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
QU-32 or GLD-80 Mixers (Digital)
Old 14th October 2014
  #1
Here for the gear
QU-32 or GLD-80

Hi. This is my first post.

Am in the process of procuring 2 Allen and Heath QU-32 desks for a church. The dealer has offered an upgrade to GLD-80's for a small price difference. From what I gather, the GLD-80 has quality of sound closer to the iLive than does the QU-32.

Am in one of those ends of the world where I cannot access the two desks to try them out, so I hope GS members can help me out here.

Am interested in knowing (in general):
  • Any advantages that the QU-32 may have over the GLD-80
  • What the limitations of the GLD-80 are compared to iLive.

A bit more info that I hope will be helpful. The desks would be at the heart sound reinforcement for our two chapels (one desk per chapel). Unfortunately, there is no space in the chapels for the desk, so they will be positioned in a control room (behind two sets of double-glazed windows) which entails a 'soundman' sitting in the congregation and mixing from an iPad. There will be another 'soundman' in the control room recording off the desk onto a PC (currently a Windows based environment).

Am also wondering whether the fact that the GLD-80 has been around for much longer than the QU-32 should be a consideration.
Old 14th October 2014
  #2


The QU-32 has a touchscreen and possibly simpler. I think you will need no more than 32 preamps. So I think the QU-32 is the better choice. As with volunteers..... less is more....
The QU series is incredibly popular. And they will be in use for a long time... So.... thinking about your requirements, and trying to keep it simple.... The QU series with an analog multicable would be my preferred choice. This is because with an analog cabling in place any analog board can be used as a replacement when your QU mixers will need maintenance. And maintenance they will need. I think those screens won't last longer than 5 years.... So.... Keeping that in mind...
Old 14th October 2014
  #3
Gear Nut
 
luciolis's Avatar
 

QU is way simpler than GLD.

There is no limitation in GLD vs iLive except the modular aspect of the iLive. Maybe the preamps and converters are different too but the functionnalities are basically the same (except some details, like side-chain gate, effect ducker etc...)
Old 14th October 2014
  #4
QU can record directly to USB.... Wich is probably not possible with the GLD.

Maybe the GLD is build with modular (swappable) boards inside. If this is the case then you may want to look into the GLD range...
Old 14th October 2014
  #5
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by etchkaye View Post
Hi. This is my first post.

Am in the process of procuring 2 Allen and Heath QU-32 desks for a church. The dealer has offered an upgrade to GLD-80's for a small price difference. From what I gather, the GLD-80 has quality of sound closer to the iLive than does the QU-32.

Am in one of those ends of the world where I cannot access the two desks to try them out, so I hope GS members can help me out here.

Am interested in knowing (in general):
  • Any advantages that the QU-32 may have over the GLD-80
  • What the limitations of the GLD-80 are compared to iLive.

A bit more info that I hope will be helpful. The desks would be at the heart sound reinforcement for our two chapels (one desk per chapel). Unfortunately, there is no space in the chapels for the desk, so they will be positioned in a control room (behind two sets of double-glazed windows) which entails a 'soundman' sitting in the congregation and mixing from an iPad. There will be another 'soundman' in the control room recording off the desk onto a PC (currently a Windows based environment).

Am also wondering whether the fact that the GLD-80 has been around for much longer than the QU-32 should be a consideration.
the GLD80 offers much more than the qu32...
between the the 2 I'd get the gld80.. BUT
as somebody else pointed out if you have volounteers around the desk and already have an analog multicore (and splitters), the qu32 might be a better choice, only due to its simplicity (which are also limitations). Both desks sounds great..

what the gld80 offers (given the fact that you'll need their digital snake) is to decide where to put the I/O and creating your own layers, more fx's..it's totally configurable, and at the same time it's still very easy to setup. I'd choose the gld over the ilive if given the choice.. but that's me.

if you need 2 for foh and monitors you might want to get a dante card (which is not really cheap) but you'll be able to avoid a splitter (which I will probably prefer anyway) and you'll be able to record your separate tracks in a daw with a simple cat5 cable into a pc.

