If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are referring to the SRM550 and SRM650, the "all wood" construction sounds like particle board to me. No weights mentioned on the webpage, only "built like a tank." I betcha they are going to be heavy suckers, compared to JBL and QSC offerings. YMMV. Mark C.
Edit: The Mackie link to the spec sheets doesn't work, but the owner's manual claims 37 lbs and 46 lbs for the 550 and 650. Not as bad as I thought. Poplar is the claimed material.
"Good tools are expensive. Cheap tools are damned expensive."
I just took a peek. The do certainly look a heck of a lot better than past SRM. Here are some observations and comparisons to the new JBL PRX line up.
- The full face grill is nice and the mixer section is decent too. Not sure about the feedback destroyer section, but easy enough to bypass.
- Odd compression driver. The specs say it's a 1.4" exit (they call it horn entry) but the voice coil is only 1". Usually you'll see this the other way around.
- These use ferrite compression drivers. JBL PRX uses neo.
- The 3K crossover point for both the 550 and 650 is the highest I've seen for a 2 way 12 or 15" box. By comparison the JBL PRX boxes crossover at 1.6K, almost a full octave lower.
- The distortion spec just says < 1%. By comparison the new JBL PRX lineup specs are < 0.1%
- These use 15mm plywood. JBL PRX uses 18mm plywood. That, and the slightly larger JBL box, would account for the 3 lb heavier JBL in the 12" cabinet.
- As mentioned, Mackie's are passively cooled, JBL are fan forced. If done right passive is fine (RCF and Yorkville, for instance, use passive quite a bit, I've owned a lot of both and never had a thermal issue even outdoors)
- If you buy the specs, the Mackie 1850 sub can go to 40Hz +/-3dB. If that's true, that's pretty impressive for the size, weight (64 lbs) and and cost. I do like the variable HPF.
They look nice, but I don't believe any of the 1600 watts that they say, even qsc and Jbl and the future ones that would show telling us had they increase the watts to 2000 or more; I still like my elder audio rig which is 12" inch powered speaker that handles 400 watts each and I believe on them even with my eyes closed; it's a pitty that you guys don't have that brand over there in the US to make a comparison with the known brands powered speaker segment; and the time would come that somebody would say that they increase to a 5000 watts rms and I really think mackie would be the ones or the first to do that, and a lot of people would be amazed to have that speaker that says 5000 or 10000 watts and on the real thing it won't be, but marketing sales like this way
As much as I hate the numbers game, looking about tells me that some modern highest quality drivers can safely and cleanly handle transients of up to 10x their RMS rating. In the past the arbitrary "rule" was 4x. So your typical good MI box with a decent quality 200wrms LF driver can easily utilize a 800w peak rms power amp (obviously excursion limited on the low frequency end) which is only the "old" 4x and I will not be surprised to see 8KW amps someday on some highest end 800wrms drivers although I think they will never get that crazy . But the days are over where continuous rms has much real-world meaning - that's sooo last century LOL
I'm sure one or more will pop an aneurysm over this but c'est la vie .
RR, I did read the specs and 655 watts peak exactly equal 327.5 watts rms. before arguing with me, look up the voltage and power conversions between peak and rms for a sine wave.
Gregidon, I am very confident in my statement about operating around the 1.5x rms power point with processing. This ends up in general around the point of diminishing returns when the reliability curve is factored in. This is my area of expertise and I was awarded a patent in this field with respect to power amplifiers and dynamics/thermal management.
I guess we'll have to await dboomer's word as to what the peak voltage is on those amps. My understanding of peak rms sinewave power (often but not always measured with a 20ms sinewave burst) is that the peak DC instantaneous watts is twice that (1310w in this case, 72.4 volts peak into 4 ohms) - I've always found you contention otherwise to be strange.