X32 vs QU 24
- Thread starter Kemper Watson
- Start date
Re: X32 vs QU 24
Since October 2013. It's held up well. Got a tiny bit moist in a storm last week, but no problems. It works weekly out there and then other gigs as well, mostly indoors for the other gigs. It is ALWAYS hot and EXTREMELY humid here, so that says a lot. Of course we are really just Baja Georgia where I am at, so should be similar conditions to you.
I still get the feeling that the Soundcraft Expression we own is a little more robust, but that is a feeling more then anything evidence-based.
I trust my x32, so far...
Since October 2013. It's held up well. Got a tiny bit moist in a storm last week, but no problems. It works weekly out there and then other gigs as well, mostly indoors for the other gigs. It is ALWAYS hot and EXTREMELY humid here, so that says a lot. Of course we are really just Baja Georgia where I am at, so should be similar conditions to you.
I still get the feeling that the Soundcraft Expression we own is a little more robust, but that is a feeling more then anything evidence-based.
I trust my x32, so far...
Re: X32 vs QU 24
The Qu doesn't have as many beta testers, or channel count, so reviews will likely be skewed toward the X32. We install one or the other, depending on exact needs of the client. I mixed on a Qu24 this Sunday, have mixed on X32 in the past a few times. Neither is totally better than the other. The Qu is easier to use, has better personal mixers, and hasn't had known fader and AES50 port failures.
Typed on a virtual keyboard.
The Qu doesn't have as many beta testers, or channel count, so reviews will likely be skewed toward the X32. We install one or the other, depending on exact needs of the client. I mixed on a Qu24 this Sunday, have mixed on X32 in the past a few times. Neither is totally better than the other. The Qu is easier to use, has better personal mixers, and hasn't had known fader and AES50 port failures.
Typed on a virtual keyboard.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
I will add that although I own the x32 and stage boxes I am auditioning a QU24 rather soon. It looks like a solid product and A&H has a great track record.
I agree that the reviews will be skewed due to the numbers difference.
It's a great time to be in the market for a small digital console, so many great choices...
I will add that although I own the x32 and stage boxes I am auditioning a QU24 rather soon. It looks like a solid product and A&H has a great track record.
I agree that the reviews will be skewed due to the numbers difference.
It's a great time to be in the market for a small digital console, so many great choices...
Re: X32 vs QU 24
The second show I did with an X32 had a massive rainstorm. Next to the 5 foot stage doing monitors. Really high humidity plus SOME amount of water from the roof, my wet hands, off the deck etc. Worked flawlessly.
The second show I did with an X32 had a massive rainstorm. Next to the 5 foot stage doing monitors. Really high humidity plus SOME amount of water from the roof, my wet hands, off the deck etc. Worked flawlessly.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
I've used my X32 since I got it last summer without any problems and I've been using my X32 Rack since I got it last winter without any problems. Many outdoors shows and various weather conditions from from NC to MD. This past weekend I did a gig on a floating dock in direct sunlight and I have done many gigs like this before without any problems. I always carry rain gear and have been forced to deploy it several times and it saved my gear.
I've used my X32 since I got it last summer without any problems and I've been using my X32 Rack since I got it last winter without any problems. Many outdoors shows and various weather conditions from from NC to MD. This past weekend I did a gig on a floating dock in direct sunlight and I have done many gigs like this before without any problems. I always carry rain gear and have been forced to deploy it several times and it saved my gear.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
The opposite is also true. Since there are vastly less Qu-24's out there than X32's the number of failures reported on forums for the Qu-24 is going to be skewed low as well.
From what I can tell, the number of people that have had issues with the X32 faders is very small compared to the number of people using them. I hadn't ever heard of an AES50 port failure.
I completely agree that sound quality is NOT what will separate these two mixers. They both sound very nice to my ear.
On the flip side, the features in the X32 far out shine the Qu-24, and it has more channels as well.
The Qu-24 is easier to learn.... especially coming from analog.
The opposite is also true. Since there are vastly less Qu-24's out there than X32's the number of failures reported on forums for the Qu-24 is going to be skewed low as well.
From what I can tell, the number of people that have had issues with the X32 faders is very small compared to the number of people using them. I hadn't ever heard of an AES50 port failure.
