Allen & Heath QU 24 Chrome Edition & Neumann KMS 105

[SteveA]

So....At the Church I am one man band on the Korg PA 4X & I also play acoustic guitar with sequences done on the PA 4X...My biggest problem if I can critique myself, is sometimes when I play songs my volume levels are inconsistent....So much going on & so much to remember....

After much thought I made the move today to hopefully remedy all that & at the same time improve my sound quality.....Purchased the Allen & Heath QU 24 which can remember 100 mixes or scenes....I can keep the keyboard & acoustic guitars on one volume and this has automated faders and will recall my mix instantly. Huge upgrade from my $100 Harbinger mixer.

Oh....I also upped my microphone from a Blue Encore 100 to a Neumann KMS 105

Anyone else using this board?

Allen & Heath QU 24 Chrome Edition https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...Chrome Edition

Anyone else using this Mic?

Neumann KMS 105 https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...eumann KMS 105

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by SteveA

Anyone else using this Mic?
Neumann KMS 105 https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...eumann KMS 105

In my work I use the KMS104s (cardioid) and KMS105s (supercardioid) quite a bit. My biggest application is on vocals when my subject is broadcasting or playing in concert (or both) and we are simultaneously recording for a CD or video. In this application the mics give us really clean vocals in a package not much different from an SM-58. The one gotcha is that the KMS105 has a supercardioid pattern, and thus has a slightly lifted response lobe directly in the back. Rather than the single monitor directly behind the mic we put out two monitors at about forty-five degrees to lessen the chance of feedback.

We've gotten really good results with them.

Bob

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I Rather than the single monitor directly behind the mic we put out two monitors at about forty-five degrees to lessen the chance of feedback.

That'll work...I like 2 monitors anyhow.....

[martingitdave]

Wow, that's a lot of high end gear for your music. I bet it sounds amazing. I'd like to try one of those mics sometime.

[Johnny.guitar]

I'm curious about the kms105 as well.
Lots of $ but if it can cover both live & recording duties may be worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[emmsone]

I haven't used any of the mics, but I did recently mix a performance on the QU-16. I really liked it, i felt it was much more user friendly than the Soundcraft Expression i've used more frequently.
Having only used it for one gig (it was the venues mixer) I didn't dig into all the features like scene recall etc, but I liked it. A few things were done in a slightly different manner to other digital mixers (as in layout/buttons/access etc) but it didn't take too long to get the hang of it. If this or the bigger QU-24 is what you're looking at I'd definitely recommend it. The only other one that catches my eye at the moment is the brand new Presonus StudioLive board but i've not had a chance to test one in person yet.

David

[Andy Howell]

The KM 104 and 105 I have used as well. For my own use at home I bought a pair of Beyerdynamic 930s which are very neutral and fine mics - more competitively priced than the Neumanns. I've used this live as well and they are just as effective. Anyone looking to move up would be wise to check these out - look for reviews. Fine mics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Howell]

Originally Posted by emmsone

I haven't used any of the mics, but I did recently mix a performance on the QU-16. I really liked it, i felt it was much more user friendly than the Soundcraft Expression i've used more frequently.




David

Like you I've only used the Qu-16 once and was very impressed with it. I agree that it is probably a better buy than the Soundcraft, although a little pricier.

Built like tanks as well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foss38]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

In my work I use the KMS104s (cardioid) and KMS105s (supercardioid) quite a bit. My biggest application is on vocals when my subject is broadcasting or playing in concert (or both) and we are simultaneously recording for a CD or video. In this application the mics give us really clean vocals in a package not much different from an SM-58. The one gotcha is that the KMS105 has a supercardioid pattern, and thus has a slightly lifted response lobe directly in the back. Rather than the single monitor directly behind the mic we put out two monitors at about forty-five degrees to lessen the chance of feedback.

We've gotten really good results with them.

Bob

Do you find that there is a learning curve for singers when using the KMS for the first time ?

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Foss38

Do you find that there is a learning curve for singers when using the KMS for the first time ?

We try to get out in front of the curve by having both the 105 and 104. If the person is going to go handheld we will often give them the 104. Stand mounted? Give them the 105. It reduces the need for the artist to conform to our gear, as it were.

