Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Behringer amps clones of QSC amps?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 9:44:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Not surprising at all. Mackie once sued Behringer for "cloning" at
least one model Mackie microphone mixer (possibly other models as
well). Looks like Behringer still hasn't learned their lesson.

Brian Aase

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:05:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>Pictures by: Tom Hole comparing Berhinger and QSC power amps:
>
>http://www.tomhole.com/Behringer%20EP2500%20vs%20QSC%20...
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 2:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<DJWdnYvHaOkPP7LcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...
> Pictures by: Tom Hole comparing Berhinger and QSC power amps:
>
> http://www.tomhole.com/Behringer%20EP2500%20vs%20QSC%20...

While noting the similarities, I encourage looking at the differences
too. Tomorrow (when I have access to a fast network connection) I will
take a closer look at the pictures, but my first impression is that
the QSC has roughly twice as big a power transformer, and perhaps more
beefy components in general.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:46:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian A" <res0qrqr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1vg1j052tclhunlkpshlv2v9lk6s8cr8gi@4ax.com...
> Not surprising at all. Mackie once sued Behringer for "cloning" at
> least one model Mackie microphone mixer (possibly other models as
> well). Looks like Behringer still hasn't learned their lesson.

Since Mackie lost, what lesson would that be?

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:46:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:46:33 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:

>Since Mackie lost, what lesson would that be?

That "better sound thru litigation" has only worked with Bose?
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"François Yves Le Gal" <flegal@aingeal.com> wrote in message
news:0673j0lh6u1elhrihckpvoilnfrdi6ovpe@4ax.com
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:46:33 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Since Mackie lost, what lesson would that be?
>
> That "better sound thru litigation" has only worked with Bose?


"Better sound thru litigation" clearly did not work for Carver. The
defendent was the parent company of Velodyne. Having deep pockets they
mounted a spirited not to mention expensive defense which was so effective,
that Carver had to pay for it!

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/sunfiresu...
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:46:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:50:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

>"Better sound thru litigation" clearly did not work for Carver.

Bob Carver was quite stupid at trying to have an unforceable patent enforced
in court...
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 7:53:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"François Yves Le Gal" <flegal@aingeal.com> wrote in message
news:fnh3j097c6mrsp75jcqre2mklavq2pt9bu@4ax.com
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:50:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Better sound thru litigation" clearly did not work for Carver.
>
> Bob Carver was quite stupid at trying to have an unforceable patent
> enforced in court...

His stupidity was enhanced by his previous successes at bullying smaller
manufacturers into paying him royalties.
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 7:54:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Detector195" <Detector195@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6213f73a.0408290916.4e11d1cb@posting.google.com

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:<DJWdnYvHaOkPP7LcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...
>> Pictures by: Tom Hole comparing Berhinger and QSC power amps:

>> http://www.tomhole.com/Behringer%20EP2500%20vs%20QSC%20...

> While noting the similarities, I encourage looking at the differences
> too. Tomorrow (when I have access to a fast network connection) I will
> take a closer look at the pictures, but my first impression is that
> the QSC has roughly twice as big a power transformer,


> and perhaps more beefy components in general.

I notice lots more fasterners, and the use of sleeving on some line voltage
wiring.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 12:38:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Eric K. Weber" <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote in message
news:YBwYc.86$xs2.7795@news.uswest.net

> Are they silly enough to run the transformers at 60HZ?

In this case, yes. This is still common with low-end power amps. QSC has
been a leader in the area of building amps with switchmode and stepped power
supplies, but those are all in higher-end amps.

>With switching power supplies they may be much higher and require less
> core material.... preferably well above 20khz....

The electronics to drive the transformers aren't exactly free. More and more
applications have been flipped into switchmode operation as times wear on,
and the driving electronics get cheaper. It's obviously only a matter of
time...
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 6:51:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Detector195" <Detector195@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6213f73a.0408291740.1bc0f0d8@posting.google.com...
> Now back to my quandary about power transformer sizing. These are
> 2-space amps, so they are no more than 3.5 inches thick, and the
> transformers are about 5 inches in diameter. Quickly checking my
> Digi-Key catalog, p. 1239, suggests that a toroidal transformer of
> this size is rated at roughly 600 Watts, give or take. Of course this
> is just for one brand (Amveco), but it seems unlikely to me that other
> brands of toroids are going to be a significantly more efficient to
> the point where it is believable that these are anything but 600 Watt
> power transformers, in amplifiers rated at 2400 Watts.

The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W transformer.
I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if you expect
to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you will be
disappointed. Those who are more realistic will consider them good value.
In Australia you cannot buy the parts for the cost of the Behringer amps, I
doubt things are different in the USA.

My only complaint is the small amount of capacitance provided, but as you
note there is enough space to add more.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 6:51:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W transformer.

What makes you think that ?

The little red hedgehog sticker indicates the manufacturer is Toroid
International.

They have Asian factories in India, Sri Lanka and working on one in China too I
think.

They have no US facilities to the best of my knowledge.

See http://www.toroid.co.uk/ or http://www.toroid.se/english/

> I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if you expect
> to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you will be
> disappointed.

Says who ?

In the short term at least - transformers such as these can deliver much more
than their continuous VA rating would indicate.

> Those who are more realistic will consider them good value.
> In Australia you cannot buy the parts for the cost of the Behringer amps, I
> doubt things are different in the USA.

Neither the QSC RMXs or the Behringers are made in the USA. They are made in
China.

> My only complaint is the small amount of capacitance provided, but as you
> note there is enough space to add more.

Those are 12,000 uF caps in the RMX2450. Not big enough ?


Graham
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 11:00:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4132C1C3.61A809BF@hotmail.com...
> TonyP wrote:
>
> > The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W
transformer.
> What makes you think that ?

The Behringer web site literature.

> The little red hedgehog sticker indicates the manufacturer is Toroid
> International.
> They have Asian factories in India, Sri Lanka and working on one in China
too I
> think.
> They have no US facilities to the best of my knowledge.
> See http://www.toroid.co.uk/ or http://www.toroid.se/english/

I'll take your word for it.

> > I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if you
expect
> > to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you will be
> > disappointed.
>
> Says who ?
>
> In the short term at least - transformers such as these can deliver much
more
> than their continuous VA rating would indicate.


That's why I said "RMS **CONTINUOUS**".
Having trouble reading?


> > Those who are more realistic will consider them good value.
> > In Australia you cannot buy the parts for the cost of the Behringer
amps, I
> > doubt things are different in the USA.
>
> Neither the QSC RMXs or the Behringers are made in the USA. They are made
in
> China.

Where did I say otherwise? Try reading what I write next time.

> > My only complaint is the small amount of capacitance provided, but as
you
> > note there is enough space to add more.
>
> Those are 12,000 uF caps in the RMX2450. Not big enough ?

I was referring to the Behringer, but since you asked NO.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 11:00:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4132ece7$0$22903$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4132C1C3.61A809BF@hotmail.com...
>> TonyP wrote:
>>

>>> I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if
>>> you expect to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you
>>> will be disappointed.
>>
>> Says who ?
>>
>> In the short term at least - transformers such as these can deliver
>> much more than their continuous VA rating would indicate.
>
>
> That's why I said "RMS **CONTINUOUS**".
> Having trouble reading?


There is *continuous* and there is **continuous**. Temperatures in bit power
transformers build up slowly - in minutes and hours. AFAIK, the longest term
standard test of power output is limited to 30 minutes. I've seen
transformers do 30 minutes no sweat, but fail due to thermal stress several
hours later.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:08:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:41315fd4$0$28813$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Brian A" <res0qrqr@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1vg1j052tclhunlkpshlv2v9lk6s8cr8gi@4ax.com...
> > Not surprising at all. Mackie once sued Behringer for "cloning" at
> > least one model Mackie microphone mixer (possibly other models as
> > well). Looks like Behringer still hasn't learned their lesson.
>
> Since Mackie lost, what lesson would that be?

I was under the impression the offending mixer was withdrawn from sale in
the USA.....

geoff
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 2:11:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4132ece7$0$22903$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4132C1C3.61A809BF@hotmail.com...
> >> TonyP wrote:
> >>
>
> >>> I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if
> >>> you expect to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you
> >>> will be disappointed.
> >>
> >> Says who ?
> >>
> >> In the short term at least - transformers such as these can deliver
> >> much more than their continuous VA rating would indicate.
> >
> >
> > That's why I said "RMS **CONTINUOUS**".
> > Having trouble reading?
>
> There is *continuous* and there is **continuous**. Temperatures in bit power
> transformers build up slowly - in minutes and hours. AFAIK, the longest term
> standard test of power output is limited to 30 minutes. I've seen
> transformers do 30 minutes no sweat, but fail due to thermal stress several
> hours later.

Yup, seen that one too. 'Heat soak' is the culprit I think.

Using 'oversize' copper for the windings to keep down I^2*R heating helps a
*lot*.


Graham
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:05:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:09:01 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Can you post a link ?

The brochure brochure only mentions:

"Oversized power supply

Ultra-reliable, low-noise and highheadroom toroidal power transformer from
the world’s most acclaimed manufacturer TOROID®. You’ll find this brand in
the world’s best and most expensive power amps.

The shielded power transformer with a toroidal core is extremely quiet and
much more musical than a switchmode power supply. It also has an
incredible power reserve to assure that your amp delivers full and tight
bass no matter how much you crank it up".

http://www.behringer-download.com/_pdf/broschures/2003_...
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:09:01 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Can you post a link ?
>
> The brochure brochure only mentions:
>
> "Oversized power supply
>
> Ultra-reliable, low-noise and highheadroom toroidal power transformer from
> the world’s most acclaimed manufacturer TOROID®. You’ll find this brand in
> the world’s best and most expensive power amps.

That agrees with what I saw.

I guess someone thought it had to be made in the USA to be good ?


> The shielded power transformer with a toroidal core is extremely quiet and
> much more musical than a switchmode power supply. It also has an
> incredible power reserve to assure that your amp delivers full and tight
> bass no matter how much you crank it up".

Hmmm - I wonder - how do they measure how much more musical a toroid is ?


Graham ;-)
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 6:00:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eric K. Weber" <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote in message
> news:YBwYc.86$xs2.7795@news.uswest.net
>
> > Are they silly enough to run the transformers at 60HZ?
>
> In this case, yes. This is still common with low-end power amps. QSC has
> been a leader in the area of building amps with switchmode and stepped power
> supplies, but those are all in higher-end amps.
>
> >With switching power supplies they may be much higher and require less
> > core material.... preferably well above 20khz....
>
> The electronics to drive the transformers aren't exactly free.

In fact those big IGBTs and ultra-fast rectifiers aren't cheap. Nor the rest of
the support circuitry. 2 sets of DC storage caps ( instead of 1 ) required too.

> More and more
> applications have been flipped into switchmode operation as times wear on,
> and the driving electronics get cheaper. It's obviously only a matter of
> time...

It's going that way - but SMPS still requires expensive ac line filtering to
meet EMC regs that traditional supplies don't. That's a significant extra
expense that won't go away.


Graham
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:02:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:n8CYc.1202$mZ2.99832@news02.tsnz.net...
> I was under the impression the offending mixer was withdrawn from sale in
> the USA.....

This has been covered in detail here many times, by people far more
knowledgeable of the case than me. I suggest you do a google search.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:06:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:yo2dnWw7EJR4va7cRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4132ece7$0$22903$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4132C1C3.61A809BF@hotmail.com...
> >> TonyP wrote:

> >>> I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if
> >>> you expect to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you
> >>> will be disappointed.
> >>
> >> Says who ?
> >>
> >> In the short term at least - transformers such as these can deliver
> >> much more than their continuous VA rating would indicate.
> >
> >
> > That's why I said "RMS **CONTINUOUS**".
> > Having trouble reading?
>
>
> There is *continuous* and there is **continuous**. Temperatures in bit
power
> transformers build up slowly - in minutes and hours. AFAIK, the longest
term
> standard test of power output is limited to 30 minutes. I've seen
> transformers do 30 minutes no sweat, but fail due to thermal stress
several
> hours later.

Sure, and how many amplifiers can get over 2400W from an 800W transformer
for 30 minutes?

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:06:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> Sure, and how many amplifiers can get over 2400W from an 800W transformer
> for 30 minutes?

The mistake you're making is calling it an '800W transformer'.

The standard product in the catalogue may look that size but there are ways
of extracting more !


Graham
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 7:14:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4133FD72.D966510F@hotmail.com...
> TonyP wrote:
>
> > Sure, and how many amplifiers can get over 2400W from an 800W
transformer
> > for 30 minutes?
>
> The mistake you're making is calling it an '800W transformer'.

Not me, the manufacturer. (850W from memory, although I could be wrong)

> The standard product in the catalogue may look that size but there are
ways
> of extracting more !

Most will end in tears after 30 minutes at 200% overload, not allowing for
amplifier efficiency.

In case you've forgotten, I think the amp is still good value.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 7:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4133FD72.D966510F@hotmail.com...
> > TonyP wrote:
> >
> > > Sure, and how many amplifiers can get over 2400W from an 800W
> transformer
> > > for 30 minutes?
> >
> > The mistake you're making is calling it an '800W transformer'.
>
> Not me, the manufacturer. (850W from memory, although I could be wrong)

I have been to Behringer's site and another poster too.

There is no mention of the transformer being 800W ( or other figure ). If you
have a link - *please* post it.

As I keep repeating, Watts or VA rating for transfomers like this are
misleading. Practical ratings are determined by losses ( copper and iron ).
There are ways to reduce losses that make a custom design way outperform a
'standard product'.

> > The standard product in the catalogue may look that size but there are
> ways
> > of extracting more !
>
> Most will end in tears after 30 minutes at 200% overload, not allowing for
> amplifier efficiency.

You're *assuming* 200% overload. Learn something about transformer design.


> In case you've forgotten, I think the amp is still good value.

Which one - or both ?

Graham
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 7:26:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4133FD00.4259D2A1@hotmail.com...
> TonyP wrote:
> > I will bet the transformer has a thermal fuse.
>
> It hasn't to the best of my knowledge. And my knowledge of Toroid's
transformers
> is good. Also I didn't see the thermal fuse indicated on the label.

OK, I may lose that bet :-)

> > The heatsinks are fan cooled.
> > At full continuous output the power tansistors do NOT produce maximum
heat,
>
> You're once again confusing sinewave measurements with actual audio tests
!

NOT *ME*. I stated already that the amp is fine for music.

> Audio amps run hotter - the more output they deliver. Unlike the sinewave
theory
> - they *don't* run cooler at max output. If in doubt - get some test
loads, a
> thermocouple and check for yourself !

You are simply changing the test. At maximum sine wave output power, the
output transistors will *NOT* disipate maximum power as I stated. The
transformer will still be required to deliver the power consumed in both the
load and the amplifier though.

> > I thought YOU were the one questioning the performance though?
>
> Me ? I thought it was you.

See what happens when you don't read properly.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 7:26:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4133FD00.4259D2A1@hotmail.com...
> > TonyP wrote:
> > > I will bet the transformer has a thermal fuse.
> >
> > It hasn't to the best of my knowledge. And my knowledge of Toroid's
> transformers
> > is good. Also I didn't see the thermal fuse indicated on the label.
>
> OK, I may lose that bet :-)
>
> > > The heatsinks are fan cooled.
> > > At full continuous output the power tansistors do NOT produce maximum
> heat,
> >
> > You're once again confusing sinewave measurements with actual audio tests
> !
>
> NOT *ME*. I stated already that the amp is fine for music.
>
> > Audio amps run hotter - the more output they deliver. Unlike the sinewave
> theory
> > - they *don't* run cooler at max output. If in doubt - get some test
> loads, a
> > thermocouple and check for yourself !
>
> You are simply changing the test. At maximum sine wave output power, the
> output transistors will *NOT* disipate maximum power as I stated. The
> transformer will still be required to deliver the power consumed in both the
> load and the amplifier though.

For a sinewave test - fine - you're correct. What value is a sinewave test other
than to measure a static THD ?

During sinewave testing the transformer works absolutely OK. I've tested the QSC
- no problem.

These amplifiers aren't designed as servo amps or whatever - they're designed to
reproduce audio. Continuous sinewave tests bear no relation to practical use. (
as I keep repeating ).

> > > I thought YOU were the one questioning the performance though?
> >
> > Me ? I thought it was you.
>
> See what happens when you don't read properly.

I think it's your mistake actually.


Graham
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 8:11:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:413411E0.82A0BFD6@hotmail.com...
> TonyP wrote:
> > Not me, the manufacturer. (850W from memory, although I could be wrong)
>
> I have been to Behringer's site and another poster too.
>
> There is no mention of the transformer being 800W ( or other figure ). If
you
> have a link - *please* post it.

I have had one open. It's marked on the transformer. That's why I said from
memory.
We both agree it is of little consequence for normal use anyway.

> > In case you've forgotten, I think the amp is still good value.
>
> Which one - or both ?

Probably both, but the Behringer is cheaper.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 8:15:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41341378.F743E799@hotmail.com...
> TonyP wrote:
> > You are simply changing the test. At maximum sine wave output power, the
> > output transistors will *NOT* disipate maximum power as I stated. The
> > transformer will still be required to deliver the power consumed in both
the
> > load and the amplifier though.
>
> For a sinewave test - fine - you're correct. What value is a sinewave test
other
> than to measure a static THD ?
>
> During sinewave testing the transformer works absolutely OK. I've tested
the QSC
> - no problem.

And I said the Behringer is fine too.

> These amplifiers aren't designed as servo amps or whatever - they're
designed to
> reproduce audio. Continuous sinewave tests bear no relation to practical
use. (
> as I keep repeating ).

As I said all along.

> > See what happens when you don't read properly.
> I think it's your mistake actually.

You would, but you haven't been following things too closely.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 8:15:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41341378.F743E799@hotmail.com...

< snip for brevity >

> > During sinewave testing the transformer works absolutely OK. I've tested the
> QSC
> > - no problem.
>
> And I said the Behringer is fine too.
>
> > These amplifiers aren't designed as servo amps or whatever - they're
> designed to
> > reproduce audio. Continuous sinewave tests bear no relation to practical
> use. ( as I keep repeating ).
>
> As I said all along.
>
> > > See what happens when you don't read properly.
> > I think it's your mistake actually.
>
> You would, but you haven't been following things too closely.

Hmmm , so you recant the following post ?


Subject: Re: Behringer amps clones of QSC amps?
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:51:07 +1000
From: "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
References: 1 , 2 , 3

"The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W transformer.
I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if you expect
to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you will be
disappointed."


Graham
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 10:24:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<41341378.F743E799@hotmail.com>...

> These amplifiers aren't designed as servo amps or whatever - they're designed
> to reproduce audio. Continuous sinewave tests bear no relation to practical
> use. ( as I keep repeating ).
>
> > > > I thought YOU were the one questioning the performance though?
> > >
> > > Me ? I thought it was you.

Actually, it was me ;-)

I agree that continous sinewave at rated power is not a musically
realistic test. Other test conditions might be more realistic, but the
manufacturers do not tell us the test conditions. Unless otherwise
stated, it is the FTC test, which is preconditioning at 1/8 of full
power followed by continous sinewave for five minutes. This also bears
no relation to practical use.

My gripe is that there is no way of knowing the range of conditions
under which a power amp can be operated, except by anecdotal evidence
and hoping for the best. Lacking an accepted standard, there can be no
accountability. If an amp goes into protect mode during a gig, was it
under-designed, or over-driven? The manufacturer can always claim the
latter.

It does not require too much cynicism to predict the result of having
no accountability in an industry that is under relentless cost
pressure due to a "dollars per watt" mentality. And the power
transformer seems to be an obvious place to save a few dollars, since
it is a relatively expensive component.

There have been scandals in the past over power ratings, resulting in
the FTC test, for better or worse. Are we ready for another scandal? I
don't know. If today's manufacturers are being honest about power
ratings, it's a safe bet that tomorrow's manufacturers won't be.

Naturally, I am at a loss to say how a power amp should be rated. Why
not give a peak power level plus a continuous power rating? Given the
power transformer size, I would rate the QSC or Behringer at 2400
Watts peak and 400 Watts continuous (half of the power transformer
rating). This is of course with no knowledge of the actual design. But
perhaps a sixfold "crest factor" is appropriate for musical signals.

And by the way, I don't dispute anybody's positive experiences with
that amplifier, nor do I think it is a bad amplifier. I have been
seriously considering their somewhat less powerful but quite
economical 300-Watt bass head.
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 12:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Detector195" <Detector195@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6213f73a.0408311724.7322d34e@posting.google.com

> I agree that continous sinewave at rated power is not a musically
> realistic test. Other test conditions might be more realistic, but the
> manufacturers do not tell us the test conditions. Unless otherwise
> stated, it is the FTC test, which is preconditioning at 1/8 of full
> power followed by continous sinewave for five minutes. This also bears
> no relation to practical use.

True, its overkill.

> My gripe is that there is no way of knowing the range of conditions
> under which a power amp can be operated, except by anecdotal evidence
> and hoping for the best.

Actually we do. If a power amp is amplifying music, and not sine waves, then
we know that it is amplifying multitones. If an amplifier is amplifying
mulititones, then we know that the peak-to-average ratio of the signal is 8
dB or more. The peak-to-average ratio of sine waves is 0 dB. The higher the
peak-to-average ratio, the lighter the power supply can be and still be
adequate.

> Lacking an accepted standard, there can be no
> accountability. If an amp goes into protect mode during a gig, was it
> under-designed, or over-driven? The manufacturer can always claim the
> latter.

The simple fact that a power amp can deliver rated power with a sine-wave
signal for any appreciable amount of time is pretty solid proof that the
power supply is overbuilt for music.

IME, most power amps that go into protect, do so because they are being
driven into gross distortion, the load is poorly-engineered, or there are
long-term thermal issues.

> It does not require too much cynicism to predict the result of having
> no accountability in an industry that is under relentless cost
> pressure due to a "dollars per watt" mentality. And the power
> transformer seems to be an obvious place to save a few dollars, since
> it is a relatively expensive component.

This already happens. However, the FTC rules put the brakes on efforts to
get carried away with undersized power transformers. If you can remember
back that far, you will recall that when the FTC rules went into effect,
virtually very tubed power amp, with few exceptions, had to be significantly
derated. IOW, scunging off on the power transformer is an old game. My
recollection is that even tubed amps from well-respected brands like Dyna,
Scott, and Fisher had to be derated to pass FTC-mandated testing. I think
that McIntosh might have been among the few tubed amp manufacturers to skate
through without derating.

> There have been scandals in the past over power ratings, resulting in
> the FTC test, for better or worse. Are we ready for another scandal? I
> don't know. If today's manufacturers are being honest about power
> ratings, it's a safe bet that tomorrow's manufacturers won't be.

Two words: car audio.

> Naturally, I am at a loss to say how a power amp should be rated. Why
> not give a peak power level plus a continuous power rating? Given the
> power transformer size, I would rate the QSC or Behringer at 2400
> Watts peak and 400 Watts continuous (half of the power transformer
> rating). This is of course with no knowledge of the actual design. But
> perhaps a sixfold "crest factor" is appropriate for musical signals.

That's pretty close to 8 dB.

> And by the way, I don't dispute anybody's positive experiences with
> that amplifier, nor do I think it is a bad amplifier. I have been
> seriously considering their somewhat less powerful but quite
> economical 300-Watt bass head.

Lately, Behringer has been cleaning up their act. Despite all the wailing
and gnashing of teeth, they made some credible stuff all along. For example,
the Ultracurve was always a respectible design, and clearly cloned neither
Mackie or Rane.
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 10:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41342348.EE3A499B@hotmail.com...
> TonyP wrote:
> Hmmm , so you recant the following post ?
> "The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W transformer.
> I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one. However if you
expect
> to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these amps, you will be
> disappointed."

Which part? The made in USA, I'm still sure I read in their literature, but
it seems to have been removed.
I may be wrong. I couldn't care less myself.
The transformer is not rated at 2400W continuous, we seem to agree on that.
I also stated IN THE PART YOU SNIPPED, that it is fine for any normal use.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 1:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<VtidnQvR8OSUWKjcRVn-jA@comcast.com>...

> Lots of useful information

Thanks. This really helped clear things up for me.
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 12:37:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41342348.EE3A499B@hotmail.com...
>> TonyP wrote:
>> Hmmm , so you recant the following post ?
>> "The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W
>> transformer. I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one.
>> However if you expect to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these
>> amps, you will be disappointed."
>
> Which part? The made in USA,

As long as they're not ade in India, eh Pooh ? ;-)

geoff
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 3:47:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Geoff Wood wrote:

> TonyP wrote:
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:41342348.EE3A499B@hotmail.com...
> >> TonyP wrote:
> >> Hmmm , so you recant the following post ?
> >> "The Behringer EP1500 uses a made in USA "Torroid" brand 800W
> >> transformer. I doubt very much that the EP2500 uses a smaller one.
> >> However if you expect to get 2400W RMS continuous from one of these
> >> amps, you will be disappointed."
> >
> > Which part? The made in USA,
>
> As long as they're not ade in India, eh Pooh ? ;-)
>
> geoff

I think Borje prefers the results from the Sri Lankan factory :-)

I certainly did !


Graham
!