The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
A&H Qu24 Chrome vs. Behringer X32
Old 5th May 2019
  #1
Here for the gear
 

A&H Qu24 Chrome vs. Behringer X32

Hello,

Just to make it clear, if you think that another digital mixer would be better in the given price range (around 2000€) I would like to know which one and what you think.

I am buying a digital mixer and a local distributor has given me good offers on these two, so that's why I am considering them. I know that the Q24 and X32 have various features and each can be better from a certain point of view, that's why I'll try to describe how I need to use the mixing console and hope that somebody can give me a tipp which of these two would be better suited for my needs.

I will need the mixer for live gigs, so no studio. I know that the X32 has much more inputs, but frankly I need only around 20 XLR inputs and a few outputs for on-stage monitors or in-ear monitoring (headphones), so the higher number of I/O is irrelevant. My band plays traditional instruments which are acoustic and can be compeared to an acoustic guitar, but we also added drums guitars, etc.

Can anybody comment on the quality and difference of FX and EQ for live gigs?
Are there any other pros or cons, do both mixers have subgroups? I read somewhere that the Behringer X32 can access the graphic analayzer and EQ for each chanel simultaneously while the Q24 can't ?

Truth be told, I am not an expert, until now I worked only with a quite simple analoge mixer. Any kind of advice is helpful and appreciated!
Old 5th May 2019
  #2
S21
Lives for gear
 
S21's Avatar
 

For user-friendliness moving from analogue I would go with the Qu. But it is (intentionally) a more limited mixer than the X32.
Old 5th May 2019
  #3
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
My band plays traditional instruments which are acoustic and can be compeared to an acoustic guitar, but we also added drums guitars, etc.
I use the Qu-Pac for Irish traditional music, some of the pickup systems can be quite "unique". The Qu is well capable of catering for all eventualities and tastes, inasmuch as a mixing desk can be.
Quote:
Can anybody comment on the quality and difference of FX and EQ for live gigs?
Everything you need, nothing you don't. Quality is excellent, operation is reliable and straightforward. Four separate FX send/returns and a wide selection of great sounding modules to choose from. Presets are fairly well thought through.
Quote:
Are there any other pros or cons, do both mixers have subgroups?
Qu Pac has four groups and four DCAs which, once I've set up the band in a logical framework, is where I do most on my "during the gig" adjustment.
Quote:
I read somewhere that the Behringer X32 can access the graphic analayzer and EQ for each chanel simultaneously while the Q24 can't ?
Graphics on all outputs, not inputs - as might be expected. Parametrics everywhere else. I'm not sure how this is implemented across the whole range but certainly the Qu Pac has nothing missing.
Old 5th May 2019
  #4
S21
Lives for gear
 
S21's Avatar
 

Qu16 doesn't have subgroups, but does have DCA groups.
Old 5th May 2019
  #5
Lives for gear
 

My advice will be based exclusively on a 10+ year A & H QU experience. I started out with a QU16 and it is still rendering dependable, high quality sonic delivery for my teenage grandson's garage band. Some of the USB recording they do tracking with their DAW is quite remarkable. I am a 50 year veteran of both live and studio based acoustic Americana music production and I am convinced an Allen & Heath desk can and will deliver every thing you will want or need and more.

1) Given the fact you will be facing a "digital learning curve" A & H offers unparalleled telephone human technology service and operational help.
2) About 1 year into using my QU16 I hooked up the QUpad app. for my I-Pad. To my great surprise full operation of the QU with the I-Pad app. was far more intuitive than the knobs and faders so I bought a QUsb, that is essentially a 16 channel stage box with a 32 channel core expansion capability, that is totally controlled with an I pad. This may not be the best approach for everyone but it was a no brainer for my small venue work flow. The QUsb $1,000. price tag is a real reminder of the the hardware expense for motorized faders and encoders you did not have to spend to own this quality/value bargain.

The best advice I can offer is to get ahead of the digital development curve and buy the very best technology available on the planet. The A&H SQ line is a smaller version of the A & H D-Live line and with out question will meet and exceed you present and future needs. The 16 channel version is priced @ $2,800. and 24 channel version is $3,800. I have a Digigrid/Waves LV1 main system that required a 12K investment for my major video/audio work and if I were starting over I would buy the $2,800. SQ5 instead in a heart beat. Find the most reputable A & H dealer in your area and have an objective and comprehensive discussion pursuant to your present and future needs and wants.
Hugh
Old 5th May 2019
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
Hello,


Can anybody comment on the quality and difference of FX and EQ for live gigs?
Are there any other pros or cons, do both mixers have subgroups? I read somewhere that the Behringer X32 can access the graphic analayzer and EQ for each chanel simultaneously while the Q24 can't ?

