Crazy or sensible? User experience

Qu Qu General Discussions
1

MY current setup is a rack system, Sapphire Liquid 56 Audio Interface, ADAT expander, 8 channel DI-Pro Samson SCom patch panel and a 8 channel splitter. I needed this setuyp to mix in 7.1 so I need 8 output channels. I run this into a dedicated WIndows 10 computer and mainly use Studio one. Instrument wise I have a few guitars (Les Paul RG570) and a couple of keyboards (Native s49 and a Nektar 88+). Previous to this I used a Yamaha 01x, I still have it but it has serious windows 10x64 issues, in that it will only run properly when windows is in development mode (test mode). Now down to my question, current issue/situation. I want and miss my motorised faders and DAW control interface. My keyboards are both (usb) midi controllers and have limited DAW control but there not motorised, and really a pain more than useful for DAW control except they are useful for vst plug in control.

So I have been looking at the market options for what DAW controllers were available when I happened to come across the AH QU-16. My original short list included the Mackie Pro (£1000) the Behringer x32 (£1100) but the Mackie is only a DAW controller not an audio interface and the other is a Behringer but is a DAW controller and audio interface combined. My first or top priority is DAW control with motorised faders like my Yamaha 01x, a built in audio interface would be nice, flexibility. My rack is mobile/portable but me thinks a desk mixer with an audio interface would be a mice to have alternative option. Price wise I originally had wanted to keep it to the 1k mark but I realise for a few extra quid I can also have a complete unit with the audio interface. I originally went rack mounted simply cos if something breaks I don’t loose everything I just have to replace one unit and why the Behringer x32 is not an option, especially at £1100. Yes the QU16 is £1400 but really its only £400 more than the Mackie and being AH I am sure quality is not an issue. As for the 48kHz not an issue since my plug ins oversample and I have the Sapphire if needs be.

SO my question is about the QU range and DAW/VST plug in integration, which comes down to HUI MCC protocols. I assume from the downloads available one has to use the generic mackie control for DAW (as I do with the Yamaha) but what will this give me DAW side wise with the features of the QU16? Will a DAW see any effects used on the QU16 or just see the input channel as generic? and can I control a vst from the QU16 which I can using my keyboards. If I change effects on the DAW/computer will the QU16 see this and make the required changes? ie 2 way synchronization between the DAW and QU16? there again can the QU16 talk to my keyboards? I guess through those old midi cables I have somewhere, people still use them oh yes I do for my Yammi DG1000 when if I ever use it, which is almost never now.

So thanks for reading my essay and any user experience advice or further questions would be appreciated.

2

Greetings Stewart
Great essay!
The QU16 is a brilliant mixer [rack mountable] with motorised faders.
The faders are not touch sensitive.
You can control [simply] faders from a DAW
With regards to the QU talking to your keyboards you will have to wait until someone else knows a bit more than myself.
However just responding to your request keeps you at the top of the queue for just a tad longer.

3

I am more interested in what the QU can control inside the DAW from the mixer itself and maybe some idea of what it cannot do. I am assuming the worse - limited - due do the lack of youtube videos.

4

Hi @uselessoldman,

There is no way for the DAW to ‘see’ the mixing functions (or FX as you suggest) and no way for the Qu to ‘see’ the DAW.
But to explain further, the MIDI capabilities of the Qu can be split into two parts:

  • MIDI control to and from the mixing core which mostly uses NRPN messaging (as detailed in the MIDI Protocol - https://www.allen-heath.com/media/Qu_MIDI_Protocol_V1.9.pdf). This is intended for control of the mixer or recording of automation for control of the mixer. Something to be clear with here is that the messaging goes to and from the core, so it works in parallel to the surface controls i.e. moving a rotary would send a message to the change a parameter in the core which would then send a MIDI message, so the message would not be being sent from the rotary itself.
  • MIDI channel strips and SoftKey options. These do send messages from the physical controls on the surface and are not linked to the audio mixing core.

Use of the Qu as a DAW Control Surface uses MIDI channels strips and SoftKeys, taking standard MIDI CC and note on/off messages and converting them to emulate either HUI or MCU protocols.
The Mute, Sel and PAFL keys for each strip work as Mute, Select and Solo for each DAW channel, and the physical fader will control DAW channel level.
Alongside this, there are SoftKey options for bank up/down and MMC control.
This is all bidirectional too, so the motorised faders will follow your DAW, as will the LED’s showing selected channel, mute and solos.

All of this is just MIDI though, so of course it can be used however you want.
We often recommend a MIDI translator (such as Bomes MIDI Translator) if you want to convert one set of messages to another for particular applications.

Hope this helps!
Keith.

5

Many thanks Keith, I only came across the QU16 the other day by accident and thought mmmm interesting, especially as its Allen & Heath but on further reading I realise its just not going to work as I hoped. That was one reason I originally went rack mounted, just need to find a control surface (without the audio interface) that I like and will do what I want. I very nearly ordered one yesterday from PMT, just came away with my new Studio Monitors that choice was easy, Adams T7Vs (maybe not the best but I think there more than good enough for me) , thankfully when PMT rang Allen Heath they couldn’t confirm they actually had a QU16 in stock !!

I guess its back to the drawing board, the Behringer x32 producer is nice but it has reliability issues that puts me right off sadly nothing really bites me, else and hence I have yet to buy one

6

Hmm, I don‘t know from where you have the info about poor reliability of the X32. It is the best sold digital mixer and for that there are relative few reported incidents. But thats another story. Never the less, it is a good product, but also do not fulfill your requirements. It comes with a MCU emulation for the right fader bank only, but it is not simple to use. If you just need an inexpensive MCU you can double check the X-Touch.

7

@Mfk0815

The internet has a lot of audio snobs that badmouth Behringer

Their DOA MIA % might be a bit worse, but when you find a working unit then it works well

I am unclear just what @uselessoldman really wants to achieve.

I have looked at getting a control device with faders feeding into my DAW for convenience but I can run well enough without it. I never want to control a mixing board from the DAW. To me that is an insane thing to try to do.

For normal use (at least for me) a Qu16 would be the most I could ever use and would be borderline overkill.
And from the little info given it looks like overkill for @uselessoldman too.

It would help if he (and other posters) gave us the actual problem not a partial solution they thought of.

8

I don‘t know what „DOA MIA“ means, for me those are just another TLWs.:wink:
But if you sold roundabout one million items over the last seven years it is ok if there are some of them with issues. But we should not discuss this here since we are here in a community forum of another manufacturer.

And I know a lot of good reasons to control a console from within a DAW. From automated scene loading down to control a single processing parameter is a wide range of interesting opportunities. Keep in mind that there a people out there which are using a mixing desk not only in a church. For creative individuals there is be no limit.

9

@Mfk0815

Exactly. They may have a few more failures on arrival than more expensive devices. But all manufacturers have duds.

It is just woke for the snobs to badmouth Behringer so they can feel good about the more expensive devices they bought.

Still dont see it. I would prefer to control the console from the console myself and let the DAW just record for later editing. How is controlling the mixer from the DAW actually useful?

10
It is just woke for the snobs to badmouth Behringer so they can feel good about the more expensive devices they bought.

A lot of the deserved badmouthing comes from their crap analog mixers and other products and as well as their blatant rip off of other companies IP.

11

@MikeC

Trying to prove my point?

My last church had an old Behringer analog desk that worked just fine.
Long time ago, but I think it was about 12 channels. We only really needed 2.
We got it used from a blind DJ.

If they really ripped off IP then the courts would have found them guilty of that crime.
Can you point to any cases where they got sued for IP theft and lost?

12
If they really ripped off IP then the courts would have found them guilty of that crime. Can you point to any cases where they got sued for IP theft and lost?

Just do a search for something along the lines of “behringer law suits”
Just looking at some of their products you can tell who they borrowed the “idea”
from.

13

@MikeC

You made the claim so you find the court decision that says they lost and paid reparations.

In the USA anybody can sue anybody for anything.
Just suing people does not make them guilty of anything.

And I note that IF they lost and are still in business now, then whatever their products are now clearly they have to be legal now.

14
You made the claim so you find the court decision that says they lost and paid reparations.

In the USA anybody can sue anybody for anything.
Just suing people does not make them guilty of anything.

And I note that IF they lost and are still in business now, then whatever their products are now clearly they have to be legal now.

Mackie and Aphex settled out of court, many other cases filed and left up who’s legal team ran out of money first, some/quite a few were in international courts.
Their digital stuff took off after they bought out Midas.

They still produce plenty of knock off crap and some legit products.

Let Goggle lead you to some more reading material.

15

G.B. Shaw said once something like „the amateur lends, the artist steals“. It is a sign of intelligence to know what is it worth to be copied and what is not. Look at the legion of guitar manufacturers which had law suits because their design was similar to the one of Fender or Gibson, justto name another example.
Behringer was also one of the first companies which starts to let produce their products in china by chinese companies. And had a lot of bad experience with that which leads to a bad reputation regarding the product quality. Even if they are hidden bythe bunch of more or less obvious copies of other manufacturers products, there was/is still some nice stuff in their portfolio, just remember the Combinator. It was developed and manufactured in Germany and a good analog multiband compressor. The MX8000 was a copy ofthe 8-bus but as good as the mackie or even better.
With the X32 they started a new era for digital mixing desks. It isa well equipped and good sounding desk at a price point where a lot of people can buy it. Back in those days the second cheapest desk was the StudioLive 24.4.2 from Presonus which costs almost twice the price of the X32 with a third of the functionality. I also believe that the QU will not exist if the X32 were not that successful. And I think also that the WING is abig step further that way. Every release of a new firmware brings a lot of new and clever functionality. One of the last would be, by the way, interesting for the OP of this thread.
I personally would like to see more „borrowed“ functionality withinthe products of A&H as well. As a clever manufacturer they should take the basic idea and make a better implementation of it in their product. The SQ would be on a good way but still there are a lot of white areas on it feature map compared to the Behringer products.

16

I am certainly not against Behringer half my studio is their kit and I have had zero issues… My project was to record live bands, rent it out to friends, I have the money they don’t, I have the computer knowledge they don’t, and I have always loved mixing, that is why I bought the Yamaha 01x which to be fair still does what it was originally designed for, except it will not work on native WIndows cos Yamaha never updated their mlan drivers since windows XP !!

The Behringer x32 looks a great mixer/interface, the reason I looked at the Allen QU16 was in hope it would be a similar product. IT has a audio interface it can also be used as a control surface. As for overkill, maybe but the Behringer xtouch is what £400 the Mackie Pro Universal £1000 both are only control surfaces without the audio interface. the X32 and QU16 are not much more money wise for potentially a lot more features. ALso I could take the x32/QU16 and record without lumping about my rack system which is HEAVY.

We are currently still in semi lockdown and the studio/live music industry is all but dead so any projects I had in mind are currently on hold. So I can use the time to decide the way I want or can go forward. I retired last year, I have time to kill and a little money to play with and already had quite a bit of studio gear/amps cabs guitars keyboards etc what do I really want to do? I guess help those less fortunate use my computer/music knowledge and have some fun.

I just wanted to know what experience other QU series users had using windows with DAW software. As for needing a control surface, yes I can use a mouse, a keyboard even my phone or a touch screen , but I have a Yamaha 01x, owned used it for over 20 years, I just wanted to replace it with another unit so I dont have to keep booting between different drives and reconfiguring ever damn time.

I want to control DAW (Studio One) I want to be able to control automate vst, nks (native instruments kontakt instruments) and I want to be able to control the volume on my speakers, I use 7.1 as well as stereo. A control surface that does this would be awesome. and yes the x32 will come close as does my Native Kontrol keyboards - nothing does everything but as a collective I am sure I can achieve what I want some how some way

I am sure Allen Heath could get the QU series to work, I am sure its not that far off even now, but feedback is hard to get and that worries me. I know the Q series can be a control surface with some configuration, question is just what and how far beyond that will it go, compared to the X32 which I think is light years ahead of the competition from what I have seen - I will buy one of them, question is which one. Yes I know its only 48kHz and they do better audio interfaces, but then the x32 is also only 48kHZ and as I have said I have the LIquid 56 so thats not so important… DAW control with audio interface is what I crave dream of, I like the faders and knob control for automation and general level settings

17

A yes the Behringer Wing, wow what a piece of kit that is but it was released half finished, it has taken some times for the software to catch up be written tested released. It was tempting, SERIOUSLY tempting, but for me just a little too far overkill, but maybe just maybe, I might convince myself, whilst the music industry is closed I guess its harder to know what might be. For now I need to take time out and look a little closer at the protocals they all use and see what drivers config files etc are available and what isnt but can be done. I am sure event he QU series can do more just no one has bothered or cared to push it further - I am saying this blind, a guess but one thing for sure Behringer are pushing the boundaries and few iof anyone else is following them - copying others? maybe but then that was yesterday today they are industry leaders especially with their digital mixers

18

@uselessoldman

AH has the Qu working quite well.
It was not designed for the use you seem to think you need to do with it.
You can record and then edit in a DAW.
Trying to control the faders on a mixer from your DAW is bizarro.
If you must be remote for some reason then use the Ipad to control the Qu.
Stop making problems harder than they need to be.

@MikeC

Don’t know why you hate Behringer so much.
If they had done something wrong the courts would have fixed it.
But they are in business. So get over it.
Are you going to insist on a life term for every crime anybody commits?
Assuming they actually did anything which is not proven just because they were sued.

Many folks have had trouble with chinese production especially at first.
The M32 is good. Behringer is good enough especially for the price.
AH is good. The Qu is plenty good enough especially for the price.
In fact, I am aamazed that the Qu is as good as it is and does as much as it does for the price!
AH engineers are like magicians to me, almost. {I was a licensed professional engineer}
Although lots of experience does make hard things look easy to do:)

@SteffenR

Does any ‘modern’ OS also defrag automatically before starting to use the PC for recording audio?

19
Stop making problems harder than they need to be.

You should take some of your own advice!

20

@MikeC

???

comments removed