Small & Light Top Box Shootout

[lifeloverwg]

Well, more of a casual cocktail hour subjective comparison than a shootout.

I am the soundtech and pack animal for my wife

[agedhorse]

This goes to show that amongst a given higher quality product mix, everything is shades of gray. Higher quality is just that in different flavors.

 

IF light weight is important, I would give the passive MRX line a second listen, matched up to one of the XXX4 series PLX-2 amps. I think the clear winner here would have been the SRX... except for the cost.

[Craig Vecchione]

Would be interesting to try this without the speakers being visible to the listeners. Even more interesting if those administering/controlling also don't know which unit they're operating during the testing. A 'double-blind' test is more likely to give results that are uncolored by brand prejudice.

[lifeloverwg]

 

This goes to show that amongst a given higher quality product mix, everything is shades of gray. Higher quality is just that in different flavors. IF light weight is important, I would give the passive MRX line a second listen, matched up to one of the XXX4 series PLX-2 amps. I think the clear winner here would have been the SRX... except for the cost.

 

 

Amen to shades of grey.

 

Light weight was only one parameter, and not an issue except in the sense of it excluding other possibilitys, like say for instance the Yokville U15.

 

The PRX line has the same drivers as the MRX line, just in a self powered box which was our preference. I did consider the PRX535 a 15x6.5x1.5 three way design, but it pushes our weight limit and the overall size was getting bigger than we wanted, as preserving sightlines and overall bulk is important in many of the smaller venues where we supply PA.

 

We were supposed to have one of the SRX712Ms as well. But when I arrived to pick them up, I found that the salesman I deal with had neglected to confirm with the rental side and all twelve of their SRX boxes were out on jobs.

We have done larger gigs where they were the monitors, and we all liked them in that role so I wanted to include them. Besides their price, the other down side for them from our perspective is their reputation for liking lots of power. We really like the fact that we can run everything off of one 20amp breaker which probably wouldn't hold true were we to add them. For what it's worth, the rental side guy at the JBL house was going on about how much he loves the new PRX512M and claimed to prefer it's horn as sounding less harsh than the SRX version if extreme SPL was not needed. He did however feel that if either would be pushed to their limits that the SRX was then the better option.

 

It's all compromise, Winston.

[lifeloverwg]

 

Would be interesting to try this without the speakers being visible to the listeners. Even more interesting if those administering/controlling also don't know which unit they're operating during the testing. A 'double-blind' test is more likely to give results that are uncolored by brand prejudice.

 

 

Agreed. I could have easily done that, but I didn't even consider it until afterwards when I was trying to understand how anybody with ears could have prefered the Eon over any of the other options.

 

Winston

[agedhorse]

The SRX "liking lots of power" is another fallacy... it will take more but given equal power to the other boxes will produce equal or maybe a little higher SPL.

[lifeloverwg]

 

The SRX "liking lots of power" is another fallacy... it will take more but given equal power to the other boxes will produce equal or maybe a little higher SPL.

 

 

Perhaps it's a fallacy, although I have read other reviews that disagree with you. While the SRX actually has a slightly lower sensitivity rating than the MRX/PRX lines

at 96 vs 97, It seems to me that JBL must have designed the SRX to need/handle the power it does for some reason. Perhaps it is only to sound as good as possible when pushed to it's limits.

 

Don't ask me to explain how the PRX attains it's claimed 133 dB peak vs the 131dB peak of the SRX and 129dB peak of the MRX, maybe it's just a typo. Although according to the JBL's spec sheets, the same drivers have different power ratings when used with their on board DSP.

 

Winston

PS. I have liked the SRX line a lot when I have heard it.

[agedhorse]

Reviews like yours passing along this myth?

 

The problem with numbers is that they don't specify the averaging criteria as well as the sensitivity bandwidth. Both may be different for the different lines.

 

The higher powered drivers may have a slightly lower sensitivity but may also show lower effects due to power compression so it's much more difficult to compare if you don't have or understand all the facts or details involved in testing the particular cabinets.

 

The PRX may have a lower maximum SPL because of it's flatter response (DSP help) as well as compressiion, limiting and lower than maximum amplifier power.

 

Something really telling is that most speaker manufacturers outfittheir powered speakers with amplifiers rated at between the RMS and program rating... MOST closer to the RMS rating, or rate their amps in peak power (2x RMS) for marketing reasons. None of this matters to the user except the total performance. Either it works for you or it doesn't. No manufacturer wants to eat blown drivers because of too much power... learn from them.

[DJ Swydez]

Perhaps it's a fallacy, although I have read other reviews that disagree with you. While the SRX actually has a slightly lower sensitivity rating than the MRX/PRX lines at 96 vs 97, It seems to me that JBL must have designed the SRX to need/handle the power it does for some reason. Perhaps it is only to sound as good as possible when pushed to it's limits. Don't ask me to explain how the PRX attains it's claimed 133 dB peak vs the 131dB peak of the SRX and 129dB peak of the MRX, maybe it's just a typo. Although according to the JBL's spec sheets, the same drivers have different power ratings when used with their on board DSP. Winston PS. I have liked the SRX line a lot when I have heard it.

 

I believe that JBL measures the specs (sensitivity and max SPL) of its less expensive lines (EON, MRX, JRX, PRX, etc) in half space and their more expensive lines (SRX and line arrays) in full space... so basically you have to add 6 dB to the sensitivity and max SPL specs of the SRX line full space specs to be able to compare them to the MRX or PRX lines... it's like comparing apples and oranges if you don't change the numbers...

 

[lifeloverwg]

 

Reviews like yours passing along this myth? The problem with numbers is that they don't specify the averaging criteria as well as the sensitivity bandwidth. Both may be different for the different lines. The higher powered drivers may have a slightly lower sensitivity but may also show lower effects due to power compression so it's much more difficult to compare if you don't have or understand all the facts or details involved in testing the particular cabinets. The PRX may have a lower maximum SPL because of it's flatter response (DSP help) as well as compressiion, limiting and lower than maximum amplifier power. Something really telling is that most speaker manufacturers outfittheir powered speakers with amplifiers rated at between the RMS and program rating... MOST closer to the RMS rating, or rate their amps in peak power (2x RMS) for marketing reasons. None of this matters to the user except the total performance. Either it works for you or it doesn't. No manufacturer wants to eat blown drivers because of too much power... learn from them.

 

 

OK, "needing lots of power" is too to strong a term for you. I'm perfectly happy with program power. Which still leaves the SRX needing twice the program power of the PRX. In our situation that's still a negative attribute. Not enough of one that it couldn't be overcome with clearly superior results. But alas, it never got the chance. Lets move on.

 

The PRX actually has a higher maximum spl which I assume must be due to it's DSP.

 

And finally, your right in that all that matters is whether it works for you. Any one of the options would work for us. Even just staying with the Eons.

 

Winston

[lifeloverwg]

I believe that JBL measures the specs (sensitivity and max SPL) of its less expensive lines (EON, MRX, JRX, PRX, etc) in half space and their more expensive lines (SRX and line arrays) in full space... so basically you have to add 6 dB to the sensitivity and max SPL specs of the SRX line full space specs to be able to compare them to the MRX or PRX lines... it's like comparing apples and oranges if you don't change the numbers...

 

According to JBL the PRX512M 133dB max spl was attained as follows;

"Maximum Peak output measured with IEC pink noise at 1 meter in front of speaker baffle under free space

conditions. Measurement instrument set to peak hold. Speaker muted and released at full power, recording maximum peak level."

 

And for the SRX712M 131dB max spl was;

"Calculated based on power rating and sensitivity."

 

Comparing specifications is always difficult. Winston

[agedhorse]

The SRX doesn't NEED twice the power... you can apply twice the power if your application requires it. My guess is that when you compare sensitivities on a true average scale normalized for LF bandwidth, the average sensitivity difference between them is maybe 1dB, so MAYBE the SRX will get 3-4 dB louder (certainly more sensitivity in the HF section in biamp mode, but that's just the nature of large format drivers on well designed horns which is padded down for you in the passive xover mode.

 

I think you are just mis-understanding the basic point I am trying to get across.

[aw_dee_o]

Hmmm.... NOT surprising. A design that uses drivers that are optimally sized for their intended range of reproduction and of lower moving mass actually sounds best to the average listener. Amazing, isn't it???

 

I think i've been saying something like this since i've been on this forum. Funny how the "industry professionals" / forum regulars kept recommending two ways with bigger, heavier woofers in those same threads. This might explain why most "professional" installations using "industry standard" designs sound as bad as they do.

 

Thanks for posting and sharing your honest results. Sean

 

PS.... Do youself a favour and lose the passive crossovers. If you think that the Communities sound good now, wait till you see what they can do in terms of dynamics, bass punch, midrange / treble detail and total output after getting rid of all of the CRAP between the drivers and the amplifier. Once you go "direct drive" with a good active crossover, you'll never want to deal with a passive crossover again. It IS worth the hassle.

[aw_dee_o]

"Comparing specifications is always difficult".

 

Yeah, especially when the spec's aren't standardized. The fact that the spec's provided are from one company, and they don't use the same testing methodologies throughout their entire product line, is pretty pathetic. What is even more pathetic is the fact that this is one of the biggest, most respected names in the industry.

 

Makes you wonder just how reliable / trustworthy some of the other spec's & manufacturers really are, doesn't it??? Sean

 

[dboomer]

According to JBL the PRX512M 133dB max spl was attained as follows; "Maximum Peak output measured with IEC pink noise at 1 meter in front of speaker baffle under free space conditions. Measurement instrument set to peak hold. Speaker muted and released at full power, recording maximum peak level."

 

WOW ... do you see what this really means. It means that "one" peak that happens one time is the number. Also when you mute the speaker and then release it the power supply in the amp will charge up to full power for that one and only peak.

 

Now I'll have to go back and increase all my peak power specs by an additional 6 db

[moody]

 

Hmmm.... NOT surprising. A design that uses drivers that are optimally sized for their intended range of reproduction and of lower moving mass actually sounds best to the average listener. Amazing, isn't it??? I think i've been saying something like this since i've been on this forum. Funny how the "industry professionals" / forum regulars kept recommending two ways with bigger, heavier woofers in those same threads. This might explain why most "professional" installations using "industry standard" designs sound as bad as they do. Thanks for posting and sharing your honest results. Sean PS.... Do youself a favour and lose the passive crossovers. If you think that the Communities sound good now, wait till you see what they can do in terms of dynamics, bass punch, midrange / treble detail and total output after getting rid of all of the CRAP between the drivers and the amplifier. Once you go "direct drive" with a good active crossover, you'll never want to deal with a passive crossover again. It IS worth the hassle.

 

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, but why are you trying to cause problems here? Make your point, disagree with the majority if you must, but please don't try to make waves for the sake of making waves.

 

The people here have been extremely helpful to me and many other people. Their suggestions may not be the best sound that could possibly happen but they do suggest the best possible combination of sound and value that they can. Regardless of other factors, two ways are cheap, common and depending on the brand and quality level can give a decent sound for the jobs they are asked to do.

[flanc]

Live sound certainly has it's innovators but this forum is largely (not exclusively) comprised of weekend warriors not looking to live on the bleeding edge. Rather, we need a tried and true, reliable, cost effective solution to reinforce our (mostly) small to mid-sized venue opportunities.

 

I find the group loves a good debate as long as it doesn't devolve into mud-slinging.

[agedhorse]

I personally prefer the sound of a small lightweight cone for midrange reproduction BUT often this is an inferior solution because of lack of efficiency of such a midrange device as well as the directivity of such a device which is essentially a 1/2-spherical radiator that then beams (reduction in spherical angle) as frequency increases. A 1/2-space spherical radiator may be way too wide for most applications we are likely to need in the PRO AUDIO INDUSTRY, but may be much better suited to home/domestic audio listening environments.

[lifeloverwg]

 

your application requires it. My guess is that when you compare sensitivities on a true average scale normalized for LF bandwidth, the average sensitivity difference between them is maybe 1dB, so MAYBE the SRX will get 3-4 dB louder (certainly more sensitivity in the HF section in biamp mode, but that's just the nature of large format drivers on well designed horns which is padded down for you in the passive xover mode. I think you are just mis-understanding the basic point I am trying to get across.

 

 

I understand your point completly. What we have here is a failure to communicate. (It's time I watched that movie again.)

My point of view going into this was and remains, "there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are speaker specifications".

 

You seem to still be hung up on the SRX power issue which I set off with with my admittedly perjorative phrase claiming a "reputation for liking lots of power".

I believe that manufacturers put a lot of time and effort into the design side of the equation, well except for that B one, and that when JBL uses any given group of drivers they do it in order to meet their design goals. In this particular case the MRX/PRX (same drivers) are rated 400 W / 800 W / 1600 W while the SRX is 800 W / 1600 W / 3200 W.

To me this still means that to attain their design goals the SRX likes/wants/needs/requires twice the power of the MRX/PRX. End of story. How good or bad they will sound or how much power is wasted through power compression or saved by higher sensitivety or DSP getting to their goals is a different matter. This was never an attack on the SRX line, just my understanding of a basic fact.

 

The whole SPL ratings mess may well be another area in which we are listening to, but not hearing each other. There are two reasons why I included SPL figures in my original speaker considerations and review. The first is just that for whatever reasons people seem to want/need to see them. People want know to how loud a speaker will go and unfortunately, many of them also seem to associate louder with better.

My main reason for including it was as more of a reality check. I assumed going in that products in the better MI level and lower Pro level will to varying degrees all sound good at continuos SPL levels, still sound good at program levels and sound not so good to down right bad at peak SPL levels. For the majority of our situations where I'm looking for SPLs running from an average of around 90-95 dBa at 10-15m indoors, to a max of maybe 105-110 dBa. Continuos power to any of the options would fit the bill much of the time and program easily covers the majority of our needs. However, we do provide for the occasional larger indoor and small outdoor gig where I want to be able to reach those same levels at greater distance. To my reading of the specs, the only ones I would feel confident about attaining that goal with mimimal degredation would be the Community, the SRX and the Coda. Peak SPL seems to be the most commonly stated spec and to meet my assumed expectations I wanted something with a claimed peak of around 130dB. The PRX and HPR seemed to me to be ones least likely to actually reach that goal cleanly and it's claimed peak of 133dB seems to me to be pure marketing hyperbole that was nicely decoded by dboomer.

 

Still, working to understand specs, Winston.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Hmmm.... NOT surprising. A design that uses drivers that are optimally sized for their intended range of reproduction and of lower moving mass actually sounds best to the average listener. Amazing, isn't it??? I think i've been saying something like this since i've been on this forum. Funny how the "industry professionals" / forum regulars kept recommending two ways with bigger, heavier woofers in those same threads. This might explain why most "professional" installations using "industry standard" designs sound as bad as they do.

 

 

I'm seeing a pattern of sarcasm and condescention towards certain people. If you've got a disagreement, be specific and quote posts within a thread or link to other threads so your intended victims at least know who they are and can address you.

[Dogoth]

+ for the SRX line. I use 4 of them as monitors (sometimes bi-amped and sometimes passive). Weight to quality is really good (the 2" horn makes all of the difference).

 

My other monitors are EAW SM500s. The SRX easily equals them for sound quality (except for bottom end). At 1/2 the price and 1/4 the weight, they're a bargain

 

I know you didn't get a chance to A/B them but you should give a listen if you can. Great Boxes!

[Audiopyle Sound]

 

Note that the JBL PRX has a 1.5" diaphragm horn driver, 1" exit. The QSC is a 1.4" diaphragm, 1" exit. The RCF TT22a has a 1.5" exit, 3" diaphragm driver.

[abzurd]

If you're looking for throw in a single cabinet, the EV QRX does very nicely. 1.5"ish exit I believe and a 75 degree horizontal. It also has a 15 degree up and 35 down vertical pattern. Keeps the sound off the ceiling and aids front fill near the stage at the same time. The downside is horizontal coverage can be a bit lacking. The "off-axis" coverage isn't all that great.

 

We just replaced our Yorkville NX550P's with the QRx 112/75. I wanted an upgrade, and also wanted to stay active, but the QRx's were one of those "too good to pass up" deals - $625 ea in mint condition. Going to bi-amp with 1/2 a Soundtech PS802 on one tops (limiter on processor) and 1/2 a QSC PLX 3102 for the mids. Subs will stay the NX700P's. They are sounding wonderful with the Peavey VSX48.

[DJ Swydez]

If you're looking for throw in a single cabinet, the EV QRX does very nicely. 1.5"ish exit I believe and a 75 degree horizontal. It also has a 15 degree up and 35 down vertical pattern. Keeps the sound off the ceiling and aids front fill near the stage at the same time. The downside is horizontal coverage can be a bit lacking. The "off-axis" coverage isn't all that great.

 

Agreed! Everytime I have heard the EV QRx cabinets, they have sounded amazing!

 

If I eventually get a really good sound system, it is going to be the EV QRx or Pheonix Speakers backed by QSC amps!!! I just love those speakers!

[drumstix]

I played around with a RCF TT22a this last weekend and compared it to a EAW JF290z. I used a CD player and several CD's with a male and female vocals. Short story, the TT22 sounds alot better than my JF290. I also had 3 different people point to the better sounding speaker doing a L/R A/B setup, all three pointed to the RCF. The horn sounds amazing, great mids and even though its a 12" woofer, has pretty good low end. The speaker gets pretty loud too and doesnt get harsh.