Qu Pac w/AR 84 vs 2 Qu Pacs

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Qu Pac w/AR 84 vs 2 Qu Pacs

Tagged: 

This topic contains 10 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Giga Giga 4 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #65818
    Profile photo of Rem
    Rem
    Participant

    Hello all,

    I have a Qu Pac in our church that is working fine. I want to send the audio from nine microphones into both LR speakers of the Qu Pac in the main church and another remote audio rack in a hall about 75 feet away that will be connected to its own separate speakers.

    Is it better to do this with an AR 84 or a AR168 or a second Qu Pac? In the adjacent hall I only need 4 inputs and 2 outputs for the speakers so I figured an AR84 is better. From what I can tell, the AR84 doesn’t have many features to control the quality of the sound in the hall. It seems like an AR168 is what most people use for more expansion. (Of course, I am still very new to this and I may be misunderstanding the AR84.)

    I tried to find the answer in the manual but no luck.

    #65820
    Profile photo of Ryan
    Ryan
    Participant

    AR84 and AR168 are just for remote I/O, no processing. With an additional QuPac, you would need a mic splitter, or use the outputs from one unit as inputs to the other one — which probably isn’t what you want to do.

    I’d go with one of the ARs for the remote area (though distance for the Ethernet cable could be a factor to consider), then use one of the stereo mix buses on the Qu for that room. Or matrix, depending on what you need.

    #65827
    Profile photo of eotsskleet
    eotsskleet
    Participant

    Hey Rem!
    What you need to know is: do you want to share the inputs from one room to play In the other room? If yes: you just need another I/O device such as AR84! But you need to know that if you have the 4 inputs from the adjacent hall, you need to process them in the qu-pac from the main Hall! At the AR84 you don’t have processing or any knobs!

    #65828
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    You can of course, run the second hall from an app, as long as you can get wifi to it, which will probably mean fitting another wireless access point in the other room.

    The desk can have two iPads running the QU-Pad app at the same time, though the dangers of accidentally changing something in the other room without realising would need to be considered*. Using the QU-Control app in the second room may give enough functions most of the time, while making sure nothing in the main Church gets altered by mistake.

    *It’s possible to lock down many functions with user level settings in the QU, and/or Guided Access in the iPad.

    #65830
    Profile photo of Rem
    Rem
    Participant

    You guys are awesome. Sorry for all the noobie questions.

    1. Yes I’m planning on using the 9 mic inputs in the main church (all vocals) to go to the second hall and out to speakers in the second hall at the same time the same input is going out to the main church. It seems an AR84 can do that. I will run a cat 5 from Qu Pac in main church to AR 84 to secondary hall running on ipad. I don’t really need two ipads to control sound in the second hall. I just want to set it and forget it.

    2. Follow up question on Ipad app. I have the Qupac connected wired to gigabite switch in the basement. The Church has Ubiquiti access points all over. Ipad is running on separate wireless SSID from the Ubiquiti. Everything works fine if I stay close to the Qu Pac in the main church. However, the Qu Control app on the ipad loses connection with the Qupac when I move to the second hall intermittently. AFAIK, this only affects the Qu Control Ipad app. I have no loss in wifi signal on the ipad or any other wifi app running on the same ipad. Does the Qu Control app lock the wifi so I can’t roam picking up wifi from a different access point?

    3. Can someone point me to the manual what I need to do when the AR84 comes?

    #65838
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Check the price difference between the 84 and the other extenders…

    But they all do the same basic job.

    #65841
    Profile photo of garyh
    garyh
    Participant

    Is there any reason why not to just use 2, 75 feet XLR cables to the other room, connected to, say, the mix 9 & 10 outs on the back of the QU-PAC to an amp in the other room? 2 XLR cables is not that much bigger than a cat 5 cable. I can’t see a need for the AR84.

    #65844
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    Well there’s the 4 inputs that are needed too, so that’s six cables rather than two. But if that’s enough and the requirements are not going to grow any time soon, it may still be a simpler option. But the QU-Pac is getting towards being maxed out of preamps…..

    #65845
    Profile photo of garyh
    garyh
    Participant

    Sorry, I overlooked the requirement for 4 inputs. A 6 channel snake would be bigger than the cat5 cable, though probably cheaper than an AR84.

    #65847
    Profile photo of Rem
    Rem
    Participant

    Well regardless if I use cat5 or xlr, I’m going to max out the Qu PAC with same number of inputs. So that’s a wash.

    Regardless, isn’t a digital solution usually better than analog (assuming the intended project is fairly simple like what I’m trying to do)?

    What I forgot to mention is that there is already Cat5 cables to the rooms. So the money I would use on electrician might be close to what the AR84 would cost.

    Finally, anybody have any ideas about the Qu Control app locking wifi?

    #65849
    Profile photo of Giga
    Giga
    Participant

    I don’t have them handy at the moment but if you search the forum for wifi, there are some really great write-ups on the subject….

    Good luck !

    Giga

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.