Hello,

Just to make it clear, if you think that another digital mixer would be better in the given price range (around 2000€) I would like to know which one and what you think.

I am buying a digital mixer and a local distributor has given me good offers on these two so that's why I am considering them. I know that the Q24 and X32 have various features and each can be better from a certain point of view, that's why I'll try to describe how I need to use the mixing console and hope that somebody can give me a tipp which of these two would be better suited for my needs.

I will need the mixer for live gigs, so no studio. I know that the X32 has much more inputs, but frankly I need only around 20 XLR inputs and a few outputs for on stage monitors or in-ear monitoring (headphones), so the higher number of I/O is irrelevant. My band plays traditional instruments which are acoustic and can be compeared to an acoustic guitar.

Can anybody comment on the quality and difference of FX and EQ for live gigs?
Are there any other pros or cons, do both mixers have subgroups? I read somewhere that the Behringer X32 can access the graphic analayzer and EQ for each chanel simultaneously while the Q24 can't ?

Truth be told, i am not an expert, until now I worked only with a quite simple analoge mixer. Any kind of advice is helpful and appreciated!

 

Hi Miro, looking forward to other peoples opinion on this. I would look at the X32 rack. Just saw a national act using this setup and mixing straight from a large ipad out front. Seems strange to someone use to large consoles but setup is a breeze with the mixer/ breakout box right on stage.

 

A Behringer product is like the mp3 format: substandard in performance, yet everyone uses it, it's easy to find and it works

 

The name "Behringer" is in a different league in this area; so much so, just call it something else, like,"Regnirheb" - in this case.

 

Sidenote: I've also hated Behringer with a passion for quite some time (late 90's). But Behringer bought Midas, which makes great preamps and consoles.
So the Behringer XR18 is basically the same thing as the Midas MR18.

 

Thank you all for your commnets, I appreciate it. Has anybody worked with both mixing consoles and can therefore highlight the differences ?

 

Behringer has stepped up their game in a big way honestly, sadly they still have the reputation from their former days of cheap Chinese made gear. But make no mistake they have turned it around in a lot of their products ( even their guitar effects sound just as good as some of the pedals they emulate at a fraction of the vintage price) I've used the X32 system and Xair with Xtouch board dead easy and great for touring. it says Behringer but its all Midus under the hood. in my mind its no contest.

The nice thing is the memory, label all your cables and inputs ( i do mine by colour & Text) so load in and set up it is a breeze, levels are all there just a bit of eq for the room and small adjustments here and there way better then starting from scratch every night

 

Last edited: May 5, 2019

Another thing I forgot to mention is that I have Turbosound IQ speakers. The X32 also has some kind of setup for them. I kind of belive that I can set them up manualy without it also, but it's a nice to have. Does it make a difference, what do you think ?

The other major thing is that Turbosund has Ultranet suport, so I can connect them with a LAN cable right ?
The X32 has an Ultranet support system and the Q24 doesn't. Will the signal and therefore the sound be better through LAN cables, instead of XLR since it's digital? Or is it more or less the same. Does it make even sense to use it because I only have one Ultranet port, so that would mena that I have to connect the speakers on the right to the ones on the left, in that case it would be easier to use XLR. So would I get better sound quality aside from easier heandling on the speaker ? I mean it has it's own EQ and crossover, but do I need that even on a speaker with a digital mixer? Do I get better sound quality or are the differences so minor that it's not noticable ?

 

I have no experience with the Behringer, but own a QU-32. It's not my first digital studio desk, but I found the Presonus I had a few years ago much more friendly. The A&H has me always looking in the manual, then YouTube to accomplish fairly simple tasks. It's like peeling an onion. I spent months convinced it had no axillary sends only to find out they don't call them axillary sends. Why not? It is also the very opposite of knob per function. There are at least 4 uses for each channel strip that I know of. Maybe more. I don't want to know either way. The iPad app is very good for remote work, but I'll never buy another digital desk again.

 

Ive never used Ultranet from mix to amp but it can be done with your system if so equipped, sound wise I think the quality is intelligible given at some point the digital is turned to analog. depends on the quality of your turbo sounds. ill have a look at the ultrasounds and see what. they are about and then i can say for sure how it all works together

 

I own an XR18.. it has Midas Pre's and sounds absolutely awesome. That is one of the most ridiculously clueless statements I have ever read.

The reason I purchased the XR18 is its sound, flexibility and versatility.

1 Great sounding Pre's (actually remarkable) Line and Mic with phantom on each channel.
2 6 Aux sends (loads of routing options and monitoring options)
3. Plugs like a full range Spectrum anyliser on the stereo buss with broadband Compression, great EQ verb ect
4. The sound.. it sounds amazing!!!!
5. USB recording option with seperate stems.. great for live recording into any DAW. (We connect an Ipad or lappy directly and the quality is really good.)
6. Its a stagebox.. very tidy, no multicore!!!!
7 Multiple Tablets can connect at the same time.. very useful for on stage mixing.. we love it

 

I still haven't made up my mind but I think I'm going to buy the X32. I somehow think that the A&H might have better preamps and overall it gives a nicer sound, but of course it's more limited with functions, am I right ?
And the other question is, will I even notice that difference, both are good mixes, with good sound quality, we won't play big concerts, we play weddings, so thats around 500 people I also probably will never record anything professionaly on the mix, so do you think that I would even notice the difference in sound quality ?
If there is another good mix, that you think is better than these two, please recommend it!

 

Miro, I would still consider the X32 rack especially for that type of gig. Very easy setup and mix from a laptop or ipad. Less gear to haul around. I believe you can download the X32 software and run it from your computer without the hardware just to get a feel on how it works.

 

@Miro Dika I cant give you an honest answer because I have not tried either one of those mixers and your question requires at least that much in order to obtain an accurate answer. I, however, want to point out that contrary to what some members have stated the XR18 is not the same thing sonically as the Midas MR18. The preamps on both are totally different. The "Midas preamps" are not part of the XR 18. The XR18 uses "Midas designed" preamps. Those are totally different than the 16 award-winning Midas Pro microphone preamplifiers found inside the MR18.

 

I kind of wonder about a company that saves money by leaving the latch locks off the xlr connectors.

 

It is the kind of company that serves those with a small budget. Reducing price for similar products comes with some sacrifices having to be made. Nothing new. Nothing wrong with it. When I was working for Roland R & D we got directives all the time telling us to shave off x amount of dollars from a new product design. The way Music Tribe operates makes sense. A consumer with a small budget will opt for the Behringer brand. Those with a larger budget will definitively go for the MIDAS. Similar to Toyota-Lexus, Nissan-Infinity.

 

When Isambard Kingdom Brunel launched the SS Great Eastern, the first iron hulled ocean-going steamship, in 1858, it had double iron hulls, waterproof compartments thirty feet above the waterline and a lifeboat seat for every person on board. Had the Titanic. in 1912, not had designed-out all three of these features most of the people on board would have survived contact with the iceberg. The Titanic was a disaster of cost-management.

You identify one’s requirement, you identify your budget and you buy the best quality you can within those limitations. That’s fair enough. But expanding your requirement because you can get more lower quality for cheaper sounds like a strange recipe in a fabulously quality-driven enterprise like music.

It's not a criticism of Behringer. It's the way music works sometimes.

 

The name "Behringer" is in a different league in this area; so much so, just call it something else, like,"Regnirheb" - in this case.

 

Last edited: May 22, 2019