Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

QSC and other pro amp specs

Tags:
Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 5:41:00 PM

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

There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.

I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
would very much like to see.

Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?

Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across the
frequency bandwidth.

Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?

Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
same kind of performance as a consumer amp?

I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
like to see it.

More about : qsc pro amp specs

Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:46:45 PM

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

Arny Krueger Feb 28, 6:15 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
From: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:15:55 -0500
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 6:15 pm
Subject: Re: QSC and other pro amp specs
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"still learning" <desks...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.


You figured out that the people who are arguing against me are pretty
much
know-nothings, right?


There was never any doubt.

Lots of people do it, but almost all of them are way too smart to waste
time
with the trolls on RAO. Most of the amps I tested were borrowed from
Tom
Nousaine of Sound and Vision fame. We have a number of friends who have
gone
the pro amp route. I've heard all of their systems - they sound just
fine.


Another non-surprise.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 11:16:15 PM

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

You should try a QSC. It will out perform any of the consumer amps you see
in the mass consumer type HiFi stores. You see them very often in recording
studios, and other professional places. If you are going that route, you
should also consider evaluating the Crown, and the Bryston power amps as
well.

--

Jerry G.
=====

"still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.

I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
would very much like to see.

Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?

Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across the
frequency bandwidth.

Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?

Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
same kind of performance as a consumer amp?

I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
like to see it.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:15:55 AM

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

"still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.

You figured out that the people who are arguing against me are pretty much
know-nothings, right?

> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
> would very much like to see.

I did a fairly complete set of measurements on my QSC USA-850 which never
got finished for my www.pcavtech.om web site - along the lines of those
shown at

http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/index.htm

This is another one of those so-called "PA" amps that the ignorant trolls
over at rec.audio.opinon would like to slam.

> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?

Lots of people do it, but almost all of them are way too smart to waste time
with the trolls on RAO. Most of the amps I tested were borrowed from Tom
Nousaine of Sound and Vision fame. We have a number of friends who have gone
the pro amp route. I've heard all of their systems - they sound just fine.

> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across
> the frequency bandwidth.

Frankly, there's not a lot to see. Good amps have disinterestiong curves.

My recollection is that the QSC amp measured a little less well than the
Crown Macrotech. The Macrotech has insanely low nonlinear distortion at 1
KHz for example. In comparison the USA 850, the comparable measurements were
very good by HiFi standards, as good if not better than the Brustons, but
not so incredibly low as the Crown.

> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?

That depends on a lot of things, most particularly where you are, and where
the the amps are. It's not uncommon to put all the equipment for a large HT
system in a closet. Putting the amps close to the speakers often suffices.

> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?

Or in some cases, the pro just might be a whole lot better. My recollection
is that the Macrotech just steamrolled right over some Brystons that I
measured on the same day. That's in terms of measured performance. In terms
of sound - they were all good amps and all sounded just fine.

> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
> a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
> like to see it.

The 5 amps I tested are listed at http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/ .
Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to doing the detailed processing of
the results for the other 4 amps.

However, they were all more-or-less comparable except that the Crown was
something else in terms of low measured distortion and low measured noise.
It also vastly outweighed, outpowered, and out-sized the rest.

The Crown had regular speaker terminals and also 4 other spaker terminals
composed of a big bolt driven into a beefy piece of buss bar. I think it
was very attractive price-wise compared to the Brystons, which it simply
slew in every way on the test bench.

You can listen to what the amps sounded like by comparing the same musical
sounds before and after passing through the amps by downloading files from
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . The listening files for
six different amps are all there.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:16:43 AM

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

"Jerry G." <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38huegF5p02r4U2@uni-berlin.de
> You should try a QSC. It will out perform any of the consumer amps
> you see in the mass consumer type HiFi stores. You see them very
> often in recording studios, and other professional places. If you are
> going that route, you should also consider evaluating the Crown, and
> the Bryston power amps as well.

Another good line of studio amps are the Haflers. Some of the smaller ones
are convection-cooled, no fans.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:14:14 PM

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

"still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
>
> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
> would very much like to see.
>
> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
>
> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across the
> frequency bandwidth.
>
> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
>
> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
>
> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
> a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
> like to see it.
>

I use Crown and Carver Pro at home and have been very pleased, in the past I
have used QSC with great results. Amps are in another room so fan noise is
not an issue, this is a mastering room.

Chad
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:35:58 PM

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

Yes, but we are talking to people who don't have a mastering room in
their house. OTOH it would be a lot of fun to have a Neumann or Scully
lathe, even if only for playback.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:07:09 PM

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

calcer...@hotmail.com Mar 1, 9:35 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
From: calcer...@hotmail.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Mar 2005 09:35:58 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 9:35 am
Subject: Re: QSC and other pro amp specs
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Yes, but we are talking to people who don't have a mastering room in
their house.


