The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Is a Qu-32 an upgrade over LS9-32
Old 27th November 2015
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aisle 6 View Post
This is a little misleading as the Qu has 4 dedicated FX with graphic EQ's on every output. The X32 is not capable of this.

A minor point possibly but one of the reasons that I do not like the X32.
Again, not entirely true. The lack of fx DSP flexibility is another of my pet hates about the 32. Slots 1-4 have different DSP to slots 5-8. So some may say they lack flexibility. Just my experience
Old 27th November 2015
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post

The differences between the X32 and the M32 are:
  1. M32 has better faders (rated at 1,000,000 operations vs 300,000 for the X32)
  2. M32 has MIDAS Pro series preamps while the X32 has "MIDAS Designed" preamps. Personally, I think this is BS and there is very little sonic difference between the two in most situations (with the exception being how MIDAS Pro preamps behave when driven very hard).

I personally can't see paying the additional money for the M32, but YMMV.
I do not believe that they have Pro series pre amps either. One of my tech's and I were having this discussion and he said that internally, the pre amp board does look a little different to the x32, but it looks nothing like a pro series Midas. Just som Uli marketing I suspect
Old 28th November 2015
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aisle 6 View Post
Again, not entirely true. The lack of fx DSP flexibility is another of my pet hates about the 32. Slots 1-4 have different DSP to slots 5-8. So some may say they lack flexibility. Just my experience
I'll defer to your information then. I haven't actually opened either the M32 or the Pro 2, so I have only Music Group's word that they are actually the same.

I have opened the X32 up. What is in there isn't bad, but then again, I think that the majority of the "this preamp is better than this other preamp" talk is pretty silly these days. A preamp shouldn't "sound" like anything. What goes in should come back out .... just amplified. There are plenty of off-the-shelf preamp chips that will do exactly this.

I do believe that the A/D and D/A chips on the M32 are different than the X32. IIRC, the M32 has a better SNR. Still, I suspect that this is not that huge of a deal either.
Old 29th November 2015
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
I'll defer to your information then. I haven't actually opened either the M32 or the Pro 2, so I have only Music Group's word that they are actually the same.

I have opened the X32 up. What is in there isn't bad, but then again, I think that the majority of the "this preamp is better than this other preamp" talk is pretty silly these days. A preamp shouldn't "sound" like anything. What goes in should come back out .... just amplified. There are plenty of off-the-shelf preamp chips that will do exactly this.

I do believe that the A/D and D/A chips on the M32 are different than the X32. IIRC, the M32 has a better SNR. Still, I suspect that this is not that huge of a deal either.
You summary is most likely right on point.
Old 29th November 2015
  #35
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
I'll defer to your information then. I haven't actually opened either the M32 or the Pro 2, so I have only Music Group's word that they are actually the same.

I have opened the X32 up. What is in there isn't bad, but then again, I think that the majority of the "this preamp is better than this other preamp" talk is pretty silly these days. A preamp shouldn't "sound" like anything. What goes in should come back out .... just amplified. There are plenty of off-the-shelf preamp chips that will do exactly this.

I do believe that the A/D and D/A chips on the M32 are different than the X32. IIRC, the M32 has a better SNR. Still, I suspect that this is not that huge of a deal either.
Well, depends on the application: live? Sure, I'll take clean/noise-free. Studio? I like a bit of colour when driven and that's usually with a transformer or two in the circuit.
Old 3rd December 2015
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface View Post
Well, depends on the application: live? Sure, I'll take clean/noise-free. Studio? I like a bit of colour when driven and that's usually with a transformer or two in the circuit.
That's an interesting statement. I would of thought you would of wanted a cleaner sound for Studio work and then build onto that with outboard gear and post processing.
Old 3rd December 2015
  #37
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanLotz View Post
That's an interesting statement. I would of thought you would of wanted a cleaner sound for Studio work and then build onto that with outboard gear and post processing.
Getting the sound you want sooner in the process is always going to be faster than after the fact.

Plus, there's nothing like the sound of drums being hit hard on an API 312 pre, or a Neve 1073 driven a little for bass DI.

That's the luxury of time at a studio though.
Old 4th December 2015
  #38
Lives for gear
 

My biggest peeve with the QU series is that the compressor release time has a minimum of 100ms. I rarely have a release time over 64ms. The X32 channel compressor is MUCH more versatile, with comprehensive sidechain filter options, which the gate also has as well.

The QU and X32 are about even in terms of effects versatility, but different applications can lend themselves better to one mixer than the other. I would never give up the X32's transient modifier though, the QU has none.

The X32 has better iPad software, and also Android software that the QU doesn't have at all. This makes up for the X32's lack of durability long-term.