Truth be told, I am not an expert, until now I worked only with a quite simple analog mixer. Any kind of advice is helpful and appreciated!
They'll both do the job you describe admirably.

My simple summary of the differences is that the QU24 is more approachable as a digital newbie, but has limitations if you want to do more esoteric stuff (unbelievable, you can't split an input across multiple channels - which drives me potty!). The X32 is extremely configurable.

As with another post, if you were going the A&H route, the SQ5 is a lot better than the QU24 at only a small price increase (albeit still above your target). But you can't ignore the fact that the X32 will save you a whole load of money, as well has having very cheap digital stageboxes, if that's of interest to you.

Another area to look at is the remote interface, if you think you'll be using that. A lot may hinge on whether you're an Android or Apple user. Again, there are apps for each mixer, you might find that you click more with one than another.

Will the mixer be on-stage, or in a conventional FOH position? If the latter, then you want to budget in for a digital stagebox and a reel of cat5 cable to make your life nice an easy. With the X32, you could do this and still be only a little above your target spend. Any other brand, and it'll be a lot more.

The only other players in your budget only really come out if you're prepared to go surface-less and mix from a tablet/laptop - is this an option?
Old 5th May 2019
  #7
Lives for gear
X32 Compact+ SD16 & SD8
Old 5th May 2019
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Digital mixers are a fantastic upgrade to any analog system in nearly every respect (certainly the 2 mixers you have listed are). As mentioned, it does come with some learning ..... which I highly recommend you take the time to do as it will greatly enhance your ability to run a show well and sound good.

First, the biggest advantages of digital mixers are:
  1. Faders and knobs are used for multiple purposes greatly expanding what the console is able to control.
  2. Every channel has full processing at your fingertips and it is EASY to lineup the processing to what is being processed (unlike analog where, for example, you had to know what channel of gate was lined up to what insert).
  3. A full meter bridge is always available .... and in more than one view if you use an external PC or tablet to monitor as well.
  4. Multi-track recording and playback is built in to the unit. This is particularly useful for making demo's of just music, or videos. It is also a great learning tool since you can record your band multi-track, then play things back and learn how to use the channel processing to really dial in a great mix even when the band isn't present.

Now, having stated this (which you may have already known), I would strongly recommend either the X32 or the Soundcraft Impact.

Both of these mixers have pretty good workflow, and most importantly, they have LCD scribble strips where the Qu24 does not.

Yea, yea, yea .... there are now going to be a few people who point out that all of us mixed for YEARS using gaff tape and a sharpie so there is nothing wrong with the Qu24. I would point out that for YEARS we all listened to music using a record player too. Doesn't mean I recommend them today though.

Yes. I agree that the Qu24 most closely matches an analog mixer work flow ..... but that isn't really a good thing IMO.

Learn to use a digital mixer to its advantage. Don't buy a digital mixer so you can continue to use an inferior workflow from the analog days (I am putting on my bullet proof vest now ).

Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I would never buy a digital mixer that did not have LCD scribble strips. That seems flat out silly to me.

FWIW, I have mixed on all of these mixers. To my ears, the soundcraft has a slight edge in EFX sound quality and channel eq. The X32 is the most flexible and has the best support apps for it (off-line editor, phone app, tablet app). There are many more people out there using the X32, so you are more likely to find others that can quickly use your mixer or give you a show file for it. Either one is a great choice, but not the Qu24 IMO.

If space is an issue, the earlier mentioned X32 Compact with stage boxes is also a great way to go. You can keep all the XLR cables on stage and use a simple Ethernet cable to run back to the mixer that way. Ahhh. The beauty of digital mixing
Old 5th May 2019
  #9
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
They'll both do the job you describe admirably.

My simple summary of the differences is that the QU24 is more approachable as a digital newbie, but has limitations if you want to do more esoteric stuff (unbelievable, you can't split an input across multiple channels - which drives me potty!). The X32 is extremely configurable.

As with another post, if you were going the A&H route, the SQ5 is a lot better than the QU24 at only a small price increase (albeit still above your target). But you can't ignore the fact that the X32 will save you a whole load of money, as well has having very cheap digital stageboxes, if that's of interest to you.

Another area to look at is the remote interface, if you think you'll be using that. A lot may hinge on whether you're an Android or Apple user. Again, there are apps for each mixer, you might find that you click more with one than another.

