quiet amp
Markus Gerg
even in idle mode the fan is very noisy. Can anybody name me amps,
that are very quiet in idle mode??? (same price range please)
Markus
Bink
> I´ve bought a QSC RMX1850HD for mainly use in our rehearsal room. But
> even in idle mode the fan is very noisy. Can anybody name me amps,
> that are very quiet in idle mode??? (same price range please)
>
>
> Markus
Ah, too bad you can't use a $1400 amp instead of your $500 one. The
Crown K2 is absolutely silent because it has no fan.
Have you listened to any of the other 2x350w amps in your budget range?
Does your local supplier carry more than one?
I'm guessing you are running two 8 Ohm speakers in your rehearsal room.
What make and model are they?
Here are some other 300-400w amps you might look into. I don't have ANY
info about the relative loudness of their cooling fans. I listed only
stereo 8 Ohm power ratings:
Tapco Juice J1400 -- 2x 310w $400
QSC PLX1602 -- 2x 300w $700
QSC MX1500a -- 2x 350w $1020
Samson S1000 -- 2x 340w $550
Nady SPA1400 -- 2x 300w $300
Mackie M1400 -- 2x 280w $600
Inter-M CM-10.5 -- 2x 340w
Inter-M L1800 -- 2x 360w
Inter-M M-1000 -- 2x 330w $550
EV Q66 -- 2x 360w $700
Crest CA6 -- 2x 400w $950
Crest CPX1500 -- 2x 300w $480
Carver ZR1600 -- 2x 350w $825
Crown XS500 -- 2x 400w $600
Crown CE2000 -- 2x 400w $600
Crown XLS602 -- 2x 370w $440
There are plenty more but I seem to have lost my drive... ;^)
As far as the lowest priced amp I have on this little list, the Nady SPA
line performs remarkably well. I tested an SPA2400 against other very
similarly powerful amps, using very high priced analysis gear, and the
results were impressive for an amp twice the price. Low distortion and
good clarity combined with realistic power ratings on the spec sheet. I
was prepared to see the Nady define the bottom of all of the amplifiers
in the Amp Shootout but it surprised me quite a bit. Is the fan quiet? I
don't remember. Sorry...
-Bink
--
Michael 'Bink' Knowles
bink...@binkster.net
www.binkster.net
Saxology
"Markus Gerg" <marku...@web.de> wrote in message
news:d81c879d.04060...@posting.google.com...
Crown K Series is a good choice but if you want to save some money and don't
mind the look put the current amp in a vented box. As long as the box is
vented with vents larger than the current amp has it will be fine and deaden
the noise (basically put the amp in a more sound-proof enclosure). Put
filters in the intake too. Or, put the amp in another room adjacent and run
a few cables. Basically, sound isolation. Oh, and heat rises so vent at
the intake and the exit & top of the box if you go that way.
-Sax
Tim Perry
"Bink" <binkster...@binkster.net> wrote in message
news:40C1F226...@binkster.net...
> Markus Gerg wrote:
> > I´ve bought a QSC RMX1850HD for mainly use in our rehearsal room. But
> > even in idle mode the fan is very noisy. Can anybody name me amps,
> > that are very quiet in idle mode??? (same price range please)
> >
> >
> > Markus
>
>
> Ah, too bad you can't use a $1400 amp instead of your $500 one. The
> Crown K2 is absolutely silent because it has no fan.
>
> Have you listened to any of the other 2x350w amps in your budget range?
> Does your local supplier carry more than one?
>
> I'm guessing you are running two 8 Ohm speakers in your rehearsal room.
> What make and model are they?
>
> Here are some other 300-400w amps you might look into. I don't have ANY
> info about the relative loudness of their cooling fans. I listed only
> stereo 8 Ohm power ratings:
>
PHASE LINEAR DUAL 500 SERIES 2 a good practice amp because it has no fan
and its too heavy to steal
Bink
> PHASE LINEAR DUAL 500 SERIES 2 a good practice amp because it has no fan
> and its too heavy to steal
Good retro amp -- an oldie but a goodie. This is an eBay suggestion, not
a new amp.
Remember to keep a box of AC line fuses, rail fuses and a fire
extinguisher handy. Seriously!
Tim Perry
> Tim Perry wrote:
> > PHASE LINEAR DUAL 500 SERIES 2 a good practice amp because it has no
fan
> > and its too heavy to steal
>
>
>
> Good retro amp -- an oldie but a goodie. This is an eBay suggestion, not
> a new amp.
>
> Remember to keep a box of AC line fuses, rail fuses and a fire
> extinguisher handy. Seriously!
>
the fire extinguisher will be much easier to steal. and probably get a
better price at the pawnshop,
George Gleason
> even in idle mode the fan is very noisy. Can anybody name me amps,
> that are very quiet in idle mode??? (same price range please)
>
>
hurt my eyes, plus feed it all the signal you want it remains quiet as ever
didn't used to be silent, but it does sound better this way
george
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004
Adair Winter
> My Mackie 1400i is silent. even the lights stay dark, I guess so as not
to
> hurt my eyes, plus feed it all the signal you want it remains quiet as
ever
> didn't used to be silent, but it does sound better this way
> george
>
then.... it hit me.. :)
Adair
George
"Adair Winter" <drumme...@mail.com> wrote:
I put a few in some church installs, thewy all failed
driving the stressful load of 4 JBL contracor T series speakers
screw mackie
George
Saxology
"Adair Winter" <drumme...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:DNpwc.2884$hR6....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
Funny, I thought the same thing.... but I have to say that the Mackie 1400
is very quiet. I was told that there were quality issues with the 1400 for
a while so I didn't get one but I liked the price/performance/low noise.
-Saxology
I felt safer saying that about Mackie as I know that George is a bigger
target than I !!!
liquidator
> As far as the lowest priced amp I have on this little list, the Nady SPA
> line performs remarkably well. I tested an SPA2400 against other very
> similarly powerful amps, using very high priced analysis gear, and the
> results were impressive for an amp twice the price. Low distortion and
> good clarity combined with realistic power ratings on the spec sheet. I
> was prepared to see the Nady define the bottom of all of the amplifiers
> in the Amp Shootout but it surprised me quite a bit.
The Nady is a generic amp manufactured by Sekaku. Marketed by them under the
Show brand name, also marketed as Alto Macro. While it's a decent amp for
the price it is ridiculously heavy by modern stabdards. There are several
chinese Amps even better but stii more heavy. they are still 15-20 years
behind the times as far as weight is concerned. Shipping one of these will
add to the price.
I suggest looking at the Behringer stuff. Similar specs, less weight more
modern design. Same or maybe lower price. Often available with free shipping
which you will NOT find on the Nady et al.
Joel Foner
> PHASE LINEAR DUAL 500 SERIES 2 a good practice amp because it has no fan
> and its too heavy to steal
He he. Until it bursts into flames ;) Ask me how I know... Memories from way
long ago!
Joel
Tim Padrick
find one). You can push them a fair before you'll need any sort of cooling,
so long as they are not boxed in where there is no natural air flow. The K1
sounds better then the K2, so if 2x 350 at 8 Ohms / 2x 550 at 4 Ohms will
suffice, go for the K1. As to cooling, remember that all other thinks being
equal, for a given fan CFM, the bigger the fan the less noisy it will
usually be.
"Saxology" <Saxolo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jfqwc.2605$uX2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Bink
> The Nady is a generic amp manufactured by Sekaku. Marketed by them
under the
> Show brand name, also marketed as Alto Macro. While it's a decent amp for
> the price it is ridiculously heavy by modern stabdards. There are several
> chinese Amps even better but stii more heavy. they are still 15-20 years
> behind the times as far as weight is concerned. Shipping one of these will
> add to the price.
>
> I suggest looking at the Behringer stuff. Similar specs, less weight more
> modern design. Same or maybe lower price. Often available with free shipping
> which you will NOT find on the Nady et al.
While it's true we all taught the Chinese to make amps with our practice
of taking manufacturing there (and then picking up and moving to
Singapore or Korea or elsewhere), at least Nady is selling a licensed
OEM amp made by Sekaku. Behringer, on the other hand, stole the RMX
design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
suboptimized power transformers to save costs. Behringer sucks, man, I
can't believe you would ever buy something made by them... You have to
get into their digital products before you see some decent licensed or
in-house technology. In the analog world their original Composer
compressors, now a decade or so old, are hanging in there pretty well
with the best of them. But that's pretty much it: there's just no way
I'd select a Behringer EP-series amplifier for any application at all.
Too many corners shaved off leaving too many doubts about it lasting for
more than a few weeks or months. And I hate buying from known cheats.
BTW, the weight factor doesn't make an amp 'modern', it just defines a
market segment. There's nothing 'ridiculous' about weight. Higher
thermal capacity usually accompanies increased weight in an amplifier,
and that's good. Cinema and commercial install amps remain quite heavy
because they don't have to travel. Many touring amps are still heavy --
some people select for roadability and sound quality before weight...
But just to play your game for a moment, here are the weights of the
amps we have been talking about:
QSC RMX1450 40 lbs.
QSC RMX1850HD 44.5 lbs.
Behringer EP1500 40.13 lbs.
Behringer EP2500 44.54 lbs.
Nady SPA1400 34.3 lbs.
Nady SPA2400 41.8 lbs.
They're all in the same ballpark, as you can plainly see. You'd have to
go with a Chevin A2000 (25.8 lbs.) or QSC PL218 (21 lbs.) before you get
significantly lighter. And now you are talking about $ome $erious
$cratch. Garden variety weekend musicians need not apply.
liquidator
Behringer, on the other hand, stole the RMX
> design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
> suboptimized power transformers to save costs.
I hear a lot of this but till you offer one shred of evidence it's pure
bullshit. Prove it. More likely the QSC is a chinese design and they come
from the same source. I have torture tested a couple of the Behringer amps-
they work fine. BTW all I have owned for the the last dozen years is QSC PLX
series, except for 2 Powersoft and one lonely Lab Gruppen.
Behringer is NOT rider friendly. However I'd have no qualms about using
them in a B rig.
Bink
> I hear a lot of this but till you offer one shred of evidence it's pure
> bullshit. Prove it.
Fine. I'll try to prove it, but it will take me some time.
liquidator
> liquidator wrote:
> > I hear a lot of this but till you offer one shred of evidence it's pure
> > bullshit. Prove it.
>
>
>
> Fine. I'll try to prove it, but it will take me some time.
