Qu series, audio interface, home studio question!

[[XAP]BobParticipant]

😀

Best answer I’ve seen in ages

[BenParticipant]

I keep people saying this isn’t a great choice for recording – is there any reason besides the sample rate for that comment or are they just being snobbish about it? I am between a Qu-Pac (maybe Qu-24) and the Presonus RM32AI and my two points for the Presonus over the A and H are the sample rate and the fact that I have full access to the mixer on my computer screen via firewire (of course that point goes away if I get the 24

[[XAP]BobParticipant]

Over sampling is useful to use cheaper/better anti aliasing filters. But DACs typically over sample internally.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

ADCs and DACs didn’t always transparently oversample. Thirty years ago, some recording consoles recorded at high sampling rates using only analog filters, and production and mastering simply used that high rate signal. The digital anti-aliasing and decimation steps (resampling to a lower rate for CDs or DAT) happened in the final stages of mastering. This may well be one of the early reasons 96kHz and 192kHz became associated with professional music production [8].

Can Nicola (or anyone at A&H) confirm the over sampling of the QU ADC (given that the stage boxes are shared with the GLD,band their pad behaviour, I guess they are slightly different)…

[AndreasModerator]

Any modern audio ADC/DAC implements antialias brickwall filters internally so very simple analog filters are sufficient for optimum performance. This part got simple and cheap nowadays.
Interesting statement regarding the “96/192kHz pro-myth”…

[BenParticipant]

I was just reading this article to try to get some clarification. I am guessing this statement:
Today, many users are skeptical of the idea of working at non-standard rates like 48, because for a long time the math to convert to the consumer music rate was lousy. That’s becoming less and less the case today, and perhaps some day it won’t be a factor at all.
Is why some say that they fear the 48khz sample rate even though after reading the article, I am convinced it is among the best rates to sample audio and probably better than 96 but where are there issues in converting to a consumer rate and when are there not? Is it DAW dependent? Im a Logic user..

[[XAP]BobParticipant]

Dropping from 48 to 44.1 isn’t too hard any more.

One reason 48kHz is sometimes popular is that it fits an exact number of samples in a single video frame, so it makes sense to have a little extra sample rate above the audio only 44.1.

48 and 96 are equivalent, 44.1 and 88.2 are equivalent (in terms of conversion maths…) so the comparison would be 88.2 rather than 96.

But yes 48kHz is a perfectly sensible rate to record at – there will, I’m confident, be massive oversampling in the ADC itself…

I like the below quote from your linked article:

In the meantime, keep doing whatever you do and at whatever sample rate you’re doing it at! If we’ve proved anything, I hope it’s that the raw numbers just aren’t that big of a deal.

There are so many more important decisions to make: Whether that dB of EQ is hurting or helping, whether the bridge of the song comes in too early, whether we should move the mic or try another one, or whether we should have chicken or tuna for lunch.

[BenParticipant]

I think I am about sold on going with the Allen and Heath over Presonus for my own use just because I trust them as a company more and I don’t love several things about my Audiobox 1818VSL.

[[XAP]BobParticipant]

There is a chance that A&H will release an offline editor – and a good chance that that will include a TCP/IP ‘live’ mode (since that’s all done for the iPad anyway)

[ljefeParticipant]

I believe some desks can send/return to and from the computer on the same mixer channels. I have never used a mixer like that, I don’t even know what the functionality is called, so someone correct me if I’m wrong. But I believe I have seen it mentioned as a feature of other mixers.

I’m guessing that would mean you could use a VST effect as an insert on a channel? Currently, on my Qu-16, I can send a track to a channel in the computer, add a VST and return route it to another channel on the mixer. I lose a channel that way. I don’t know what other benefits the “inline” feature would bring, but I thought I’d mention it here. The lack of that functionality may be the reason the Qu series aren’t always thought of as recording mixers.

Sorry for the lack of technical specificity.

[AndreasModerator]

The Qu operates exactly the way it is expected from a recording mixer: It can record (dry or wet) each channel individually and send the recorded track back to the same channel for playback (switching input at the gain stage).
What you’re requesting is the ability to operate the PC as an insert box like SoundGrid. This would require to split the channel at the direct out point, for example sending post EQ to the host and returning the processed USB signal at the same point to be processed by the Qu compressor.

[Author]

Posts