still my main mixer/interface; <3 / 
3 Likes
Completely trivial question: whatās the finish like on the buttons/knobs? Hopefully no soft touch paint nonsense to eventually turn into a lint roller.
I currently got the qu16 in the studio (and regulary use the SQ) and it is nearly perfect. Sometimes i wish there would be dedicated Aux-knobs in addition to the faders so there would be no need to switch to the fx-bus, but thatās not a major problem. It makes everything quite easy: i donāt need tons of additional effect pedals (master compressor !) and itās easy to do a multitrack recording. Most important is that i can put my settings on a usb stick, go to a Location and if they have a qu/sq i literally just need to plug my synths into the mixer.
Someone lend me the QU so i did not have to pay for it, but i think its absolutely worth the money. Build quality is lovely.
I am 5 days away from purchasing a qu-32 for home studio use (and occasionally lending it out to the gnomes I live with for live sets.)
Does anybody have any last minute input for me? I have an Apollo x4 for recording vocals and such into Ableton but I want a more or less future proofed mixer that I can keep in my studio as my hardware collection expands.
The main reason Iām looking at the qu-32 is for the motorised faders and sends. I will keep about 6 pedals on mix outās so that I can route any input into them at any time without having to use a patchbay or replug cables. Is there any issues with this idea? Would I find major latency if I routed one input through a bunch of fx? Could I chain inputs and outputs to run one signal into multiple fx channels sequentially?
1 Like
Are you sure about the 32 tracks?
I have a Qu-24 and sometimes think itās a bit overkill.
I got myself 2 patch bays and itās really useful, especially if you have to change the configuration often, all the more temporarily.
For instance, I stand of going through several AD/DA convertors for your FX, you might simply chain them in the patchbay.
Or if a friend comes to jam, you donāt touch the mixer, only plug their gear in the patchbayā¦
But otherwise I dig this mixer, itās all I wanted it to be.
3 Likes
I think it may be overkill but I can find a qu-32 in as new condition for cheaper than a qu-24 new or second hand. It will be of the most use to my community and I have plenty of studio space.
I think I am being somewhat lazy in not wanting to use a patch bay. The obvious advantage is not having to route through a bunch of convertersā¦ but I do also like the idea of being able to send multiple synths through one pedal though and as I understand you cannot sum signals with a patch bay.
1 Like
So whats stopping the big companies from just making a device like this but with like, Ableton or w/e built in? Simplified standalone mode and you could hook up a monitor (or a tablet!) to get all features of a DAW.
1 Like
it would be very expensive, and something like cheapest new mac mini would destroy it performance vise.
1 Like
I guess, but like that mixer is 2k.
yeah, but to add a at least decent computer to it would cost a lot, also then they probably would need to use linux, and write a daw for it, thatās a lot of work and r&d costs. And since they wouldnāt be selling millions of these devices the cost would be very high for a mediocre performing device.
2 Likes
No indeed. Summing is the mixerās work.
Chaining sequentially is the patchbayās 
Although you can do it on the mixer, youāll, encounter quickly limitations.
Use the Aux to sum, but get a patch bay if you start to plug/unplug often.
A quality patchbay + cables might be around 150ā¬.
But yeah, ace mixer, go for it.
I suggest to take also the giant decksaver that goes with it. It saved my mixer a couple of times, which made it instantly fundedā¦
1 Like
Eh, maybe when all computers transition to SoC architecture we might see devices such as these. I mean thereās still a market for standalone digital multitrack recorders, would make sense to integrate a DAW and add the option to connect to an iPad.
The mixer will add ~1ms* for every trip in and back out you make. So yes, there is latency, but not a ton, and comparable to a lot of digital effects pedals, or better ā the Beebo is around 15ms.
*: The SQ series guarantees .7ms; I assume the QU is in that ballpark.
1 Like
Iāll play around with letting the mixer be a patchbay of sorts until I hit a wall and then Iāll educate myself.
I do own a cheap patch bay. I just get frustrated as I love combining signals to place them in the same sonic universe.
I also have a bad habit of unplugging singular samplers and synths to take into different rooms which always leaves behind a mess of cables and that seems to be a patchbay nightmare.
Iāve just bought a mint A&H GL2400 and am pretty happy with the build and sound quality. Someone on this forum then mentioned the Qu series mixers and so I did a little digging and must admit that Iām more than a little interested in a QU-32.
Iāve only ever looked at analog mixing desks up until now because I like to have a full strip per channel - I typically use the mixer for live jams, and being more of a DJ at heart, I prefer this kind of arrangement as itās more like a (big) DJ mixer.
Whilst Iāve been jamming over the last few days, I canāt help but notice that the pots are so close together and itās a little fiddly when navigating numerous channel eqās, mid-jam, so Iām wondering if this Qu digital mixer layout and the fact that it only has one set up EQ/comp etc. controls, could work as well as an analog mixing desk arrangementā¦.? Has anyone walked the same path as me and can you share if it was easy to adapt to this layout, coming from analog?
A few other questions is had were:
- is it worth buying a Qu now, given that itās digital and 8+ years old, so maybe a newer model could be imminent?
- I use insert fx like eventide H90 and Analog Heat, but the Qu doesnāt seem suited to external fx loops for obvious reasons. Does anyone use external boxes with the Qu, and if so, what is your approach to connecting these into the signal chains.
Thanks for any input that can be provided!
1 Like
The Qu, or any other digital mixer is definitely not your answer.
Virtually all digital mixers rely on having one set of channel controls and then selecting the channel to which you want to apply them.
Basic DJ actions like taking out the lows on one channel while bringing in the lows on another are not possible.
Sending an effect from one channel while moving a fader on another is not possible as the faders are used for sending effects in what is called āflip modeā.
You can set up fx loops just as you would on an analog desk, no problem. The performance aspect sucks though, it is really an engineers tool, not a musicians.
2 Likes
Thanks for your response - I kind of understood the limitations you mentioned in my head, but your insights about workflow have helped to see the potential issues I may experience.
I wonder if anyone else uses the Qu as a live jamming mixer, and if so, how they work the controls to make for a smooth performance?
you could pair it with a dj mixer, even a cheap one, to have hands on control, the busses on the qu pac as feeder, having cleaned the instrument channels. Midi remote control is also possibe on the qu pac, i have not tried that, no kill eq etc. But if you set it up, and with matrix mode you can build all sorts of sub mix without the need to repatch anything.
3 Likes
Thatās a very interesting approach, thank you! I like the idea of midi controlling eqās via sub mixes, I reckon that could work really well 