Which one?..AB168 or AR2412…

[debzdoodleParticipant]

I have owned a QU16 and a QU-PAC for some time now and I have been quite happy using my reliable 16 channel analog snake on stage and mixing using an iPad. I am interested in going ‘fully digital’..ie getting a stage box to use with cat5 but unsure which of the 2 boxes to get. This would be a new area for me to explore so I was hoping for some advice …What are the main differences/benefits of the 2 other than the channel count?

Thanks folks…..

[AndreasModerator]

AB168 comes “stand alone” in a somewhat rugged enclosure, the AR2412 is better mounted in a case, maybe along with other useful stuff (IP Router, UPS, Wireless transceivers, Speaker management…).
For Qu16+QuPac I’d probably pick the AB168. This completes the QuPac to operate on 32 channels and the additional 8+4 channels from the AR2412 are just useless for both systems. If you plan to replace your Qu16 with a Qu24/32 in the furter, decision is probably more difficult.

[debzdoodleParticipant]

Thanks Andreas. I was leaning toward the AB168 but wanted to make sure I hadn’t missed something I would regret down the road. No plans to replace what I have for a while ….Yes – with the QU-PAC, it would be nice to have those added channels AND be able to utilize them all if needed….

[LuckyParticipant]

@andreas : the additional channels are they “useless” with the Qu-16 ? I own a Qu-16 and am willing to get a 2412 when I’ll find one used at lower price. That would give me 24 channels using the 3 stereo pairs, wouldn’t it ? And I could get preamp for those stereo pairs.
And 12 outs are exactly what can be sent by Qu-16
Am I wrong ?

Luc

[AndreasModerator]

Indeed, the ST inputs could be sourced from dSnake as well. That way you’ll get additional 3 (stereo) Mic inputs. Nice.
Didn’t thought that way since I’m using ST inputs locally at FOH only.
Similar for Mix returns where 6 monitors + LR are not enough.

[cornelius78Participant]

Also don’t forget that st1 and st2 have the left sockets normaled through the right. This is handy for getting a mono source (eg something like a wireless mic’s rx) into the desk without burning a preamp (assuming the source has a line-level output.)

[[XAP]BobParticipant]

I run a 2412 with a Qu16

It means that ALL of my IO is available remotely, which is good.
The 16/8 would be *almost* enough, but it wouldn’t take much “extra” work to make it not work.

10 mixes + FOH is the 12 outputs (OK, two of my stereo mixes tend to be mono in practice, so I could get by with 10)

16 inputs, and an additional 6 for stereo is 22 inputs, so the 24 has a couple of spares (shame I can’t use one as talkback)

Keyboards and similar can come in nicely on a ST input…

[Anonymous]

The AR2412 have been bullet proof! (Purple brand 😐 )
For an extra wide stage (ie; 10 – 25 metres) I’ll be adding
2x AB168 for quick install to cut down on excessive cabling to either side of FOH speaker.
Thats just 1 Cat cable and 1 Power lead to the other side.:|

[MarkPAmanParticipant]

The other day, I had main band on 1-16 of my 2412 then used the next 8 for the support and repatched in the desk – nice & simple.
I’m often pleased that I spent the little bit extra for a 2412 + I have power distribution in the same rack as all my speakers are active.

[Anonymous]

Was that using a QU-Pac?
I have pulled out of the rack the AR08 (extender) to get around the stage in a simlair situation but im trying to cut down on the install times.

[DagsParticipant]

Hi gang
I was told by an audio colleague that the Qu24 might not be able to simultaneously take all 24 ins and 12 outs offered by the AR2412 as the processing power of the console cannot run all the built-in FX, EQ, dymanics etc and also reliably convert all that digital data from the breakout box.
The GLD desk, being the more expensive mothership, has all the grunt to handle pretty much anything thrown at it, but the Qu series, being the ‘entry level’ series (albeit an awesome one) doesn’t have the capacity for driving that much digital processing.
Thoughts? Experience?
Is all of the above just hoo-hah?

Interested to hear if anyone has successfully run a fully loaded AR2412 with a Qu24 running 4 FX engines, and dynamics on all channels (…..and recorded to a HD via USB-A) at the same time.

Dags

[DagsParticipant]

….oh, and also phantom power of several AR2412 channels down the cat5 as well as all the above.

[AndyParticipant]

I use my QU24 and the AR2412 at least twice a week and never had any problems. Channel count is from 12 to 24 channels, up to 9 outputs, when used as monitor desk, 4 EFX are used most of the time, multitrack recording as well. I can’t imagine, that someone ever uses dynamics in all channels 😉 .. to get it short … it works, as it should and I’m sure, that there’s enough processing power.
Andy

[AndreasModerator]

@dags, not sure who told you this, but the design of the Qu allows anything available to run concurrently. Of course you’ll need to decide for 4 FX for everything and if they’re used to be insert or grouped FX. But all other stuff (channel processing, group/mix processing etc.) runs nicely in parallel.
And, yes, I also did larger events on Qu32+AR2412+AR84 with FX and plenty of channel processing plus recording via USB-B to a PC/Mac along with backup recording on QuDrive without ever thinking about the non existing restrictions you describe.
Btw: Phantom power does not run along the dSnake cable, the AR/AB boxes are powered units and source phantom power locally.

[[XAP]BobParticipant]

Thw QU can handle it’s inputs – whether they are local or remote ADCs is irrelevant.

[Author]

Posts