Will the mixer be on-stage, or in a conventional FOH position? If the latter, then you want to budget in for a digital stagebox and a reel of cat5 cable to make your life nice an easy. With the X32, you could do this and still be only a little above your target spend. Any other brand, and it'll be a lot more.

The only other players in your budget only really come out if you're prepared to go surface-less and mix from a tablet/laptop - is this an option?

I would need at least SQ6, which is more than double the price my dealer is asking for the X32 and almost double for the Q24. The SQ6 is a dream, but honestly if I had the money then I would probably buy Midas M32. unfourtenatly i have half the money and I need the mix pretty soon.

To make it clear, I play in the band. So that means that the mix will always be on stage and I don't need a box.

And yes I plan on using a tablet a lot, I mean for general setup I need to get infront of the speakers on the dance floor, So I will probably use the tablet for general setup and the mix more or less for small adjustments while playing, so probably mostly volume or dealing with feedback if it appears.

Personally I'm an Android user, but I did consider buying an used IPad just for the mix, i guess you can buy an Ok one for 200 euros, so I don't want that to affect my decision regarding the mix. So if one of them is a better choice for my needs and I need iOS for it, so be it ( but honestly I would rather not buy an IPad)

So the main setup of the sound, EQ and FX and everything would be on a tablet- is there a difference in the two mixes and is there a big differenc if I use Android or iPad (iOS) ?
Old 5th May 2019
  #10
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
Digital mixers are a fantastic upgrade to any analog system in nearly every respect (certainly the 2 mixers you have listed are). As mentioned, it does come with some learning ..... which I highly recommend you take the time to do as it will greatly enhance your ability to run a show well and sound good.

First, the biggest advantages of digital mixers are:
  1. Faders and knobs are used for multiple purposes greatly expanding what the console is able to control.
  2. Every channel has full processing at your fingertips and it is EASY to lineup the processing to what is being processed (unlike analog where, for example, you had to know what channel of gate was lined up to what insert).
  3. A full meter bridge is always available .... and in more than one view if you use an external PC or tablet to monitor as well.
  4. Multi-track recording and playback is built in to the unit. This is particularly useful for making demo's of just music, or videos. It is also a great learning tool since you can record your band multi-track, then play things back and learn how to use the channel processing to really dial in a great mix even when the band isn't present.

Now, having stated this (which you may have already known), I would strongly recommend either the X32 or the Soundcraft Impact.

Both of these mixers have pretty good workflow, and most importantly, they have LCD scribble strips where the Qu24 does not.

Yea, yea, yea .... there are now going to be a few people who point out that all of us mixed for YEARS using gaff tape and a sharpie so there is nothing wrong with the Qu24. I would point out that for YEARS we all listened to music using a record player too. Doesn't mean I recommend them today though.

Yes. I agree that the Qu24 most closely matches an analog mixer work flow ..... but that isn't really a good thing IMO.

Learn to use a digital mixer to its advantage. Don't buy a digital mixer so you can continue to use an inferior workflow from the analog days (I am putting on my bullet proof vest now ).

Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I would never buy a digital mixer that did not have LCD scribble strips. That seems flat out silly to me.

FWIW, I have mixed on all of these mixers. To my ears, the soundcraft has a slight edge in EFX sound quality and channel eq. The X32 is the most flexible and has the best support apps for it (off-line editor, phone app, tablet app). There are many more people out there using the X32, so you are more likely to find others that can quickly use your mixer or give you a show file for it. Either one is a great choice, but not the Qu24 IMO.

If space is an issue, the earlier mentioned X32 Compact with stage boxes is also a great way to go. You can keep all the XLR cables on stage and use a simple Ethernet cable to run back to the mixer that way. Ahhh. The beauty of digital mixing
Thank you for your anwser.
Truth be told i quite like those scribble strips, mucha better then tape nad pen

Honestly it's not important that the work flow is similar to an analouge. Although I've never worked on a digital mix, I'm still young and have a lot to learn, and learning isn't a problem, also my generation is born into technology, so figuring out how to do stuff is not the problem, a much bigger problem will be learning how to properly work with an EQ and FX, since up until now mine were quite simple and limited.

A local dealer has an Soundcarft Expression III for 2000 euros which he claims is 50% off, but it's B-stock. So the price is the same as the Q24 and quite close to the X32. Is it something I should consider ? I don't know many people who use it, so I didn't give it much thought.
Old 6th May 2019
  #11
Here for the gear
 

Another thing I forgot to mention is that I have Turbosound IQ speakers. The X32 also has some kind of setup for them. I kind of belive that I can set them up manualy without it also, but it's a nice to have. Does it make a difference, what do you think ?

