Behringer X32 v. A&H Qu-32?

[BigYinUK]

Hi folks.

 

Having a think about one of the above for my system and for the band to use on tour next year.

 

Are there any significant pros and cons I should be aware of? I'm thinking about usability FX & Plugins, overall sound/build quality etc.

 

I'd welcome your thoughts.

 

Regards

[paulears]

My x32 has been really good being bounced around in the van for nearly two years now. Just once did we have a problem and that was when the cat 5 died and wouldn't connect. Turned out the idiot who pulled the cable through the tunnel didn't remember it was full of mud, so the connector was full of it.

 

The upgrades to the software have largely been unexplored by me because the way we use it remains pretty much the same, but the scenes and snippets facilities are now quite clever and for some, very popular. A decent case is a just of course. I can't get excited by it, because it just sort of works. I'd certainly buy another, if that helps.

[BigYinUK]

Thanks Paulears.

 

I think the X32 is the most likely decision *but* one chap who's opinions I respect greatly has said he really rates the A&H, mainly because he thinks it has a much more analogue sound. He dislikes most digi desks with a vengeance as he thinks they sound harsh, which is something I can identify with, as several I've heard did (IMO) sound very harsh. So, I'm slightly swayed by that comment.

 

I guess I need to try to hear the A&H (I've heard the X32).

[i_hate_fisicks]

 

I think the X32 is the most likely decision *but* one chap who's opinions I respect greatly has said he really rates the A&H, mainly because he thinks it has a much more analogue sound. He dislikes most digi desks with a vengeance as he thinks they sound harsh, which is something I can identify with, as several I've heard did (IMO) sound very harsh. So, I'm slightly swayed by that comment.

 

 

How do you conclude that the desk sounds harsh? How do you filter out the sound of the room, mics, band, engineer, speakers, amps etc? I'm always highly sceptical about this sort of claim.

[Shez]

Perhaps "lacks warmth" would be a better term than "harsh"? i.e. analogue can impart a subtle distortion that we perceive as warmth which may not be present with digital.

[GR1]

I too am sceptical about about that sort of claim. How do I test the claim? By trying out the desks and listening to the results. If I can't use my experience to interpret the influence of the room,etc and work out what difference the desk is making then there is no point in me having an opinion and there could be no point in me being a sound engineer. It is no good talking about what someone says any bit of kit sounds like, you can only find that out when you use it. Remember that the desk is a tool and even if there is a difference it may not matter for your application. If your 'one chap' has a lot of experience on older digital desks with in some cases inferior D/A converters he could have a view which is biased against newer designed desks which are mostly very good sounding. I went round the Soundcraft factory earlier this year and the engineer showing my group around said that all modern digital desks sound good unless they are incompetently designed and what the manufacturers are now selling is a choice of interface between the digital engine and the human being.

[timsabre]

Perhaps "lacks warmth" would be a better term than "harsh"? i.e. analogue can impart a subtle distortion that we perceive as warmth which may not be present with digital.

 

Harsh = more accurate high frequency response??

 

 

I was once called to look at a speaker system in a university concert hall. The tech said that one side was really harsh compared to the other side. Turned out the "harsh" side was working correctly and the other side had a blown compression driver so had no top end at all.

[smalljoshua]

As a general rule of thumb, I find A&H's desks to be much more linear and un-coloured than the Midas/Behringer offerings. I personally prefer the sound from the Midas/Behringer desks.

 

The FX are nice on the A&H, equally nice on the X32.

 

Does the A&H have DCAs? I cant remember off the top of my head.

 

As you already have the P16, the X32 integration is a bonus or are you going to continue having the P16 separate?

 

Josh

[MarkPAman]

FX & Plugins

 

Can't do plugins on a Qu (yet & probably never) though personally I'm happy with the effects it has already has for live use.

 

I terms of what they can do, the Behringer beats the Qu at just about everything, but that adds levels of complexity of course.

 

If the Qu does what you need then IMHO it does it more easily and better. But then I don't often use an X32, I expect anyone who does thinks it's the other way around ;)

[sam.spoons]

The Qu32 costs 50% more than the X32, is an Allen & Heath not a Berry, has more faders, a touch screen, and (by reputation) sounds great. OTOH the stage boxes are very expensive, it has no scribble strips and didn't feel any better built than the Berry. The X32 is 1/3rd cheaper, has LCD scribble strips, more FX, relatively inexpensive stage boxes and, both by reputation and from brief (so far) personal experience, sounds great. I was looking at the Qu16 and the X32 Compact and couldn't get past the fact that the Qu16 has around half the functionality of the X32 Compact, the Qu16 has same physical I/O and fader count as the Compact but the stagebox has to replace the onboard preamps, with the X32 Compact the stagebox adds 16 extra inputs and 8 outputs to the desk. Also the Qu has fewer fx and, most important, no LCD scribble strips. On paper the differences between the X32 (full console) and the Qu32 appear to be fewer than between the Qu16 and X32 Compact and the Qu32 has the advantage of a fader per channel which some will find a big plus.

[S&L]

re the sound difference - IF there is a noticible difference then I would say that the highs on the qu are smoother and on the x32 are touch more transparent and sharper but honestly I wouldn't say sound quality between them is a valid choice. reliability isn't really an issue either - the x32 seems to have its share of intellectually challenged operators creating user errors but I think we also see more of these posts online because it's selling so many - and selling into a consumer as well as professional market. I have worked 3 x32's without a problem and stay in touch with the owners of the other two consoles working them occasionally. no problems to report.

similarly the qu has good rep and a professional outfit I work for has a qu16 which I get all the latest info on every time we meet up and get to work on now and then. apparently A&H are very helpful over the phone and again no faults to report.

the main difference I would say are:

 

1. the qu is more friendly for those that are familiar with analogue and/or mixing stageside 1 fader = 1 input. it's also streamlined in what it does. a perfect choice for dry hire.

 

2. the x32 has many more versatile options - it's by no means difficult for someone who has only mixed analogue before but there is more depth with the functions and they are continuing to develop the firmware and software at quite a breakneck pace (v2.10 is on its way). I find myself being very fond of tools I had never even had access to before - parallel compression on any single channel. rta on the the display. scribble strips which are a god send - you may not buy a console for any of these fetures but once you have hem you are loath to move to something else that doesn't have them. those scribble strips in particular (now annotated at the bottom of each) help you see where you are on any layer and what that fader you are touching is really doing without having to think much about it. using a roll of sticky tape on the qu (though you can name on the screen) seems so primitive.

 

3. the qu is faster and arguably easier for recording live on the hoof - IF you buy their hard drive. just set the record going and leave it, no need for a laptop hooked up, and daw software to arm, check and so on. the x32 is more versatile and all you need for live recording and post production - x32 plus reaper is a formidable combination.

 

4. price of stageboxes and console - you can buy and x32 now for a little over £1,800 and need 2 stage boxes to use all channels available at £600 each = £3,000. the price of a qu32 is £2,600 (close to the price of the x32 with stage boxes). add their AB168boxes at £900 each and the cost rises to £4,400 - quite a difference. stage boxes are another one of those things that you can't really justify the cost of on paper (vs traditional multicore) but when you have them you really don't want to work the way you used to. for your forthcoming theatre dates you will find the stageboxes and a cat5 cable (to spec) much easier and faster and more versatile to work with. all of a sudden it doesn't matter whether the theatre has multicore in place (or whether it's reliable) or the distance you are working over - 75m of cat5 takes up no space at all. so having £3k (plus £300 for case) I would definitely go the x32 route. (I'm still waiting for a small lottery win so I can buy stageboxes instead of hiring when I need).

 

bottom line - they are both capable consoles, they are both reliable and they are both in hire stocks around the country at this point - you won't go too far wrong with either.

oh one last thing - both are really a two man lift.

[Alec]

I still think that the very ubiquity of the X32 in the mid/low budget end is one of it's huge selling points.

 

There is a scale of market that means that the software has evolved in improved way more than for any other desk. Look at all the new freebies you've received since new via software - huge! No other desk has that. And many have effective support stop fairly early in their lifecycle. Add to that the third party solutions, like the Android remote control, and you see the benefits creeping in.

 

I always wanted a GLD system, as it's better than an X32. That it may be, but all the enhancements in the X32 (plus the price) have tipped me right back to the X32.

 

Three bands in a row have brought X32s in with them, including one quite well known act. One of them was planning on using theirs at Dingwalls, rather than use the vi6 in the venue - better the familiar workhorse, eh...?

[BigYinUK]

Hi everyone

 

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

 

I'll go with the comments on harshness as its likely to be a red herring. I sat at a gig last night listening to a Digico SD9 with a Martin system and it sounded great, no trace of anything "harsh".

 

Other points:

 

P16 integration. That's not a prime consideration atm but I can see once I get a couple of S16's we might well use that functionality.

 

Plugins is likely to be a *BIG* issue as we will be using lot of vocal effects, so a good selection of plugins will be very useful.

 

Price: Thomann are doing the X32 for £1785 but I can get a Qu-32 for £2500.

 

Most of the time it'll be my noisey using the desk and sometimes myself, he's not phased by the lack of faders and I didn't find it a problem the one time I had a play with the desk. I can see that one fader per channel might be nice, especially for those more used to analogue.

 

Stagebox wise, I'm not sure I'm going to have enough money to buy 2 x S16s initially, although I can see the benefits :)

 

What would you all recommend for a (eg) 30m cable for stage to foh?

 

Regards and thanks again

 

Jon

[smalljoshua]

On the Plugins front, Mark Payne from SFL has shown a Mac Mini running Waves connected via USB to the M/X32 with good round trip latency (better than the pro-series). As far as I know, the Qu couldn't do that.

 

Josh

[OneEng]

As others have stated, the scribble strips are by far the biggest difference you will immediately notice.

 

I have fallen in love with the ability to go mobile with a tablet, so for me, the inclusion of both iPad and Android apps that give you access to nearly every aspect of the console while remote is a big deal. The X32 is way out front on this score. Additionally, the X32 Edit PC program (or mac, Linux), is an excellent way to learn the console without having the console, and a great way to organize your scenes and shows once you own the console.

 

The best way to run a show on an X32 IMHO is to use stage boxes. A pair of Ethernet cables is SOOOO much nicer to use than a 100ft 32ch snake (and a fork lift to carry it with).

 

Having heard both, I would say that the two boards both sound very good. The verbs are a little different, but both quite pleasing. If you can't get a good mix on these boards ..... it ain't the board ;)