qu-24 sub groups

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions qu-24 sub groups

This topic contains 7 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Brendon Brendon 7 years ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38062
    Profile photo of Brendon
    Brendon
    Participant

    Gday
    I own a qu 16 and are happy with it except for the lack of subgroups. But thats another argument…

    On the qu 24 can the 4 subgroups be brought out to 4 separate faders or are they locked in as stereo pairs?
    I typically use at least 3 mono subgroups so two stereo groups doesn’t really fill the bill for me.

    #39330
    Profile photo of ofstreams
    ofstreams
    Participant

    I’d like to know this as well. Can we pan channels & subs L&R, etc as with analog boards?

    #39333
    Profile photo of cornelius78
    cornelius78
    Participant

    As I understand it, no (it’s slightly less flexible than a GL2400.) You can hard-pan channels in the subgroups, so you could in theory have vox in 1, guitars in 2, keys in 3 and drums in 4, however… One single fader controls the level of both sides of the subgroup: your vox and guitars will be at the same level, and your keys and drums will be at the same level, which probably isn’t ideal. Also, any processing (compression, eq, inserted fx) will apply to both sides. If you boost your vox at 6k, you’ll also get that 6k boost on the guitars. If you insert a reverb on the drums, you’ll have that same reverb on the keys. Finally, although you can pan channels between the groups, the groups themselves are hard-panned in LR: 1 and 3 are panned hard left, 2 and four are panned hard right. You’ll have your vox and keys coming out FOHL, and the guitars and drums coming out of FOHR.

    I think it’s best to think of the Qu24 as having 2 stereo subgroups, and that’s it… Of course if A&H would allow us to route mixes 1-10 directly to LR, they could effectively be used as subgroups (just set them as post fader with their send levels at unity.) Or you could do this anyway and route their physical outputs back to spare inputs and then send those inputs to LR, providing you’ve got the spare inputs and can deal with the latency that comes with the extra DA-AD conversions. Not ideal, but it could work in some applications.

    #39344
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I think it’s best to think of the Qu24 as having 2 stereo subgroups, and that’s it… Of course if A&H would allow us to route mixes 1-10 directly to LR, they could effectively be used as subgroups (just set them as post fader with their send levels at unity.) Or you could do this anyway and route their physical outputs back to spare inputs and then send those inputs to LR, providing you’ve got the spare inputs and can deal with the latency that comes with the extra DA-AD conversions.

    Can you really notice the latency?
    These desks just need a few little tweaks, like summing ST1-2-3 inputs so you can hard wire outputs from Mix outputs.
    I have used the outputs into external graphics with DBX comps but had to “sum” the inputs ‘before’ returning to the ST1-2-3.

    I don’t know whether firm-ware would be able to sum that data internally via software? or whether that is a hardware scenario?

    Routing mix’s to L&R would be the answer.

    At what point in time does the QU24 start nipping away at the heels of the GLD? (I don’t own a GLD)
    I spent half a day with a QU24 as a DAW yesterday in a showroom.
    It was brilliant!
    Stunning!
    Different fader knobs to the QU16
    Didn’t get to look at the groups scenario.
    However I am used to using at least 4 mono sub groups in larger setups.
    Thanks for your thoughts on this.
    I didnt intend to rave on there…
    I will watch this column before I collect my QU24 which is sitting in that showroom!

    Dave AK NZ

    #39347
    Profile photo of cornelius78
    cornelius78
    Participant

    Attempting quotes…

    Can you really notice the latency?

    I suppose the increased latency is not such an issue if all your channels are going through the groups: they’ll all have the same processing steps in terms of the signal chain, and everything would remain coherent. It would be more of an issue if some channels were routed directly to LR and others went to the mix1-10, out, back in, then to LR. The difference in latencies here could cause problems.

    At what point in time does the QU24 start nipping away at the heels of the GLD? (I don’t own a GLD)

    Their similarities notwithstanding (fx from ilive, Dsnake, ME-1 compatability etc,) I think there’s such significant differences in terms of surface hardware and DSP between the GLD and Qu that that being able to route mixes 1-10 directly to LR on the Qu wouldn’t impact GLD sales. The Qu doesn’t have anywhere near as high an input count or bus count, the Qu has less fx rack space, and less of a variety of fx emulations. The Qu doesn’t have DCAs, digital scribble strips, or the encoder-per-fader, is limited to 1 ipad connection and lacks an offline editor. The increased channel\bus count and expansion options for Dante, MADI and ADAT also make the GLD more rider-friendly. I’m sure there are more features that I’ve missed, that list was just off the top of my head.

    It just seems to me that being able to route mixes 1-10 directly to LR (and pan those mixes around LR if they’re mono mix1-4,) would add to the versitilty of the mixer (especially the Qu16,) with relatively little cost. The mixes already sum the channels, and they’ve already got DSP allocated for geq, peq and dyn when they’re operating as normal mix outputs, so it’s not like masses of extra DSP power is needed, it’s just a routing option. It would be a shame for someone to buy a 10-bus console, use Mix1-4 to feed wedges to drums, bass, gtr and vox, but never be able to use mix5-10 as subgroups, or vice-versa: use mixes 5-10 to feed stereo IEMs, but not be able to use mix1-4 as mono subgroups. Perhaps I should add something to the feature suggestion sub-forum.

    #39348
    Profile photo of Brendon
    Brendon
    Participant

    It’s a shame the Qu-24 has only 2 stereo subgroups. 4 mono groups allows complete flexibility (4 mono groups can be configured stereo). It’s not like there isn’t enough faders on the on ‘masters’ fader layer: on that layer there’s two faders unused…

    It just seems to me that being able to route mixes 1-10 directly to LR (and pan those mixes around LR if they’re mono mix1-4,) would add to the versitilty of the mixer (especially the Qu16,) with relatively little cost. The mixes already sum the channels, and they’ve already got DSP allocated for geq, peq and dyn when they’re operating as normal mix outputs, so it’s not like masses of extra DSP power is needed, it’s just a routing option. It would be a shame for someone to buy a 10-bus console, use Mix1-4 to feed wedges to drums, bass, gtr and vox, but never be able to use mix5-10 as subgroups, or vice-versa: use mixes 5-10 to feed stereo IEMs, but not be able to use mix1-4 as mono subgroups. Perhaps I should add something to the feature suggestion sub-forum.

    I’ve suggested this as well as a channel fader linking option (similar to the Yamaha LS9) in the feature suggestion forum so surely Allen and Heath are aware that we’re talking about this.

    So far I’m happy with my Qu-16 for my “B” rig, despite the fact I sorely miss subgroups but for my new “A” rig mixer I’m looking at staying analogue to maintain flexibility (unless I suddenly get a pay rate increase and can afford a GLD).

    #39593
    Profile photo of cornelius78
    cornelius78
    Participant

    Sorry for the thread resurrection, but I just had a random thought: You could do it if you fed the main PA from a matrix. Although the mixes can’t be routed to LR, groups1-4, mix1-10, and LR can all be routed to a stereo mtx, which would allow you to use mix1-10 effectively as mono(1-4)/stereo(5-10) subgroups, the groups1-4 as 2x stereo subgroups, and LR would effectively be another stereo subgroup, you’d just have to be careful with panning (and un-assign gr1-4 from LR.)

    #39608
    Profile photo of Brendon
    Brendon
    Participant

    Sorry for the thread resurrection, but I just had a random thought: You could do it if you fed the main PA from a matrix. Although the mixes can’t be routed to LR, groups1-4, mix1-10, and LR can all be routed to a stereo mtx, which would allow you to use mix1-10 effectively as mono(1-4)/stereo(5-10) subgroups, the groups1-4 as 2x stereo subgroups, and LR would effectively be another stereo subgroup, you’d just have to be careful with panning (and un-assign gr1-4 from LR.)

    Of course, it seems so simple now. Though doesn’t help me with the Qu-16 in my Church.

    But now thanks for putting me back into limbo for my own new mixer. I was convinced that my new mixer was going to be analogue because the small digitals were not flexible enough and I didn’t want to buy Behringer X32. But now the Qu24 fills the bill and is about the same price as an analogue rig.

    The head says digital but the heart says analogue. Decisions decisions.

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

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.