Jump to content

Ok, its time. Which setup do you reccomend and why?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The cabs are :

2 Carvin SW1802 Dual 18" subs-4 ohms 800W Cont/1600 Prog

2 Carvin 1588 dual 15" tops-4 ohms-800W continuous

 

1- QSC RMX 2450 stereo for the tops and (2)RMX 1450 amps ,one bridged per sub

 

2- QSC RMX 2450 stereo for tops, QSC RMX 4050 stereo for subs

 

3-Crown XLS 802D stereo for tops, (2) XLS 402D bridged one for each amp

 

4-Crown XLS 802D stereo for tops, XLS 802D stereo for subs

 

5-QSC RMX 2450 stereo for tops, 2450 stereo for subs

 

6-QSC PLX1804 stereo for tops, PLX1804 stereo for subs

 

What would you choose? Keep in consideration the cost of these amps. lets assume I can get them all at MF prices. THANK YOU everyone for all of your help about all of this power amp crap the last few days. It is helping me out a ton. Also, which of these setups will draw the most power from the wall? The least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For a mid-sized club band, I'd highly recommend the PLX's. Nothing wrong with any of the others, but weight and power draw make the PLX's worth the extra $$. About 5 years ago my amp rack had 5 QSC RMX amps....nothing wrong with them at all. However, the rack was just over 300lbs and I popped breakers on a fairly regular basis. I now have a single Lab Gruppen (23lbs) doing the work of two previous RMX2450's and one of Audiopyles E&W PS2000 (another swithcing amp) for my top cabinets. I still have an RMX1450 in the rack for monitors and I run all three amps off one 20amp circuit if I'm not going to push the system hard. I popped a breaker once at a large club when I was up against the limiters, squeezing every db of SPL I could out of the system. Now I split the load in my larger clubs but otherwise still run off one 20amp circuit. Oh...and my amp rack is now about 175lbs....not 300.

 

Anyway, the PLX's are also lightweight and reportedly easy on power draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by agedhorse

PLX's, but maybe a smaller PLX for tops

 

I believe the PLX1804 puts out 900 p/ch at 4 ohms. The tops are 800 continuous. Can you elaborate on why you would run a smaller amp for the tops? Also, do you think 900 watts per 1600 watt program sub is too little?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I missed the Carvin dual 15 tops... never occured to me that pairing this with a sub was a design intent. But, with that cabinet, the 900 watts is appropriate.

 

No, 900 watts is NOT underpowering the subs in my opinion. You could maybe use more, but the SPL return would be minimal at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have a pair of the 1588 tops. I Bi-amp mine with a QSC PLX3002 on the 15's and a PLX2402 on the mid/high section. I used differn't subs, powered with a Crown CE4000. I have used the Carvin subs before and I think somewhere arond 1000 to 1200 watts is about right. High pass them around 35 to 40 hz. Don't go any lower than that. The main problem is the excursion of the 18's, not the voice coils burning. If I were you, I'd be looking at some PLX amps. Even used ones such as the ones I have would be better in the long run rather than the RMX line. Less wieght and less current draw. I see no real good reason to buy a bunch of smaller amps and bridge them to come up with the power needed. Besides the added wieght there is also the added rack space needed. That will also cost more. In the long run you will come out better with the PLX line. You might look at the QSC PLX2 1804 for the 1588's and a PLX2-3102 or 3702 for the subs. When you decide to bi-amp the 1588's get another 1804 or a 1104. Simpler is better this time. When you get into a club with few circuits available, you will be glad to have the PLX'sand your back will thank you. Take Care, John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by 6Imzadi

How long have you had yours again?
;)

 

Hey okay, so maybe I have only had it for like a week or so, but it is frickin' amazing! Such clean sound and a 6 year warranty! I'm sorry, it's hard to beat that!

 

But I have been using QSC amps for almost 2 years now, and every one of them has been great sounding and realiable! I did use some Crown and Mackie amps, but the QSC was still better. However, the Mackie 1400i was a very close second, but it is now discontinued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by 6Imzadi

LOL, consider yourself initiated. At least by me. I have given you some duff about your questions, but you seem to be "getting it". Keep up the good learning.

 

Thanks man! :cool:

 

I feel so special! :D

 

And thanks for all of your help over the past couple weeks/months! :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by 6Imzadi

How long have you had yours again?
;)

 

I just gotta laugh. Come on ... I wanna hear from the guy that will stand up and say "Wow was I a total jerk, I bought Brand XYZ and got totally ripped off"

 

It just never happens ( of course anything can and will blow up 1 out of X thousand times) ... I've owned all of these amps and ya know what ... they all work just fine. I've had a few that had well publicized problems ... Mackie M1400s and Crown CE2000s that did blow up. Other than that my Crowns, QSCs, BGWs, AB systems, Crests and even Peavey amps all performed just as advertised.

 

Are they all the same ... hell no. But they are what they are advertised to be. My Crest 7001 and 8001s were the most bullet proof thing I ever owned ... but they weighed a ton and cost an arm and a leg.

 

The difference between similar sized RMX and PLX(MI series) amps are that the RMXs are less expensive and are more reliable ... but they are also weigh a lot more. I'm not saying I expect a pLX to break down ... but given enough time more of them will fail before more RMX amps will. That's it

 

Of course you should take into consideration that with their lighter weight you may not bang around the PLX as much so it may outlast the RMX from that standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by dboomer

I just gotta laugh. Come on ... I wanna hear from the guy that will stand up and say "Wow was I a total jerk, I bought Brand XYZ and got totally ripped off"


It just never happens ( of course anything can and will blow up 1 out of X thousand times) ... I've owned all of these amps and ya know what ... they all work just fine. I've had a few that had well publicized problems ... Mackie M1400s and Crown CE2000s that did blow up. Other than that my Crowns, QSCs, BGWs, AB systems, Crests and even Peavey amps all performed just as advertised.


Are they all the same ... hell no. But they are what they are advertised to be. My Crest 7001 and 8001s were the most bullet proof thing I ever owned ... but they weighed a ton and cost an arm and a leg.


The difference between similar sized RMX and PLX(MI series) amps are that the RMXs are less expensive and are more reliable ... but they are also weigh a lot more. I'm not saying I expect a pLX to break down ... but given enough time more of them will fail before more RMX amps will. That's it


Of course you should take into consideration that with their lighter weight you may not bang around the PLX as much so it may outlast the RMX from that standpoint.

Speraking of the PLX, your GPS line seems to be pretty direct competition to them. But I hear so little about them. Any general comments of any sort. Lastly, why are those darned DPC1400s so expensive! :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

GPS = Class H with conventional power supply (heavy but soild for bass)

 

PLX = Class H with switch mode power supply (light weight but some people think they are a bit light on low bass performance)

 

DPC = Class D (digital) with switch mode power supply. They are expensive because it's very difficult to cram all that stuff into a single rack space. They are really cool IF you need a single rack space amp that's light weight. You definately pay for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

The difference between similar sized RMX and PLX(MI series) amps are that the RMXs are less expensive and are more reliable ... but they are also weigh a lot more. I'm not saying I expect a pLX to break down ... but given enough time more of them will fail before more RMX amps will. That's it


 

 

Hi guys. I'm considering a QSC PLX1804 wich I'm gonna use with 4 Bose 802s(2 per channel) for live sound in clubs, 50 to 200 people. Light jazz,Broadway showTunes, standards... 3-4, sometime 5 piece band.

 

What I'd like to ask you is: why are you saying "given enough time more of them will fail before more RMX amps will".:confused:

I didn't buy the PLX yet, so if there is a good reason for that, I might go with the RMX2450 even though I like the PLX a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I was buying new today and the power matched up to my speakers, the PLX1804 at 13#!!!!! is the way to go. It'll spoil the hell out of you.

 

I spent the difference and got rid of my old mismatched amps including an RMX2450 and replaced them with used PLX1602, PLX2402 & PLX3002 for a bit more power, but just as important, for a MAJOR amp rack weight reduction. made the difference between killin' myself at the end of a gig to just a heavy grunt lift ;>)

 

And I'm still lusting after a PLX1804 to replace the 3002 for 4ohm tops in stereo! Of course I'd then move the larger amps down the line for duty.

 

Boomerweps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for the encouragement BoomerWeps.

I read and asked a lot about the PLX1804 and I decided to get it this coming friday, that's why I was just curious (and a little bit sad)

why in the world would a PLX "go" faster than a

RMX. But I'm gonna get the PLX anyway.

I'm sure it's a great piece of equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Thank you for the encouragement BoomerWeps.

I read and asked a lot about the PLX1804 and I decided to get it this coming friday, that's why I was just curious (and a little bit sad)

why in the world would a PLX "go" faster than a

RMX. But I'm gonna get the PLX anyway.

I'm sure it's a great piece of equipment.

 

 

 

I think Don was comparing a failure rate of 1 per million vs 1.004 per million units:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...