A&H Qu-32 vs. Expression 3

[dpak]

I’m currently deciding between an Allen and Heath Qu-32 and a Soundcraft Expression 3. It’s for a high school theater that seats almost 600. We currently have 16 wireless mics, and quite a few inputs on stage. We have a few auxes for backstage. We could probably get by with 24, but I’d like room to grow, and we enough money. Either one would be a big upgrade over our old analog board and both seem to have similar features, including scenes and an ipad app. For those who have worked with both, do you have any strong opinions either way?

 

[chausman]

I've used an Expression quite a bit and only 'played' with the Qu at Guitar Center, but for a high school with varied uses and people learning, I'd go with the Expression. It felt like a better way to transition away from analog and was incredibly easy to teach new users. Compared to roughly 45 of trying to figure out why routing wasn't working on the demo Qu. Obviously with experience that's negligible, but to train a group of high schoolers on the Qu sounds quite daunting.

Oh, and the iPad app for the Soundcraft (with some recent updates) is very nice.

 

[Footer]

Have you looked at the X32? It blows both of these out of the water... and it is console that is way more known then either of these. The Soundcraft console lacks a decent amount... only has high and low shelves, screen is rather useless, and you still have to use tape. The QU is a decent console and is more of a "real" digital desk but I'm not really crazy of the build quality... the buttons always felt rather spongy TV remote control feeling to me.

With the X32 you will have to deal with layers but that is the way digital is. You gain VCA's, real routing options, tons of effects, and save some cash. If you can choke up another 1500 bucks you can step up to the M32 and have a real pro level desk at your fingertips.

 

[TDN]

We have the Soundcraft in our theatre space and the QU in our chapel. I've been satisfied with both desks. The Soundcraft is easier to learn- with many students using it, having everything laid out in front of you and not having to go into menus is very handy. I agree that the screen on the Soundcraft is not very large, but the board is designed so that you don't have to look at the screen while mixing. I don't use VCAs very often when mixing, (which I recognize is weird) so that was not an issue for me.

I've felt like the build quality on both boards has been good. Both are 3-5 years old and have had no issues.

Footer makes a good point about the X32- it packs a lot more features in. I've got my own personal hangups about the brand, but I should probably get over it, since I own a bunch of their gear and have had no issues with it recently.

And just to complicate the matter, have you looked at the Allen and Heath GLD series? It may be outside your price point, but it's a very nice board with a lot of features. Or perhaps you can look at getting a used (or new) Yamaha LS9. Yes, they've been out forever, but they are still a popular board and there's a reason why you see them in a lot of places.

Who do you have coming in to use the board? Students? Outside professionals? Some of that may change up your decision- if it's students I'd lean towards the Soundcraft. Easier to learn, and they aren't going to be delving deep into routing and VCAs. Do you have someone on staff who can really learn the mixer, or just enough to get by?

 

[dpak]

Thank you everyone for the good suggestions. The GLD is out of the price range, and used is also out of the question (because of district rules on buying equipment). The board will be run by either me or a student. I like to think I have a good ear, but I don't have much experience in running a board.

 

[AudJ]

I work with students also, we have an LS9 and been very satisfied. I used the expression once and liked it more. If I were purchasing today, I would definitely go X32, and M32 if I had the extra funds available.

The price savings compared to the cost of the LS9 5 years ago would have gotten us a bunch of other stuff.

 

[AlexDonkle]

I've used the Soundcraft 32 and like it, the QU32 also looked good but I've only used it on Trade show floors. Until recently I would've said QU since it has built-in USB and digital-snake plugs, however Soundcraft has a new USB-MADI combo card that does the same thing to using a remote stagebox and USB-computer simultaneously.

The Soundcraft doesn't have VCAs, but you can route the audio channels into a buss instead of the main PA output, then route the buss to the main PA. This effectively gives you a VCA mixing fader which works fine. May be possible to do the same with QU, but I'm not sure.

 

[Michael Grimaila]

I have used both and personally like the Soundcraft Expression 3. With a Mini stage box 32 and a MADI-USB card you have a digital snake and can record 32 channels via USB. While the X32 has more features for the dollar, the workflow is not intuitive. The high and low shelf eq has not been an issue for me... if it is you can get the Performer 3.

 

[dpak]

I decided to go with the Expression 3. It doesn't have quite as many features as the others, but it seems to be the easiest to use, which is important given that students will be running it. Also, the local person who has done work for us before (including a light board) recommended the Expression 3 and demo-ed one for me. Even if it's not as fancy as some of the others, it will be a huge upgrade from the A&H GL 2200 that we currently have.

 

[Michael Grimaila]

Excellent ! I am sure that you will be pleased. Here are some suggestions: 1) Make sure that you update the firmware on the board, if it is not already updated to the latest and greatest. 2) Consider hanging out on the Soundcraft Expression Facebook page. There are many Expression users who can help you when you have questions. 3) Download and play with the Offline Editor as it will help you understand the main features of the console even when you are not in front of it.
Let me know if you have any questions and I will help.

