Behringer WING vs Allen & Heath SQ | Which should you buy?

[@matthewfrohbieter1803]

Finally an SQ course. Most videos on KZbin are pros speaking to pros. Glad there will be training for us novice types. Thank you.

[@VinylTees]

honestly what sold us on the Wing over the SQ was that we were moving from a system with an analog snake and A&H stage boxes are astronomically more expensive than Behringer's as you showed onscreen, and we skipped the P16s in favor of Midas DP48s which have more channels and two mixes per box which makes it significantly cheaper per IEM mix.

[@NoTechHacker]

I sold my SQ-5 that I used in my home studio and bought a Wing, mostly because I wanted to learn how to use it. It’s super flexible. Once you get used to it, the routing capabilities are great.

[@ErnestDotPro]

I have worked with both Wing and SQ7. Been running the Wing for several years at multiple churches without a hitch. The flexibility and customization is amazing. Producers and professional audio engineers have come in to mix on the Wing and after a service or two, every single one loves it. SQ is more intuitive. Easy to walk up and get a good mix. Wing is more flexible and powerful to make a good mix great. Thought it does require a bit of effort to learn. Also, I've had an SQ fail to boot on a Sunday morning and the Wing has never had an issue.

[@collabworship]

Great insight! Thanks Ernest!

[@michaelyoung7911]

I feel the same way about them. I’ve had more issues with my A&E boards lately than I’ve ever had with the wing it’s pretty solid!

[@michaelyoung7911]

I run a behringer wing and a A&E avantis. I’d pick the A&E for ease of use and quick learning. The wing needs a lot more time to get used to. But I like that I can do more with it without add ons. Both are great boards. For me the A&E does have better overall sound quality but the Wing allows a lot more flexible processing options and I doubt most people will hear a difference between the two unless your a-b testing them side by side. My Conclusion is you can’t go wrong with either option. Both are fantastic boards but if keeping cost low is a priority definitely buy the wing you will not be disappointed!

[@bgcreations1]

Just a thought: The Behringer Wing has a ton of features. You can route anything to anywhere, and it’s very solid. You get a lot of features typically found on high-end mixers for less. However, it lacks in one area: the user interface. It’s not very volunteer-friendly. Remember, most churches do not have a paid sound engineer or a tech team on their side. So, if your sound team is new and consists entirely of volunteers, consider getting the Allen & Heath SQ.

[@collabworship]

Good point.

[@worshipldrcaleb]

We jumped the X32 to the WING in 2021 and have been very happy with it

[@gracenotes5379]

It's worth keeping in mind that it's not just the mixer you're investing in, but the whole eco-system. In terms of cost, the 'whole system' viewpoint strongly favors the Wing, but in terms of quality I would say it favors the SQ, especially when it comes to ME1 vs P16 personal mixers.

[@andygriffiths7230]

I use to think the same about 48k vs 96k that it doesn't make a difference etc. But my mind was soon changed after spending plenty of time mixing at 96k regardless of room acoustics or PA systems. I find the resolution to be far better I'm EQing my input & output channels less also when pushing into the mix I find at 96k my mix sounds cleaner. Just my 2cents

[@petterrong1590]

What specifically is audibly better with 96 kHz that can't be attributed to any other difference in the testing process? Because there is no "better resolution" with 96kHz vs 48kHz. It's already way above hearing range with 48kHz (24 kHz, where listening range is on average between 15-17 kHz). Only latency and non-linear processing will be audibly better with 96kHz, and neither are common for FOH position

[@djfreesoul]

@@petterrong1590 sample rate and frequency range are different things. For me it's like a retina screen vs HD... Just try it with a live band on a good sound and you'll hear it and feel it.

[@petterrong1590]

@@djfreesoul That makes no sense. Samplerate defines the frequency cutoff of the sampled signal. When sampling in 48kHz, the cutoff is 24kHz. There is nothing above there to feel. It's literally outside your hearing range already with 48kHz. You can't compare it with video resolution or retina screen. To hear the difference, you would have to compare the same signal chain in 96kHz and 48 kHz, and I don't know of any console that do this, certainly not SQ. If you need 96kHz for latency reasons, then sure, go ahead. Don't claim that 96kHz somehow sounds "better" (whatever that even means) than 48kHz

[@jack3400]

​@@petterrong1590its because of the nyquist frequency. There are many youtube videos that go into detail

[@petterrong1590]

@@jack3400 What is because of the nyquist frequency? It certainly doesn't sound better because of it, because the nyquist frequency at 48kHz is 24 kHz, which is already way above what you are able to hear. And all converters on modern consoles and stageboxes have anti-aliasing, so no aliasing is introduced at the conversion stage. Wing (and anything else using AES50) samples at 192kHz anyways, so even if there wasn't anti-aliasing, you would need information around at least 367kHz before any aliasing would be even measurable, lot less audible. 96kHz will only be efficient for non-linear processing and lower latency when interfacing with other devices

[@petterrong1590]

Would've loved for a more in-depth comparison, this is very surface level and sounds more like it's directed at non-sound-tech staff at a church, responsible for purchasing only. In terms of input DSP channels, Wing wins big time, 96 vs 48 input DSP. De-esser on every channel vs separately sold license for single de-esser per FX rack (of which you only have 8, including the ones you have to use for FX). 2 seperate fader banks vs 1 fader bank (on all sizes). 3x AES50 ports with 48/48 channels vs 1x SLink which without additional hardware and hubs only allow for maxiumum 40/20. And even another port with StageConnect with up to 32 channels of flexible line-level audio. 16 FX racks vs 8. Different types of EQs vs just stock PEQ. Wing is definitely a better value. Also a correction about the price difference for the 48kHz boxes: You can't add 2x AR2412 to get 48 inputs, as dSnake protocol (which SLink uses when connected with 48kHz boxes) only supports 40 channels, e.g. AR2412 + AB168 for 40/20 system. If you want more, you need an additional SLink I/O card, which is about 300$ and another CAT cable

[@LordBBQX]

One minor note, the A&H SLink port supports 128/128 channels through GX. You can use it with the GX4816 stagebox for 48 inputs, 16 outputs directly, plus it has two DX ports built in for connecting aditional stageboxes/ME systems. Additionally, the DX hub is specifically designed for these situations where you need a large amount of IO, letting you connect up to 8 DX expanders for 128 mic inputs/64 outputs to a single GX port (via SLink), or 4 DX32s for up to 128 inputs OR outputs. GX is also 96K so you do get a nice reduction in latency from running all 96K. Obviously this gets pretty expensive with the A&H solution, but it is very scalable even for such a small desk as the SQ5.

[@petterrong1590]

​@@LordBBQX Yes, but what I commented on was the comparison between the systems. The DX Hub is more expensive than a single DL32, the GX4816 3 times that. And the SQ has half the DSP to use all those channels anyway. Also, AES50 allows for connecting more consoles anywhere in the chain and keeping gain control available for any of them, while the different protocols SLink uses reduces that flexibility considerably. And because it only has one SLink and one I/O port, you can't have multiple lines going to different consoles while doing something else with the I/O card at all, as the hub doesn't support additional GX connections, only DX.

[@sunrisegsd209]

Just moved to the Wing for FOH from an X32. Amazing upgrade.

[@fabiann6851]

Someone who was used both has noted that SQ sounds better? like sweeter than the Behringer? Well, that's what I heard when compared to X32 also, preamps sound quieter on X32 hope that Wing solved all this with the "Midas Pro preamp"

[@FOHGeek]

If you already have some Behringer or Midas equipment like S or DL series stageboxes, then it migh be a nice idea to stick to the same ecosystem and choose Wing. Otherwise A&H SQ is a better idea. More local I/O ports, more faders, more expansion card choices, less picky about Ethernet wiring, more intuitive dBu-based metering...

[@winstonphilip9231]

The sample rate is a latency metric not a sound quality indicator

[@metzger1002]

Thanks for the overview. However, the comparison of 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz was a somewhat unusual way to highlight the differences. In live conditions, it doesn’t really matter whether a mixer operates at 96 kHz or 48 kHz when it comes to sound quality. What does matter, though, is latency. When I switched to a digital mixer for the big band, the singers and drummer hated it due to latency issues. Switching to 96 kHz resolved the problem for them. If you use a digital wireless microphone and a digital wireless IEM system, the latency becomes even more noticeable. You’ll end up with at least 5 ms of latency, and singing or playing drums with 5 ms of latency is not enjoyable. On smaller stages, this issue is exacerbated because you can also hear the sound directly. For example, the Allen & Heath SQ has a latency of 0.7 ms, while the Behringer Wing has 1.47 ms.

[@collabworship]

Good points. Although, with the 1.47ms of the WING, plus the 1.9ms of our EW-D (digital) wireless mics, we are still under the 5ms threshold and have never had any issues at our church. Reducing your latency by 0.7ms is about as negligible as the increased sound quality that you probably won't notice unless you heard them each side by side.

[@josibiasfreitas6025]

Here in Brazil the price of the A&L SQ is double the price of the Wing. And it hasn't been in stock here since the Corona virus pandemic. I asked the official importer and he said he had no forecast for the A&L SQ table

[@collabworship]

Sounds like the WING it is!

[@Kinnor.Home.Studios]

Well received vocal EQ sheet with thanks.

[@biogesicc0808]

i thought you can't chain 2 ar2412s or am i missing something? beginner sq user here

[@frankieamado2449]

What about scalability greater than 48 channels? Jumping into a A&H ecosystem will allow for more channels down the road.