I doubt that most people who have amps with fans have mastering rooms.
There are pro amps that don not have fans as has been mentioned. The
main thing I'm interested in, is how clean is the sound. Judging by
the specs and the fact that so many studios use amps from QSC, Crown,
Mackie and others, it seems that they provide clean power and lots of
headroom. So far all the arguments against pro amps sounding good,
appear to be bullshit.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:59:59 AM

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

"still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1109722028.969589.146590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

> I doubt that most people who have amps with fans have mastering rooms.

Right, which is because of the relative rarity of true dedicated mastering
rooms. OTOH, there is probably a lot of what amounts to mastering that is
conducted in non-dedicated facilities, some of which have power amps with
fans.

> There are pro amps that do not have fans as has been mentioned. The
> main thing I'm interested in, is how clean is the sound. Judging by
> the specs and the fact that so many studios use amps from QSC, Crown,
> Mackie and others, it seems that they provide clean power and lots of
> headroom. So far all the arguments against pro amps sounding good,
> appear to be bullshit.

The high end audio marketplace would be no doubt unfavorably impacted if
much of their clientele discovered the truth about the generally excellent
sonic quality of pro audio power amps.

I still remember the reaction of the guy who sold me my NHT 2.5i speakers.
He was worried that the the Mackie M1200 would fry them. Since these
speakers have only about 86 dB/w sensitivity, they really benefit from an
amp with headroom. I use a subwoofer to help minimize the amount of power
they are required to handle.

As I mentioned in another post, the M1200 turned out to be a disappointment,
but actual sound quality was not the problem.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:26:56 AM

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

still learning wrote:
> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
>
> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
> would very much like to see.
>
> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
>
> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across the
> frequency bandwidth.
>
> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
>
> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
>
> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
> a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
> like to see it.
>
Bottom line, if it works, use it.

But there are some golden ears that may have a problem with some issues.
First issue is not so much fidelity, but level. Many pro amps require a
higher level of input drive to get them up to full output. home
amps are on the .5 volt unbalanced standard typically.

Yes, the fans on most pro amps are designed to COOL the units. They
don't worry about quiet, because there designed to do loud rock shows.
Your results may vary. You don't go to a nascar race and complain
about how loud the cars are because they have no mufflers.....

Output topology is another issue. The golden ears will want true AB.
switching power supply rails on the outputs in a class H or so
might disturb the golden ears.

Digital amps are another issue all together. Early digital amps were
used for bottom end only and known for a lack of clarity. The newer
designs are much better. But better than AB fidelity wise?
The jury is still out. Of course many new home theater amps are gong
to class D. Not because its necessarily better, but lighter and
cheaper.

Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:27:58 PM

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

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109698558.687118.163630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, but we are talking to people who don't have a mastering room in
> their house. OTOH it would be a lot of fun to have a Neumann or Scully
> lathe, even if only for playback.
>


I ran pro gear in the home long before I built a mastering room, it was
available and sounded good. My non mastering room also consists of Pro gear
if it's any consolation.

Chad
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:29:24 PM

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

"still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1109722028.969589.146590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> calcer...@hotmail.com Mar 1, 9:35 am show options
>
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
> From: calcer...@hotmail.com - Find messages by this author
> Date: 1 Mar 2005 09:35:58 -0800
> Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 9:35 am
> Subject: Re: QSC and other pro amp specs
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
> Yes, but we are talking to people who don't have a mastering room in
> their house.
>
>
> I doubt that most people who have amps with fans have mastering rooms.
> There are pro amps that don not have fans as has been mentioned. The
> main thing I'm interested in, is how clean is the sound. Judging by
> the specs and the fact that so many studios use amps from QSC, Crown,
> Mackie and others, it seems that they provide clean power and lots of
> headroom. So far all the arguments against pro amps sounding good,
> appear to be bullshit.
>

It is bullshit, they sound great and are VERY durable for that app. May be
the last amp you buy.

Chad
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:31:42 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zJudnXXmUc66sbjfRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> "still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:1109722028.969589.146590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>
>> I doubt that most people who have amps with fans have mastering rooms.
>
> Right, which is because of the relative rarity of true dedicated mastering
> rooms. OTOH, there is probably a lot of what amounts to mastering that is
> conducted in non-dedicated facilities, some of which have power amps with
> fans.
>
>> There are pro amps that do not have fans as has been mentioned. The
>> main thing I'm interested in, is how clean is the sound. Judging by
>> the specs and the fact that so many studios use amps from QSC, Crown,
>> Mackie and others, it seems that they provide clean power and lots of
>> headroom. So far all the arguments against pro amps sounding good,
>> appear to be bullshit.
>
> The high end audio marketplace would be no doubt unfavorably impacted if
> much of their clientele discovered the truth about the generally excellent
> sonic quality of pro audio power amps.
>
> I still remember the reaction of the guy who sold me my NHT 2.5i speakers.
> He was worried that the the Mackie M1200 would fry them. Since these
> speakers have only about 86 dB/w sensitivity, they really benefit from an
> amp with headroom. I use a subwoofer to help minimize the amount of power
> they are required to handle.
>
> As I mentioned in another post, the M1200 turned out to be a
> disappointment,
> but actual sound quality was not the problem.
>
>

I don't care for the Mackie amps either, too much in the way that needs to
be able to be bypasses. I stick to Crown/Crest/QSC. Reliability was an
issue for me also, gotta keep them ribbon cables "opened up" :) 
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:41:28 PM

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

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:4225cdd6$1_1@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> still learning wrote:
>> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
>> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
>>
>> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
>> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
>> would very much like to see.
>>
>> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
>>
>> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
>> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across the
>> frequency bandwidth.
>>
>> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
>>
>> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
>> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
>>
>> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
>> a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
>> like to see it.
>>
> Bottom line, if it works, use it.
>
> But there are some golden ears that may have a problem with some issues.
> First issue is not so much fidelity, but level. Many pro amps require a
> higher level of input drive to get them up to full output. home
> amps are on the .5 volt unbalanced standard typically.
>
> Yes, the fans on most pro amps are designed to COOL the units. They don't
> worry about quiet, because there designed to do loud rock shows.
> Your results may vary. You don't go to a nascar race and complain
> about how loud the cars are because they have no mufflers.....
>
> Output topology is another issue. The golden ears will want true AB.
> switching power supply rails on the outputs in a class H or so
> might disturb the golden ears.
>
> Digital amps are another issue all together. Early digital amps were
> used for bottom end only and known for a lack of clarity. The newer
> designs are much better. But better than AB fidelity wise?
> The jury is still out. Of course many new home theater amps are gong
> to class D. Not because its necessarily better, but lighter and
> cheaper.
>
> Bob
>
There are sooooo many class AB pro amps out there, there are lots that are
convection cooled. Some company's offer low velocity fans for their
products for non-rock concert apps.

In a new construction senario, buiding a sizeable HT or listening room I
would certainly have an equipment closet. Even in old construction it's
entirely feasable. I like my amps out of view, I feel it is sleek, actually
my wife does :) 

Chad
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:56:20 PM

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

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:4225cdd6$1_1@127.0.0.1

> Bottom line, if it works, use it.

> But there are some golden ears that may have a problem with some
> issues.

> First issue is not so much fidelity, but level. Many pro amps require a
> higher level of input drive to get them up to full output. home
> amps are on the .5 volt unbalanced standard typically.

Tell that to Parasound, a good consumer amp manufacturer, right?

Just picking one of their amps at random:

http://www.parasound.com/service_information/owners_man...

"input sensitivity 1.4 V for 100 watts output 2.25 V for full output"

http://www.marantz.com/pdfs/u_reference_catalog.pdf

"Input sensitivity/impedance 1.7V (Balanced) 1.7V (Unbalanced)"

In comparison most pro amps can be driven to full output with a standard +4
input which is about 1.25 volts.

Input sensitivies in the 1.2 to 2.5 volt range have been the tradition for
power amps of both persuasions for decades if not generations:

> Yes, the fans on most pro amps are designed to COOL the units. They
> don't worry about quiet, because there designed to do loud rock shows.

Well since most is > 50%...


> Output topology is another issue. The golden ears will want true AB.
> switching power supply rails on the outputs in a class H or so
> might disturb the golden ears.

....even though this was first a feature of consumer amps.

> Digital amps are another issue all together. Early digital amps were
> used for bottom end only and known for a lack of clarity. The newer
> designs are much better. But better than AB fidelity wise?
> The jury is still out. Of course many new home theater amps are gong
> to class D. Not because its necessarily better, but lighter and
> cheaper.

Smaller and lighter is cheaper in the long run. As long as the real-world
performance doesn't suffer, why worry?
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:24:37 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:_MydnQmd35DJTb7fRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> Or in some cases, the pro just might be a whole lot better. My
recollection
> is that the Macrotech just steamrolled right over some Brystons that I
> measured on the same day. That's in terms of measured performance. In
terms
> of sound - they were all good amps and all sounded just fine.

> The 5 amps I tested are listed at http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/ .
> Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to doing the detailed processing of
> the results for the other 4 amps.
>
> However, they were all more-or-less comparable except that the Crown was
> something else in terms of low measured distortion and low measured noise.
> It also vastly outweighed, outpowered, and out-sized the rest.


Strange, that URL shows the Parasound 1000A as being the best amp, and the
only one you rate as excellent for 1kHz THD.
Oh wait, the summary page is wrong. You did say it wasn't finished I guess.

MrT.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:24:38 PM

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

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:42256aa2$0$6165$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:_MydnQmd35DJTb7fRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>> Or in some cases, the pro just might be a whole lot better. My
>> recollection is that the Macrotech just steamrolled right over some
>> Brystons that I measured on the same day. That's in terms of
>> measured performance. In terms of sound - they were all good amps
>> and all sounded just fine.
>
>> The 5 amps I tested are listed at http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/ .
>> Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to doing the detailed
>> processing of the results for the other 4 amps.
>>
>> However, they were all more-or-less comparable except that the Crown
>> was something else in terms of low measured distortion and low
>> measured noise. It also vastly outweighed, outpowered, and out-sized
>> the rest.

> Strange, that URL shows the Parasound 1000A as being the best amp,
> and the only one you rate as excellent for 1kHz THD.
> Oh wait, the summary page is wrong. You did say it wasn't finished I
> guess.

Congratulations upon noticing that this is a piece of work that got
interrupts early on.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:39:34 PM

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

Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
direction. Something has to give, usually quality.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:29:53 AM

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

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109821174.237911.124180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
> direction. Something has to give, usually quality.

Cal, you're well known to be locked into ca. 1936 technology for
electronics, ca. 1953 technology when it comes to recording, and ca. 1956
technology when it comes to speakers.

IOW Cal, you've conclusively shown that you know nothing about that other
dimension called technological progress.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:19:31 AM

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

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109821174.237911.124180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
> direction. Something has to give, usually quality.
>

Wrong,

The heaviest part of a power amp is the transformer, replacing it with a
switch mode power supply reduces the weight considerably, is not prone to
power factor problems, and produces a rock steady voltage to the output
devices, It is cheaper in the long run to operate switch mode supplies and
cheaper to manufacture due to the fact that copper is expensive. They are
also smaller than a large iron core transformer also.

Chad
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:45:04 AM

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

Chad Wahls wrote:
> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109821174.237911.124180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
>>direction. Something has to give, usually quality.
>>
>
>
> Wrong,
>
> The heaviest part of a power amp is the transformer, replacing it with a
> switch mode power supply reduces the weight considerably, is not prone to
> power factor problems,

You better be dam careful in saying that statement. A standard old
school switcher was MUCH WORSE at powerfactor and harmonic distortion
on the power lines. That why so many schools had power trouble with
makeshift computer labs. Its only be recently that power supply
manufactures have taken more attention to PF and harmonic control.
There are modern control chipsets now the PS manufacturer can use (along
with a slight topology change) that can help this.

and produces a rock steady voltage to the output
> devices, It is cheaper in the long run to operate switch mode supplies and
> cheaper to manufacture due to the fact that copper is expensive. They are
> also smaller than a large iron core transformer also.
>

Switchers are the future no doubt. But an improperly designed one can
cause as many problems as it can solve. I have yet to see a switcher
blown up on a pro amp. But i have seen a few flakey crest 8200's.
(digital output section flakey) And that unit looks like a real dog to
work on.

Bob


> Chad
>
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:43:46 PM

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

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:42272396$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Chad Wahls wrote:
>> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1109821174.237911.124180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
>>>direction. Something has to give, usually quality.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong,
>>
>> The heaviest part of a power amp is the transformer, replacing it with a
>> switch mode power supply reduces the weight considerably, is not prone to
>> power factor problems,
>
> You better be dam careful in saying that statement. A standard old school
> switcher was MUCH WORSE at powerfactor and harmonic distortion
> on the power lines. That why so many schools had power trouble with
> makeshift computer labs. Its only be recently that power supply
> manufactures have taken more attention to PF and harmonic control.
> There are modern control chipsets now the PS manufacturer can use (along
> with a slight topology change) that can help this.
>
> and produces a rock steady voltage to the output
>> devices, It is cheaper in the long run to operate switch mode supplies
>> and cheaper to manufacture due to the fact that copper is expensive.
>> They are also smaller than a large iron core transformer also.
>>
>
> Switchers are the future no doubt. But an improperly designed one can
> cause as many problems as it can solve. I have yet to see a switcher
> blown up on a pro amp. But i have seen a few flakey crest 8200's.
> (digital output section flakey) And that unit looks like a real dog to
> work on.
>
> Bob
>
>
>> Chad


When I was in the trenches I became the switch mode fix it guy at the shop.
They are a different breed but after you get used to them they are not that
bad. Did many-o-powerlights and derivatives. Most of the time I found
failures due to drift on the oscillators causing the switching transistors
to "slam into" each other.

Chad
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:43:53 PM

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

"Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:D 076dg$lrn$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu

> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109821174.237911.124180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
>> direction. Something has to give, usually quality.

> Wrong,

> The heaviest part of a power amp is the transformer, replacing it
> with a switch mode power supply reduces the weight considerably, is
> not prone to power factor problems, and produces a rock steady
> voltage to the output devices, It is cheaper in the long run to
> operate switch mode supplies and cheaper to manufacture due to the
> fact that copper is expensive. They are also smaller than a large
> iron core transformer also.

I think this is a great example of how new technology can dramatically
change the trade-offs. Historically the stickiest problem with switchmode
power supplies has been the cost. A switchmode power supply may be far
smaller and lighter and have better ineherent regulation, but it has more
parts and therefore can reasonably expected to cost more money.

However, technology marches on. I now find that even $40 DVD players have
switchmode power supplies instead of the traditional line transformer, etc.
The most obvious benefit is that they have exactly one physical product to
assemble and service that will operate properly on just about any kind of
power that will light a regular light bulb. The product might have some
location-specific ROM, but its possible that they even customise
locality-specific features right before shipping, without opening the box.
The only physical part that is locality-specific is the male end of the
power cord.

Don't expect Cal, with his blinkered dedication to ca. 1933 electronics,
1953 playback technology, and 1958 loudspeaker technology to appreciate
*any* of this. He's really not part of this 21st century world.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:43:54 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:nJadnaQo4r80v7rfRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> "Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:D 076dg$lrn$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu
>
>> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1109821174.237911.124180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Smaller, lighter and cheaper are all tradeoffs. All in the same
>>> direction. Something has to give, usually quality.
>
>> Wrong,
>
>> The heaviest part of a power amp is the transformer, replacing it
>> with a switch mode power supply reduces the weight considerably, is
>> not prone to power factor problems, and produces a rock steady
>> voltage to the output devices, It is cheaper in the long run to
>> operate switch mode supplies and cheaper to manufacture due to the
>> fact that copper is expensive. They are also smaller than a large
>> iron core transformer also.
>
> I think this is a great example of how new technology can dramatically
> change the trade-offs. Historically the stickiest problem with switchmode
> power supplies has been the cost. A switchmode power supply may be far
> smaller and lighter and have better ineherent regulation, but it has more
> parts and therefore can reasonably expected to cost more money.
>
> However, technology marches on. I now find that even $40 DVD players have
> switchmode power supplies instead of the traditional line transformer,
> etc.
> The most obvious benefit is that they have exactly one physical product to
> assemble and service that will operate properly on just about any kind of
> power that will light a regular light bulb. The product might have some
> location-specific ROM, but its possible that they even customise
> locality-specific features right before shipping, without opening the box.
> The only physical part that is locality-specific is the male end of the
> power cord.
>
> Don't expect Cal, with his blinkered dedication to ca. 1933 electronics,
> 1953 playback technology, and 1958 loudspeaker technology to appreciate
> *any* of this. He's really not part of this 21st century world.
>
>

I went to technician training at a popular pro audio amplifier company, they
were very concerned with just the fact that they can be used anywhere.
People in the states could sell them to European end users cheaper than the
European dealers could get them due to tariffs. Don't know how they got
around that even if they did but many of the European techs there were quite
concerned with this.

Chad
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:23:11 PM

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

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:4225cdd6$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> But there are some golden ears that may have a problem with some issues.
> First issue is not so much fidelity, but level. Many pro amps require a
> higher level of input drive to get them up to full output. home
> amps are on the .5 volt unbalanced standard typically.

Not many, and probably even less pre-amps that don't go to +4dbu.

> Yes, the fans on most pro amps are designed to COOL the units. They
> don't worry about quiet, because there designed to do loud rock shows.

But many have temp sensing speed control. If you don't use much power
(normal listening at home) then the fan probably doesn't come on at all.

> Output topology is another issue. The golden ears will want true AB.
> switching power supply rails on the outputs in a class H or so
> might disturb the golden ears.

Both consumer and pro amps come in either class.

MrT.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:34:25 PM

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

As it happens at a former job I worked on switchmode supplies. They
were designed to power a piece of T&M gear and had more outputs than a
ATX PC supply. Then they went to a bought supply for which we had no
schematics which was single source and said single source took full
advantage of the situation. My guess someone in that company was paid
off by someone in the other company.

A properly built switchmode supply can be a thing of beauty but in
fact most are commodity dogshit. Undocumented, potted, unrepairable
dogshit. If you are willing to pay the price switchers can be had
commercially that would do very nicely for audio , but those tend to
cost as much as the amp-particularly in the case of your commodity PA
amps.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:39:43 AM

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

In article <1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
>
> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
> would very much like to see.
>
> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
>
> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across the
> frequency bandwidth.
>
> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
>
> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
>
> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made for
> a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at, I'd
> like to see it.

I have a QSC PLX 2402 that I tried in place of a McIntosh 2105. The Mac
blew it out of the water. Not only was the frequency response different
(way smoother on the Mac and better high frequency definition), but the
stereo image on the 2402 suffered in comparison pretty drastically. I
love the QSC for my bass amp, but it doesn't belong in a listening room.


Just my experience.
Edwin
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:57:35 PM

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

"Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
news:edwin-F55B58.22392609032005@corp.supernews.com
> In article <1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
>> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
>>
>> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
>> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
>> would very much like to see.
>>
>> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
>>
>> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
>> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across
>> the frequency bandwidth.
>>
>> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
>>
>> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
>> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
>>
>> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made
>> for a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at,
>> I'd like to see it.
>
> I have a QSC PLX 2402 that I tried in place of a McIntosh 2105. The
> Mac blew it out of the water. Not only was the frequency response
> different (way smoother on the Mac and better high frequency
> definition), but the stereo image on the 2402 suffered in comparison
> pretty drastically. I love the QSC for my bass amp, but it doesn't
> belong in a listening room.

Usual questions. What unbiased criteria did you use to establish that the
QSC had a rougher high end?

A Mac 2105 has an output transformer which raises questions about flat
response at the ends of the audio band into a loudspeaker load. An amp with
a rolled-off high end response can easily be perceived as sounding
"smoother". Flat response into a resistive load is not a perfectly realible
predictor of response into a loudspeaker load.

A more expensive amp can reasonably be expected to be more highly received
in a sighted evaluation.

If you don't match the levels precisely, the amps are simply going to sound
a little different. If the matching is close, but not close enough listener
perceptions can be just about *anything* because slight but audible
mismatching doesn't sound like a difference in loudness.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:57:36 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:15ydnQZ4JYdG_a3fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> "Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
> news:edwin-F55B58.22392609032005@corp.supernews.com
>> In article <1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> "still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
>>> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
>>>
>>> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
>>> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
>>> would very much like to see.
>>>
>>> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
>>>
>>> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
>>> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across
>>> the frequency bandwidth.
>>>
>>> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
>>>
>>> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
>>> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
>>>
>>> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made
>>> for a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at,
>>> I'd like to see it.
>>
>> I have a QSC PLX 2402 that I tried in place of a McIntosh 2105. The
>> Mac blew it out of the water. Not only was the frequency response
>> different (way smoother on the Mac and better high frequency
>> definition), but the stereo image on the 2402 suffered in comparison
>> pretty drastically. I love the QSC for my bass amp, but it doesn't
>> belong in a listening room.
>
> Usual questions. What unbiased criteria did you use to establish that the
> QSC had a rougher high end?
>
> A Mac 2105 has an output transformer which raises questions about flat
> response at the ends of the audio band into a loudspeaker load. An amp
> with
> a rolled-off high end response can easily be perceived as sounding
> "smoother". Flat response into a resistive load is not a perfectly
> realible
> predictor of response into a loudspeaker load.
>
> A more expensive amp can reasonably be expected to be more highly received
> in a sighted evaluation.
>
> If you don't match the levels precisely, the amps are simply going to
> sound
> a little different. If the matching is close, but not close enough
> listener
> perceptions can be just about *anything* because slight but audible
> mismatching doesn't sound like a difference in loudness.
>
>

Also tolerance difference between channels in an older amp can affect
"imaging" If the QSC has the exact frequency respose, and PHASE response
per channel and NO crosstalk then it is probably imaging better than the
Mac.

I agree with Arny, without proper matching the above claim is like me saying
my country water is wetter than city water.

Chad
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:36:46 PM

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

In article <d0pnqh$d8l$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
"Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:15ydnQZ4JYdG_a3fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> > "Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
> > news:edwin-F55B58.22392609032005@corp.supernews.com
> >> In article <1109630460.375218.5700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "still learning" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is a discussion going on on another audio group about the
> >>> suitability of pro amps like QSC for use in a home hi-fi system.
> >>>
> >>> I've been to QSC's web site and find their published specs to be very
> >>> much in line with home audio hi-fi amps, but I find no graphs which I
> >>> would very much like to see.
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone here (aside from Arny) used their amps in a home setup?
> >>>
> >>> Is there anyone who reviews this sort of equipment the way consumer
> >>> audio gear is reviewed, complete with graphs of the response across
> >>> the frequency bandwidth.
> >>>
> >>> Are the fans on these units loud enough to be audible at lower spl's?
> >>>
> >>> Is there any reason that a full range pro amp could not provide the
> >>> same kind of performance as a consumer amp?
> >>>
> >>> I see no reason why they wouldn't be just as good as anything made
> >>> for a home hi-fi system, but if there's more information to look at,
> >>> I'd like to see it.
> >>
> >> I have a QSC PLX 2402 that I tried in place of a McIntosh 2105. The
> >> Mac blew it out of the water. Not only was the frequency response
> >> different (way smoother on the Mac and better high frequency
> >> definition), but the stereo image on the 2402 suffered in comparison
> >> pretty drastically. I love the QSC for my bass amp, but it doesn't
> >> belong in a listening room.
> >
> > Usual questions. What unbiased criteria did you use to establish that the
> > QSC had a rougher high end?
> >
> > A Mac 2105 has an output transformer which raises questions about flat
> > response at the ends of the audio band into a loudspeaker load. An amp
> > with
> > a rolled-off high end response can easily be perceived as sounding
> > "smoother". Flat response into a resistive load is not a perfectly
> > realible
> > predictor of response into a loudspeaker load.
> >
> > A more expensive amp can reasonably be expected to be more highly received
> > in a sighted evaluation.
> >
> > If you don't match the levels precisely, the amps are simply going to
> > sound
> > a little different. If the matching is close, but not close enough
> > listener
> > perceptions can be just about *anything* because slight but audible
> > mismatching doesn't sound like a difference in loudness.
> >
> >
>
> Also tolerance difference between channels in an older amp can affect
> "imaging" If the QSC has the exact frequency respose, and PHASE response
> per channel and NO crosstalk then it is probably imaging better than the
> Mac.
>
> I agree with Arny, without proper matching the above claim is like me saying
> my country water is wetter than city water.
>
> Chad

Well, I certainly respect what you are saying. However, I know what I
hear and I also know that mixes I make with the Mac translate much
better than those made with the QSC. I don't need a double blind
listening test to know what works for me. I certainly didn't make my
decision on which amp cost me more money (the QSC, btw.) or which one
looks cooler (the Mac had its glass smashed off 20 years ago and looks
like hell. It tested beyond published spec when gone over at various Mac
clinics). In fact, I went into it assuming that the QSC would be vastly
superior due to the fact that was much newer, with all that implies
about components in spec and improvements in design over the years.

What made me think that the QSC had a rougher high end? Well, first off,
making EQ changes required much larger changes to hear a difference.
Panning required more movement to notice a difference. Reverb required
more level to hear it behind the music. As far as more subjective
"feelings" about the sound go, the QSC seemed to have a lot less
information about the space around the music (ie. detail about the space
in which the instruments were recorded). It was also a good deal more
fatiguing. I couldn't listen critically for more than 45 minutes or so
without having to take a break.

Now, I am absolutely positive that my listening room contaminated any
real ability to be utterly scientific. My monitors, Tannoy Reveal
Passives, are probably also not bleeding edge enough to reveal all of
the differences between the amps and there's a good chance that the way
they interact with the amps have something to do with my preferring the
Mac. All I know is that I can't trust mixes made with the QSC and I find
it hard to listen to it in that context.

YMMV, etc. I am not saying that your objections are invalid, I am just
saying that they don't invalidate my subjective experience. After all is
said and done, you have to go with what works. If anyone has the ability
in the Boulder/ Denver area to set up a true level matched blind test
plus spec measurement, etc, I would be happy to lug these amps in for a
full comparison. I am certainly not invested in one being better than
the other.

Edwin
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 7:18:23 PM

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

If they use the Dual Concentric driver and have cabinets that aren't
totally improper the Reveals are probably in fact pretty good.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 5:47:59 PM

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

In article <1110673103.860769.321500@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:

> If they use the Dual Concentric driver and have cabinets that aren't
> totally improper the Reveals are probably in fact pretty good.

Nope, completely different. Still get pretty high recommendations, for
the price (caveat emphasized).

Here's the description of the updated version:

http://www.tannoyna.com/NewRevealOverview

Edwin
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:44:04 PM

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

"Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
news:edwin-98EC9C.17364411032005@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <d0pnqh$d8l$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> "Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Now, I am absolutely positive that my listening room contaminated any
> real ability to be utterly scientific. My monitors, Tannoy Reveal
> Passives, are probably also not bleeding edge enough to reveal all of
> the differences between the amps and there's a good chance that the way
> they interact with the amps have something to do with my preferring the
> Mac. All I know is that I can't trust mixes made with the QSC and I find
> it hard to listen to it in that context.


Ain't that the truth :)  I have a certain pair of speakers in my "Hi-Fi" mix
listening that pushes around the old tube amp just right.

What monitors were you using before you got your Tannoy's? I have a friend
that switched over to the reveals and just couldn't get the upper midrange
right in his mixes, there may be a trend forming here from what you say
about panning, reverb, etc. Maybe the Tannoy's are hard to drive in the
crossover freq, have weird electrical resonances, etc? I've never heard
them. I use old school Urei 809A's for most of my mastering, mostly because
I've had them forever, I know they aren't perfect but I'm used to them :) 
I'm interested on hearing your input and what you switched from, did you
hear a different upper midrange, etc. I may be able to help another.

Chad
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:45:57 PM

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

In article <d14bg4$osu$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
"Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote:

> "Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
> news:edwin-98EC9C.17364411032005@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <d0pnqh$d8l$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> > "Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Now, I am absolutely positive that my listening room contaminated any
> > real ability to be utterly scientific. My monitors, Tannoy Reveal
> > Passives, are probably also not bleeding edge enough to reveal all of
> > the differences between the amps and there's a good chance that the way
> > they interact with the amps have something to do with my preferring the
> > Mac. All I know is that I can't trust mixes made with the QSC and I find
> > it hard to listen to it in that context.
>
>
> Ain't that the truth :)  I have a certain pair of speakers in my "Hi-Fi" mix
> listening that pushes around the old tube amp just right.
>
> What monitors were you using before you got your Tannoy's? I have a friend
> that switched over to the reveals and just couldn't get the upper midrange
> right in his mixes, there may be a trend forming here from what you say
> about panning, reverb, etc. Maybe the Tannoy's are hard to drive in the
> crossover freq, have weird electrical resonances, etc? I've never heard
> them. I use old school Urei 809A's for most of my mastering, mostly because
> I've had them forever, I know they aren't perfect but I'm used to them :) 
> I'm interested on hearing your input and what you switched from, did you
> hear a different upper midrange, etc. I may be able to help another.
>
> Chad

Before the Tannoys I used Paradigm Mini Monitors and some old
Wharfedales for comparison. As I do a fair amount of location stuff, I
got some JBL LSR25Ps (I got them really cheap because the guy selling
them thought he had broken them, but it took me all of 15 minutes to get
'em going) and I have found these much easier to work with. I also got
the Tannoy TS10 sub and find that it works pretty well. I have it barely
on, just to hear what's going on.

I do think that there is something to what you say about the crossover
frequency. The JBLs seem to translate a lot better when it comes to
vocals and other things that go over the crossover region. If I can get
whatever I am working to sound good on both, I feel like I am in the
ballpark.


Edwin
PS The McIntosh that I use is solid state.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:25:29 AM

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

"Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
news:edwin-4C4C7B.18455714032005@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <d14bg4$osu$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> "Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
>> news:edwin-98EC9C.17364411032005@corp.supernews.com...
>> > In article <d0pnqh$d8l$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
>> > "Chad Wahls" <cwahls@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Now, I am absolutely positive that my listening room contaminated any
>> > real ability to be utterly scientific. My monitors, Tannoy Reveal
>> > Passives, are probably also not bleeding edge enough to reveal all of
>> > the differences between the amps and there's a good chance that the way
>> > they interact with the amps have something to do with my preferring the
>> > Mac. All I know is that I can't trust mixes made with the QSC and I
>> > find
>> > it hard to listen to it in that context.
>>
>>
>> Ain't that the truth :)  I have a certain pair of speakers in my "Hi-Fi"
>> mix
>> listening that pushes around the old tube amp just right.
>>
>> What monitors were you using before you got your Tannoy's? I have a
>> friend
>> that switched over to the reveals and just couldn't get the upper
>> midrange
>> right in his mixes, there may be a trend forming here from what you say
>> about panning, reverb, etc. Maybe the Tannoy's are hard to drive in the
>> crossover freq, have weird electrical resonances, etc? I've never heard
>> them. I use old school Urei 809A's for most of my mastering, mostly
>> because
>> I've had them forever, I know they aren't perfect but I'm used to them :) 
>> I'm interested on hearing your input and what you switched from, did you
>> hear a different upper midrange, etc. I may be able to help another.
>>
>> Chad
>
> Before the Tannoys I used Paradigm Mini Monitors and some old
> Wharfedales for comparison. As I do a fair amount of location stuff, I
> got some JBL LSR25Ps (I got them really cheap because the guy selling
> them thought he had broken them, but it took me all of 15 minutes to get
> 'em going) and I have found these much easier to work with. I also got
> the Tannoy TS10 sub and find that it works pretty well. I have it barely
> on, just to hear what's going on.
>

I still use my old Hi-Fi speakers alot for monitoring, I have owned these
speakers since I was in Jr High and know everything about their
capabilities. They are older a/d/s. The Urei's were bought after I started
mastering concerts and techno music. I needed something that could do the
levels I had to start at and then work my way to a more sane level, then I
go to my JBL's or a/d/s. The JBL's are L122's with rebuilt crossovers, they
have great drivers, much like the 4412's but the crossover has a lot to be
desired. I too use a subwoofer but only for the loud stuff, it's an
electrovoice EVX180 18" in a TL enclosure, the Urei's are allowed to play
all the way down and the sub picks up from there, it just fills in down to
the mid 20's and is used for a magnifying glass to help manage the
subsonics.

I have used the LSR25's on the doghouse of live consoles, they are great
speakers and it sounds like you got really lucky picking them up cheap.
They can take quite a beating, I've made a few "mistakes" with them and they
have always made it through perfectly. Enjoy them :)  greaty location
speakers, do you have the carrying case for them?

> I do think that there is something to what you say about the crossover
> frequency. The JBLs seem to translate a lot better when it comes to
> vocals and other things that go over the crossover region. If I can get
> whatever I am working to sound good on both, I feel like I am in the
> ballpark.
>
>

I master for the guy that bought the reveals, I knew immediately when he
switched monitors. When I received his mixes I was like "dude, did you go
deaf, the mix is all over the place" He switched back to his other monitors
and things went well. He is using a standard issue SS amp. I agree with
you on the comparing, If it sounds good on them all then it's a done deal!

> Edwin
> PS The McIntosh that I use is solid state.

Chad
PS But it has OP transformers right?
!