The only feature the QU has that I wish the X32 had is the ability to multitrack to a USB key. I would happily trade that for the X32's comps, gates, and transient modifier any day, twice on Sundays.
Old 4th December 2015
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
My biggest peeve with the QU series is that the compressor release time has a minimum of 100ms. I rarely have a release time over 64ms. The X32 channel compressor is MUCH more versatile, with comprehensive sidechain filter options, which the gate also has as well.

The QU and X32 are about even in terms of effects versatility, but different applications can lend themselves better to one mixer than the other. I would never give up the X32's transient modifier though, the QU has none.

The X32 has better iPad software, and also Android software that the QU doesn't have at all. This makes up for the X32's lack of durability long-term.

The only feature the QU has that I wish the X32 had is the ability to multitrack to a USB key. I would happily trade that for the X32's comps, gates, and transient modifier any day, twice on Sundays.
Bingo!

Also, the Qu has the ability to put the graphic eq on faders. That is kinda cool too

Still the big one is the multi-track to a USB thumb drive for sure!
Old 13th December 2015
  #40
Lives for gear
Wondering about the ease of multitracking on the QU16. Strictly for writing purposes, before I put projects in the DAW.
Old 16th December 2015
  #41
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty James View Post
Wondering about the ease of multitracking on the QU16. Strictly for writing purposes, before I put projects in the DAW.
My qu-24 arrives tomorrow, but I think it'll be very easy, especially when you can create a scene with your tracking layout preserved, cue mixes saved, etc.
Old 4th January 2016
  #42
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Received word from A&H tech support that the ADC is the same as the ZED R16, but the DAC and chipset are different.
Old 4th January 2016
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post

I have opened the X32 up. What is in there isn't bad, but then again, I think that the majority of the "this preamp is better than this other preamp" talk is pretty silly these days. A preamp shouldn't "sound" like anything. What goes in should come back out .... just amplified. There are plenty of off-the-shelf preamp chips that will do exactly this.
Agreed - if I want a particular preamp for the color it gives, I'll put it inline ahead of the console input.
Old 4th January 2016
  #44
Lives for gear
 

Two weeks ago I spent an afternoon with Myron, JR and some of the staff at SE Systems playing my guitar thru a Peluso 2247SE tube mic wearing a good pair of tracking head phones. Shortly after Myron got me set up with the DiGiCo S21 JR came out of his office with one of his vintage Martins and one hell of a jam session was on for the rest of the afternoon. I am absolutely floored by the sonic quality of the S21: it is with out any qualification the very best high quality transparent delivery I have ever heard anywhere live or in a studio. The MAP is $6,999. and if they like you your walk out price will be a bit lower but even if you pay full price it is the best deal for ultra high end sound i have found.
Apparently Digico has new improved elements and a new interface for their world renown 12 year old FPGA architecture and this along with Chinese assembly accounts for the lower entry level price. The S21 is 1K more than Midas M32 and produces twice the sonic delivery. I have played into both---no contest!!
I love my QU16: for small gigs the small foot print and simple flash drive recording works very well with my music video work however for our future concert work we will be working with an S21.
(It is hard to believe the difference 96K processing makes)
Old 5th January 2016
  #45
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
Two weeks ago I spent an afternoon with Myron, JR and some of the staff at SE Systems playing my guitar thru a Peluso 2247SE tube mic wearing a good pair of tracking head phones. Shortly after Myron got me set up with the DiGiCo S21 JR came out of his office with one of his vintage Martins and one hell of a jam session was on for the rest of the afternoon. I am absolutely floored by the sonic quality of the S21: it is with out any qualification the very best high quality transparent delivery I have ever heard anywhere live or in a studio. The MAP is $6,999. and if they like you your walk out price will be a bit lower but even if you pay full price it is the best deal for ultra high end sound i have found.
Apparently Digico has new improved elements and a new interface for their world renown 12 year old FPGA architecture and this along with Chinese assembly accounts for the lower entry level price. The S21 is 1K more than Midas M32 and produces twice the sonic delivery. I have played into both---no contest!!
I love my QU16: for small gigs the small foot print and simple flash drive recording works very well with my music video work however for our future concert work we will be working with an S21.
(It is hard to believe the difference 96K processing makes)
I can't hear an audible difference between 48 and 96 personally but I have heard that certain plugins behave better at 96K.
Old 5th January 2016
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Gravyface raises a very interesting point. I too had a lot of skepticism about the value of a 96K sample rate: for my old ears the 24/48 pro std was as good as I could perceive: however my recent experience with the S21 has changed my thinking about this question. The precise reasons it sounds so much better is for folks well above my pay grade to explain but the difference in transparent clarity was magnificent. When you get a chance check out an S21 in a real world situation and judge it for your self.
Old 5th January 2016
  #47
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
Gravyface raises a very interesting point. I too had a lot of skepticism about the value of a 96K sample rate: for my old ears the 24/48 pro std was as good as I could perceive: however my recent experience with the S21 has changed my thinking about this question. The precise reasons it sounds so much better is for folks well above my pay grade to explain but the difference in transparent clarity was magnificent. When you get a chance check out an S21 in a real world situation and judge it for your self.
Could be other things vs straight 96 vs 48, like preamps, or DAC.

Can the sample rate be adjusted on the S21?
Old 5th January 2016
  #48
Lives for gear
 

I have no idea the precice role 96K plays in delivering their sonic clarity but it is my understanding all current DiGiCo desks including the subject S21 are internally 96K all the time however the provided USB S21 outlet for DAW multitrack recording is 24/48 pro std.
Old 6th January 2016
  #49
Lives for gear
 

In the past, the reason that 96k was better than 48k was predominantly the lower latency provided by double the sample rate. To be more clear, it was the idea that when you split an input signal, process one part of it, then mix it back into the original, lower latency would give you a better sound since you would have half the time misalignment of a 48K processed signal. The other option for 48K consoles would be to do half the work on the signal which would most certainly result in lower quality (unless done very cleverly).

Today, almost all digital consoles are time aligned for most processing (especially the channel processing).

The frequency that you can accurately reproduce without any artifacts when going from digital to analog is 1/2 the sample frequency. In the case of 48K, that would be 24Khz ..... which most of us can't hear, and most speakers in use in live settings can't reproduce.

What is still true is that you can do double the work at 96K within the same time window. This allows 96K desks to have better algorithms and still maintain a good input to output latency.

Another advantage is that you can do more with digital processing without degrading the signal.

Having said that, I believe it would be difficult to pick the difference out in blind test on live consoles when the only difference was the sample rate.

Digico has always had breath-taking verbs to my ears, and their digital processing is top notch. The S21 obviously has the power to plow through the Digico algorithms very well and it is those processing algorithms that make the sonic difference IMO.

Still, at 7K it is 3 times as expensive as an X32 and more than twice as expensive as a QU32 or Expression Si 3. It really is in a different league though. I wouldn't argue the merits of an M32 over an X32.... Preamps alone really don't make the console IMO.
Old 6th January 2016
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Dutchy15's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
Digico has always had breath-taking verbs to my ears
This is so funny to me. We have two SD9's at our conservatory and we always try to bring outboard reverbs as we consider the internal ones to be of bad quality and hard to use. I always find myself needing serious amounts of EQ to get a workable sound out of them. Even a simple Lexicon MX300 is a huge improvement IMO.


Dutchy
Old 7th January 2016
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchy15 View Post
This is so funny to me. We have two SD9's at our conservatory and we always try to bring outboard reverbs as we consider the internal ones to be of bad quality and hard to use. I always find myself needing serious amounts of EQ to get a workable sound out of them. Even a simple Lexicon MX300 is a huge improvement IMO.


Dutchy
My mega church as a pair of D5's to run their show with. It sounds pretty darned good to me.

Even the Lexicon MX550 wasn't up to par to my ears compared to my old TC Electronics M-OneXL and the D5 verbs sound better than both to my ears.

Sound is truly in the ears of the beholder
Old 9th May 2016
  #52
Gear Nut
 

The LS9 is a good template for design...and improvement.
A biggie: The LS9 is actually 64 inputs not 32 and you can use all the onboard inputs and 32 channels of the
Rio stage boxes
I wish the Qu had that! I use the Qu and LS9. The Qu sounds better and the LS9 has been rock solid.
An expanded DM2000 would have been great with 4 slots but Yamaha dumbded it down when developing
the LS9. The Qu has custom layers but the custom layers on the iPad differ from the onboard custom layers...hmmm....
Scrolling on the Qu-Pad is cool compared to the 8,8,8,8,8 selections of the LS9...I have had to mix between 8 and 9 and had to change crazy 8s each time.
Just scroll on the Qu-Pad and all is good. LS9=Dante which is good. Qu uses proprietary stage box....not good.
Qu has built-in free-downloadable Automixer. Yamaha has a $2500 Dan Dugan MY-16 module but it works real well. (They paid Dan !)

Personally I also use a small 8 input QSC Touchmix. Its small w/builtin wifi....but it ain't perfect. But its good enough for small
corporate presentations.

I could probably spec a whole new platform based on 1. what,s out there, 2. my desires, and 3. what I see as your wants also!
📝 Reply
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump