QU-24 or SQ-5 for church upgrade ????>>>>

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions QU-24 or SQ-5 for church upgrade ????>>>>

Tagged: , , ,

This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Brian Brian 2 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #102643
    Profile photo of VBVAGUY

    Myself and another person perform duties at a local church for the audio-visual media department. We are not professionals and only perform this position once or twice a week. We currently use an analog Soundcraft GB2 mixer which has served us well for the last 7 years. We would like to add more ports so we are looking to upgrade at the same time our mixer to a digital one.

    ** What are the differences between the 2 models ???
    ** Which is easier to learn and operate ?? Since we are only there a limited time, we have limited time to learn and become proficient.
    ** We also perform livestream to FaceBook so we currently have a Shure device that takes our current mixer output and connect it to our laptop via USB so we can add the sound to the live stream. Does any of these mixers have this ability built in ?? If none, what device would you recommend for us to use to output the sound from the mixer to the laptop via USB ??
    ** Which would you recommend for our needs and environment ??

    Thank you for reading and giving any information, experience, suggestions, etc.

    Profile photo of DoctorG

    Personally, I would not recommend A&H mixers for you. The main reason is that their interfaces are aimed primarily at Apple products, with limited support for Microsoft Windows. I think you would be better served by QSC, Behringer, or Presonus digital mixers. For simplicity, a Presonus analog hybrid mixer might work for you, but recognize its limitations.

    Profile photo of

    Personally I would recommend a QU 32 mixer as an upgrade from an analogue mixer
    The QU series were designed with exactly this reason as a transition from A to D
    They’re a perfect layout and are totally stable operating system and can be easily used with out any tweaks from new right out of the box!
    You can grow with them and also use the free app.

    Profile photo of DoctorG

    To follow up on my previous comments…

    The QU series is an excellent way to move from analog to digital, and the quality of these mixers is excellent. That is why I recommended we upgrade to a QU32 when we did our last upgrade a few years ago. I was able to configure a Custom layer so that our operators can use the mixer much as they did with the older analog mixer. The QU32 has served us well.

    The mixer is able to record to USB sticks and read from them, but the operation is rather “clunky” and error prone.

    The remote app only works on Apple and Android operating systems. Although there is a driver for windows PCs, this must be used with a DAW, and does not support full operation of the mixer. Be sure you evaluate this mixer carefully to determine if it meets your needs.

    I might also add that the QU series has been out for several years and has seen no updates in firmware for quite some time. The SQ series is newer and probably has some improvements in operating capability over the QU series.

    Profile photo of VBVAGUY

    Thank you everyone for your input, suggestions, and sharing your experiences !!! Please keep them coming !!! God Bless !!!

    Profile photo of Lee7


    I have been using the QU series since it was first launched and have done 100’s of gigs in that time, never once have either of them ever let me down. As NZdave points out, they are a great console to move across too from analogue, spend a few days playing around with the desk or rack unit just to familiarise yourself with the layout etc.

    Most of the time I operate the QU from my iPad using the excellent A&H app, I do have the 3rd party version but to date I haven’t really needed to use that.

    Both sound and build quality are excellent and you will probably struggle to find a better company who are as quick to address any concerns that their customers may have. It is not all about gimmicks and features, but when things go wrong and how quickly they can be addressed.

    The USB side of things is clunky and could have been designed better, but, for me personally, I didn’t buy into the QU stable to worry about how well it could playback Wav or MP3 files, and I haven’t used it with my Mac either, but from what I have read from others who have, it is virtually plug & play.

    They have been out now for around 7 possibly 8 years and have most likely seen the last of any future updates, but that won’t stop these desks for being used for years to come. Definitely consider the SQ range of desks if you need better features and future proofed for years to come, but if you don’t need any of those extra features that the SQ has to offer, go for the QU-32.


    Profile photo of Brian

    I would not recommend the QU. If nothing else, for this reason – it does not have a “clock” and can’t sync with external clocks.

    What does this mean? It means you can never use a QU with any other stage box or console. With an SQ, you can always expand the system by adding stageboxes or consoles. If you want to eventually get a stagebox for more inputs, you can do that with an SQ, but not a QU. If you eventually want to get a second console to run a broadcast stream from, you can do that with an SQ, but not a QU. Maybe you can’t see you ever needing to do this, and that might be true, but you never know when you might have a larger event than normal and just need something for a week. Again, you can add things to a SQ system, but not a QU system. To me, I’d rather spend a little more for something that is infinitely more flexible and expandable. The QU isn’t flexible or expandable at all.

    To add, Keith answered this question in another recent thread and I thought I would share his post as well. (These are all things that the SQ has that the QU does not have).

    Hi @courtcourt

    There are many similarities but some of the other differences (looking at the additional features on SQ) aside from the 48 input channels and 96kHz processing you mention are:

    Intelligent SLink port for connection to expanders and other systems running dSnake, DX or GigaACE/GX protocols ( https://www.allen-heath.com/everything-io/ )
    I/O port for option cards including Dante, Waves, MADI, SLink
    DEEP processing options (high end modeling processing from dLive) and dynamic/multiband tools – ( https://www.allen-heath.com/key-series/sq/sq-add-on-processing/ )
    Lower latency (<0.7ms from analogue in to analogue out with all processing enabled)
    More output busses, all with stereo/mono options and all 12 mixes can be either group or aux
    Larger, capacitive touchscreen
    Fully customisable patching
    Fully customisable channel strip layout with scribble strips
    More softkeys
    Multi-platform support and offline mode for the SQ-MixPad remote app
    More recording options (48/96kHz and up to 32ch direct to drive)
    Tie Lines
    Dual 24ch AMM’s with option to combine into a single 48ch AMM
    Whether or not these make SQ significantly better really depends on your requirements!

    Cheers 🙂

    Profile photo of Brian

    I’m sorry, there is some misinformation in my last post.

    You can use stageboxes with the QU series (Ar or AB series), but you cannot use the QU series console as a stage box. You also cannot connect the QU to another mixer – only the AR and AB stageboxes

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.