I completely agree that sound quality is NOT what will separate these two mixers. They both sound very nice to my ear.
On the flip side, the features in the X32 far out shine the Qu-24, and it has more channels as well.
The Qu-24 is easier to learn.... especially coming from analog.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
To me this is the difference - the Qu24 is probably the easiest digital desk to use you can buy - love it, but the X32 offers more power for your dollar.
To me the Qu16 is the perfect replacement for a Mixwiz. The X32 compact is too complicated at that level.
sooo ... it depends on what is most important to you.
To me this is the difference - the Qu24 is probably the easiest digital desk to use you can buy - love it, but the X32 offers more power for your dollar.
To me the Qu16 is the perfect replacement for a Mixwiz. The X32 compact is too complicated at that level.
sooo ... it depends on what is most important to you.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
Sounds like a fair assessment. I've a had a Qu-16 for a few months and have been digging it. Previously using an SL 16.4.2 or Dl1608. The Qu-16 wins versus those. Subgroups would be nice, but the other routing options are decent, though not necessarily advanced. Enough features for my use and keeps me out of trouble by not having several layers and bells and whistles that would get in the way more than help. It's also built like a tank.
Sounds like a fair assessment. I've a had a Qu-16 for a few months and have been digging it. Previously using an SL 16.4.2 or Dl1608. The Qu-16 wins versus those. Subgroups would be nice, but the other routing options are decent, though not necessarily advanced. Enough features for my use and keeps me out of trouble by not having several layers and bells and whistles that would get in the way more than help. It's also built like a tank.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
This makes me want to replace my Mackie boards for AV breakouts with the QU16. Nice to have the comps and recording options on board but have it simple enough that the non-audio focused AV guys can jump right in...
This makes me want to replace my Mackie boards for AV breakouts with the QU16. Nice to have the comps and recording options on board but have it simple enough that the non-audio focused AV guys can jump right in...
Re: X32 vs QU 24
Does either consoles aux/stereo imputs act like the stereo ins on analog?. I sometime need to assign tracks/click to ears and will need auxes and gain structure to do this.
Does either consoles aux/stereo imputs act like the stereo ins on analog?. I sometime need to assign tracks/click to ears and will need auxes and gain structure to do this.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
I can't speak to the QU, but the "Aux Inputs" on the X32 have +/- 12dB of trim, full access to all 16 auxes/mix sends.
I can't speak to the QU, but the "Aux Inputs" on the X32 have +/- 12dB of trim, full access to all 16 auxes/mix sends.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
It looks like the Qu has +/- 24 dB of digital trim on the stereo inputs, but no analog gain control. Similar to the GLD in that respect.
It looks like the Qu has +/- 24 dB of digital trim on the stereo inputs, but no analog gain control. Similar to the GLD in that respect.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
The block diagram in the manual shows identical processing/routing for the mono inputs and the stereo ins, so I would take that to mean that the stereo ins (there's nothing called an "aux input" on the Qu) have full processing (dynamics, EQ) and can be routed to any mix.
The block diagram in the manual shows identical processing/routing for the mono inputs and the stereo ins, so I would take that to mean that the stereo ins (there's nothing called an "aux input" on the Qu) have full processing (dynamics, EQ) and can be routed to any mix.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
The "mixes" are the aux sends. When you press one of the "mix" buttons on the right side of the surface, the faders of each layer will control the send to that output "mix". So select whichever mix you need to send signal from the ST1, ST2, etc. input and adjust the fader accordingly. Then hit the "LR" button to return the faders to controlling the main mix.
The "mixes" are the aux sends. When you press one of the "mix" buttons on the right side of the surface, the faders of each layer will control the send to that output "mix". So select whichever mix you need to send signal from the ST1, ST2, etc. input and adjust the fader accordingly. Then hit the "LR" button to return the faders to controlling the main mix.
Re: X32 vs QU 24
A&H to introduce Qu32 at InfoComm 2014
http://www.allen-heath.com/digital-mixing-reshaped/
(my first post here, hi folks!
~~:smile
A&H to introduce Qu32 at InfoComm 2014
http://www.allen-heath.com/digital-mixing-reshaped/
(my first post here, hi folks!
~~:smile
Re: X32 vs QU 24
It is actually +/-18dB of available trim. I don't remember if this was changed in v1 or v2.