Qu32 Compact

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Qu32 Compact

This topic contains 5 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of eotsskleet eotsskleet 6 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40352
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    You know what really would be nice? A Qu32 Compact, meaning a Qu32 in Qu16 size. So basically a Qu16 with more layers and the DSP power of the Qu32. Priced like the Qu32, but since A&H saves money on motor faders there could be simple displays for channel names. Without it it would be really hard to handle the layers. Also, 16 XLR inputs on the console would be enough. The rest would be available thru dSnake. I’d buy that!

    Please throw in some more digital IOs or the possibility to use the expansion cards of GLD and iLive. A compact mixer with option for Dante etc. could really be a killer!

    #40353
    Profile photo of dcongdon
    dcongdon
    Participant

    +1 to a rackmountable, high channel count, flexible layers and easily networked mixer. I would like the same set of features… But I think they fit in the GLD series more than the QU. QU is a fixed format, 1 fader per socket console.

    I agree with the final product, just want to be realistic with where it fits in the A&H family.

    As I’ve posted elsewhere, I would love to see a GLD R72 similar in design to the ilive R72. If priced near the QU-32, it would be a no brainer.

    #40366
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    I thought about proposing it in the GLD range, too. But I see some problems with that. First of all, the features of the Qu32 would be enough. Yes, more FX slots would be nice, but many other things aren’t necessary for a 19″ device. Also the GLD offer only a very small amount of onboard preamps with XLR, limiting flexibility which is the essential thing I am after in a 19″ mixer. I’d also fear a GLD range 19″ unit would be made in the image of the R72, a thing I wouldn’t like at all. Only 12 faders and no channel strip at all? The good thing about the Qu series is that you can give tese mixers to anyone. Even digiphobes would grasp the concept. An R72 with almost no physical knobs is much more complicated to handle.
    Also, yes, one could say the Qu is one fader per socket, but it wouldn’t be fully true. Just think of the stereo ins, the FX returns etc. It already causes a need to switch layers. So why not 16 faders (plus master fader) with more layers and for the money saved on another 16 faders and 16 preamps with XLR some simple displays? I think many people would even consider buying a Qu32 Compact if they’d only need a Qu16, because at the moment the Qu16 is the only realistic option for a 19″ digital mixer from A&H. (I know one could buy a R72 and an iDR16, but look at the price and still, the R72 is far worse to use).

    #40369
    Profile photo of FantomXS
    FantomXS
    Participant

    I think, it would be no problem to build an Qu-16 sized mixer with 32 channels. You just need more layers and of course more connections. The question for me: If somebody need 32 channels – is there not a little bit more space for mixer? In some cases it would be good, but i would prefer all channels in one layer.

    What IS interesting: A rack version like the x-32 Rack with computer remote.
    A remote software für Windows and Mac would be great. This would be solve a lot of problems, especially for channel naming and better overview.

    For an Qu-32 compact this would be very useful.

    #40370
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    19″ is the key here. Also, the Qu32 does not need just A LITTLE more space, it takes a lot more space. Two layers of preamp inputs with 16 faders each, that makes 32 channels. Easier to handle than one layer with 16 and one layer with 8 channels plus some mixes or fx and a third layer with the rest, don’t you think?

    I wouldn’t like a solution like the X32 rack. Relying only on WiFi is a nogo in many cases. Also, if you want that, go buy an iDR32. That’s exactly what it can do. In addition, this explains why A&H wouldn’t do a QuRack.

    #40374
    Profile photo of eotsskleet
    eotsskleet
    Participant

    My Qu-16 fits perfect in my rental company –> small, ease of use, high quality and works perfect with dSnake! If I need more, i would rather take the GLD-80 with me than a Qu-24 or Qu-32! This products only make sense if it comes down to the price – where a GLD is too expensive! Next featured products should be either a 19″ GLD with enough knobs on the surface (not like the R72) or the iLive2!

    iLive2 with a special price for the iLive users.. i can understand the iLive users are disappointed that there are more features released for the GLD and Qu than for the iLive! But i also know that the engineering platform isn’t the same – that’s why it isn’t that easy to adopt the features 1:1 to the old iLive! And before A&H has to develope more features for iLive i would rather see a new console with faster software and touchscreen (like the GLD) but not with the limitations like Channel-Count! Bundled with a special replacement-deal – i think everyone would be happier than “just a further feature like the transient controller”! (I like to compare it with the best notebook ever that was released 10years ago.. you can still update RAM and Disk-Space – but after a few years the prozessor, display etc. isn’t anymore the “best”! Solution is either to stay with a solid work-horse that worked great over years with the high quality of A&H or get a newer – faster – more powerful console like the iLive2 will be!)

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.