them both and do some hands- (and ears-) on testing.

 

 

 

I haven't heard much on the Roland, but you are correct that at $3K it is a tad more expensive than the Qu-16, a little less expensive than the Expression Si once you factor in the $1K MADI card for recording, and it is quite a bit (double) as expensive as an X32 Rack solution (but not quite double the X32 Producer which it directly competes with).

It also appears to lack the multitrack record/virtual sound check without adding more cost (similiar to the Expression Si).  Still, it is a viable contender in this price and functionality segment.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

 

I did a head to head shootout in my studio with the Allen & Heath QU-16 and the Behringer X32 compact mixer.

 

I have been testing consoles for manufacturers for the past twenty years.

 

Plain and simple, the Allen & Heath QU-16 won hands down.

 

1. I was able to get more gain before feedback and distortion from the QU-16 mic and instrument preamps.

 

2. The faders are so much better on the QU-16. Full 100mm flying faders. The X32 faders feel more plastic. The QU-16 feels like a true British console.

 

3. The X32 has 14 XLR outs while the QU-16 has 12. Both offer plenty of I/O for live and studio application.

 

4. Both had iPad apps that worked well. Make sure your WiFi is up to speed.

 

5. Each console uses a different UI. The QU-16 is laid out pretty straight forward. This made it easy to get up and mix, insert DSP, etc. In both consoles the master and DSP sections are on the top. Sect your channel and process. I did like the illuminated knobs and scribble strip on the X32. The QU-16 is just a little more streamlined than the X32.

 

6. When it came to DSP they both did well. Reverbs, delays, chorus, flange, The X32 offers 8 FX processors. The QU-16 offers 4 FX processors on all 16 channels. Both had very nice effects. The QU-16 effects are from the iLive console.

 

7. On the Dynamics (Comp, Gate, EQ) both units did very well. easy to access and implement on a channel. we really liked the QU-16 feature that allowed us to layer the console to have all 16 faders become a graphic EQ.

 

8. Live Recording - The QU-16 offers 16 Multi Track recording direct from the USB port. We used a Kingston DTSE9 16GB USB thumb drive to record the 16 multitracks. It worked flawlessly. Just remember to initialize the thumb drive first.

 

9. The QU-16 was much lighter than the X32 Compact. QU-16 is a smaller footprint than the X32. It can fit in many more places. The QU-16 can be rackmounted while the X32 cannot. You would need to purchase the rack version.

 

10. Recording - We set both consoles up with Pro Tools HDX. We ran the same exact session. The automation was very good with both units. We preferred the sound quality from the QU-16.

 

11. Live Sound - We set both consoles up with an EAW KF800 tri-amped PA system. We also ran both consoles on JBL VRX932LAP line array system.

Both consoles did well in this shootout. We used the plethora of XLR outs to feed our highs, mids, subs and delay speakers. The QU-16 was a bit easier to run a live show on than the X32. They use the 16 channels as layers for FX sends, stereo FX returns, stereo channels and mix outputs. It's just a little easier since everything is there in front of your face. One layer button and I'm in the FX and output section.

 

Synopsis: I would recommend the QU-16 over the X32 Compact for any live sound application. Both work well in a recording application. Although the QU-16 mic preamps are better.

 

I have two brand new QU-16 consoles in stock.

If you have questions, feel free to ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


mwaudio wrote:

I did a head to head shootout in my studio with the Allen & Heath QU-16 and the Behringer X32 compact mixer.

 

I have been testing consoles for manufacturers for the past twenty years.

 

Plain and simple, the Allen & Heath QU-16 won hands down.

 

1. I was able to get more gain before feedback and distortion from the QU-16 mic and instrument preamps.

 

2. The faders are so much better on the QU-16. Full 100mm flying faders. The X32 faders feel more plastic. The QU-16 feels like a true British console.

 

3. The X32 has 14 XLR outs while the QU-16 has 12. Both offer plenty of I/O for live and studio application.

 

4. Both had iPad apps that worked well. Make sure your WiFi is up to speed.

 

5. Each console uses a different UI. The QU-16 is laid out pretty straight forward. This made it easy to get up and mix, insert DSP, etc. In both consoles the master and DSP sections are on the top. Sect your channel and process. I did like the illuminated knobs and scribble strip on the X32. The QU-16 is just a little more streamlined than the X32.

 

6. When it came to DSP they both did well. Reverbs, delays, chorus, flange, The X32 offers 8 FX processors. The QU-16 offers 4 FX processors on all 16 channels. Both had very nice effects. The QU-16 effects are from the iLive console.

 

7. On the Dynamics (Comp, Gate, EQ) both units did very well. easy to access and implement on a channel. we really liked the QU-16 feature that allowed us to layer the console to have all 16 faders become a graphic EQ.

 

8. Live Recording - The QU-16 offers 16 Multi Track recording direct from the USB port. We used a Kingston DTSE9 16GB USB thumb drive to record the 16 multitracks. It worked flawlessly. Just remember to initialize the thumb drive first.

 

9. The QU-16 was much lighter than the X32 Compact. QU-16 is a smaller footprint than the X32. It can fit in many more places. The QU-16 can be rackmounted while the X32 cannot. You would need to purchase the rack version.

 

10. Recording - We set both consoles up with Pro Tools HDX. We ran the same exact session. The automation was very good with both units. We preferred the sound quality from the QU-16.

 

11. Live Sound - We set both consoles up with an EAW KF800 tri-amped PA system. We also ran both consoles on JBL VRX932LAP line array system.

Both consoles did well in this shootout. We used the plethora of XLR outs to feed our highs, mids, subs and delay speakers. The QU-16 was a bit easier to run a live show on than the X32. They use the 16 channels as layers for FX sends, stereo FX returns, stereo channels and mix outputs. It's just a little easier since everything is there in front of your face. One layer button and I'm in the FX and output section.

 

Synopsis: I would recommend the QU-16 over the X32 Compact for any live sound application. Both work well in a recording application. Although the QU-16 mic preamps are better.

 

I have two brand new QU-16 consoles in stock.

If you have questions, feel free to ask me.

It seems quite difficult to believe the gain before feedback remark and distortion from the X32.  

I don't doubt that the Qu-16 is a great console.  In all fairness, the X32 Producer will be the rack mount X32 which will compete with the Qu-16..... and it won't have those LCD scribble strips that you liked.

With respect to features, the iPad app and iPhone/iPod touch apps for the X32 are quite a bit better than the Qu-16 from what I can see.  With the latest release of firmware, the Qu-16 does finally support the remote app and the custom layer.

The meter bridge on the Qu-16 is pretty paltry (seriously?  3 leds?).  The X32's are much more useful having 5 segments plus led indicators for the compressor and gate.  (the StudioLive is actually tops in this catagory ..... in fact, the studio live also sports the best iPad app too).

Another real big drawback for the Qu-16 is that it will never (according to at least one source who spoke to an A&H representative) be able to extend the channel count to 32 by use of the digital snake and stage box.  Sure there are plenty of people that are going to be fine with 16 channels (including me), but the X32 16 channel products can all be extended to a full 32 channels for $900.00 for the stage box.  That is going to take the Qu-16 out of the running for small sound operators looking for a small but expandable rig.

The Qu-16 has 4 FX engines to the X32's 8.

A&H Qu-Drive is simply in a class all by itself ;)  That is a very cool feature.

The X32 does have DCA's and matrix mixes which the Qu doesn't have.

The X32 has MIDI remote scene change.

All in all, I think it would be difficult to say that one mixer was head and shoulders above the other.

The Qu-16 is easier to learn, but the X32 has more features and is more flexible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


mwaudio wrote:

 

 

11. Live Sound - We set both consoles up with an EAW KF800 tri-amped PA system. We also ran both consoles on JBL VRX932LAP line array system.

 

Both consoles did well in this shootout. We used the plethora of XLR outs to feed our highs, mids, subs and delay speakers.

 

If you have questions, feel free to ask me.

 

Ok, I have a question...

How did you develop the crossover filters on each console? What slope, alignment and depth are possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...