Bob

[pipedwho]

Love the QU-16, sounds great, and is really easy to use. Even the more advanced features are well placed and quick to adjust when you get used to where they are. It's also fully recallable (ie. no random buttons/knobs that need to be adjusted to get a scene working exactly as it did when you last saved it). It's about a 1000 times easier and quicker to use than the Yamaha 01V96 that we had before it.

The KMS 104/105 mics are great too. Easy to use, but like most stage condensers (and some dynamics), the element is further back than a typical dynamic handheld (SM58/e835/OM7/etc) so you get a little less GBF if you're cranking the monitors.

The proximity effect on the KMS mics is pretty gentle (compared to an SM58) as the element is set back quite a way from the grille. The 104 being cardioid is far more forgiving than the 105 if the singer can't keep the mic pointing at their mouth. And as Bob Womack wrote, the 105 is generally better if you have a stand to mount it on (or a singer that knows how to properly hold/work a hyper-cardioid handheld mic).

It's been quite a few years since I've used either of those Neumanns. Depending on the singer, I use a Rode M2, Rode S1 or Sennheiser e945 (a dynamic mic) which are hyper-cardioid, cheaper than the Neumanns and equally good IMO. Honestly, I have a couple of typical EQ adjustments that make all these mics sound about the same as each other (including the dynamic).

Hyper-cardioids are better with singers that have good mic 'awareness'. For everyone else, I use a combination of the Sennheiser e935 and Rode M1, which even though they are both cardioid dynamic mics, work really well for most vocalists.

[SteveA]

Broke both items out at the service today, & my 1st impressions are I made the right choice twice.

The KMS 105 is definitely hotter than my Blue Encore 100 was. It fits my voice really well, & I generally have good mic technique. I believe 2 inches away is a good spot on it so far, though when up on it I wasn't overwhelmed by proximity effect, which I heard was the case. I went to the side of it & also didn't get the drop off I thought I would. It's a keeper....

Unfortunately my set-up is all 3 speakers (2-15" Harbinger Vari 2115 & The Line Array Harbinger M350 PA) behind me about 20 feet, so yeah fighting feedback way more than my Blue Encore, which I had dialed in for this set-up. This will be alleviated in about 2 months when all these speakers will be delegated to monitor status & I pick up 2 higher end 15" for FOH....(see the rest of the story below)

As for the QU 24 I was debating last night if I should keep this great mixer and spend say $600 on a mixer and $1500 on speakers instead of $2100 for a mixer. I was trying to justify the purchase I guess

This morning I went to the Church & was blown away by the live sound but was still unsure if I should or would keep it. So much going in it's favor.....The QU 24 can recall scenes & settings with the touch of a button & is a quiet machine. I enjoyed the workflow & bonded really quickly with it. Everyone who saw it on stage was in awe. It is oozing with potential. I said well maybe I will just keep it and pony up for some great speakers in a month or two....But was still was going back and forth with it pretty major.....

When I got home from the service my wife got a little irritated with me because she has been breaking up all my boxes from previous purchases & setting out for the recycle truck. I had a bunch kept over the last year that I ALWAYS KEEP 30-45 days depending upon return policy....She said thanks for adding more boxes & also proceeded to tell me she broke up all my new boxes and threw them in the recycling bin.

I told her I was debating sending it back & I needed the original boxes to ship back if I chose to. She said well "now you are keeping it"....

Love that woman....

[pieterh]

I've used the Qu series mixers a couple of times, fairly nice at the price point.

I am a big fan of the 104/105 and use my own 104 for live work and often choose 104 or 105 for live shows that I am rigging. Apart from the polarity (104 monitor behind, 105 slightly off rear axis) the 104 is arguably even smoother than the 105. I also feel both mics work better on a stand than handheld.

The fact that both are condenser mics is a godsend when you have inconsistent singers or are a singer who likes to not be locked to the mic. The first show I did after buying new 105s was a troubadour with terrible mic technique and was all over the place. With the right gain and eq the mic's own qualities evened out the level and made it a quite ok gig. An SM or Beta 58 would have been a disaster in this instance.

My favourite mic at the moment that has the tolerance of a Beta 58 and approaching the sound quality of a 104/5 is the Sennheiser e945. Fantastic mic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk