Thinking of trading in Qu-24 for SQ5

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions Thinking of trading in Qu-24 for SQ5

This topic contains 22 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Jgrift Jgrift 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #93077
    Profile photo of gravyface
    gravyface
    Participant

    For studio use only, so the 96KHz is the main draw, but also the DEEP processing. It’ll be hard to hear it in person, but anyone make the jump? Curious on the recording aspect mostly, but all feedback welcome.

    #93078
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @gravyface

    That should be a big improvement.

    Personally I prefer to use 192 in my studio.
    But I do not do many channels at once.

    384 gear was beyond my budget:)

    #93081
    Profile photo of gravyface
    gravyface
    Participant

    See, I’ve A/Bed before with 96KHz, and didn’t notice a huge difference, probably thanks to 30 years drumming and using a budget interface (Scarlett 1st gen).

    I’m more interested in direct comparisons between Qu and SQ, to see if it’s worth my while.

    #93086
    Profile photo of Mike C
    Mike C
    Participant

    96khz aside you’ll have more processing options available that would be handy
    for studio.

    Do you plan to use just the local mixer inputs?
    If you plan to expand the inputs you will need a DX series stage box
    to stay at 96khz all the way.

    The AR and AB stage boxes will work but at 48khz.

    #93090
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @gravyface

    there are many other reasons to use higher sample rates than merely comparing what you hear directly.
    IMHO for a drummer there will be no difference to you.

    #93100
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    I am of the opinion the SQ5 is the best 16 channel live desk value available anywhere: and the addition of a DX168 clearly establishes the 32 channel favorite status. However while I am perfectly comfortable with the SQ5 and DX168 capturing live audio for my video recorder scratch tracks and establishing multi-track redundant recordings for post production the SQ is not an ideal studio desk. Todays layered tracking requires gear that is optimized to meet a host of chores that the SQ is not designed to accommodate. The addition of a Waves or Dante card helps a lot however this too will require investment in additional gear.
    The SQ 5 now offers a fabulous opportunity to work with world class processing for a very modest investment but careful selection of appropriate ancillary studio gear will be much more expensive.
    Hugh

    #93126
    Profile photo of gravyface
    gravyface
    Participant

    I am of the opinion the SQ5 is the best 16 channel live desk value available anywhere: and the addition of a DX168 clearly establishes the 32 channel favorite status. However while I am perfectly comfortable with the SQ5 and DX168 capturing live audio for my video recorder scratch tracks and establishing multi-track redundant recordings for post production the SQ is not an ideal studio desk. Todays layered tracking requires gear that is optimized to meet a host of chores that the SQ is not designed to accommodate. The addition of a Waves or Dante card helps a lot however this too will require investment in additional gear.
    The SQ 5 now offers a fabulous opportunity to work with world class processing for a very modest investment but careful selection of appropriate ancillary studio gear will be much more expensive.

    I have been recording my band on a Qu-24 for a few years now and have been generally pleased with the results, and actually find it suits our live-off-the-floor approach: when I want to get surgical with my edits and have complete isolation in our one-room setup, Qu-You plus Behringer P1 headphone amps off the Mix and Group Outs means we have high-end personal mixing at bargain pricing.

    I find the preamps to be serviceable and on the cleaner side, but I use various 1073/1072 and API clones for most tracking duties.

    I don’t mix on the desk at all though: it’s essentially a zero latency headphone mixer and USB interface with a lot of inputs, which is what I need, as I’m often tracking 20 tracks at once. I do all my mixing at home in my home studio, completely ITB.

    So essentially the Qu would be a step-up in converters and preamps (hopefully) and with the DEEP additions, make a decent choice for mixing.

    #93131
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    Bottom line: the SQ5 is much better gear than your present QU24. Their FPGA processing is world class and this alone will make a significant difference. The main thing you must remember is to add the DX168 expansion unit to get your input numbers linear with your described work flow. There is no question pursuant to the SQ to function as a front end tracking device given the fact you are committed to a DAW management protocol.
    Hugh

    #93133
    Profile photo of SteffenR
    SteffenR
    Participant

    I find the preamps to be serviceable and on the cleaner side, but I use various 1073/1072 and API clones for most tracking duties.

    I don’t mix on the desk at all though: it’s essentially a zero latency headphone mixer and USB interface with a lot of inputs, which is what I need, as I’m often tracking 20 tracks at once. I do all my mixing at home in my home studio, completely ITB.

    then the step from QU to SQ will not change that much

    you should try before you buy
    since Canada is a bit far for me to send you a test SQ I will suggest contact the local A&H dealer to support you on the change
    maybe they help with a test SQ

    #93286
    Profile photo of gravyface
    gravyface
    Participant

    then the step from QU to SQ will not change that much

    you should try before you buy
    since Canada is a bit far for me to send you a test SQ I will suggest contact the local A&H dealer to support you on the change
    maybe they help with a test SQ

    Converters haven’t changed much I take it then.

    The real dealbreaker with MOTU’s AVB line and the Orion 32+ is that they don’t offer the Qu-You app, or anything resembling a “musician-proof” web/tablet experience for personal mixing. It really is a killer feature of the Qu series.

    I see that SQ has the SQMix, but it looks a lot more like the QuApp. Is there a comparable SQYou app for personal mixes?

    #93287
    Profile photo of Mfk0815
    Mfk0815
    Participant

    A closer look on the product page reveals that there is a SQ4you app for iOS and Android and a SQ Mixpadd app for iOS, Android, Windows and macOS.

    #93288
    Profile photo of gravyface
    gravyface
    Participant

    Excellent. Anyone move from the Qu to the SQ series? really curious about the sonics in a recording setting.

    #93289
    Profile photo of volounteer
    volounteer
    Participant

    @gravyface

    The room, mikes, performers, will have more impact than the SQ vs Qu changes.

    Make the move because it could do more things or you like it , but do not worry about sonics as a factor.

    #93303
    Profile photo of Hugh
    Hugh
    Participant

    While the quality of a recording tracking space is secondary only to the skill and talent level of the performer a further discussion of the relationship of mics matching processing prowess is very important. The OP’s specific question pertains to sonic differences between the Qu VxS the SQ line for recording purposes. The quality of the mic deployed will determine the distance between these A&H offerings. I gave my QU16 to my garage band grandsons when I replaced it with a QUsb for my solo gigs several years ago. My studio work is with a Digigrid/Waves LV1 system that is a wonderful optimization of FP32/96K with high end plug-ins and my collection of tube mics. The pristine transparency of world class processing needs tubes and transformers to rest within the magic world of “analog warmth” that most of us covet. My Flea 47, AT4060 with a Mullard NOS tube or my Paluso tube mics are a perfect fit with both the Digigrid/Waves or SQ FPGA processing.

    There is no question about the potential sonic quality advantage the SQ offers: it clearly exists both in measurable and perceivable terms. In the event you are deploying SM58s or SM7 quality mics the QU line is a pretty close fit with those mics. However if you plan to go to the next level with your vocal recording endeavors the SQ and a decent tube mic will help get you there.
    Hugh

    #93333
    Profile photo of gravyface
    gravyface
    Participant

    So basically nobody on this thread has gone from Qu to SQ and can comment intelligently on the differences in the analog path and/or conversion?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.