I hope this helps,



Cheu
Old 15th October 2014
  #6
Here for the gear
Thank you for your responses. They have been very insightful.

Quote:
I think you will need no more than 32 preamps.
Each chapel will use 21 preamps, according to the current design. This does not account for the odd visiting act that wishes to hook up its own equipment. More than 32 preamps is a remote possibility.

Quote:
as somebody else pointed out if you have volounteers around the desk and already have an analog multicore (and splitters)
Quote:
The QU series with an analog multicable would be my preferred choice.
Have taken some time to investigate the possibilities of an analog snake and it might not be possible. The building has no service ducts and they are touchy about drilling holes large enough for a 32 channel analog snake. Looks like it will have to be CAT5 between the desk and the snake on stage.

The question of volunteers is interesting. Current soundmen of the church are volunteers but have been at it for the past 2 to 5 years - on small format analogue mixers. There's an upcoming crop with a background in home studio work - mainly Cubase. Which brings me to my next question, would a guy with a background in Cubase (or any other DAW) find the GLD-80 easy to use?

Quote:
Maybe the GLD is build with modular (swappable) boards inside.
Have put this question to the vendor. Am awaiting a reply. From a maintenance point of view, this is key for my location. It is expensive (and time-consuming) to ship stuff, so if one can ship a board for replacement rather than a whole desk, it would work for the better.

Quote:
QU is way simpler than GLD.
So far, what I can see from the responses, simplicity is QU's killer feature.
Old 15th October 2014
  #7
The use of noisegates and compressors is what's on the table. And the ability to map the routing "in your head" rather than seeing it in front of you....
If current people are not using outboard with current analog desks.... (like a rack full of it)... They will drown with the new system...

How on earth do you need 21 channels for speech..... ? If there is a church choir I suggest using two omni microphones and a couple (two, three maybe four) lead microphones.... This would drop the channelcount considderably. If this setup is by the current soundpeople.... Then they do not fully understand mixing on a professional level...

The microphone count could in such a case be way lower. I suggest you get in contact with a professional and consult him/her. And get the current layout checked. 2x16 preamps should be more than enough. Once the system is setup and a preset is saved. You'll find switching will between a max of four scenes. And when marking the faders with tape for min/max level the system should be set... But the danger of this is a sudden problem. So there should be allways a qualified engineer on site... So... in this case YOU WILL RUN INTO TROUBLE!
Old 15th October 2014
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by etchkaye View Post
The question of volunteers is interesting. Current soundmen of the church are volunteers but have been at it for the past 2 to 5 years - on small format analogue mixers. There's an upcoming crop with a background in home studio work - mainly Cubase. Which brings me to my next question, would a guy with a background in Cubase (or any other DAW) find the GLD-80 easy to use?
The better question is will they learn the principles of mixing live sound and know how to apply them quickly. This is more important than knowing which button or knob to push or twist, a good sound engineer will be up to speed in no time on any console.

Quote:
So far, what I can see from the responses, simplicity is QU's killer feature.
You are again worrying about the wrong thing; the sound people will have to eventually learn to use any console you purchase…how fast will mostly depend on their aptitude and the training they get. Buying the console that covers your present and future needs best makes the most sense...especially when your needs evolve and you don't have to buy a new console to keep up.
Old 15th October 2014
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muziekschuur View Post
How on earth do you need 21 channels for speech..... ? If there is a church choir I suggest using two omni microphones and a couple (two, three maybe four) lead microphones.... This would drop the channelcount considderably. If this setup is by the current soundpeople.... Then they do not fully understand mixing on a professional level...
With the little info presented here you know his needs and setup more than he does…interesting!
Old 15th October 2014
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
will_gates00000's Avatar
 

For installations I always prefer full routing compared to fixed routing. It allows you to group things together(vox, drums etc.) no matter where they plug into the stage unless you want to get into custom user layers and that can really get hairy with someone that is new to the concept. With my church I would set up a preset for each group that would use it that had all of the routing, naming, and basic processing already set up so that they just recall the preset and they are ready to go. Just make sure the band members remember where they plug in each time and the board will do the rest. Its a great way to get beginners set up with the board until they gain more experience.
Old 16th October 2014
  #11
Here for the gear
Quote:
How on earth do you need 21 channels for speech..... ? If there is a church choir I suggest using two omni microphones and a couple (two, three maybe four) lead microphones.... This would drop the channelcount considderably. If this setup is by the current soundpeople.... Then they do not fully understand mixing on a professional level...
Valid point - In each chapel: the choir is actually using 2 omni's (installed to cover the choir seats) and four lead mics (these are shared with other singing groups); there are four mics for backing vocals for the other singing groups in a separate location; two podium mics and two headset mics (preacher and music leader); plus an omni above the baptismal pool. The other channels are utilized by DI boxes and instrument mics. By the way, feed from the choir mics is routed into side rooms and into recording, but not fed back into the chapel's FOH.
Quote:
For installations I always prefer full routing compared to fixed routing...With my church I would set up a preset for each group that would use it that had all of the routing, naming, and basic processing already set up so that they just recall the preset and they are ready to go.
Considering the church has 12 different singing groups / bands, I am sure the volunteers would find presets very helpful.

I assume both GLD-80 and QU-32 allow configuration of soft keys for loading scenes - as in press a soft key to load the next scene. How quickly can one revert to a previous scene if the next scene was loaded too early?
Quote:
The better question is will they learn the principles of mixing live sound and know how to apply them quickly.
A couple of the guys do put in the time to learn stuff. Then there are the others ...
Quote:
...especially when your needs evolve and you don't have to buy a new console to keep up.
Thanks for pointing that out. It is proposed that a new church building be put up in the next 3 to 5 years (likely a 5,000 seat main auditorium). I guess that will have a major impact on our needs.
Old 16th October 2014
  #12
By that time the qu32 Will be a compact board great for back up since it had built in preamps and direct To usb recording (multitrack) . The gld Will be old by then, big and clumbsy....
Old 16th October 2014
  #13
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by muziekschuur View Post
By that time the qu32 Will be a compact board great for back up since it had built in preamps and direct To usb recording (multitrack) . The gld Will be old by then, big and clumbsy....
I don't really think that the gld will be big and clumsy.. it's actually smaller (less width) than the qu32, and could do 48 channels, and configure dca, outputs etc..to my liking.

everything digital will get old, of course, (and this is true for the qu32 as well obviously) but I'd get a gld80 instead of the qu32 if given the choice.. but as already said it's a personal choice and it's really up to the needs that the op has. For sure the gld is MORE future proof (as far as anything digital could be future proof), due to its versatility and user configurability.

I still see a LOT of pm5D's around over here (dunno in the states)...now..that is BIG and clumsy.. but it's also 15 years old.

I hope this helps,

just my 0.02$,



Cheu
Old 16th October 2014
  #14
Here for the gear
A desk that could last 15 years has something going for it
Old 16th October 2014
  #15
The GLD is actually two boxes with a wire inbetween....

The QU is just one compact box.... (has preamps inside...)
Old 16th October 2014
  #16
Lives for gear
A point that speaks for the gld: you have much more groups available. So you can make a group for the headset mics, the podium mics, the choir mics, the lectern,....and EQ them all seperately with a grafic-eq should the need arise

The q32 only has 4 stereo groups and 2 matrixes (for sending mixes to delay lines, broadcast,...)
Old 16th October 2014
  #17
Lives for gear
 

The GLD has LCD scribble strips, the QU does not. If you have any hope of changing scenes and not totally losing track of what is where on the mixer, the GLD is the only viable choice IMHO.
Old 16th October 2014
  #18
270182
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by muziekschuur View Post
The GLD is actually two boxes with a wire inbetween....

The QU is just one compact box.... (has preamps inside...)
The fully expanded system would be the GLD + (1) AR2412 + (2) AR84. So it could have more boxes.

The GLD itself does have a few pres on it, as well as line inputs. The GLD also has a card slot for Dante, etc. It is possible to connect this console to a network, or to an iLive IDR, etc.

Ergonomically, the GLD is FAR faster and easier than the QU. Any digital console that still requires board tape is a confusing step into the past.
Old 16th October 2014
  #19
270182
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by muziekschuur View Post
The GLD is actually two boxes with a wire inbetween....

The QU is just one compact box.... (has preamps inside...)
The fully expanded system would be the GLD + (1) AR2412 + (2) AR84. So it could have more boxes.

The GLD itself does have a few pres on it, as well as line inputs. The GLD also has a card slot for Dante, etc. It is possible to connect this console to a network, or to an iLive IDR, etc.

Ergonomically, the GLD is FAR faster and easier than the QU. Any digital console that still requires board tape is a confusing step into the past.
Old 16th October 2014
  #20
Here for the gear
Quote:
So you can make a group for the headset mics, the podium mics, the choir mics, the lectern,....and EQ them all seperately with a grafic-eq should the need arise
Now here's a feature that makes the price difference worthwhile.

I am inclined to think that intelligent use of grouping, routing, and scribble strips, may make the GLD easier to use (hoping the volunteers do not mess around with the basic setup). However, I don't see how the GLD implements mute groups, or whether it has mute groups. Any ideas?
Old 16th October 2014
  #21
Gear Nut
 
luciolis's Avatar
 

With DCA mutes
Old 17th October 2014
  #22
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by luciolis View Post
With DCA mutes
Thanks
Old 21st October 2014
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Given the level of expertise described I would stay away from scene changing to manage your events. DCA's and groups would be suitable to control everything that you need very simply.

The GLD is almost as simple to use as the QU, but is infinitely more flexible with features already mentioned. Although, the QU32 does have groups and DCA's as well. Just not as many and not as easy to navigate.
Old 21st October 2014
  #24
Gear Nut
 
luciolis's Avatar
 

The QU line recently got some DCAs
Old 21st October 2014
  #25
Here for the gear
Thanks for the tips Aisle 6 and luciolis. Will stay away from scenes, I am sure DCA's can cover the church's needs.

Recommended the GLD-80, hope to get feedback within the course of next week.
Old 21st October 2014
  #26
Here for the gear
Thanks for the tips Aisle 6 and luciolis. Will stay away from scenes, I am sure DCA's can cover the church's needs.

Recommended the GLD-80, hope to get feedback within the course of next week.
Old 12th November 2016
  #27
Gear Maniac
QU 16 user well happy

I have been using the QU16 for live festivals, wedding bands and public speakers.

Some of the regular gigging musicians have said its the best sound they have ever had, as have some of the event organisers.

I wish i made the jump from analogue to A&H QU mixers earlier.

So easily to use, So powerful, a joy to use.
Old 13th November 2016
  #28
Gear Nut
 
anadelman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270182 View Post
The fully expanded system would be the GLD + (1) AR2412 + (2) AR84. So it could have more boxes.
Actually, the full blown GLD system is the GLD + (1) AR2412 + (1) AR84 + (1) AB168.

Art
Old 13th November 2016
  #29
Gear Nut
 
anadelman's Avatar
If you have no one working on the physical console, why do you even want faders? It is my understanding that you will have 1 in the chapel running the sound on iPads and 1 in the control room just recording. If that is the case, the question shouldn't be GLD vs Qu-32, but rather, GLD vs Qu-Pac. The Qu-Pac can do everything the Qu-32 can do, except provider faders. And if you going to use remote I/O, add 2 AB168's to your system for the 32 inputs.

Personally, I like the GLD more. But that's when I need more Fx's and want the flexibility of routing of I/O. In this situation, I'd absolutely forego the extra expense of faders and the size of the board and go Qu-Pac.
Old 15th November 2016
  #30
Lives for gear
 

If I pads are to be the primary mgt. tool Check out the A & H QU-SB: It has a QU32 core with easy expandable on stage 32 input capability (AB168) and many features that might fit your needs. I have both a QU16 and QU-SB and the SB has become our live show favorite for many reasons.
Hugh
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump