Views on digital mixing desks

[DanS]

I'm looking at adding a new digital desk to our production stock this year and was just wanting peoples views on both the Allen & Heath QU16 and the Midas M32R...

 

Please don't be shy on you opinions, I'd rather have all the info before committing to buy. - By the way I own a Production company mainly working in corporate venues, conferences... AGM's that kind of thing.

 

Thanks in advance

Dan

[dickiefunk]

If your budget can stretch to a MIDAS M32R I would check out the new Allen & Heath SQ5

[david.elsbury]

THe only way to be truly sure what works for you is to demo both desks. I assume you’re going to do that?

[Simon Lewis]

Welcome to the Blue Room, Dan...

 

The QU16 is a relatively simple desk compared to the M32R. It's certainly capable of the tasks you describe, but will never be as flexible if you need a compact desk to handle larger productions or gigs (only 16 mic pres vs 32 possible mic pres etc.).

 

However, if I was in the market for an upmarket rack mount digital desk, as suggested I too would easily choose the Allen & Heath SQ5 over either of the above. The features and specifications outweigh the 'Midas' (in reality a limited upgrade of the X32) and it is closer to its Digico cousins and the A&H dLive in its capabilities...

[DanS]

Shouldn't be a problem stretching a little farther... Had a quick look on Google and there's not a huge price difference between the M32 and SQ5.

 

Thanks :)

If your budget can stretch to a MIDAS M32R I would check out the new Allen & Heath SQ5

 

All being well... should be able to get either demo's from suppliers or I'll have a word with a couple of the AV companies in the area and either borrow or hire for a day.

 

Thanks :)

THe only way to be truly sure what works for you is to demo both desks. I assume you're going to do that?

 

Hi Simon,

 

Thank you for the welcome to blue-room .... I've visited a fair few times and thought it was time I dipped my feet haha!!

 

Im wanting flexibility. The desk won't be going on dry hire to plug and play jobs more so for those that will have a sound engineer on the job, with that in mind the overall complexity won't really be an issue. I've got a few of the Yamaha MGXU series for dry hire which are absolutely perfect for the more plug and play jobs. I've got a Yamaha 01V96 on the shelf, which I have to say is a lovely piece of kit, but we keep having reboot issues with it so can't rely on it for a production (think it could be a moisture issue).

 

Thanks for the advice and no doubt we'll speak again at some point.

 

Welcome to the Blue Room, Dan...

 

The QU16 is a relatively simple desk compared to the M32R. It's certainly capable of the tasks you describe, but will never be as flexible if you need a compact desk to handle larger productions or gigs (only 16 mic pres vs 32 possible mic pres etc.).

 

However, if I was in the market for an upmarket rack mount digital desk, as suggested I too would easily choose the Allen & Heath SQ5 over either of the above. The features and specifications outweigh the 'Midas' (in reality a limited upgrade of the X32) and it is closer to its Digico cousins and the A&H dLive in its capabilities...

[Tivoli Phil]

For what its worth the few times I've used a QU I've had a bad time. Not a fan of them at all. The Midas I find easier to navigate and for me at least I THINK it sounds a little better. Never had a chance to A/B but still

[Simon Lewis]

Shouldn't be a problem stretching a little farther... Had a quick look on Google and there's not a huge price difference between the M32 and SQ5.

 

AC-ET in Leeds should be able to help you!

 

 

 

 

For what its worth the few times I've used a QU I've had a bad time.

 

Phil, was this a feature and user interface issue? The Qu series is deliberately designed to keep things simple and not provide the wide range of routing and control options typically found in other digital desks? That said, it seems to work very well in the situations it was designed for?

 

 

 

[S&L]

I've said this a few time here and elsewhere - the qu series and the m/x32 series are pretty much proven reasonably reliable pieces of kit. the decision really comes down to usage.

hiring out? qu series...it's simple, one fader one channel so those not mixing a lot professionally are likely to be able to adapt quickly, particularly if you have set them up with typical scenes.

using yourself ? m/x32 series, it's a swiss army knife, not a lot you can't reasonably do with them.

 

other thoughts?

the midas now come with 10 year warranty - you would need to check use limitations but I assume it would allow for hiring out and reasonable use. to be honest that would be a deal closer for me.

 

the qu16 mix bus outs are more limited than you think. from memory it's 4 mono outs and 4 stereo outs - which you can separate by panning but can't send with separate levels - hit and run 4 piece bands and talking heads fine, anything more and it get's difficult.

 

expand-ability - the m/x32 series links through to each other so you can pull in another console to run one as monitor and one as FOH, just one example of the swiss army knife metaphor

 

the sq - you really need to look at their webinar, it's got promise but half the bits aren't here yet and you can't apparently mix and match their boxes - it's going to cost quite a bit to get up to 48 channels but that may not be important to you - in any case I would check out their webinar to really understand what you are getting into.

[Simon Lewis]

the sq .... you can't apparently mix and match their boxes - it's going to cost quite a bit to get up to 48 channels but that may not be important to you

 

As I understand it, the SQ works with the existing AB168, AR2412 and AR84, although there are presently no options for daisy chaining (seems to imply that future updates may change this?). It will also work with the DX168 (which is compatible with the dLive) and can also run the gigaACE protocol in addition to the first two (but only one protocol at a time).

 

It will cost to get up to 48 channels - but the SQ5 comes with 16 mic pres and the SQ6 24 (the GLD has only 4 mic pres and two stereo) - so it's a compromise between duplicating all of the inputs unnecessarily and not being able to plug anything in without a stagebox.

[MarkPAman]

The qu16 mix bus outs are more limited than you think. from memory it's 4 mono outs and 4 stereo outs - which you can separate by panning but can't send with separate levels - hit and run 4 piece bands and talking heads fine, anything more and it get's difficult.

 

Actually 4 mono & 3 stereo. However, no reason at all not to use it as having 7 mono outs in a "normal" stage setup (though the stereo inputs & any stereo effects will only route to the side they come in on).

 

Also note that the stereo mixes have their own individual pan for each mix which does not follow the main pan.

 

As I understand it, the SQ works with the existing AB168, AR2412 and AR84, although there are presently no options for daisy chaining (seems to imply that future updates may change this?).

 

From reports on A&H forums, it looks as if daisy chaining already works, though without displaying properly in the routing/patching screen (yet). At the moment it is not a recommended practice. Probably just a matter of time.

[Yorkie]

Getting 48 dSnake channels into a GLD is a pig; apparently only possible with one of each of the three different stageboxes (AR84, AB168, AR2412).

 

The QU16 is very easy to use if you don't need it to do much. You can't have mono inputs on more than one digital stagebox.

 

The QuPac can't produce a stereo output that's a delayed copy of the main out.

 

I've only twice been involved in events significantly inconvenienced by dead power supplies - an AR2412 <24 hours before a function band needed it for a wedding gig and a QuPac three days before a church building reopening service in the Highlands. Both were only 2-3 years old.

 

I'm an amateur who has only had the briefest of brushes with Yamaha digital and the X32. The A&H stuff has been a doddle to use but I'm not sure I'd want to spend my money on it.

[MarkPAman]

The QU16 is very easy to use if you don't need it to do much. You can't have mono inputs on more than one digital stagebox.

Yes you can - up to 40 inputs are recognised and can be patched to any of the 16 mono & 3 stereo inputs. The AR84 though, has no port for daisy-chaining, so you can only use one of those, and it has to be last in the chain.

 

The QuPac can't produce a stereo output that's a delayed copy of the main out.

There are 2 stereo matrices are available, and all outputs from any of the AR/AB boxes a fully patchable. However what I think you're getting at, is that there's no dedicated matrix outs on the desk itself. However, it's possible to use the Alt out and/or the AES out.

[Simon Lewis]

Getting 48 dSnake channels into a GLD is a pig; apparently only possible with one of each of the three different stageboxes (AR84, AB168, AR2412).

 

 

Sadly, this is true, however, I use a fully "expanded" GLD112 system that does this (AR2412 and AB168 on stage, AR84 at FOH - mainly for radios).

 

However, I chose the GLD over the X32/M32 because it would give me more mic inputs than the Behringer, the personal monitor system was superior and it could be set up with different levels of permission.

 

 

 

[Thomaswgrey]

I would highly recommend the SQ desks, It looks like allen and heath have not forced themselves into making a product thats sits well in there current product line. Because clearly the SQ is a no brainer on a new buy compared to GLD.

I'm looking at adding a new digital desk to our production stock this year and was just wanting peoples views on both the Allen & Heath QU16 and the Midas M32R...

 

Please don't be shy on you opinions, I'd rather have all the info before committing to buy. - By the way I own a Production company mainly working in corporate venues, conferences... AGM's that kind of thing.

 

Thanks in advance

Dan

[MarkPAman]

I would highly recommend the SQ desks, It looks like allen and heath have not forced themselves into making a product thats sits well in there current product line. Because clearly the SQ is a no brainer on a new buy compared to GLD.

 

A&H say they don't don't see it that way, and there's certainly features of the GLD that the SQ does not have (and can not have in future updates), like the split fader banks.

 

No doubt though that once it receives all the promised feature updates in the next few months, the SQ is going to be a fantastic desk for the price.