Crazy or sensible? User experience

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Crazy or sensible? User experience

This topic contains 45 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of uselessoldman uselessoldman 7 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #95571
    Profile photo of uselessoldman
    uselessoldman
    Participant

    MY current setup is a rack system, Sapphire Liquid 56 Audio Interface, ADAT expander, 8 channel DI-Pro Samson SCom patch panel and a 8 channel splitter. I needed this setuyp to mix in 7.1 so I need 8 output channels. I run this into a dedicated WIndows 10 computer and mainly use Studio one. Instrument wise I have a few guitars (Les Paul RG570) and a couple of keyboards (Native s49 and a Nektar 88+). Previous to this I used a Yamaha 01x, I still have it but it has serious windows 10×64 issues, in that it will only run properly when windows is in development mode (test mode). Now down to my question, current issue/situation. I want and miss my motorised faders and DAW control interface. My keyboards are both (usb) midi controllers and have limited DAW control but there not motorised, and really a pain more than useful for DAW control except they are useful for vst plug in control.

    So I have been looking at the market options for what DAW controllers were available when I happened to come across the AH QU-16. My original short list included the Mackie Pro (£1000) the Behringer x32 (£1100) but the Mackie is only a DAW controller not an audio interface and the other is a Behringer but is a DAW controller and audio interface combined. My first or top priority is DAW control with motorised faders like my Yamaha 01x, a built in audio interface would be nice, flexibility. My rack is mobile/portable but me thinks a desk mixer with an audio interface would be a mice to have alternative option. Price wise I originally had wanted to keep it to the 1k mark but I realise for a few extra quid I can also have a complete unit with the audio interface. I originally went rack mounted simply cos if something breaks I don’t loose everything I just have to replace one unit and why the Behringer x32 is not an option, especially at £1100. Yes the QU16 is £1400 but really its only £400 more than the Mackie and being AH I am sure quality is not an issue. As for the 48kHz not an issue since my plug ins oversample and I have the Sapphire if needs be.

    SO my question is about the QU range and DAW/VST plug in integration, which comes down to HUI MCC protocols. I assume from the downloads available one has to use the generic mackie control for DAW (as I do with the Yamaha) but what will this give me DAW side wise with the features of the QU16? Will a DAW see any effects used on the QU16 or just see the input channel as generic? and can I control a vst from the QU16 which I can using my keyboards. If I change effects on the DAW/computer will the QU16 see this and make the required changes? ie 2 way synchronization between the DAW and QU16? there again can the QU16 talk to my keyboards? I guess through those old midi cables I have somewhere, people still use them oh yes I do for my Yammi DG1000 when if I ever use it, which is almost never now.

    So thanks for reading my essay and any user experience advice or further questions would be appreciated.

    #95574
    Profile photo of xyz
    xyz
    Participant

    Greetings Stewart
    Great essay!
    The QU16 is a brilliant mixer [rack mountable] with motorised faders.
    The faders are not touch sensitive.
    You can control [simply] faders from a DAW
    With regards to the QU talking to your keyboards you will have to wait until someone else knows a bit more than myself.
    However just responding to your request keeps you at the top of the queue for just a tad longer.

    #95576
    Profile photo of uselessoldman
    uselessoldman
    Participant

    I am more interested in what the QU can control inside the DAW from the mixer itself and maybe some idea of what it cannot do. I am assuming the worse – limited – due do the lack of youtube videos.

    #95578
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    Hi @uselessoldman,

    There is no way for the DAW to ‘see’ the mixing functions (or FX as you suggest) and no way for the Qu to ‘see’ the DAW.
    But to explain further, the MIDI capabilities of the Qu can be split into two parts:

    • MIDI control to and from the mixing core which mostly uses NRPN messaging (as detailed in the MIDI Protocol – https://www.allen-heath.com/media/Qu_MIDI_Protocol_V1.9.pdf). This is intended for control of the mixer or recording of automation for control of the mixer. Something to be clear with here is that the messaging goes to and from the core, so it works in parallel to the surface controls i.e. moving a rotary would send a message to the change a parameter in the core which would then send a MIDI message, so the message would not be being sent from the rotary itself.
    • MIDI channel strips and SoftKey options. These do send messages from the physical controls on the surface and are not linked to the audio mixing core.

    Use of the Qu as a DAW Control Surface uses MIDI channels strips and SoftKeys, taking standard MIDI CC and note on/off messages and converting them to emulate either HUI or MCU protocols.
    The Mute, Sel and PAFL keys for each strip work as Mute, Select and Solo for each DAW channel, and the physical fader will control DAW channel level.
    Alongside this, there are SoftKey options for bank up/down and MMC control.
    This is all bidirectional too, so the motorised faders will follow your DAW, as will the LED’s showing selected channel, mute and solos.

    All of this is just MIDI though, so of course it can be used however you want.
    We often recommend a MIDI translator (such as Bomes MIDI Translator) if you want to convert one set of messages to another for particular applications.

    Hope this helps!
    Keith.

    #95581
    Profile photo of uselessoldman
    uselessoldman
    Participant

    Many thanks Keith, I only came across the QU16 the other day by accident and thought mmmm interesting, especially as its Allen & Heath but on further reading I realise its just not going to work as I hoped. That was one reason I originally went rack mounted, just need to find a control surface (without the audio interface) that I like and will do what I want. I very nearly ordered one yesterday from PMT, just came away with my new Studio Monitors that choice was easy, Adams T7Vs (maybe not the best but I think there more than good enough for me) , thankfully when PMT rang Allen Heath they couldn’t confirm they actually had a QU16 in stock !!