[@robinfox3320]

Thanks Kade! We are Worship Collaborative members so techs will be forwarded to your course for our new board. Since we are upgrading from X32 and have the Behringer Stage Box, we are going with the Wing. We use multiple Shure PM300's for our in ear mix, (6 mixes on 3 transmitters, running mono each transmitter output), so that part of decision making is non issue. What I would love to know is about the Co-Pilot tablet app, and using it to mix our live-stream. We currently use the X32 mix app to mix our in ears and our live stream. Really want to be able and grant limited permissions to LS Techs and Band using tablets for in-ear mixes so they can't mess up other mixes by mistake. Any ideas?

[@lovefirst6157]

Hi robinfox, are you still going to use your behinger x32 after you get the wing because my church would love to have it, we still using a old 2008 analog board with no compressor, limiter, 3 band eq, limited low pass and some broken dials

[@GKB.official]

Why do most professionals prefer the SQ over the wing? I toured for a bit and everyone preferred the Midas and SQ over the Wing.

[@collabworship]

🤷‍♂️ Familiarity maybe?

[@umanzor__07]

Color 💀 but now si black lol

[@blackhillscowboychurch6972]

Where is the SQ mastery course?!?! Waiting on the edge of my seat....

[@collabworship]

Coming out really soon! Currently in the editing process. Sign up to be notified here: collaborateworship.com/sq-mastery/

[@wckoek]

Are the preamps in Behringer Wing better than those in Midas M32? Been looking at it or a used SQ5 at around the same price as a studio desk, the Wing of course have more features but the SQ go up to 96k, better sounding preamps to the Behringer/Midas?

[@collabworship]

We haven't done a side-by-side with those mixers. Worth noting that the A&H ecosystem is more expensive all around. You might get a small increase in audio quality with the preamps and 96k, but is it worth the cost and lack of features for you?

[@wckoek]

@collabworship yes, I don't plan to use it for live, so the stage box and monitor is not necessary for me. Just wondered which one is better for recording alone, sound quality, latency and whether it is easier to mix on the board.

[@collabworship]

@@wckoek You'd probably like the SQ better in that scenario.

[@wckoek]

@@collabworship thanks

[@chemdrum]

Am I insane to say I even possibly prefer the X32 over the SQ? 😂 Lol the SQ is great. Sounds dope and the parameters and processing such as compression sounds great. I think Behringer has me sold on their workflow and routing capabilities over the SQ. Perhaps I may need to just do some more research to dig in deeper on the SQ 🤷🏾‍♂.

[@Reyfox1]

Wing Rack!

[@timschad5810]

SQ7=$6K. SQ6=$5K . .....Wing $3.2K (your links) not really an apple to apple price comparison by any stretch of the imagination...Wing up to 48 stereo channels 16 stereo mix busses 4 stereo busses 8 stereo Matrix 64 ch USB interface, 64ch SD recording, Stage Connect 32ch on 1 XLR interface. . A&H SQ 48 Mono Channels, 12 stereo Aux busses, one stereo master buss, 3 stereo Matrix, no onboard multitrack recording, ... again not a close comparison. 96K does make a substantial sonic difference not sure if the SQ sounds better or not...eco system pricing is vastly different even using Midas DL boxes and Midas M48 PM mixers Tribe again crush 's A&H pricing enough to put it in a completely different comparison category altogether.. Not sure why everyone is trying to even compare these 2 products as being close to an apple to apple comparison because its not even close..

[@collabworship]

Because similar sized churches are choosing between the two a lot of times.

[@XPJV]

Behringer has no quality in any dimension. Enough reason to choose only quality equipment.

[@collabworship]

We never have any quality-related issues with our Behringer equipment. 🤷‍♂

[@XPJV]

@collabworship , I'm talking about the quality in comparison when you buy a Hyundai vehicle or Mercedes. You might not have mechanical issues with the Hyundai, but everyone knows it's quality and the price it costs. Same analogy with the behringer. This is why it's so cheap..

[@kandissmith1425]

Wow

[@djfreesoul]

For me both are great options but I'll choose SQ for the sound. If you think that 96 vs 48 is not a big deal just mix the same band at the same venue and equipment. I hate this MP3-ish harsh hi-end with 48kHz consoles.

[@chaddonal4331]

EQ cramping.

[@Lupellat]

He sounds like a salesman. Either you care about worship and true recommendations or you are selling Behringer….

[@collabworship]

Would you prefer we don't tell you what our preference between the two is?

[@normdurkin6425]

when it starts digitally spazzing out from slightly too humidity at the venue and your impaired band stares at you clueless then can only offer sarcastic comments you might reconsider selling your trusty analog mixer..

[@collabworship]

Had a bad experience with a digital mixer? lol