The other major thing is that Turbosund has Ultranet suport, so I can connect them with a LAN cable right ?
The X32 has an Ultranet support system and the Q24 doesn't. Will the signal and therefore the sound be better through LAN cables, instead of XLR since it's digital? Or is it more or less the same. Does it make even sense to use it because I only have one Ultranet port, so that would mena that I have to connect the speakers on the right to the ones on the left, in that case it would be easier to use XLR. So would I get better sound quality aside from easier heandling on the speaker ? I mean it has it's own EQ and crossover, but do I need that even on a speaker with a digital mixer? Do I get better sound quality or are the differences so minor that it's not noticable ?
Old 6th May 2019
  #12
Gear Head
 

I used the qu32 for a while and the qu-pac. I do like them but the flexibility and add ons for the x32 is a win for me. There are so many x32 and m32 in the wild and on the lower level of production they are readily available and used near exclusively.

Scribble strips are a must for me.
Old 6th May 2019
  #13
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
honestly if I had the money then I would probably buy Midas M32. unfourtenatly i have half the money and I need the mix pretty soon.
In which case, I'd say buy the X32.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
So the main setup of the sound, EQ and FX and everything would be on a tablet- is there a difference in the two mixes and is there a big differenc if I use Android or iPad (iOS) ?
With the X32 you do have the 3rd party Mixing Station app available on both Android and iOS - you also have the (generally viewed) less good Behringer iOS app. They're just different ways of working - but Mixing Station is hugely customisable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
A local dealer has an Soundcarft Expression III for 2000 euros which he claims is 50% off, but it's B-stock. So the price is the same as the Q24 and quite close to the X32. Is it something I should consider ? I don't know many people who use it, so I didn't give it much thought.
I just don't get why anyone would buy a mixer without scribble strips any more. There's a reason why it's being sold off cheap!


Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
Another thing I forgot to mention is that I have Turbosound IQ speakers. The X32 also has some kind of setup for them. I kind of belive that I can set them up manualy without it also, but it's a nice to have. Does it make a difference, what do you think ?

The other major thing is that Turbosund has Ultranet suport, so I can connect them with a LAN cable right ?
I wouldn't get too hung up on all of that, to be honest. No problem with just connecting up using XLRs!
Old 6th May 2019
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Ahh. Mixing for your own band.

If that is the case, then I would recommend mixing completely from a tablet with a tablet clip attached to your mic stand. My recommendations would be:

1) Soundcraft Ui24 (~$1,000.00) (20 combo inputs)
2) X32 Rack + SD16 (~$1,800.00) (32 XLR inputs and six 1/4" inputs)
3) XR18 (~$500.00) (16 XLR inputs + two 1/4")

For all mixers mentioned here and above, get a dedicated 5Ghz wireless router.

Ok, here is the rundown on these since there is a big difference between each.

Soundcraft Ui24: Best sounding (as mentioned above). Easy to understand GUI. Lands in the middle price wise. GUI runs on any tablet and looks the same. No off-line editor

X32 Rack combo: Most flexible, most inputs and outputs. Apps for phone, tablet, and PC. Off-line editor.

XR18: WAY less expensive, same sound quality as the X32. Less flexible than the X32 Rack. Fewer inputs. Apps for phone, tablet and PC. Off-line editor

Is there any specific reason you want a physical surface if you are playing in the band while mixing? I assume you are mixing from stage ... or from a tour out front in the middle of the song. If that is the case, you should seriously consider a rack mount mixer with no console interface. In this setup, the quality of the apps is the most important factor IMO.
Old 6th May 2019
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
In which case, I'd say buy the X32.
I just don't get why anyone would buy a mixer without scribble strips any more. There's a reason why it's being sold off cheap!
I completely agree.... unless they are mixing from stage with a tablet
Old 9th May 2019
  #16
Here for the gear
 

I'm not sure about using just a tablet. I mean so far I've never used a tablet for mixing, and now to go full without the mixing console seems ludicrous. I mean, what if the battery dies, the tablet freezes, somebody accidentaly breakes it, what if I don't like the tablet that much. Might sound silly but I feel safer if it also has a mixing console. Also I often mess around a bit while we play, and I imagine that using a tablet for that is quite slow.

I still haven't made up my mind but I think I'm going to buy the X32. I somehow think that the A&H might have better preamps and overall it gives a nicer sound, but of course it's more limited with functions, am I right ?
And the other question is, will I even notice that difference, both are good mixes, with good sound quality, we won't play big concerts, we play weddings, so thats around 500 people I also probably will never record anything professionaly on the mix, so do you think that I would even notice the difference in sound quality ?

If there is another good mix, that you think is better than these two, please recommend it!
Old 9th May 2019
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
I'm not sure about using just a tablet. I mean so far I've never used a tablet for mixing, and now to go full without the mixing console seems ludicrous. I mean, what if the battery dies, the tablet freezes, somebody accidentaly breakes it, what if I don't like the tablet that much. Might sound silly but I feel safer if it also has a mixing console. Also I often mess around a bit while we play, and I imagine that using a tablet for that is quite slow.

I still haven't made up my mind but I think I'm going to buy the X32. I somehow think that the A&H might have better preamps and overall it gives a nicer sound, but of course it's more limited with functions, am I right ?
And the other question is, will I even notice that difference, both are good mixes, with good sound quality, we won't play big concerts, we play weddings, so thats around 500 people I also probably will never record anything professionaly on the mix, so do you think that I would even notice the difference in sound quality ?

If there is another good mix, that you think is better than these two, please recommend it!
Oh, I feel ya.

I had an Allen&Heath MixWiz for a very long time. My goal was to go digital to lighten up the load (the mix rack was quite heavy). I was originally on the same path as you..... get an X32 or X32 Compact and then fiddle with the remote app. The loss of the entire control surface was just ...... wrong!

When the X32 Rack was announced, I noticed that it did, in fact, have a user interface .... just no faders .... and you can only adjust one channel at a time ... but in a pinch, it would get the job done. The darned thing was so in demand that I figured that if I hated it, I could always just sell it .... at that time maybe even for more than I paid since I got one of the very first shipments and it was in such demand then.

I very quickly adapted to mixing on a tablet. I could have the entire mixer right in front of me on the mic stand, and with the DCA channels could easily make quick adjustments to anything I needed to within seconds. The real kicker for me was watching an old video of the band and watching me have to turn around, mess with a mix, then turn back to the audience in the middle of the song. It looked so awkward ... and it was.

I have a couple of friends that started with the full X32, then purchased an X32 Rack .... and then sold the X32 because it wasn't seeing any use.

As for your fears .....

Keep a spare tablet. You can get a really cheep Android tablet for the task. Just buy 2. They work great.

If you have a laptop, you can run a wired connection directly to your mixer and use the laptop to mix on.

If both tablets die, and your laptop explodes, then use the front display of the X32 rack to make adjustments.

FWIW, my Android tablet has never even run out of battery in a gig. I do bring a charger for it just in case, but have never used it. My iPad Mini also never had any issues. I just like the Android app better since you can make custom layers with it.

If you don't want to take such a plunge, get the X32 and try mixing from stage on a tablet with a tablet stand on your mic stand. If you don't like the tablet, you can still use the physical interface on the X32. If you find you really like the tablet (like I did), sell the X32 and get an X32 Rack (WAY less to carry btw).
Old 9th May 2019
  #18
S21
Lives for gear
 
S21's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
I'm not sure about using just a tablet. I mean so far I've never used a tablet for mixing, and now to go full without the mixing console seems ludicrous. I mean, what if the battery dies, the tablet freezes, somebody accidentaly breakes it, what if I don't like the tablet that much. Might sound silly but I feel safer if it also has a mixing console. Also I often mess around a bit while we play, and I imagine that using a tablet for that is quite slow.

I still haven't made up my mind but I think I'm going to buy the X32. I somehow think that the A&H might have better preamps and overall it gives a nicer sound, but of course it's more limited with functions, am I right ?
And the other question is, will I even notice that difference, both are good mixes, with good sound quality, we won't play big concerts, we play weddings, so thats around 500 people I also probably will never record anything professionaly on the mix, so do you think that I would even notice the difference in sound quality ?

If there is another good mix, that you think is better than these two, please recommend it!
Good sound comes from an ability to hear and adjust the sound using functions on the mixer you can deftly adjust.

Too hard to use a function = function never used.

Dragging a big desk around is also a drag. But if you have 20 channels of instruments the mic stands probably outweigh(even outprice nearly) the mixer. Let alone the instruments themselves.
Old 9th May 2019
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Unfortunately this thread like most all "Preferred Brand" comparisons is a subjective process that is not necessarily based on quantifiable data. An often overlooked but very important factor is the history and predictability of multiple brand controlling ownership. IMO the A & H, Digico, Calrec digital processing family is the industry leader in terms of technology innovation, sonic quality, dependability and post purchase support. The same could be said for RCF: with their recent acquisition of EAW and DPA they are positioned to become the dominate brand in quality/value FOH gear and high end live performance mics. Given these considerations several facts need to be raised.
1) The QUsb has scribble strips.
2) 8 or 16 channel expansion stage boxes are available that would not collectively go beyond the OP's stated 2K budget.
3) Arbitrary tight individual financial limitations preventing the purchase of tomorrows highest and best live and recording technology is less than a smart business plan. The SQ5's ability to control 16 or more FP32/96K channels with world class D-Live FPGA processing for a relatively small increased budget will be a no brainer for most folks.
It became abundantly clear the OP was looking for approval of his Beringer preference. I understand and respect "Brand Loyalty" however an objective review of relevant facts for some folks that are not in the bag for a given brand is important for us to remember.
Hugh

Last edited by hughshouse; 9th May 2019 at 01:26 PM..
Old 9th May 2019
  #20
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
I'm not sure about using just a tablet.
Understood. You're already making a jump into the unknown with a digital mixer, and going surfaceless adds another layer of learning. That said, many end up very happy with tablet mixing, once they're up to speed. But it isn't for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
I still haven't made up my mind but I think I'm going to buy the X32. I somehow think that the A&H might have better preamps and overall it gives a nicer sound, but of course it's more limited with functions, am I right ?
And the other question is, will I even notice that difference, both are good mixes, with good sound quality, we won't play big concerts, we play weddings, so thats around 500 people I also probably will never record anything professionaly on the mix, so do you think that I would even notice the difference in sound quality ?
Show me a single drunk wedding go-er who'll notice the difference between pre-amps in mixers at their event.... And, regardless, I suspect you wouldn't notice a difference either - I've used X32 & QU and they're both acceptable.
While you could spend a lot more and get a "better" desk, I'm sure you really won't be disappointed with the X32 line - and you'll enjoy spending the leftover money!
Old 9th May 2019
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
I'm not sure about using just a tablet. I mean so far I've never used a tablet for mixing, and now to go full without the mixing console seems ludicrous. I mean, what if the battery dies, the tablet freezes, somebody accidentaly breakes it, what if I don't like the tablet that much. Might sound silly but I feel safer if it also has a mixing console. Also I often mess around a bit while we play, and I imagine that using a tablet for that is quite slow.

I still haven't made up my mind but I think I'm going to buy the X32. I somehow think that the A&H might have better preamps and overall it gives a nicer sound, but of course it's more limited with functions, am I right ?
And the other question is, will I even notice that difference, both are good mixes, with good sound quality, we won't play big concerts, we play weddings, so thats around 500 people I also probably will never record anything professionaly on the mix, so do you think that I would even notice the difference in sound quality ?

If there is another good mix, that you think is better than these two, please recommend it!
Get 2 wifi routers (main one and spare) with amplified antennas, i.e. D-Link DIR-822. Set them to operate 5GHz only with SSID broadcast turned off (keeps phones from scanning them). Get an iPad Air or better for main tablet, iPad 2 or better as a spare, and secure cases for both. The iPad software is actually easier to use than X32 consoles. You'll want an android tablet too because Mixing Station has some major advantages, but requires configuration, that can wait. Get a 10,000mAh or bigger battery.

That's more safety net than most tablet users have, and it costs way less than the difference between an X32 Rack and full X32 console. The Rack is also way smaller and lighter with just as much processing power as the full console. The 6 aux inputs can be assigned to full channels, so your 20 inputs fit just fine and leave two more for set break music etc.

You should really test drive a Rack before paying for and lugging around a full console. Take into account the difference between a 15lb 3RU case and a 145lb console in its case. You're going to end up using the tablet more than the console anyway, trust me.
Old 9th May 2019
  #22
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
Unfortunately this thread like most all "Preferred Brand" comparisons is a subjective process that is not necessarily based on quantifiable data. An often overlooked but very important factor is the history and predictability of multiple brand controlling ownership. IMO the A & H, Digico, Calrec digital processing family is the industry leader in terms of technology innovation, sonic quality, dependability and post purchase support. The same could be said for RCF: with their recent acquisition of EAW and DPA they are positioned to become the dominate brand in quality/value FOH gear and high end live performance mics. Given these considerations several facts need to be raised.
1) The QUsb has scribble strips.
2) 8 or 16 channel expansion stage boxes are available that would not collectively go beyond the OP's stated 2K budget.
3) Arbitrary tight individual financial limitations preventing the purchase of tomorrows highest and best live and recording technology is less than a smart business plan. The SQ5's ability to control 16 or more FP32/96K channels with world class D-Live FPGA processing for a relatively small increased budget will be a no brainer for most folks.
It became abundantly clear the OP was looking for approval of his Beringer preference. I understand and respect "Brand Loyalty" however an objective review of relevant facts for some folks that are not in the bag for a given brand is important for us to remember.
Hugh
You are right and wrong at the same time. I currently use an A&H zed 22Fx and it's a great mix. Buying the Q-24 was a no brainer until I started asking around and researching. I was suprised when people who are in the music business longer than me started recomending the X32 over the Q24. I'm not searching for aproval but confirmation that the X32 would be a better choice, and I hope that everybody who used both gave their opinion. I also looked online how the Q24 worked and was a bit surprised by how simple it is, I kind of expected more.

I agree that the SQ5 is better, but wouldn't it be silly to buy stage boxes that are not designed by A&H and have similar preamps. The A&H AR84 brings the price pretty close to the SQ6. 2 and 3k is not a small difference. I belive that the SQ is better, I also belive that the difference in quality resembels the difference in price. I would consider it only if you are trying to explain that the Q24 and X32 are sh*t compared to the SQ5 or 6, and that the difference is really huge?
Old 9th May 2019
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
Unfortunately this thread like most all "Preferred Brand" comparisons is a subjective process that is not necessarily based on quantifiable data. An often overlooked but very important factor is the history and predictability of multiple brand controlling ownership. IMO the A & H, Digico, Calrec digital processing family is the industry leader in terms of technology innovation, sonic quality, dependability and post purchase support. The same could be said for RCF: with their recent acquisition of EAW and DPA they are positioned to become the dominate brand in quality/value FOH gear and high end live performance mics. Given these considerations several facts need to be raised.
1) The QUsb has scribble strips.
2) 8 or 16 channel expansion stage boxes are available that would not collectively go beyond the OP's stated 2K budget.
3) Arbitrary tight individual financial limitations preventing the purchase of tomorrows highest and best live and recording technology is less than a smart business plan. The SQ5's ability to control 16 or more FP32/96K channels with world class D-Live FPGA processing for a relatively small increased budget will be a no brainer for most folks.
It became abundantly clear the OP was looking for approval of his Beringer preference. I understand and respect "Brand Loyalty" however an objective review of relevant facts for some folks that are not in the bag for a given brand is important for us to remember.
Hugh
The QUsb is a tablet only mixer. Saying it has "Scribble Strips" is not true. It has a tablet app .... as it isn't a console at all.

Along those lines, there are two important considerations when going digital.

1) Will tablet mixing be OK for you or not? If YES, then the discussion turns quickly to which tablet app is best and what tablets and phones are supported.

2) If a console is needed, then the most important consideration is the work flow on that console and the features of that console. Remote app support is secondary.
Old 10th May 2019
  #24
Lives for gear
 

IN Order;
1) One Eng; The typed Info pursuant to each channel is imbedded in the 32 core memory of the QUsb and is displayed on any connected I-Pad. If you actually owned a QUsb and worked with it on a regular basis you would know this. It certainly is a stage box digital desk with 32 channel processing core and memory that happens to be remotely controlled with an Apple I-Pad. It offers 16 XLR inputs and with the AB168 expansion box a $2,000. investment becomes a full 32 channel ready rig that can deliver 32 channels of 24/48 USB multi-tracking to your DAW of choice.
2) dika23; I made very clear in my first post in this thread that the remote controlled QUsb was far superior to my previous conventional desks for my self contained work flow. This does not mean it is right for every one but it might be a better solution than a less experienced novice may expect. If you have to rely upon knobs and faders you will spend a lot more for less intuitive function. IMO encoders and motorized faders are habit driven expensive training wheels for some folks transitioning into the 21 century digital processing world.

The SQ5 with the DX168 stage box provides 32 inputs and 16 outs of FP 32/96K world class FPGA processing. It does completely bury anything and every thing presently available in the sub 5k price range. I will buy it when they release a remote controlled stage box version.
Hugh
Old 10th May 2019
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dika23 View Post
I'm not sure about using just a tablet. I mean so far I've never used a tablet for mixing, and now to go full without the mixing console seems ludicrous.
Rent before you buy...Now that you have whittled down your choices you should rent each one for a concert or two and decide for yourself what suites you and your particular situation best, this is not a popularity contest. Only you and your band need be comfortable with your decision, some of the arguments presented here are based on the personal bias and experience of the poster...there's nothing wrong with that, but my personal bias may not take into consideration what you like, how you like to do it and where you intend to end up in the future etc.