>
BTW you ARE correct in that the Sekaku amps do now weigh 41.8 pounds. The
original Sekaku spec sheet I an holding in my hands shows the weight at 53
pounds. Whether this was a running change or only the prototype weighed more
I do not know. You are however incorrect in saying the 2500 weighs 44
pounds. The Behringer spec sheet says 36.8.
Not as signifigant a difference to be sure.
reese thomas
> My Mackie 1400i is silent. even the lights stay dark, I guess so as
> not to hurt my eyes, plus feed it all the signal you want it remains
> quiet as ever didn't used to be silent, but it does sound better this
> way george
>
Alas, it's not just yours. I got into Mackie power in a big way on some
very bad advice many moons ago (bought both 1200s and 1400s) from a sound
pro who should have known better. Expensive lesson both in purchase,
shipping on the many repair trips, and reputation. I couldn't even bring
myself to sell them they were THAT unreliable.
Mackie tech support were great, though. over and over and over and
over.....
Ralph Staub
amps. ;-)
Ralph
George Gleason
> design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
> suboptimized power transformers to save costs. Behringer sucks, man, I
> can't believe you would ever buy something made by them...
This is total bullshit
I know this for a fact after talking with both QSC and Behringer
George
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
George Gleason
> liquidator wrote:
> > I hear a lot of this but till you offer one shred of evidence it's pure
> > bullshit. Prove it.
>
>
>
> Fine. I'll try to prove it, but it will take me some time.
>
left
bring on your proof, I will wait
Bink
>> Behringer, on the other hand, stole the RMX
>>design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
>>suboptimized power transformers to save costs. Behringer sucks, man, I
>>can't believe you would ever buy something made by them...
>
>
> This is total bullshit
> I know this for a fact after talking with both QSC and Behringer
> George
> left
> bring on your proof, I will wait
> George
>
George, I will do what I can to prove it but I don't consider you a
person who will believe any proof I come up with such as photos of the
internal layout and reversed-engineered circuit diagrams. The tone you
give off in your two posts makes it seem like your mind is already made
up. I wonder what your are defending? The odd personal purchasing choice
or your entire business plan? Do you sell Behringer products? Are your
competitors using your Behringer purchases to turn clients away? Just
curious.
Me, I have no axe to grind. If I find out that the Behringer is a
different design then I'll recant to all who'll listen.
Arny Krueger
> George, I will do what I can to prove it but I don't consider you a
> person who will believe any proof I come up with such as photos of the
> internal layout and reversed-engineered circuit diagrams.
Forget about George, if you wish. I'm far more agnostic on the topic. I
don't know about George's technical background, but I've got practical and
business experience with audio component design.
If you've got documentary proof, bring it on.
Bink
Excellent, Arny. Here's the plan: I'll beg or borrow a pair of
similarly-rated amps, one QSC RMX and one Behringer EP. I'll get
together with a local guy or two (AAPLS poster Ray Abbitt comes to mind)
and we'll pull the housings off and photograph the component layouts.
We'll examine critical components for brand names or model numbers. And
we'll try to come up with portions of the circuit diagrams from looking
at the two PCBs, that is, we'll take a quick stab at reverse-engineering
them.
We'll analyze them electronically while pushing a load. Maybe we'll be
able to run them both up to self-protect limits in terms of current
draw. We should be able to compare AC power efficiency fairly easily.
Allowing them both to overheat while measuring internal temperatures
relative to performance would be interesting, too. Test signals should
include some transient spikes -- we'll record the output and see if one
amp differs. Another possible test would be performance during sagging
AC voltage conditions. I guess we could string together hundreds of feet
of small-diameter AC power cable to drop the voltage 15 percent or so.
Of course, we'll give them both a listen through speakers. But previous
experience with radically different amplifier designs such as QSC's
PL9.0PFC versus Crown's 10001 makes me doubt that we'll be able to
distinguish the difference between these two similar amps. No other amps
I tested with QSC's ABX box were easy to separate by ear. The linear
power curves of various amplifiers are simply too similar-sounding.
That should do it! First, though, I'll have to locate and collect the
two amplifiers for a few days.
Arny Krueger
Don't let me hold you back!
George
you will also have to prove it is not a 3rd party oem design bought by
both companies, annd readily avaiable to any other company, to prove
your "ripped off" assertation
George
Bink <binkster...@binkster.net> wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
> >> Behringer, on the other hand, stole the RMX
> >>design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
> >>suboptimized power transformers to save costs. Behringer sucks, man, I
> >>can't believe you would ever buy something made by them...
> >
> >
> > This is total bullshit
> > I know this for a fact after talking with both QSC and Behringer
> > George
> > I have been reading bullshit like this for years, I hopefully have years
> > left
> > bring on your proof, I will wait
> > George
> >
>
> George, I will do what I can to prove it but I don't consider you a
> person who will believe any proof I come up with such as photos of the
> internal layout and reversed-engineered circuit diagrams. The tone you
> give off in your two posts makes it seem like your mind is already made
> up. I wonder what your are defending? The odd personal purchasing choice
> or your entire business plan? Do you sell Behringer products? Are your
> competitors using your Behringer purchases to turn clients away? Just
> curious.
google the thread from rec.audio.pro my position is well stated, I have
been following this stuff with keen alertness for years and when push
comes to shove, there is no proof of any wrong doing on behringers part.
I have personally spoken(face to face with QSc and email to behringer)
with designers from both companies, and both tell me there is nothing to
it
I have nothing to gain by defending a company the is stealing from others
Behringer has been proven over and over again to be without fault to
these baseless assertations , this is why I defend them
prove a company is underhaned slime and I will treat them like I treat
Mackie, who has been shown to be a well below reputable comany in both
quality and business practices .
>
> Me, I have no axe to grind. If I find out that the Behringer is a
> different design then I'll recant to all who'll listen.
>
the axe I grind is the axe of truth , but there can be much more than
shareing a design to prove there was a rip off
consider licesing aggreements, OEM sourcing, even hireing a designer
from the other company
similar is not automatically stolen. used with permission is also not
stolen
the units could be IDENTICAL except for the name plate and not
nessisarly one be a rip off of the other
George
George
Bink
Jim Savery wrote:
> You came out and posted here as if you knew there was some wrongdoing on
> the part of BEHRINGER - just look at your inflammatory Subject line.
> Now it is obvious that you do not know anything of the sort. Any
> attitude you detect now is a result of your choice to post opinion as
> fact, and the disrespect you have earned for that choice.
>
> Now on to your "proof". You'll have to do more than show an opinion of
> similarity or even sameness in PCB layout. It will help if you are a
> lawyer, because you'll also have to prove that:
>
> A) QSC has a protection on said design/layout that excludes the
> BEHRINGER version, and;
> B) The RMX-series is not an OEM-licensed design, like most of the
> condenser mikes and amps coming out of 797 Audio in China these days
George, you and Jim will have to settle for my audio performance review.
I'm no lawyer; I'm a soundguy. I have no desire to try and prove
anything related to legal documents and intellectual property. I only
intend to settle the question of identical PCB layouts and show the
consumer the relative value of buying one of these amps. Does the $300
QSC RMX850 offer something the $300 Behringer EP1500 doesn't? That's all
I'm in for.
Yes, I'm loud and opinionated but I am perfectly able to be turned
around by hard evidence. I held a poor opinion of the Behringer
Ultracurve DSP8024 until I saw how tidy its response curves were as
compared to other cheap graphic EQs. What I don't like about all this
are the times in the past when Behringer has ripped off the BSS DI
design, a couple of Aphex's signal processors and one of Mackie's
mixers. They get away with it, too, especially when the court judgement
doesn't include any penalties. It's an odious business practice, not at
all like a modern-day Robin Hood bringing low prices to the downtrodden.
QSC, BSS, Aphex and Mackie aren't the bad guys. They all run trim and
slim manufacturing efforts and try to get you the lowest price possible.
It's a difficult world out there. Especially if you do your own R&D!
Uli's R&D seems limited to DSP devices even though he puts out a lot of
analog gear that has been proven (by others) in the marketplace.
Footloose dealings with intellectual property combined with Behringer's
infamous history of poor service and customer support is a good reason
NOT to select this manufacturer's products in general. The surprise for
me is to find a few vocal supporters of Behringer. I should think a
larger number would shrug and buy the audio gear which has solid support
from the factory.
It's all fun and games to debate Behringer's business practices but
you'll have to excuse me while I go locate a couple of amplifiers for
audio testing...
reese thomas
news:40C39522...@binkster.net:
> Geo
>
> George, I will do what I can to prove it but I don't consider you a
> person who will believe any proof I come up with such as photos of the
> internal layout and reversed-engineered circuit diagrams...
I for one, would love to see them. I have been listening to arguements
based primarily on cosmetic similarities., The prepondurance of evidence
I've seen seems to support the other side, but if you,ve got some concrete
evidence....
Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility of a generic Chinese
design, or the fact that if QSC desides to manufacture in China under
slave labor conditions , do they in fact deserve a little karma (grin)
The tone you
> give off in your two posts makes it seem like your mind is already made
> up.
This is probably because the augument has been done to death here, with
very little actual evidence on your side. Once again, if you've got some
fresh fuel (grin grin)....
I wonder what your are defending? The odd personal purchasing choice
> or your entire business plan? Do you sell Behringer products? Are your
> competitors using your Behringer purchases to turn clients away? Just
> curious.
Err it's obvious that you are not a longtime reader here. George is
actually a QSC dealer (I've actually purchased some from him in fact) He
runs both QSC PowerLites and and Powersoft, Meyer FOH,as well as being a
founding member of the Million Dollar Snob Club (or something like that) a
group of members who tend to be intolerant of MI grade gear. He's enormousy
helpfull, cheerfull, reverent, brave, and helps little old ladies across
the street....
>
> Me, I have no axe to grind. If I find out that the Behringer is a
> different design then I'll recant to all who'll listen.
Do a Google seach, I've changed my perception on that issue thanks to this
group
Once again welcome, your wisdom and incite (spelling intended) is sorely
needed here.
>
> -Bink
George
Bink <binkster...@binkster.net> wrote:
No, you claimed RIPPED OFF. to me ripped off means STOLEN, are you
backpedalling now to say you see some simillarities but no "ripping off"?
> What I don't like about all this
> are the times in the past when Behringer has ripped off the BSS DI
> design, a couple of Aphex's signal processors and one of Mackie's
> mixers. They get away with it, too, especially when the court judgement
> doesn't include any penalties. It's an odious business practice, not at
> all like a modern-day Robin Hood bringing low prices to the downtrodden.
> QSC, BSS, Aphex and Mackie aren't the bad guys. They all run trim and
> slim manufacturing efforts and try to get you the lowest price possible.
> It's a difficult world out there. Especially if you do your own R&D!
> Uli's R&D seems limited to DSP devices even though he puts out a lot of
> analog gear that has been proven (by others) in the marketplace.
you need to do reserch in how business law operates the courts are the
final arbitrator. If you record a song but fail to copyright it , I am
morally, and legally free to capitolize on that song
there is much you are unaware of, I ave seen the in detail renderings of
the court decisions that showed no wrong donig on behringers part
I have also seen thwe court transcripts(re written in a post ) that
describe how Mackie brought a nusicence suit against behringer over a
mixer and(mackie) was thrown out of court on thier collective asses,
then Mackie requested the documents sealed
>
> Footloose dealings with intellectual property combined with Behringer's
> infamous history of poor service and customer support is a good reason
> NOT to select this manufacturer's products in general. The surprise for
> me is to find a few vocal supporters of Behringer. I should think a
> larger number would shrug and buy the audio gear which has solid support
> from the factory.
Behringer has a solid history of having turned it customer support
issues around years ago and is noew a industry leader in customer support
and your claim of "footloose industry morals is just getting old haveing
been shown to be bullshit sin several threads over the last few years
google Bheringer Vs. Mackie from rec.audio pro look for posts from Mr.
George Perfect, he has done the research, posts the court documents,
circut designs and basically proven beyond a doubt that the slander
against behringer is simply sour grapes by the compitition
you are completely clueless, you believe all this urban legend shit
beacuse , why?
>
> It's all fun and games to debate Behringer's business practices but
> you'll have to excuse me while I go locate a couple of amplifiers for
> audio testing...
>
as I said the units can be identical in parts, circut layout and
performance and still not be "ripped off"
you are claiming theft of design, that is a mighty big charge from
someone who knows so little about this
George
George
> Err it's obvious that you are not a longtime reader here. George is
> actually a QSC dealer (I've actually purchased some from him in fact)
Thanks Reese, I never actually stopped to think what impact on my qsc
dealer ship would be for defending Behringer(which I do not sell)
George
Analogeezer
Well the fact that the EP2500 and RMX2450 are basically the same amp
is no great secret.
If you have actual correct info about parts substitutions I'd love to
hear about it, but since the amps are made in the same factory (the
front panels are ever slightly so different but the back panels are
identical) I don't think it would be all that cost effective to
substitute poorer quality parts, if you are making a run of amps it's
cheaper to make the all the same.
When I researched this I found that both are produced in the same
plant in China...given that I doubt the Chinese manufacturer would
risk losing the QSC account over making "knockoffs" in the same
factory I suspect that what you are suggesting is just more Behringer
bashing.
It's pretty difficult to find an EP2500 for less than the standard
$349 price, whereas you can pretty easily find RMX-2450's for less
than $500.
So basically what you are paying for with QSC is the name brand, the
(likely) better warranty support (Behringer has been sketchy about
this in the past but I hear they are a lot better now), and resale
value.
Behringer has NO RESALE VALUE WHATSOVER, so if you buy the B brand
make sure you don't plan on unloading it.
The QSC on the other hand holds it value very well...crazy as it is
being the same amp, the name on the front panel makes all the
difference.
In my case, the warranty/tech support and the better potential resale
(not to mention it just doesn't look good at gigs to have the B brand
on display...say what you will but there is built in prejudice) tipped
the scales for me in favor of the QSC...at $100 - $150 it was worth it
to me.
If you want the same amp for $100 - $150 less and all you care about
is price, the the EP2500 is a very good value.
They may be heavy but these amps sound pretty damn good to me....go
back 20 years and look at how good $400 power amps were....modern amps
kick ass on them by far.
There is a reason that other than Macintosh stereo stuff, there is no
market for "vintage power amps" (other than the occasional doof that
pays too much for a DC300 on Ebay).
Analogeezer
Saxology
"George" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:g.p.gleason-8D99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In the game of lower cost hardware, Asian companies have made an art of
offering a basic unit to many re-sellers and badge it for them. Small
variations in the cabinet or features (usually a PCB population variant) is
the way of the world. Don't be surprised if all of your loved suppliers do
this on the lower end of their gear and then differentiate themselves at the
higher end. Let's face it, engineering NRE is hard to pay back with the
lower margin end of any business. Offer service and support to
differentiate, etc. This is what everyone is doing, and why not. We all
benefit in that many of a unit gets made and the bugs get worked out faster.
Reliability and easy to get service follows.
So, I hope you find the units are substantially the same.... it is a good
sign. QSC might charge you more for their service or advertising (rider
friendlier) than maybe Behringer, leaving all of us a choice.... pay for
what you really want!
-Sax
Shaun
> I hear a lot of this but till you offer one shred of evidence it's pure
> bullshit. Prove it. More likely the QSC is a chinese design and they come
> from the same source. I have torture tested a couple of the Behringer amps-
> they work fine. BTW all I have owned for the the last dozen years is QSC PLX
> series, except for 2 Powersoft and one lonely Lab Gruppen.
> Behringer is NOT rider friendly. However I'd have no qualms about using
> them in a B rig.
That just goes to show you that one man's "B" is another man's "You've Gotta
Be Kidding"... I wouldn't even consider recommending something like that
for a used-car-lot background music + paging system, knowing that if... I
mean when... it pukes, no biggie; you got what you paid for. Low quality
gear has no place in a professional SR system (especially hire companies).
If you're getting paid for it, you need to have proper tools of the trade.
</MDST mode>
BTW, Bink when you guys compared the CREST 10001 and the QSC PL9, they
weren't being pushed at all, nor loaded down sufficiently, correct? If I
could have made it to the shootout, I'd have had you parallel all those
SPL's and subs, plus the load towers, and get that bad boy down to where it
can dig in to the dirt and really push some wattage. They don't even hint
at changing timbre or dirtying up until you get (the 10k) below 2 ohms at
near full RMS throttle.
--
Shaun Wexler,
MacFOH
http://www.macfoh.com
sh...@macfoh.com
Analogeezer
I must be lucky, as I have two 1400i's and my keyboard player has one
too. I've run them pretty hard and never had a failure, neither has
he.
I've run them as full range PA, monitors, and for lows.
This includes using one for gigs outside driving two ohms a side for
lows (yeah it didn't sound that great but it was sitting in sunlight,
driving two ohms loads below 200 Hz and it didn't even complain.)
My first unit did have a problem out of the box (bad ribbon connector
so one channel didn't work) but beyond that it was fine and the other
two never had a problem.
I bought them though back when the choices in under $500 amps where
pretty limited (and 1400's usually sell for more than I paid).
I will say to be "1400 watts" they are not a very ballsy amp and they
seem to be pretty inefficient...they suck a lot of power but not
nearly as much comes out of the speakers.
Given what they sell for new, and that as a "Mackie" they seem to hold
resale very well, I couldn't recommend them. My QSC's wipe the floor
with them at 2/3's the cost.
Analogeezer
Michael Maclean
> you need to do reserch in how business law operates the courts are the
> final arbitrator. If you record a song but fail to copyright it , I am
> morally, and legally free to capitolize on that song
Hi,
I've been lurking here for a couple of months and have learned quite a
bit, but I don't know anywhere near enough to have input anything
before. I have been forced to learn a bit about copyright recently
though, so I'm sure that the above statement is wrong- the way I
understand it copyright is automatically assigned to whoever creates a
work such as music or a text of some form or whatever. There is no need
to claim it.
If anyone knows better, please let me know.
--
Cheers,
Michael
George
Michael Maclean <no-a...@no-surprises.co.uk> wrote:
this may be true if you actually have recorded it
Lawyers guns and money!!
G
liquidator
"Shaun" <see.sign...@email.address> wrote in message
news:BCE9197E.2568F%see.sign...@email.address...
> On 6/5/04 8:41 PM, liquidator wrote:
>
>
> That just goes to show you that one man's "B" is another man's "You've
Gotta
> Be Kidding"... I wouldn't even consider recommending something like that
> for a used-car-lot background music + paging system, knowing that if... I
> mean when... it pukes, no biggie; you got what you paid for. Low quality
> gear has no place in a professional SR system (especially hire companies).
> If you're getting paid for it, you need to have proper tools of the trade.
>
series either. But I see no problem in using them in a pub system or small
community festival type app. The are certainly no worse than Peavey and
certainly a lot better than Mackie, again I don't use. Economics comes into
play- I would not own PLX series if Powersoft cost the same.
>
> BTW, Bink when you guys compared the CREST 10001 and the QSC PL9, they
> weren't being pushed at all, nor loaded down sufficiently, correct? If I
> could have made it to the shootout, I'd have had you parallel all those
> SPL's and subs, plus the load towers, and get that bad boy down to where
it
> can dig in to the dirt and really push some wattage. They don't even hint
> at changing timbre or dirtying up until you get (the 10k) below 2 ohms at
> near full RMS throttle.
Quite valid. Dave Andrews was very fond of referencing audiophile tests
where people could not discern between amps. These tests were conucted at
low power, one watt I believe. Most of the people in this forum don't run
their amps at one watt.
All said and done- there is nothing wrong with the Behringer amps. They are
as good as any PRO amps that were around only a few short years ago I ran a
2500 pretty hard abd it just laughed at me.
. They are not rider friendly however.
Out of a large stack of riders, there is always a few- mostly jazz groups or
blues acts- where the spec consists of "adequate sound system" IMHO that is
what "B" rigs are for.
Shaun
> Quite valid. Dave Andrews was very fond of referencing audiophile tests
> where people could not discern between amps. These tests were conucted at
> low power, one watt I believe. Most of the people in this forum don't run
> their amps at one watt.
I was really hoping to see the results of the performance testing of the
amps, but the 10001 didn't make it to the shootout on the first day... the
big Crest the used was actually one of mine. W. Mark Hellinger picked it up
here on his way to the event, but had some setbacks (and a helluva long
drive), so it was just used for the A/B/X listening tests against the PL9,
and even at over 120 dB at the listening position it rarely tickled its
Active lites. Also, at higher impedances (which the 10001 isn't rated into)
it doesn't perform as well as when it's loaded down to 2 thru 1 ohms/ch as
per spec's. I think they were running them both at 4 ohms, maybe 2 once?
> All said and done- there is nothing wrong with the Behringer amps. They are
> as good as any PRO amps that were around only a few short years ago I ran a
> 2500 pretty hard abd it just laughed at me.
But you could back over an old CS-800 with your van, spill beer and piss all
over it, plug it into 208v, ground the outputs, and still expect it to do
the gig that night, plus a few more years. Those things were tanks! Um, I
should say they ARE tanks, most still being in use today, somewhere... ;)
> They are not rider friendly however.
Nobody will ever deny that fact. The "big 3" still rule, but switchers are
becoming move prevalent: LabG, Camco, Dig, etc. I still prefer the sound
of real iron. Anyone remember the o'scope comparison between a Mackie 1400
and a Crest 3301 or 4801 that I posted a few years ago? Embarrassing.
> Out of a large stack of riders, there is always a few- mostly jazz groups or
> blues acts- where the spec consists of "adequate sound system" IMHO that is
> what "B" rigs are for.
I guess that I have a different picture of what a "B" rig should constitute:
like 5-7k outdoors or a 3,500 soft-seater, former national, semi-national,
etc. Complete with all standard no-*** disclaimers, but with relaxed desk &
channel count or outboard insert counts, ground stack Ok, etc. BTW, I
forgot my smiley after the MDST tag, last post. ;)
reese thomas
>>.......... I'm sure that the above statement is wrong- the way I
>> a work such as music or a text of some form or whatever. There is no
>> need to claim it.
>>
>> If anyone knows better, please let me know.
>
Hey George . The ONLY thing copywrite registration does is document. No
additional rights are aquired through registration. Your copyrite rights
start from the moment of creation of the work
I participated in a copyrite lawsuit as a witness many moons ago. Part of
the settlement was the sealing of the terms, so I'm unable to post in a
public forum details. The song, while not a classic, would be recognizable
to many on this group. I was present in a studio when the original demo of
the work the derivitive piece was based on was recorded. My only relevent
testimony was to fix the date (studio was long out of business and owner
dead. Luckily for the original writer, a copy of the tape servived.
I was interested in the trial and stuck around after I testified.The Judge
was emphatic in saying during the closing that the tape was only to be
viewed as proof that creation existed, lack of registration should not be
pregidicial (the other attorney was trying to muddy the water by
continually asking the jury "if he (a professional) wrote it , why didn't
he copywrite like he did his other works?") There were several witnesses
like myself who all testified to the date and the fact he was still
creating it during the session.
. It is usually assumed registration of copyrite is proof of creation
barring other evidence. No recording etc is reqired. I've even read
somewhere of anecdotal evidence being used to settle a copyrite suit (an
old blues singer, wish I could remember which.)
>
> Lawyers guns and money!!
Amen
Reese
> G
>
reese thomas
news:d81c879d.04060...@posting.google.com:
> I扉e bought a QSC RMX1850HD for mainly use in our rehearsal room. But
> even in idle mode the fan is very noisy. Can anybody name me amps,
> that are very quiet in idle mode??? (same price range please)
>
Bogen Challenger 100
Shure vocalmaster
Kustom 200
All three of these together when combined should still be under your price
requirements
(sorry, could not possibly resist...)
Ray Abbitt
>I'm no lawyer; I'm a soundguy. I have no desire to try and prove
>anything related to legal documents and intellectual property. I only
>intend to settle the question of identical PCB layouts and show the
>consumer the relative value of buying one of these amps. Does the $300
>QSC RMX850 offer something the $300 Behringer EP1500 doesn't? That's all
>I'm in for.
>
in my 2 cents worth too. I also am not a lawyer. I'm working at being
a sound guy--at a little lower level than Bink, but it's where most of
my current income comes from. On the other hand, I've been an electronic
tech most of my life (starting in the mid 60's when I was still in high
school) and have seen both very similar designs in different cases and
completely different designs in identical cases. (I've also done quite
a bit of troubleshooting and repair-to the component level-without
benefit of schematics.)
>Yes, I'm loud and opinionated but I am perfectly able to be turned
>around by hard evidence. I held a poor opinion of the Behringer
>Ultracurve DSP8024 until I saw how tidy its response curves were as
>compared to other cheap graphic EQs.
And like Bink, I tend to be loud and opinionated too. But I will
admit to having some Behringer equipment in my racks. No power amps
because (aside from the questions about whether it is a copied design
or not) neither of their amps fits my current needs. On the other hand,
I've been using a DEQ2496 for a couple of months and really like it.
And I've got a DCX2496 coming for evaluation. I suspect (judging by
my results with the DEQ) that I'm going to like it too.
>What I don't like about all this are the times in the past when
>Behringer has ripped off the BSS DI design, a couple of Aphex's
>signal processors and one of Mackie's mixers.
And this bothers me too. We are in an industry where intellectual
property is important. I would really like to think that Behringer
has seen the error of their ways. But I don't know the facts either
way.
>They get away with it, too, especially when the court judgement
>doesn't include any penalties. It's an odious business practice, not at
>all like a modern-day Robin Hood bringing low prices to the downtrodden.
>QSC, BSS, Aphex and Mackie aren't the bad guys. They all run trim and
>slim manufacturing efforts and try to get you the lowest price possible.
>It's a difficult world out there. Especially if you do your own R&D!
>Uli's R&D seems limited to DSP devices even though he puts out a lot of
>analog gear that has been proven (by others) in the marketplace.
>
And it's really too bad. Because I've liked what I've seen of the DSP
stuff. (Even the older feedback destroyers weren't bad once you got
past the shortcomings of the manual--I've used one quite a bit as a
fixed notch/parametric)
>Footloose dealings with intellectual property combined with Behringer's
>infamous history of poor service and customer support is a good reason
>NOT to select this manufacturer's products in general. The surprise for
>me is to find a few vocal supporters of Behringer. I should think a
>larger number would shrug and buy the audio gear which has solid support
>from the factory.
OK, this is one place where I do have personal experience (not with my
own equipment, but with a friends). Behringer is making great efforts
to improve service and customer support and the effort shows.
>It's all fun and games to debate Behringer's business practices but
>you'll have to excuse me while I go locate a couple of amplifiers for
>audio testing...
And now I've shown my (lack of) pedigree on the issue. Neither I nor
Bink has any reason to be anything but honest in our appraisal of the
equipment. Now, as soon as one or the other of us finds them, maybe we
can put part of this issue to rest. In the meantime, I'm going to
(finally) get to hear some Yorkville U-15's next weekend. It may be
an expensive weekend.
-ray
Ray Abbitt
Saxology <Saxolo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In the game of lower cost hardware, Asian companies have made an art of
>offering a basic unit to many re-sellers and badge it for them. Small
>variations in the cabinet or features (usually a PCB population variant) is
Interestingly enough, assuming that Behringers photographs are of
the interior of a real unit, there is more of a difference than PCB
population. But until I see the inside of a real unit...... Let's just
say that if what I saw was true, they could have easily made their amp
a lot less similar on the outside.
>So, I hope you find the units are substantially the same.... it is a good
>sign. QSC might charge you more for their service or advertising (rider
>friendlier) than maybe Behringer, leaving all of us a choice.... pay for
>what you really want!
Depends on how substantially. If they are using the same output devices,
I would expect the circuitry around them to be almost identical. Right
down to component values. Probably pretty much exactly the semiconductor
manufacturer's suggested design. As far as mechanically, well a lot of
that could be identical too. I suspect that you will find identical
heatsink extrusions (bought from an outside source--these are a pretty
standard item) among other things. On the other hand, if the input and
protection stages are identical, I wouldn't find it to be such a good
sign. If the boards were identical, then I would be highly unlikely to
ever buy any Behringer product unless there was a damn good explanation.
-ray
Ray Abbitt
Analogeezer <analo...@aerosolkings.com> wrote:
>
>Well the fact that the EP2500 and RMX2450 are basically the same amp
>is no great secret.
>
>If you have actual correct info about parts substitutions I'd love to
>hear about it, but since the amps are made in the same factory (the
>front panels are ever slightly so different but the back panels are
>identical) I don't think it would be all that cost effective to
>substitute poorer quality parts, if you are making a run of amps it's
>cheaper to make the all the same.
That's interesting because Behringer claims that they are NOT made in
the same factory.
>When I researched this I found that both are produced in the same
>plant in China...given that I doubt the Chinese manufacturer would
>risk losing the QSC account over making "knockoffs" in the same
>factory I suspect that what you are suggesting is just more Behringer
>bashing.
So document your research. PLEASE. It conflicts with what both Behringer
and QSC employees have said. And keep in mind, I'm not a Behringer basher
per se. I even own some Behringer equipment.
I'm very serious. I'd like to see this issue put to rest once and for
all. If you have (documented) proof that they are built in the same
factory, put it on the table where everybody can see. In the meantime,
hopefully Bink and myself will get our hands on representative samples
of each amp and dissect them and see how much the same or different they
really are. (And yes, there will be pictures and yes they will be made
public.)
-ray
Kurt Albershardt
>
> I will admit to having some Behringer equipment in my racks.
> I've been using a DEQ2496 for a couple of months and really like it.
> And I've got a DCX2496 coming for evaluation. I suspect (judging by
> my results with the DEQ) that I'm going to like it too.
These are the two items in their line which have most aroused my curiosity--I look forward to your report when you have one.
Bink
> I was really hoping to see the results of the performance testing of the
> amps, but the 10001 didn't make it to the shootout on the first day... the
> big Crest the used was actually one of mine. W. Mark Hellinger picked it up
> here on his way to the event, but had some setbacks (and a helluva long
> drive), so it was just used for the A/B/X listening tests against the PL9,
> and even at over 120 dB at the listening position it rarely tickled its
> Active lites. Also, at higher impedances (which the 10001 isn't rated into)
> it doesn't perform as well as when it's loaded down to 2 thru 1 ohms/ch as
> per spec's. I think they were running them both at 4 ohms, maybe 2 once?
All too true, Shaun, the most we drove the ABX testing was a combination
of one 2 Ohm silicon oven resistor paralleled with one 4 Ohm SPL TD-1
per channel. That's, oh, 2-point-something Ohms and isn't really much of
a stress test. Did you know that the venue was smallish? We were all
within about twenty and forty feet of the drivers. We didn't want to
burn our ears up for some six hours of testing! If the venue were
amphitheater-sized, we could have opened up the throttle and let 'er rip.
> I guess that I have a different picture of what a "B" rig should constitute:
> like 5-7k outdoors or a 3,500 soft-seater, former national, semi-national,
> etc. Complete with all standard no-*** disclaimers, but with relaxed desk &
> channel count or outboard insert counts, ground stack Ok, etc. BTW, I
> forgot my smiley after the MDST tag, last post. ;)
Yeah, but you are a real muscle-car fanatic in terms of corraling the
right amount of amplifier power from the get-go. Playing with your rig
must be a real pleasure -- too bad I haven't been up to visit your
little patch of Hell's Gate. There are too many scrawny
bean-counter-style rigs out there, let me tell you. Minimum ratings on
spec sheets accepted as gospel and minimum headroom for transients. Ugh.
More power to ya (but save some for the rest of us) -
Bink
> ... Neither I nor
> Bink has any reason to be anything but honest in our appraisal of the
> equipment. Now, as soon as one or the other of us finds them, maybe we
> can put part of this issue to rest. In the meantime, I'm going to
> (finally) get to hear some Yorkville U-15's next weekend. It may be
> an expensive weekend.
Really? Where will you be when you audition the U-15's, Ray? I'm already
booked most of next weekend. You lucky stiff...
As far as getting the amps together, I am still at square one. I'll let
you know if there's any progress. I don't need to spend $600 just to buy
them both and settle the question of circuit layout and performance. I'm
not that fanatic about the whole issue! I'll try and find some local
owners who are willing to play along.
Later -
George
>
> I'm very serious. I'd like to see this issue put to rest once and for
> all. If you have (documented) proof that they are built in the same
> factory, put it on the table where everybody can see. In the meantime,
> hopefully Bink and myself will get our hands on representative samples
> of each amp and dissect them and see how much the same or different they
> really are. (And yes, there will be pictures and yes they will be made
> public.)
>
> -ray
respectfully even if they are the exact same amp , this does not
automatically lend credence to one being a rip off of the other
George
George
> And now I've shown my (lack of) pedigree on the issue. Neither I nor
> Bink has any reason to be anything but honest in our appraisal of the
> equipment. Now, as soon as one or the other of us finds them, maybe we
> can put part of this issue to rest. In the meantime, I'm going to
> (finally) get to hear some Yorkville U-15's next weekend. It may be
> an expensive weekend.
>
> -ray
proving they are the same amp does not prove underhanded business
practice.
George
George
> them both and settle the question of circuit layout and performance. I'm
> not that fanatic about the whole issue!
you sure played the part when you shot off your big mouth about
something you haven't a clue too
George
George
> protection stages are identical, I wouldn't find it to be such a good
> sign. If the boards were identical, then I would be highly unlikely to
> ever buy any Behringer product unless there was a damn good explanation.
>
> -ray
and how do you come to this conclusion?
OEM stuff is everywhere as are oem suppliers, none of this establishes
ripping off or dishonest business.
George
Arny Krueger
> Quite valid. Dave Andrews was very fond of referencing audiophile
> tests where people could not discern between amps. These tests were
> conducted at low power, one watt I believe. Most of the people in this
> forum don't run their amps at one watt.
I'm familiar the details of a large number of "audiophile tests" of power
amps. I set up a number of the tests myself, and people I know well set up
many others. I don't know where this "one watt" number came from because
the actual tests were done a a variety of power levels. However, amplifier
clipping was avoided.
Ironically, one of the areas that some of these tests covered were related
to widespread beliefs that good quality power amplifiers (e.g. Crown, QSC)
designed for sound reinforcement use were "too dirty" to use with expensive
audiophile speakers.
Arny Krueger
>
> Nobody will ever deny that fact. The "big 3" still rule, but
> switchers are becoming move prevalent: LabG, Camco, Dig, etc. I
> still prefer the sound of real iron. Anyone remember the o'scope
> comparison between a Mackie 1400 and a Crest 3301 or 4801 that I
> posted a few years ago? Embarrassing.
No relevant references to any posts or online articles involving these three
model numbered amplifiers appear to exist anyplace that google can find.
Can you help me out here with a URL?
Arny Krueger
> All too true, Shaun, the most we drove the ABX testing was a
> combination of one 2 Ohm silicon oven resistor paralleled with one 4
> Ohm SPL TD-1 per channel. That's, oh, 2-point-something Ohms and
> isn't really much of a stress test. Did you know that the venue was
> smallish? We were all within about twenty and forty feet of the
> drivers. We didn't want to burn our ears up for some six hours of
> testing! If the venue were amphitheater-sized, we could have opened
> up the throttle and let 'er rip.
I question the real-world relevance of listening tests involving pure
resisitive loads, becuase they tend to stress the power supplies and heat
sinks of of power amps to a far greater degree than real-world speaker
loads. True, there are speaker loads that go down to 2 ohms at selected
frequencies, but music is a broadband signal that is constantly varying.
Arny Krueger
> Ray Abbitt wrote:
>> I've been using a DEQ2496 for a couple of months and really like it.
>> And I've got a DCX2496 coming for evaluation. I suspect (judging by
>> my results with the DEQ) that I'm going to like it too.
> These are the two items in their line which have most aroused my
> curiosity--I look forward to your report when you have one.
While it doesn't relate to SR directly, a friend of mine who is pretty
well-known in AES circles, David Clark of DLC Design
http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/ has been examining, testing and is now using
the DCX2496 for the past few months. Previously, his group did a lot of work
with the Rane programmable digital crossovers/processors such as the Rane
RPM-22, and other competitive higher-end products.
Mike Tulley
<g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>you need to do reserch in how business law operates the courts are the
>final arbitrator. If you record a song but fail to copyright it , I am
>morally, and legally free to capitolize on that song
WRONG!
and it damages your credibility to post this mistaken opinion.
Here is a URL for the Berne Convention on Copyright
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
The U.S. finally signed onto the Berne Convention in 1989.
Here's a more readable digest of the rules:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/
My copyright of the original portions of this post (few as they may
be) exists as of now. I hereby freely abandon my copyright. Do with it
as you will.
Mike T.
George
Mike Tulley <mkt...@invalid.telusplanet.net> wrote:
yes I understand my mistake was using the copyright example, I should
have used a patent example, which laws are vastly diffrent
everybody makes mistakes Mike, it is how you deal with the mistakes that
affect your cred. no one is infalliable
Do with it as you will
Peace
george
Bink
Arny, I looked at your reactive speaker load design prior to my recent
Amp Shootout but I decided not to build it. My first concern was the
power handling ability -- I was going to have to build a bunch of these
in order to handle the 200v rails of the largest amplifiers. I didn't
have the time for that, and I received much expert advice against using
any combination of inductive/capacitative loads that were arrived at
artificially. The mfr R&D guys I talked to said a pure resistive element
would be fine.
I felt that one 2 Ohm resistive load coupled to one normal 4 Ohm speaker
was enough of an uphill workout for the amplifier. It wasn't! What a
test like this really needed was an array of speakers comprising a 2 Ohm
(or 1.33 Ohm) load turned up whopping loud so that the amps' true nature
comes out. Another choice is to put a group of speakers in a soundproof
room paralleled with one that you are listening to.
At the level of live sound I'm most interested in there are very few
speakers with passive internal crossovers. Every driver is amped in its
own bandpass. In that case, using actual speakers in ported boxes or
horns as reactive loads is superior to using an inductive/capacitative
passive load.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Bink wrote:
>>> All too true, Shaun, the most we drove the ABX testing was a
>>> combination of one 2 Ohm silicon oven resistor paralleled with one 4
>>> Ohm SPL TD-1 per channel. That's, oh, 2-point-something Ohms and
>>> isn't really much of a stress test. Did you know that the venue was
>>> smallish? We were all within about twenty and forty feet of the
>>> drivers. We didn't want to burn our ears up for some six hours of
>>> testing! If the venue were amphitheater-sized, we could have opened
>>> up the throttle and let 'er rip.
>> I question the real-world relevance of listening tests involving pure
>> resisitive loads, becuase they tend to stress the power supplies and
>> heat sinks of of power amps to a far greater degree than real-world
>> speaker loads. True, there are speaker loads that go down to 2 ohms
>> at selected frequencies, but music is a broadband signal that is
>> constantly varying.
> Arny, I looked at your reactive speaker load design prior to my recent
> Amp Shootout but I decided not to build it. My first concern was the
> power handling ability -- I was going to have to build a bunch of
> these in order to handle the 200v rails of the largest amplifiers.
Nahh, just upsize the voltage (capacitors) and power ratings (resistors) on
what was there. Actually, the schematic gives no voltage or power ratings
for the parts, except by implication (the parts source). For your
application 600 volt caps and some serious bucks spent on physically big NI
resistors would seem to be in order. The prototype showed that the most
stress was felt by the 20 watt resistors, even as paralleled. The MKII
version has 50 and 200 watt resistors. The air core chokes seem to run cool,
and if the iron-core choke saturates, it just acts more like a real-world
speaker!
It was the thermal aspects of operating this load that initially led to the
thinking in my comment about pure resistive loads being unrealistic.
Compared to my bench resistive load (16 200 watt NI resistors that get HOT),
even the MKII version of the speaker simulator is pretty wimpy. Except, it
doesn't overheat, so its just fine.
> I didn't have the time for that, and I received much expert advice
> against using any combination of inductive/capacitive loads that
> were arrived at artificially.
Good advice, but irrelevant. The load was arrived at by means of a study of
real-world speakers.
> The mfr R&D guys I talked to said a
> pure resistive element would be fine.
Well, it suits their agenda!
> I felt that one 2 Ohm resistive load coupled to one normal 4 Ohm
> speaker was enough of an uphill workout for the amplifier.
It's too much.
>It wasn't!
Say what?
> What a test like this really needed was an array of speakers
> comprising a 2 Ohm (or 1.33 Ohm) load turned up whopping loud so that
> the amps' true nature comes out.
That's one nice thing about loads that don't convert much energy to sound.
BTW, the PCABX/PCAVTech dummy load is not completely silent when used at
higher power levels. The coils sing a bit. But, its not ear-splitting loud.
> Another choice is to put a group of
> speakers in a soundproof room paralleled with one that you are
> listening to.
There's also the matter of handling continuous power, which is not an area
of strength for many speakers. Then there are the equipment costs.
> At the level of live sound I'm most interested in there are very few
> speakers with passive internal crossovers. Every driver is amped in
> its own bandpass. In that case, using actual speakers in ported boxes
> or horns as reactive loads is superior to using an
> inductive/capacitive passive load.
Live sound speakers are very often two-way, which fits pretty well with the
PCABX/PCAVTech simulating either a tweeter or a woofer.
Glenn Dowdy
"George" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:g.p.gleason-1B6D...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
And they don't even have to be made in the same factory to be of the same
origin. The RMX and EP1500 could both be from the same reference design
developed by say, a Taiwanese engineering firm, and then independently taken
to production in two different low cost factories in China.
Glenn D.
Arny Krueger
Just guessing here, but I strongly suspect that we'll find that there are
two vastly different schematics for the Behr and the QSC.
Analogeezer
Well I read it on the internet, doesn't that make it true? <g>
I'll have to find the link but some guy did a thorough review of the
EP2500, and pulled the top panel off and took pix.
I compared these to the PIX on the QSC site and all the boards and
components looked identical and were in the same places, save the
power switch.
I wouldn't say it is a 100% the same amp, but just looking at it you
can tell they are made in the same place, the back panels are
identical, that's for sure.
I'll see if I can find that web page review and post it here.
Analogeezer
Ray Abbitt
Bink <binkster...@binkster.net> wrote:
>Ray Abbitt wrote:
>> ... Neither I nor
>> Bink has any reason to be anything but honest in our appraisal of the
>> equipment. Now, as soon as one or the other of us finds them, maybe we
>> can put part of this issue to rest. In the meantime, I'm going to
>> (finally) get to hear some Yorkville U-15's next weekend. It may be
>> an expensive weekend.
>
>Really? Where will you be when you audition the U-15's, Ray? I'm already
>booked most of next weekend. You lucky stiff...
>
order. They won't be too stressed because he is using them for a swing
dance event, but it will give me some idea. He's already offered to demo
them on whatever I want, but I think this will tell me what I want to
know. Especially since he is running them bi-amped with a dsp (DR260 I
think) which would be my intention too.
>As far as getting the amps together, I am still at square one. I'll let
>you know if there's any progress. I don't need to spend $600 just to buy
>them both and settle the question of circuit layout and performance. I'm
>not that fanatic about the whole issue! I'll try and find some local
>owners who are willing to play along.
My feelings exactly. They don't fit with my system (and if I end up buying
half a dozen U15's I'm going to be pretty strapped for cash for a while).
I'll probably stick with my existing Crowns and E&W for amps. (Along with
occasional rental of a Peavey GPS3500 or two if I need more power for subs)
-ray
Ray Abbitt
George <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On the other hand, if the input and
>> protection stages are identical, I wouldn't find it to be such a good
>> sign. If the boards were identical, then I would be highly unlikely to
>> ever buy any Behringer product unless there was a damn good explanation.
>and how do you come to this conclusion?
>OEM stuff is everywhere as are oem suppliers, none of this establishes
>ripping off or dishonest business.
Because Behringer has stated publicly that they aren't the same. And that
they no longer use OEM stuff but have everything built in "their own
factory" in China. That's why I said there would have to be a damn good
explanation.
-ray
Ray Abbitt
Analogeezer <analo...@aerosolkings.com> wrote:
>
>Well I read it on the internet, doesn't that make it true? <g>
>
>I'll have to find the link but some guy did a thorough review of the
>EP2500, and pulled the top panel off and took pix.
>
I assume came from Behringer.
>I compared these to the PIX on the QSC site and all the boards and
>components looked identical and were in the same places, save the
>power switch.
And the only (internal) pictures I could find on the QSC site were
in a service bulletin and showed only the Channel B/Input board. And
there is a fairly noticeable difference between that and what is in
the EP2500 picture that was posted on the LAB.
-ray
Arny Krueger
> I'll have to find the link but some guy did a thorough review of the
> EP2500, and pulled the top panel off and took pix.
Here's an EP1500 cut-away:
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/fa/129/0
> I compared these to the PIX on the QSC site and all the boards and
> components looked identical and were in the same places, save the
> power switch.
One of the public access internals pix I've found of an RMX is at:
http://198.65.154.221/support/library/bulletin/rmx0007.pdf
Similar - power amp circuit board with heat sink running its full length
Different - QSC LEDs are mounted horizontally and Behr LEDs are mounted
vertically.
Similar - Layout of QSC power amp circuit card agrees with a chassis
configuration like the Behr
However, I see nothing that suggests that any unique features of the
circuitry of one is similar or indentical to the other. These are all just
gross over-all similarities.
http://forum.licht-geluid.nl/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=7252
compare the back panels which are highly similar.
Here are some better pix of the RMX output modules:
http://www.qscstore.com/rmxmodas.html
shows the RMX output modules from serveral models and several angles. They
are remarkably similar the corresponding module shown in the the interior
picture of the EP1500, above.
I've seen schematics of a number of RMX amps, and if someone would point me
that the corresponding Behr schematics, I could give an opinon as to their
similarity or differences.
IMO, the QSC RMX amps figuratively have "This is a QSC design" written all
over them. If you've seen the schematics of their earlier amps, you've
effectively seen these. The family resemblence is striking. No way is this
an OEM or "off-the-shelf" design.
Glenn Dowdy
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:vcqdnZnunJw...@comcast.com...
> Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> > And they don't even have to be made in the same factory to be of the
> > same origin. The RMX and EP1500 could both be from the same reference
> > design developed by say, a Taiwanese engineering firm, and then
> > independently taken to production in two different low cost factories
> > in China.
>
> Just guessing here, but I strongly suspect that we'll find that there are
> two vastly different schematics for the Behr and the QSC.
>
Wouldn't surprise me. They don't even weight the same. 34.6 lbs and 36.6 lbs
for the EP1500/2500 vs. 40 lbs and 44.5 lbs for the RMX 1450/2450
Glenn D.
Denny Conn
> My Mackie 1400i is silent. even the lights stay dark, I guess so as not to
> hurt my eyes, plus feed it all the signal you want it remains quiet as ever
> didn't used to be silent, but it does sound better this way
> george
Sounds like a great mod, George..maybe Mackie will apply it to all their
stuff! ;)
-------->Denny
--
Life begins at 60 - 1.060, that is.
Reply to denny_dot_g_dot_conn_at_ci_dot_eugene_dot_or_dot_us
Shaun
> No relevant references to any posts or online articles involving these three
> model numbered amplifiers appear to exist anyplace that google can find.
> Can you help me out here with a URL?
Article:
www.google.com/groups?selm=B7FE3BA7.1025%25see.signature.for%40email.address
Image:
www.skwdev.com/pics/mackie1400.jpg
--
Shaun Wexler,
MacFOH
http://www.macfoh.com
sh...@macfoh.com
timerak
Bink wrote in message <40C48537...@binkster.net>...
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Bink wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All too true, Shaun, the most we drove the ABX testing was a
>>>combination of one 2 Ohm silicon oven resistor paralleled with one 4
>>>Ohm SPL TD-1 per channel. That's, oh, 2-point-something Ohms and
>>>isn't really much of a stress test. Did you know that the venue was
>>>smallish? We were all within about twenty and forty feet of the
>>>drivers. We didn't want to burn our ears up for some six hours of
>>>testing! If the venue were amphitheater-sized, we could have opened
>>>up the throttle and let 'er rip.
So how did you like the SPL TD-1's?
Bink
> Nahh, just upsize the voltage (capacitors) and power ratings (resistors) on
> what was there.
You are right, I could have done that. I guess some pretty spendy and
hard-to-find parts would be involved. That, or smaller values ganged
together. The highest output I was expecting to see from an amplifier
was going to be 200v rails at about 9kw steady state or 18kw clipped
burst. Very heavy duty! Daunting...
>
> It was the thermal aspects of operating this load that initially led to the
> thinking in my comment about pure resistive loads being unrealistic.
> Compared to my bench resistive load (16 200 watt NI resistors that get HOT),
> even the MKII version of the speaker simulator is pretty wimpy. Except, it
> doesn't overheat, so its just fine.
The two resistor solutions I came up with didn't have any problems with
thermal capacity. We kept slamming these things with rippin' clipped
signal every few seconds and they didn't heat up so much that you
couldn't hold your hand on them. The pair of unique solutions I'm
talking about are two 4 Ohm, 46A, 8,200w grid resistors made by Avtron
in Ohio and two 2 Ohm, 600v silicon wafer kilns that were cast off
(read: free) from a high-tech silicon chip fabrication firm here in the
SF Bay Area. I never found out the kilns' capacity for power -- it was
far more than we needed. The damn thing would be okay at 1300 degrees
Celsius! Here are some photos of the load resistors. The tall steel
cylindrical kilns look copper-clad in the sunset light and the grid
resistors are gray rectangular steel housings the size of a roomy breadbox:
http://www.binkster.net/images/ResistorLoads.jpg
http://www.binkster.net/images/wafer_kiln_interior.jpg
>
>>I didn't have the time for that, and I received much expert advice
>>against using any combination of inductive/capacitive loads that
>>were arrived at artificially.
>
>
> Good advice, but irrelevant. The load was arrived at by means of a study of
> real-world speakers.
I know that your load is very much related to real world speakers -- I
read your webpage about the circuit design. I'm just telling you what
kind of advice I was getting at the time.
>
>
>>The mfr R&D guys I talked to said a
>>pure resistive element would be fine.
>
>
> Well, it suits their agenda!
They all knew I wasn't going to give any one of them special
consideration. Surprisingly, very little psychological jockeying for
position took place. I didn't get the impression any of them had an
agenda regarding avoiding capacitative loads -- I got the impression it
was more a matter of ignorance. None of them had ever bothered to
simulate a speaker's capacitative/resistive/inductive signature in a
high-power passive box. They spoke of using primarily resistive elements
back in their labs; things like baseboard heaters, ganged water heater
elements (cooled in water, of course), ganged range-top stove elements
cooled in oil, portable space heaters, banks of smaller wirewound
resistors from Ohmite or Vishay, etc. I should have listened more
carefully to Mike Wolfe at Audio Precision who said that a
capacitative/inductive load wouldn't bother the AP2722 analyzer one bit.
>
>
>>I felt that one 2 Ohm resistive load coupled to one normal 4 Ohm
>>speaker was enough of an uphill workout for the amplifier.
>
>
> It's too much.
Too much for most amps, not enough for the Crest 10001. We used 4 Ohms
per side for nearly all tests, and only went with 2 Ohm paralleled with
4 Ohm for the QSC PL9.0PFC and Crest 10001.
A number of amplifiers (such as the Crest 8001) would have gone into
self-protection when faced with such a low impedance load. IIRC, the
8001 low impedance limit is 1.8 Ohms. Below that point the amplifier's
circuitry reduces the gain and hold the input signal relatively free
from distortion except for some amplitude modulation at the reduced
output. Not a huge problem for 2.67 Ohm loads that have occasional dips
below 1.8 Ohms but yes, a BIG problem for loads with an average
resistance which stays below 1.8 Ohms for much of the time.
>>What a test like this really needed was an array of speakers
>>comprising a 2 Ohm (or 1.33 Ohm) load turned up whopping loud so that
>>the amps' true nature comes out.
>
>
> That's one nice thing about loads that don't convert much energy to sound.
> BTW, the PCABX/PCAVTech dummy load is not completely silent when used at
> higher power levels. The coils sing a bit. But, its not ear-splitting loud.
>
Yeah, the grid resistors sang, too, an awful tinny sound. The wafer kiln
I was using didn't sing; at least, it didn't sing audibly with a Crown
MT600 bridged into it. Larger amplifier testing was so engrossing that
nobody went outside to the loading dock to listen to the kilns. We all
wanted to hear the SPL TD-1 speakers!
Thanks for offering your viewpoint -
Bink
> So how did you like the SPL TD-1's?
They rocked! Clear transients and very clean high end gave the stereo
listening cuts every bit of breathing room and 'space' that you would
want. Handclaps and percussion toys sounded like the musician was in the
room. No peaks or valleys to tire your ears. Beaucoups power up and down
the frequency range. We didn't bi- or tri-amp them, we listened in
full-range mode using the internal passive crossovers. Usually, passive
crossovers are a compromise position between various ideal goals. The
SPL-TD1 crossover is a masterpiece that allows transients and every bit
of beef to be transferred with excellent clarity and realism. Stop me
before I start drooling... The only thing you might not like about these
speakers is the cost! Dude, they were awesome.
Ray Abbitt says he's going to audition a set of Yorkville U15 speakers
this weekend. They are like the "Son Of" version using SPL-TD1
technology licensed from Servodrive/Sound Physics Labs. More affordable,
and probably within a few points of the original SPL-TD1 sound.
The SPL-TD1 has every single driver (all 7!) co-entrant to the horn for
extremely coherent sound and near-ideal coupling in an array. The
Yorkville U15 and U215 have the mids and HF co-entrant to the horn but
the big woofers are outside the horn. Good performance, but I would need
to see/hear an array of them before I was able to say for sure that they
couple as neatly as the SPL-TD1. Early reports say that the U15 single
woofer is overmatched by the four drivers in the horn. The U215 is more
balanced with, you guessed it, two 15" ported drivers on LF duty.
Whatever: it's the co-entrant horn that makes these puppies so attractive.
Links:
http://www.yorkville.com/products.asp?type=29&cat=38
http://www.servodrive.com/SPL-td1.html
George Gleason
> speakers is the cost! Dude, they were awesome.
why they are only around 2K$ a box , way down on the list of expensive pro
stock IMO almost MI priced
you want overpriced crap check out the Vertec's
or way overpriced excellent kit see the Meyer Milo
george
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
George Gleason
> you want overpriced crap check out the Vertec's
I am only talking about the biggest (2x15) vertecs I do not know if the
smaller ones sound as bad as the big ones
reese thomas
>
>> My Mackie 1400i is silent. even the lights stay dark....,
> Sounds like a great mod, George..maybe Mackie will apply it to all
> their stuff! ;)
>
>
It was standard on their power amps for quite a while, sometimes it took a
couple of months for that feature to enable
Ralph Staub
>>you want overpriced crap check out the Vertec's
>
>
> I am only talking about the biggest (2x15) vertecs I do not know if the
> smaller ones sound as bad as the big ones
> george>
We've got 24 of the VT4888's (2x12") and IMHO, they're the finest
sounding medium size venue cabinet I have ever worked with. I've had
both good and bad with the VT4889's (2x15"). We've rented them from
other companies. IME, the success or failure of the Vertecs is wholly
dependent on proper execution.
The first time we used them, it was the rental companies proprietary DSP
settings and we didn't have the calculator spreadsheet. Sounded like
complete garbage. Next time, it was the same cab's, same venue, our DSP
with JBL factory specs, and JBL spreadsheet followed to the letter.
Absolutely the best I've ever heard in that venue.
I have heard and seen a lot of line array systems applied in a fashion
that is not conducive to a quality sound. With the Point Source arrays,
many contractors have been using the technique of educated guessing
(often with better results than those who rely on their calculators...)
for one-off events for quite some time, as the math and analysis you
"should" do is far too labor intensive and cost prohibitive (installs
are another story). "Guesstimating" is not appropriate for a line array
system, however.
In point source systems, the concept is more like zone coverage. Each
speaker fills a space, and sound goes where you point the speaker. With
a line array, all the cabinets operate as one speaker. The angles
between the boxes shape the vertical coverage pattern to fit the venue.
You can be directly on axis with a single cabinet and still be
completely out of the coverage pattern. With every array, you are
building a single speaker cabinet with a customized coverage pattern for
that venue. The math is quite complex. Using the old point-n-shoot
method pretty much guarantees a total disaster for line array applications.
In contrast, the JBL Vertec spreadsheet is such an accurate tool (when
utilized properly), I've found that every time I've made even a slight
variance to the settings (because I thought I was smarter than the
spreadsheet), the sound was compromised. I have come to rely on it
implicitly.
I just did a one for Smash Mouth yesterday in a horrid venue (Ronald
Reagan International Trade Center Atrium, it's equivalent to a glass
cigar tube 100 feet in diameter that fires into a giant, limestone
satellite dish). The BE told me he was nervous when he walked in and saw
the Vertecs, but was quite impressed at how good they sounded when
deployed correctly. It seems he has had more bad experiences than good
because of improper installations.
If your experience with them has been bad enough for you to have such a
negative opinion of them, I can only think that they were not set up to
JBL specs. I was lucky enough to to have an engineer from JBL come to
our office and train myself and all of our engineers when we purchased
the rig. I learned a lot. Without that training, I'm sure I'd be
disappointed with my results. As always, George, you have a standing
invite. Come on down and allow me to change your mind in person!
Ralph
Phildo
"Bink" <binkster...@binkster.net> wrote in message
news:40C28E4...@binkster.net...
> Behringer, on the other hand, stole the RMX
> design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
> suboptimized power transformers to save costs. Behringer sucks, man, I
> can't believe you would ever buy something made by them... You have to
> get into their digital products before you see some decent licensed or
> in-house technology. In the analog world their original Composer
> compressors, now a decade or so old, are hanging in there pretty well
> with the best of them. But that's pretty much it: there's just no way
> I'd select a Behringer EP-series amplifier for any application at all.
> Too many corners shaved off leaving too many doubts about it lasting for
> more than a few weeks or months. And I hate buying from known cheats.
>
Jeez, you really do come out with some misinformed bullshit at times.
Phildo
Phildo
> George, you and Jim will have to settle for my audio performance review.
Then stop posting your bullshit opinions as facts.
Phildo
Mike Tulley
George,
I do apologize for shouting about it. I'm a little touchy about the
copyright issue; it's an important one to me.
And the US once had a copyright law that worked somewhat like you
describe. Even so, that didn't make it moral to steal a song from a
musician who was too poor to register it. Legal, maybe ...
Mike T.
George
>
> George,
> I do apologize for shouting about it. I'm a little touchy about the
> copyright issue; it's an important one to me.
> And the US once had a copyright law that worked somewhat like you
> describe. Even so, that didn't make it moral to steal a song from a
> musician who was too poor to register it. Legal, maybe ...
> Mike T.
i guess we will disagree on the moral aspect
I find it would be moral to bring it to market, it would also be morally
right to share the proceeds with who ever created it
even though they did not have the initiative to market thier work
George
Chris Hinds
> smaller ones sound as bad as the big ones
> george>
sound good, but VerTec seems to be very system engineer dependant on
how it sounds, I've heard the big ones sound good and utterly terrible
too.
Chris
George
c.j.e...@warwick.ac.uk (Chris Hinds) wrote:
I understand they are very engineer dependent
but I am not overly impreed with line arrays in general
I know , I am not "with it"
I do not like the imaging or the "in your faceness" of the sound
of course I do not ever have to battle domed stadiums but the very
best sound I ever heard were turbo's flashlights deployed by brit row
I just find something very un-natural about typical line arrays
now the eaw 900 series articulated line array, that is top dog sound as
well
diffrent boats for diffrent folks I guess
Peace
george
Arny Krueger
Most power amps built with roughly similar technology and the same power
ratings are going to weigh about the same within 10-15%. 10-15% differences
prove very little either way. It just means that they have both similar
power ratings, and use 50-60 Hz transformers and forced air cooling. It
takes major differences like switchmode power supplies and convection
cooling to make a big difference.
Arny Krueger
> you will also have to prove it is not a 3rd party oem design bought by
> both companies, annd readily avaiable to any other company, to prove
> your "ripped off" assertation
Having recently seen the schematics for the RMX line, there's no doubt in my
mind that they closely follow the unique characteristics of a long line of
QSC power amps.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide access to comparable Behringer
schematics.
I've also posted links to photographs of internal and exterior subassemblies
and views of RMX and EP power amps. They have far more than passing
similarities.
Here's an EP1500 cut-away:
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/fa/129/0
Compare the power amp module shown there to the one shown at
http://store3.yimg.com/I/qsc_1787_2014491 and
http://www.qscstore.com/rmxmodas.html
The circuit cards seem quite different. QSC's has parts on both sides, but
the Behr card seems to have parts on just the top. Therefore has far more
passive components visible. The QSC module has a very conspicious multi-pin
connector in the middle of it, running across the board. No way are these
boards photocopies of each other.
http://forum.licht-geluid.nl/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=7252
compares the back panels which are highly similar. The dip switch is a
particularly interesting common detail.
I'm still waiting to see Behr schematics to compare to the QSC's.
George
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
but if they were in fact the same amp, down to stolen circut boards and
coponents.and housing as has been accused would they not be within a lb
at the most
there is nothing to this vicious smear campaing against behrnger, never
has been
George
Arny Krueger
> In article <Zu-dnQbuAKl...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vcqdnZnunJw...@comcast.com...
>>>> Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And they don't even have to be made in the same factory to be of
>>>>> the same origin. The RMX and EP1500 could both be from the same
>>>>> reference design developed by say, a Taiwanese engineering firm,
>>>>> and then independently taken to production in two different low
>>>>> cost factories in China.
>>>>
>>>> Just guessing here, but I strongly suspect that we'll find that
>>>> there are two vastly different schematics for the Behr and the QSC.
>>>>
>>> Wouldn't surprise me. They don't even weight the same. 34.6 lbs and
>>> 36.6 lbs for the EP1500/2500 vs. 40 lbs and 44.5 lbs for the RMX
>>> 1450/2450
>>
>> Most power amps built with roughly similar technology and the same
>> power ratings are going to weigh about the same within 10-15%.
>> 10-15% differences prove very little either way. It just means that
>> they have both similar power ratings, and use 50-60 Hz transformers
>> and forced air cooling. It takes major differences like switchmode
>> power supplies and convection cooling to make a big difference.
> but if they were in fact the same amp, down to stolen circut boards
> and components.and housing as has been accused would they not be
> within a lb at the most?
Yes, if they were truly a perfect clone. However, some of the claims have
been that the Behrs are not perfect clones, but cheaped-down clones.
> there is nothing to this vicious smear campaign against behrnger,
> never has been
At his point I'm willing to agree that mechanically, the Behr EP 1500 & 2500
have more than a passing resemblance to the QSC RMX.
http://forum.licht-geluid.nl/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=7252
compares the back panels which are highly similar. The dip switch is a
particularly interesting common detail.
However, there is no possibility that the Behr circuit cards are anything
like exact copies of the QSC boards.
Here's an EP1500 cut-away:
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/fa/129/0
Compare the power amp module shown there to the ones shown at
http://store3.yimg.com/I/qsc_1787_2014491 and
http://www.qscstore.com/rmxmodas.html
The circuit cards seem quite different. QSC's has parts on both sides, but
the Behr card seems to have parts on just the top. Therefore the Behr has
many more
passive components that are visible. The QSC module has a very conspicious
multi-pin
connector in the middle of it, running across the board. No way are these
boards photocopies of each other.
Still waiting to see a Behr schematic....
Mike
> ones sound good, but VerTec seems to be very system
> engineer dependant on how it sounds, I've heard the big ones
> sound good and utterly terrible too.
The Vertec system is actually pretty forgiving in it's setup. Small
mistakes in alignment do not have the same impact on sound as say a V-Dosc
rig. That said, the guy driving the rig and mixing the band can kill any
system's sound....
Mike Borkhuis
Audio Images Sound & Lighting, Inc
www.audioimagesonline.com
timerak
George Gleason wrote in message ...
> The only thing you might not like about these
>> speakers is the cost! Dude, they were awesome.
>
>why they are only around 2K$ a box , way down on the list of expensive pro
>stock IMO almost MI priced
I believe they are closer to $3500.
Tim....
George Gleason
"Mike" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:68kxc.129435$hY.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > The smallest VerTec sounds nice, and I've even heard the big
> > ones sound good, but VerTec seems to be very system
> > engineer dependant on how it sounds, I've heard the big ones
> > sound good and utterly terrible too.
>
> The Vertec system is actually pretty forgiving in it's setup. Small
> mistakes in alignment do not have the same impact on sound as say a V-Dosc
> rig. That said, the guy driving the rig and mixing the band can kill any
> system's sound....
>
George
George Gleason
would not a amp made to hit a certian price point and power rating use
essential the same output devices, and would these output devices need to be
supported by basically similar circut designs?
there get a point (like it did with the mixers) where function dictates form
and to the person untrained in international patent law they would appear
to be copies when in fact it is just two companys sourceing the same or
similar open market parts and text book designs for these parts
unless all the licensing agreements and such are uncovered it is just
malicious to slander one company beacuse they build a similar unit from age
old designs using the common parts beacuse they meet the target price point
and power outputs
that is like saying Goodyear ripped off Firestone cause thier tire are both
round , made of rubber, have steel reinforcing belts, and radial tread
patterns, they even fit the same rims!!!!
what was claimed was theft of design and so far nobody is close to proving
any such thing took place , with these amps, with the mixers, or ever.
you all owe Behringer a big Apology for making unfounded slanderous claims
that sully thier fine reputation
George
"timerak" <ti...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
> George Gleason wrote in message ...
> > The only thing you might not like about these
> >> speakers is the cost! Dude, they were awesome.
> >
> >why they are only around 2K$ a box , way down on the list of expensive pro
> >stock IMO almost MI priced
>
>
> I believe they are closer to $3500.
> Tim....
> >
> >
I just inquired to a fellow who bought some
perhaps list is 3500.00 but 2200.00 is what I was quoted
George
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:JZCdnUxWy6N...@comcast.com...
>> At this point I'm willing to agree that mechanically, the Behr EP
>> 1500 & 2500 have more than a passing resemblance to the QSC RMX.
> as do the Gemini to the MX series qsc amps
I think that the mechanical design is less important than the mechanical
design.
> would not a amp made to hit a certain price point and power rating use
> essential the same output devices,
I think there are still several reasonable choices for most functions.
However, in practice some of these transistors are more-or-less
interchangeable.
> and would these output devices
> need to be supported by basically similar circuit designs?
Not necessarily. There are still some distinctive designs out there, such as
those used by QSC and Crown. The FET-based Haflers are obviously different
from the bipolar designs. My recollection is that the Mackie power amps have
fairly conventional output stages.
> there get a point (like it did with the mixers) where function
> dictates form and to the person untrained in international patent law
> they would appear to be copies when in fact it is just two companies
> sourcing the same or similar open market parts and text book
> designs for these parts unless all the licensing agreements and such
> are uncovered it is just malicious to slander one company because
> they build a similar unit from age old designs using the common parts
> because they meet the target price point and power outputs
There is a more-or-less generic power amp design that is in common use. This
site describes it, and how to optimize it in detail:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/dipa/dipa.htm
the generic design with suitable optimization seems to be fine design and
capable of far better than adequate performance. For whatever reason, not
all manufacturers follow it.
> that is like saying Goodyear ripped off Firestone cause their tire
> are both round , made of rubber, have steel reinforcing belts, and
> radial tread patterns, they even fit the same rims!!!!
> what was claimed was theft of design and so far nobody is close to
> proving any such thing took place , with these amps, with the mixers,
> or ever. you all owe Behringer a big Apology for making unfounded
> slanderous claims that sully their fine reputation
As far as I'm concerned, the jury is out until I see a Behringer EP1500/2500
schematic and compare it to the QSC schematics on hand.
Arny Krueger
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:JZCdnUxWy6N...@comcast.com...
>
>>> At this point I'm willing to agree that mechanically, the Behr EP
>>> 1500 & 2500 have more than a passing resemblance to the QSC RMX.
>
>> as do the Gemini to the MX series qsc amps
>
> I think that the mechanical design is less important than the
> mechanical design.
Correction:
I think that the mechanical design is less important than the
electrical design.
Chris Hinds
> If your experience with them has been bad enough for you to have such a
> negative opinion of them, I can only think that they were not set up to
> JBL specs. I was lucky enough to to have an engineer from JBL come to
> our office and train myself and all of our engineers when we purchased
> the rig. I learned a lot. Without that training, I'm sure I'd be
> disappointed with my results. As always, George, you have a standing
> invite. Come on down and allow me to change your mind in person!
>
> Ralph
companies buying their flagship product like L'Acoustics do with
V-DOSC. I've seen bad reports on most of the line array systems, and
believe it purely down to a lack of understanding of how they work and
when they are appropriate. There is of course the whole "these are
the tool of the moment" aura about them and often they are used
inappropriately or in a venue where they are not suited.
And Ralph I'm sorry I'm not in the US to come and listen to your rig
one day. I've heard Audio Analysts VerTec with Springsteen (from
stateside providers) and that seemed well set up to me. Heard some
nice botch jobs done on this side of the pond with some systems, e.g.
VerTec in our union last year was not a very good solution at all.
Regards
George
c.j.e...@warwick.ac.uk (Chris Hinds) wrote:
> <SNIP INFORMATIVE POST>
> > If your experience with them has been bad enough for you to have such a
> > negative opinion of them, I can only think that they were not set up to
> > JBL specs. I was lucky enough to to have an engineer from JBL come to
> > our office and train myself and all of our engineers when we purchased
> > the rig. I learned a lot. Without that training, I'm sure I'd be
> > disappointed with my results. As always, George, you have a standing
> > invite. Come on down and allow me to change your mind in person!
> >
> > Ralph
>
Ralph let join forces and bid the gearldine Dodge Poetry festival In
Stanhope NJ
I do not have the where-with-all to go it alone(it is 12 stages)
but I know with your vertecs and my ability to manifest dozens of
smaller remote system we could take it from Klondike
the nfest is every other september
contact me if you want to try to put a bid in
I did it for years with another company who lost it beacuse he would not
supply a line array
George
Mike
I know... =) We're just going to have to call you the trap box guy.....
Bink
> I think that the mechanical design is less important than the
> electrical design.
There are aspects of mechanical circuit board layout that are patentable
because they have a significant bearing on how the electronics perform.
Layout affects things like crosstalk, intermod, EMF generation, EMF
vulnerability, thermal capacity, etc.
I know you know, I'm just saying that the crucial electronic design will
have an important mechanical architecture.
George
Bink <binkster...@binkster.net> wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > I think that the mechanical design is less important than the
> > electrical design.
>
would the courts agree? or would they view the entire package? or would
they be seperate ruleable issues?
george
Phildo
"George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7Klxc.27412$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> you all owe Behringer a big Apology for making unfounded slanderous
claims
> that sully thier fine reputation
George, Behringer don't have a fine reputation, not because they don't
deserve it but because of twats like Bonk and Arny who reaaaaaallllly want
to believe this crap. It's gullible, misinformed idiots like these two who
believe the urban myths and spread them that keep the prices of gear high
and stop small companies with quality product from getting anywhere.
It makes me sick that a company can work their butts off to produce good
product, improve their QC, customer service or whatever but are continually
held back by idiots who fall for the garbage more often than not spread by
the competitors of these companies. It's not just Behringer, lots of other
companies have suffered this way. Just look at the idiot on here last year
who claimed that A&H mixwizards were made in Taiwan by Phonic. Some people
will believe anything and if you meet any of them please send them my way as
I have a bridge in London they might be interested in purchasing along with
several gallons of snake oil to keep themselves healthy.
Phildo
George Gleason
Phildo
I spoke withQSC at AES and have had several email from behringer
and both told me there is nothing to this garbage
so If QSC has no problem with the behringer amp
when QSCtold me they see no "ripping off" and are not planning any lawsuits
just who do these twits think they are coming here with shit like Bink's
"Behringer, on the other hand, stole the RMX
design from QSC and began pumping them out with cheaper parts including
suboptimized power transformers to save costs. Behringer sucks, man, I
can't believe you would ever buy something made by them... You have to
get into their digital products before you see some decent licensed or
in-house technology. In the analog world their original Composer
compressors, now a decade or so old, are hanging in there pretty well
with the best of them. But that's pretty much it: there's just no way
I'd select a Behringer EP-series amplifier for any application at all.
Too many corners shaved off leaving too many doubts about it lasting for
more than a few weeks or months. And I hate buying from known cheats."
all it shows is gross ignorance and is a disservice, and out and out lies to
the companies and lurkers who are trying so hard to earn a place in this
market.
george