Michael

 

[Max Warasila]

I'm glad you chose the Expression. I'm actually more scared of using a Soundcraft than an X32, but that's because of brand preferences. The Expression is a great console and even though I certainly would have chose then Performer over the Expression, it'll be a solid console for a while. The X32 is not the best console for live theater; you certainly made the right choice over the Qu-32 which is not as expandable and not as much of a "true" digital mixer in my eyes.

Definitely update your firmware to the latest build. Better let, get the local person to do it.


Kyle, I just want to say that the X32 is only better known because it's been successful in the touring concert world. I do not think it's the right choice for installs where people who are learning how to mix live theater will be working. Those of us who are good enough at it can easily make do with the X32, but the workflow needs wrangling for live theater I wouldn't force upon newbies.

 

[Footer]

Kyle, I just want to say that the X32 is only better known because it's been successful in the touring concert world. I do not think it's the right choice for installs where people who are learning how to mix live theater will be working. Those of us who are good enough at it can easily make do with the X32, but the workflow needs wrangling for live theater I wouldn't force upon newbies.

What about the workflow does not work for live theatre? I would also argue that the X32 has not been that successful in the touring concert world. Instead, it has been extremely successful in the bar band and bar PA world. Most road desks that I see are still Avid's or Pro6's with a smattering of X32's. The fact the console has VCA's makes it more of a theatre console then any of the others mentioned in my book. I also think having the scribble strips makes learning digital WAY easier... espeically when those screens tell you what you are flipped to.

 

[Max Warasila]

The fact that X32 was accepted at all into the touring world is what I think really made is such a well known desk. Only after it got the seal of approval from the general public higher ups (and it started to make monetary sense for local providers) did it really take off IMO.

The VCAs definitely help, and more than anything make it a capable theater console. I just think the workflow of VCAs and the significant layering of the X32 is harder to grasp at the start. The X32 main screen, on the other hand, is certainly something I didn't realize would make such a huge difference until you mentioned the scribble strips (which I agree are a huge bonus). It's one of the easiest systems to navigate of the three consoles, for all of the control packed in there.

I think I just still find the X32 a bit awkward, and now that you got me thinking, I'm reconsidering it's merit in the above situation. Perhaps it is the better choice...

 

[NickVon]

Have you looked at the X32? It blows both of these out of the water... and it is console that is way more known then either of these. The Soundcraft console lacks a decent amount... only has high and low shelves, screen is rather useless, and you still have to use tape. The QU is a decent console and is more of a "real" digital desk but I'm not really crazy of the build quality... the buttons always felt rather spongy TV remote control feeling to me.

With the X32 you will have to deal with layers but that is the way digital is. You gain VCA's, real routing options, tons of effects, and save some cash. If you can choke up another 1500 bucks you can step up to the M32 and have a real pro level desk at your fingertips.

But if the Qu32 is in your range. the new MIDAS M32 which is built of the Software of the X32, but with (from what everyone has said) better more responsive faders, nicer pramps, and buttons and controlers that will stand up to more rugged daily use. I think it falls in line with the same prices range as the QU32, but more expensive then the x32.

 

[Footer]

The fact that X32 was accepted at all into the touring world is what I think really made is such a well known desk. Only after it got the seal of approval from the general public higher ups (and it started to make monetary sense for local providers) did it really take off IMO.

The VCAs definitely help, and more than anything make it a capable theater console. I just think the workflow of VCAs and the significant layering of the X32 is harder to grasp at the start. The X32 main screen, on the other hand, is certainly something I didn't realize would make such a huge difference until you mentioned the scribble strips (which I agree are a huge bonus). It's one of the easiest systems to navigate of the three consoles, for all of the control packed in there.

I think I just still find the X32 a bit awkward, and now that you got me thinking, I'm reconsidering it's merit in the above situation. Perhaps it is the better choice...

The other really killer feature of the X32 for new users that I forget about is the real time RTA running over the graphic EQ and parametric EQ's. The idea of a parametric is usually hard to grasp for most people but when you can see the sound you are getting in layered on top it can be a real teaching tool... and a feature you don't get on many desks even at the very top end. I really wish my Pro2's did this.

 

[Max Warasila]

The other really killer feature of the X32 for new users that I forget about is the real time RTA running over the graphic EQ and parametric EQ's. The idea of a parametric is usually hard to grasp for most people but when you can see the sound you are getting in layered on top it can be a real teaching tool... and a feature you don't get on many desks even at the very top end. I really wish my Pro2's did this.

I disagree. I'm a firm believer in listening when mixing, rather than seeing it on an RTA. Teaching tool, sure. Mixing tool, not so great. I have measurement gear anyway, and it just gets distracting behind the EQ curve I'm viewing. Only exception for me is feedback destruction in a pinch.

 

[FMEng]

Listening is key, but the RTA can sometimes help getting the desired aural result a lot faster. The first time I used the RTA, I had a singer with an unusual voice, and possibly a slightly sick SM58. I tried fixing by ear and was improving matters, but not quite getting what I wanted. I took a quick look at the RTA, saw the overly dominant frequency range and zeroed right in on it with the parametric. Because the frequency and Q were set more accurately, it took less cut to do the job. What makes it special is the way it overlays with the EQ graph for the channel, which is brilliant, and something you can't do with a separate RTA display. Like anything else , it is one tool in the tool box, and they have done a good job of filling that box.