Take the time to be as sure of your decision as you can be before buying something you might have to live with for years to come...especially if you have the opportunity to check for yourself. You might be amazed at how annoying some small details can be and how they can mess with your preferred workflow.
Old 11th May 2019
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
The SQ5 with the DX168 stage box provides 32 inputs and 16 outs of FP 32/96K world class FPGA processing. It does completely bury anything and every thing presently available in the sub 5k price range.
Have fun "burying" an X32 without a transient modifier or de-esser. There are only 8 effects options in the SQ5 (5 of which are modulations), plus some compressor emulators you have to pay extra for and probably not be able to move between mixers, definitely not to an SQ6 or SQ7.

You're putting way too much faith into 96kHz processing. Its benefits are totally lost on the PA's that get run from a $5k mixer. It could easily have 12+ FX slots at 48kHz instead, and better effects too of course. Seems to me A&H is just giving their cheap mixers better looking specs without any appreciable benefits that would encroach on their more expensive models.
Old 11th May 2019
  #27
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
Have fun "burying" an X32 without a transient modifier or de-esser. There are only 8 effects options in the SQ5 (5 of which are modulations), plus some compressor emulators you have to pay extra for and probably not be able to move between mixers, definitely not to an SQ6 or SQ7.

You're putting way too much faith into 96kHz processing. Its benefits are totally lost on the PA's that get run from a $5k mixer. It could easily have 12+ FX slots at 48kHz instead, and better effects too of course. Seems to me A&H is just giving their cheap mixers better looking specs without any appreciable benefits that would encroach on their more expensive models.
Out of curiosity, do you find the xm32 de-esser useful? I've not gotten stellar results & generally find myself using another tool for dessing duties.
Old 11th May 2019
  #28
Lives for gear
 

AC2SPL is either a clairvoyant soothsayer or an ignorant biased brand loyalist that concludes everyone that deploys sub 5K processing is using cheap MI speakers.
Over the past 15 years the acoustic Americana music I work with has been beautifully distributed with my KV2 ES, 4 way system, and KV2 EX10 wedge speakers. In 2005 I was deploying an analog 2800 series 24 channel, A & H desk and have been through several digital desks in quest of an appropriate digital match for the stellar capability of my speaker system. I found it 30 months ago with a Digigrid/Waves LV1 that runs FP32/96K processing for both live F0H and studio duties. There are substantial differences in the 24/48 processing delivery of my QUsb and the Digigrid FP32/96K Ios & Iox pres and I am certain the Beringer X line would fall well within the QU range of delivery.
I deploy as many as 6 tube mics, that average well above 2K in price for each, for live capture and I could build a pretty good case for not wasting $ for 96K processing if I was using ubiquitous entry level SM58s & 57s.
The SQ5 is a harbinger of world class processing in a small package that will dominate 21 century FoH and studio activity. The base ancillary FX and filtering is more than adequate for my FoH needs and I , like many others , have a boat load of plug-ins that are far superior to the Beringer X base line for post production.
I recently specked out a 10K RCF TT speaker system with an additional $2,650. dollar investment for a SQ5 desk. We are well past the point in history where benchmark processing is more expensive than the front end mics and speaker systems.
Hugh

Last edited by hughshouse; 11th May 2019 at 01:30 PM..
Old 11th May 2019
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Valentine View Post
Out of curiosity, do you find the xm32 de-esser useful? I've not gotten stellar results & generally find myself using another tool for dessing duties.
Is it my fave de-esser? No. But it's certainly better than having none. In situations where a vocalist requires heavy compression the ess is usually going to jump out because the signal dB of high treble won't trigger the comp while still being plenty loud. In that situation a de-esser is essential, pardon the pun.
Old 11th May 2019
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
AC2SPL is either a clairvoyant soothsayer or an ignorant biased brand loyalist that concludes everyone that deploys sub 5K processing is using cheap MI speakers.
Well we've certainly answered the question about whether Hugh likes losing arguments by resorting to ad hominems.

But let's pretend you win the argument about what's best for the 0.00000000001% of the market using $5 mixers with $100+k of PA, mics, and outboard. It has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of the market using them with MI grade PA. The OP is using it with his own band. Something tells me he's not flying L-Acoustics line arrays at his wedding gigs. Maybe it's my supernatural clairvoyance...
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
dickiefunk / Live Sound
209
CTV Sound Guy / Live Sound
11
ginfan / Newbie Audio Engineering + Production Question Zone
4
John Boz Bosak / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump