Help from current owners on a first IEM rack

Qu Qu General Discussions
1

I’m a school of rock vocalist with probably too much disposable income. I’m looking to build an IEM rig. The adult student band is looking to gig once or twice a month.

I’ve played heavily with various mixing demo apps and A&E seems like the easiest. IT might sound dumb but I was also thinking of “renting” this out to the school for their performances and perhaps to the teachers for their bands. More so it gets used than to pay for it.

My wish list:

Quality unit with ease of use.
Easy no PC multitrack recording.
Easy no PC virtual sound check.

At least 16 inputs preferably expandable for future use.
As many outputs as possible.
Accessible outputs and recording slots (so people can access recording/playback/add wired IEM options as needed.

I’m down to the cq18t vs the qu5.
Small and light vs expandable with lots of outputs. The Qu I’m also gonna have to buy a router and Bluetooth receiver. I don’t see a need for Dante.

Questions:
Can the usb c on the Qu record/playback to a thumb drive? Can it record/playback to an iPad?

On the Qu5 if you get a 16x8 expander does that also expand the outputs? It wasn’t clear to me if you can ever go beyond 12 mixes.

I’m also open to feedback from anyone who has done this before:

My plan is an 8u top 12u slant mixer from audiopile, a 16 channel seismic audio rack mounted splitter, power conditioner, 8x4 (only using 4 for singers and tower arrays when running own sound). downstage stage box, 12x0 upstage stage box.

I have a senny xsw I’ll run two channels in mono and plan to buy a phenyx pro 33 4 channel for a total of 6 mixes.

The phenyx being cheap is by design as kids will be using these packs and $70 is easier to replace than $350. There can be a lot of people on stage at SOR shows. 3 singers, 3guitars, bass, keys, drums. So the Cq I’m doubling up mixes and buying extra packs. The Qu I’d do wired IEM mixes for the extra people.

It’s gonna be a chonky unit to load in and out which kinda sucks but being able to access ports easily and have a physical mixer is on my wish list so that it’s easy to set up.

I’ve looked at cheaper options like behringer stuff but the outputs aren’t easily accessible nor are the recording ports. Expending mixes means rack spaces and cost. I also didn’t find it as user friendly.

Oh and currently we are mostly playing gigs running sound via our amps (so DIs to rig) though we do play on occasion at a place with FOH sound.

Thoughts? Overkill? What am I missing??

Thanks all!

2

I would just answer your questions like this:

No. Use your USB-A port for this.

Yes - it’s class compliant.

Yes, you get more physical outputs.
But the number of your mix buses doesn’t increase.

1 Like
3

Personally I don’t think the CQ series would make a good IEM system. It has too many limitations. Furthermore, having to use several different consoles to get the “capacity” that you need is a terribly complicated situation to be in that is completely avoidable. I also think you want a “rack” style console to make the overall system as small as possible, so the new QU series is out too IMHO.

If your needs are up to 16 inputs and 8 or less outputs (really up to a max of 32 inputs and 16 outputs with I/O boxes), personally I think the best “budget” IEM rig today is the X32 Rack. You say you’ve considered Behringer, but dismissed it because “The outputs aren’t easily accessible.” I don’t know what you mean by that as there are 8 XLR outputs right on the back of the rack unit and you can easily expand the I/O if you need to. Furthermore, the whole point of building out an IEM rig is that everything is wired up and left alone. You shouldn’t have to access the XLR outputs every show because all of the equipment should be left alone between shows.

If you have the budget and want something nicer, the Wing Rack or the SQ Rack are clearly options. But honestly the extra functionality and features the bring to the table probably aren’t worth it for an IEM rig. I’d save the money and put it towards your wireless system. Which brings me to your wireless choices…..

You really need to reconsider your budget when it comes to wireless IEM systems IMHO. The phenyx system is going to let you down eventually. The reliability will get worse the more musicians you have on stage using them too. “Cheap” simply doesn’t work reliably when it comes to wireless systems. If you want real reliability, you should plan on spending at least $500 per channel (meaning $1000+ per wireless IEM transmitter/receiver). Truth be told, you would be much better off “skimping” on the console and purchasing better wireless systems than the reverse.

While wireless is always more convenient for the musicians, hardwired headphone amps (like the Behringer PowerPlay P1 or P2) are a great alternative if you are looking to save money. Most musicians instruments are wired into their amps or sound system, so adding an additional headphone wire in their “umbilical cord” isn’t really a big deal. Obviously that is not as convenient as wireless, but it’s not an untenable situation either.

2 Likes
4

Thanks for all of this.

The wireless IEMs are more for the students. I can see the packs getting broken. I plan to allow the adults to use their own IEM should they have one or connect wired ones as needed. That was my thought about having access to the rear. For a children show the phenyx would be in place for the front people who move more.

You make a good point about a rack mixer. I’ve looked at the SQ and Wing. The SQ does seem pricy and probably overkill. I’m pricing it out. The Wing I’ve watched a bunch of tutorials and I go cross eyed. Same with their app. Maybe I need to look at it more. The wing/x32; correct me if I’m wrong. You have 6outputs and 2 main outputs so no more than the CQ… unless you buy expanders which is more $$ and rack spaces.

I also worked out the sizing.
The wing is a 4u, expander for outputs is 1u, mind as well up the seismic to 24 input so 3u. Adding a drawer for body packs 2U, power 1U, 2u for IEMs I’m already at 13U so a 14U rack which is the same physical size/weight as the QU in an 8U. That one I had power 1 U, IEMs 2U, splitter 2U, 2U drawer.

These are all good points so I appreciate the input and helping me map out options.

5

3u?

Just one more thought:
If you use a Wing Rack and absolutely need 24 inputs, but 16 outputs would suffice, a Midas DN4888 (1u) could also be an option for you as an add-on.
Alternatively, if you prefer 24 inputs and 32 outputs (or vice versa), it would be only 2u with two StageConnect components.

And, perhaps interesting for IEMs, the Wing already has four headphone jacks built in (although these only work in parallel with the eight XLR outputs).

6

And something still irritates me:

So there’s no sound system with a FOH mixer - just a few amps and IEM?

And where do you get your 24 analog (!) channels for your IEM in these cases?

1 Like
7

If you want the flexibility to change inputs/outputs easily, but feel that the XLRs on the console are too inaccessible, it is very easy to use/make an XLR patch panel. The rear of the patch panel is permanently wired to the console’s XLRs, but the front has XLR connectors to make it simple to patch things. If you use a double-sided rack case, there is usually space on the rear that is behind all of the front mounted equipment. The space between the equipment and rear of the case is generally too narrow to rack more equipment using the rear rack mounts, but usually has more than enough room to add patch panels.

1 Like
8

Yeah, a lot of our gigs are amps and PA is for vocals only. That said we are a school with a lot of folks on stage 16 is plenty. We can have 3 singers, 3 guitarists, Bass, Keys, and drum mics if needed. The school I’ve seen go crazy micing the drums so I could see us hitting 16, but probably not surpassing it.

The wing rack already has 24 inputs. It’s a 4u rack. I don’t need them all, but if I’m building a rack for it I mind as well have a splitter that can handle all 24. A seismic rack splitter is 2U for a 16 and 3u for a 24.

My thought… and again people can chime in if this is super dumb, is to use this for other bands who don’t have their own IEM. Some of our teachers do perform at places regularly with a FOH. I’m not planning on 24 inputs but if the mixer has them…. why not have them be usable.

9

That’s a good point I didn’t think of. Might make more sense to put that and maybe even the rack splitter on the back. I was thinking to keep the sends and returns on the same side so I could run the outputs for monitors to the downstage stage box for PAs when we run our sound.

10

Sorry, but I (from Germany) couldn’t quite make sense of your term “seismic” (more from geophysics) and thought it was more a typo.
I didn’t realize it’s simply a company called “Seismic Audio” that builds splitters you want to use.
Now everything’s clearer to me.

11

I would look at a rack surfaceless mixer / no faders, it will be more compact and you’ll end up controlling it with an iPad and or phone monitor mix apps anyway.

Look at a better splitter snake like a CBI, Whirlwind, Rapco. Seismic Audio equipment is crap, their snakes use knock off connectors that don’t really mate well with legit XLR’s and the wire gauge is something 26gauge.

For how this sounds like it’s going to be this will be need to heavy duty, durable, pre wired, and as easy to use as possible and things will still get messed and broken.

12

You could consider a Qu-5(D) or SQ5 (both rackmountable) or SQ rack und ME-1 for IEM.

I would not like to miss real faders and to be dependent on WLAN under life conditions …

If 16 input ch are enough, you could connect ME essyly to S-Link. If you need more and consider to go for a digital stagebox, you can not use ME (48kHz) and the 96kHz DX stageboxes together at the same S-Link port. (Workaroind: 48kHz stageboxes AB-… or SQ5 with second S-Link port).

I use my Qu for stereo submixing my keys incl. miced Leslie to FOH (via AUX) and IEM-Mix for the band using passive splitters … works great :slight_smile:

13

Thanks. Yeah. Splitters have gone insane in price and it was an area I hoped to cut a corner on. Art 8s here in the USA are now over 800 for a pair. Then you add 16 for patch cables and oomph. Audiopile also makes a nice one.

I’ve seen very mixed reviews on seismic audio. Some say hey they feel cheap but I’ve hugged with it for years and other have them crap out.

The splitter and the kid wireless are my two cheap spots for later upgrades.

I think I was overly worried about having non-computer access to multitrack recording and playback. I didn’t realize an iPad could be the “computer.” I didn’t know what class compliant meant.

I’ve looked at faceless like the cqb and soundcraft. Even looked at the old qu-pac. My concern there and it could be unfounded is if WiFi is having issues and just having a physical mixer might be easier for someone who is “renting” the unit. That’s honestly what made me look at the qu5. I’ve only used a cheap analogue mixer at school and everything on that mixer made sense in 5mins. A&H seem like the iPhone of mixers. I only knew what a bus and DCA was a week ago; )

Again. Thanks all. I played bass as a kid, my kid joined school of rock and I picked it back up and ended up becoming a singer when we didn’t have one. It’s been fun but a lot has changed in 30 years. Including my old ears. Myself and and old marine are the old guys in the band and hearing everyone is huge challenge. We wear earplugs (loop) but I find I have to pop them out to sing well and I’d like to keep hearing. He’s the drummer and can’t hear anything with plugs so he counts and hopes for the best.

I’ve been able to use my own IEM by connecting it to my pedalboard but it only gives me my vocals. We played with a large FOH and was able to get the whole band for the first time and it was amazing.

14

I’ll just say of the bands I worked with that had Seismic splitters 85% of them had dead channels ect. One band had a Seismic the next year I worked with them they had a Whirlwind!

Renting out that kind of system to various users expect the un-expected!

15

Ooph. Thanks for that input. Yeah. The cost of a 16 channel seismic splitter is about $250. I was hoping that could work but you sound like you’ve seen it not be worth the trouble. Whirlwind 16 channels looks like it’s 1k for the box with no cables or snake on Sweetwater. I didn’t see any other rack mounted options beyond no name passive splitters that look cheaper than seismic, the Behringer M8000 (I saw horror stories of the xlrs getting stuck and the unit requiring disassembly in the field), the art splitter ($900 min for 16 channels with cables, or EWI/Audiopile. There’s the elite core Perseus lol. $2300 for a passive splitter.

I’ve heard nothing but good on EWI/audiopile. Please chime in if you have experience. They make a splitter drop snake that’s not rack mounted for about $350. They make a 4 channel transformer isolated for $180 (even for 16 channels still cheaper than the ART right now). The floor splitters is bulky and was hoping to have it all connected but maybe that’s the compromise. And I guess it frees up rack space and can be left at home when we aren’t dealing with a FOH.

One thing I didn’t like about the drop splitter was no sends for downstage PA… which in retrospect was a silly concern since that would mean I’m managing the PA and not splitting… duh

I do think this would require better access to the mixer outputs since sometimes we are using a splitter and sometimes I’d be just using drop snakes with no split.

For floor splitters do you find most people still run drop snakes or just have the whole band plug into that one access point?