    I guess its back to the drawing board, the Behringer x32 producer is nice but it has reliability issues that puts me right off sadly nothing really bites me, else and hence I have yet to buy one

    #95582
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    Hmm, I don‘t know from where you have the info about poor reliability of the X32. It is the best sold digital mixer and for that there are relative few reported incidents. But thats another story. Never the less, it is a good product, but also do not fulfill your requirements. It comes with a MCU emulation for the right fader bank only, but it is not simple to use. If you just need an inexpensive MCU you can double check the X-Touch.

    #95583
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @mfk0815

    The internet has a lot of audio snobs that badmouth Behringer

    Their DOA MIA % might be a bit worse, but when you find a working unit then it works well

    I am unclear just what @uselessoldman really wants to achieve.

    I have looked at getting a control device with faders feeding into my DAW for convenience but I can run well enough without it. I never want to control a mixing board from the DAW. To me that is an insane thing to try to do.

    For normal use (at least for me) a Qu16 would be the most I could ever use and would be borderline overkill.
    And from the little info given it looks like overkill for @uselessoldman too.

    It would help if he (and other posters) gave us the actual problem not a partial solution they thought of.

    #95590
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    I don‘t know what „DOA MIA“ means, for me those are just another TLWs.;-)
    But if you sold roundabout one million items over the last seven years it is ok if there are some of them with issues. But we should not discuss this here since we are here in a community forum of another manufacturer.

    And I know a lot of good reasons to control a console from within a DAW. From automated scene loading down to control a single processing parameter is a wide range of interesting opportunities. Keep in mind that there a people out there which are using a mixing desk not only in a church. For creative individuals there is be no limit.

    #95591
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @mfk0815

    Exactly. They may have a few more failures on arrival than more expensive devices. But all manufacturers have duds.

    It is just woke for the snobs to badmouth Behringer so they can feel good about the more expensive devices they bought.

    Still dont see it. I would prefer to control the console from the console myself and let the DAW just record for later editing. How is controlling the mixer from the DAW actually useful?

    #95594
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    It is just woke for the snobs to badmouth Behringer so they can feel good about the more expensive devices they bought.

    A lot of the deserved badmouthing comes from their crap analog mixers and other products and as well as their blatant rip off of other companies IP.

    #95595
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @mikec

    Trying to prove my point?

    My last church had an old Behringer analog desk that worked just fine.
    Long time ago, but I think it was about 12 channels. We only really needed 2.
    We got it used from a blind DJ.

    If they really ripped off IP then the courts would have found them guilty of that crime.
    Can you point to any cases where they got sued for IP theft and lost?

    #95596
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    If they really ripped off IP then the courts would have found them guilty of that crime.
    Can you point to any cases where they got sued for IP theft and lost?

    Just do a search for something along the lines of “behringer law suits”
    Just looking at some of their products you can tell who they borrowed the “idea”
    from.

    #95601
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @mikec

    You made the claim so you find the court decision that says they lost and paid reparations.

    In the USA anybody can sue anybody for anything.
    Just suing people does not make them guilty of anything.

    And I note that *IF* they lost and are still in business now, then whatever their products are now clearly they have to be legal now.

    #95602
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    You made the claim so you find the court decision that says they lost and paid reparations.

    In the USA anybody can sue anybody for anything.
    Just suing people does not make them guilty of anything.

    And I note that *IF* they lost and are still in business now, then whatever their products are now clearly they have to be legal now.

    Mackie and Aphex settled out of court, many other cases filed and left up who’s legal team ran out of money first, some/quite a few were in international courts.
    Their digital stuff took off after they bought out Midas.

    They still produce plenty of knock off crap and some legit products.

    Let Goggle lead you to some more reading material.

    #95603
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    G.B. Shaw said once something like „the amateur lends, the artist steals“. It is a sign of intelligence to know what is it worth to be copied and what is not. Look at the legion of guitar manufacturers which had law suits because their design was similar to the one of Fender or Gibson, justto name another example.
    Behringer was also one of the first companies which starts to let produce their products in china by chinese companies. And had a lot of bad experience with that which leads to a bad reputation regarding the product quality. Even if they are hidden bythe bunch of more or less obvious copies of other manufacturers products, there was/is still some nice stuff in their portfolio, just remember the Combinator. It was developed and manufactured in Germany and a good analog multiband compressor. The MX8000 was a copy ofthe 8-bus but as good as the mackie or even better.
    With the X32 they started a new era for digital mixing desks. It isa well equipped and good sounding desk at a price point where a lot of people can buy it. Back in those days the second cheapest desk was the StudioLive 24.4.2 from Presonus which costs almost twice the price of the X32 with a third of the functionality. I also believe that the QU will not exist if the X32 were not that successful. And I think also that the WING is abig step further that way. Every release of a new firmware brings a lot of new and clever functionality. One of the last would be, by the way, interesting for the OP of this thread.
    I personally would like to see more „borrowed“ functionality withinthe products of A&H as well. As a clever manufacturer they should take the basic idea and make a better implementation of it in their product. The SQ would be on a good way but still there are a lot of white areas on it feature map compared to the Behringer products.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.