QU-16 vs. QU-Pac

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions QU-16 vs. QU-Pac

This topic contains 50 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of MarkPAman MarkPAman 5 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #53790
    Profile photo of audiokla
    audiokla
    Participant

    Hello,
    I’m using the QU-16 for our Cover-Band about one year now and I really love it.
    But now I need your experiences:
    I think of selling the Qu-16 and buying a Qu-Pac.
    About 80% of our gigs we have a young technician, who only controls the volumes of every channel during the gig. I has no experience of professional mixing but this is ok for us. So the QU-16 is FOH and we have an analog stagebox and multicore 16/4 which connects stage and FOH.
    20% of our gigs we mix by ourselves with the Qu-16 on stage. We do a rough mix and it might be ok.
    What do you think of the idea to get a QU-Pac instead of the QU-16 and always put it on stage, no multicore needed. If we got a technician with us, he could control the channels only via IPad in FOH.
    Is this reliable? So I think it has several advantages, but what about the disadvantages?
    I have 2 IPads by my own. We are all using QU-You to control the IEM and the monitor wedge.
    Do you have any experiences with this type of mixing?

    Greetings from Germany
    Klaus

    #53793
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    I have mixed gigs with an iPad (and with two)

    It is possible – it’s not got the instant feel of faders though. I am chatting with Davidgiga1993 at the moment about physical faders with the android app he has developed.

    I am sorely tempted to get a BCF2000 and an android tablet – then you get a good handful of physical faders, as well as an iPad for on screen stuff.

    If I was considering a new setup for a small band then this would probably be my approach.
    In your case – do you need to switch boxes? it doesn’t sound like you are out of channels at all – and the remote option works with the QU16 as well as it does with the iPad…

    #53794
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    I own both a Qu-16 & a Qu-Pac. I use the iPad a lot, whichever desk I’m on, and find everything to be very reliable.

    It is quicker setting up with the “real” desk but, if you’re always using this for the same band, and the monitors are already taken care of by the Qu-You, then I see very few downsides at all.

    Maybe you should test it by keeping the Qu-16 on stage and giving your mixer person an iPad for a few gigs to see how it goes.

    One tip though, is that if mixing from iPad, it is often worth reserving a space to mix from. I’ve had a couple of seated gigs where I didn’t have a seat and had to stand in a bad position at the back, and a rather raucous rock gig where I was in danger of being knocked over by an excited crowd! I now have a keyboard stand which can become my mix position if needed.

    #53801
    Profile photo of Art
    Art
    Participant

    I frequently mix a QU-Pac with 2 iPads. I have no issues with “feel” or latency, but that is often dependent on the quality of the wi-fi signal.

    I had to mix on an X32 that was on the side of the stage this past weekend. It had a horrible wi-fi. It was useless to try to use the iPad app when going to FOH just to take a quick listen.

    Whenever I mix with iPads, I always make sure that I have some type of desk available. I always have this one here for when there is not one available from the venue.

    I like Mark’s suggestion to try to use the QU-16 with the iPads, just to determine if it works for you.

    #53803
    Profile photo of debzdoodle
    debzdoodle
    Participant

    I own a QU16 and a QU-PAC… LOVE BOTH.
    We transitioned from the QU16 recently for most of our shows because I mix from the crowd (wearing a mic headset to sing backing vocals) using an iPad.
    This meant we could leave the QU-PAD on stage taking up less room than the QU16 and in its rack it’s a little more safe than the QU16 was.
    I sometimes choose to take the QU16 when I run sound for other bands but for us, it’s literally set and forget so the QU-PAC works.
    As Mark said, it is a little quicker setting up the QU16 but if simply recalling a scene and making some tweaks with an iPad – the QU-PAC has advantages.

    #53805
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    To reduce stage clutter I use a keyboard stand (the X variety) and hook the QU 16 over one arm of that – it’s protected by the stand, and can be really quite upright. Makes plugging cables in easy as well, since the ports are well presented…

    #53809
    Profile photo of audiokla
    audiokla
    Participant

    Hi,
    thank you for answers. Very useful for me.
    @bob: We are not out of channels but I think the handling of the QU-Pac on stage is easier than with the QU-16?? Less space etc.
    Do you have a picture with the QU-16 over a keyboard stand? I can’t imagine how it looks …

    Thanx
    Klaus

    #53814
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    The QU hooks over the top rail, so it just hangs, mostly upright.

    Can’t see a photo particularly easily …

    #53816
    Profile photo of audiokla
    audiokla
    Participant

    ok, I see.
    Thanks.
    Is it stable?

    #53820
    Profile photo of Jake
    Jake
    Participant

    In what ways is set up slower? I’m using version firmware 1.71 with a Qu-16 for live sound (folk dances) and I do pretty much all of my setup on the iPAD. What features are available from the Qu-Pac, with out a stage box that are not available on the Qu-16? Is it possible to patch the matrices or groups to the existing mixes? Or is the Qu-Pac pretty much a packable Qu-16 with 32 out and 32 in USB streaming?

    Thanks,
    Jake

    #53821
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Very stable.

    I presume the alt-out’s can be configured as group out’s, but yes the real power is with a stagebox…
    Setup should be faster on a physical surface, you just have easier and more tactile access to many more features at a time, so it’s easier to balance things out and make tweaks to eq etc.

    #53822
    Profile photo of Jake
    Jake
    Participant

    I am often in the same hall so I’ve already rung out the room with GEQ at LR and the mixes, which I do tend to do from the iPad. If I’m recording I do the routing from the touch screen on the console, of course. I then mix the recording on the iPad. I use the PEQ on the iPad for the caller and each instrument. I do notice an image latency when I have more than 8 input channels and I swipe to see the other faders. That said I am loathe to give up the security blanket of the control surface but I’d really like the PAC and the smaller form factor an expandibility of the QU-PAC. If others have used the QU-PAC the QU-16 id love to hear your thoughts.

    Thanks,
    Jake

    #53823
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    I suspect the faders are a comfort blanket…

    …but last week I did a charity gig, and between plugging everything in and the start of the sound-check the wireless router died.
    No idea how/why – no indication of anything wrong, it just doesn’t power up any more.

    I did a decent amount of IEM tweaking (usually done over QuYou) and arranged for a spare WAP to arrive in time to be configured for the gig itself…

    On the QuPac – I may well have been utterly stuffed.

    #53824
    Profile photo of audiokla
    audiokla
    Participant

    ok, that’s the point, if the router will die. So I’m also afraid of this and my 2nd point is that the IPad screen is really a little bit small. The IPad pro is very expensive here in Germany. So I think about a cheap Android tablet and the Android app to use. What do you think about that?

    We also often play on very small stages, so the Qu-Pac will fit best.

    #53827
    Profile photo of debzdoodle
    debzdoodle
    Participant

    I have so very few drop out issues with my wi-fi set up that it becomes a non issue for me when comparing the QU16 to the QO-PAC. To be honest, I was leaving the QU16 on stage more and more anyway and mixing on my pad.
    One other thing to remember is the fact that some of the newer rack style digital mixers are useless without wi-fi but one of the reasons I chose the QU-PAC is because it is fully functioning from the front panel without wi-fi and I can access everything I need pretty quickly from the custom screens I have set up on the Qu-PAC.
    Also, I love the way the QU 16 is laid out and workflow ( and of course I am familiar with it) so when it was time to choose a rack mount mixer, it made sense for me to choose the QU-PAC.
    Like I said, I love both and take both with me each show. It has just become a bit more convenient for me to use the Qu-PAC these days at live shows. MY QU-16 gets used more at rehearsals and recording sessions.
    I take a thumb drive and load all my settings from the PAC to the 16 regularly so I can switch out anytime I want (another good reason for me to have compatible mixers)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.