quick question: Behringer EP 2500 vs Crown XLS 602

[michal888]

What do you think has better quality and reliability: Behringer EP 2500 or Crown XLS 602? Give me advice what to buy. I have to made my decision this afternoon, so help me.

[B. Adams]

Personally, I'd recommend a QSC RMX1850 over both of those, assuming there were no other variables (like what's available in Europe).

 

After that, I'd probably go with the Crown. I've heard fewer complaints about them than the Behringers.

[gruvjack]

If I have to choose between the Behringer and the Crown, my money would go to Crown. I'd go for a QSC RMX2450 but I realize that QSC may not be an option wherever you are. However, if QSC amps are available, spend the extra money and get one. You'll thank us and yourself later.

 

V.

[michal888]

Thanks for replies. I appreciate your advices but I have VERY limited budget, so I can

[tlbonehead]

Definitely the Crown between those two. Isn't used an option?

[Steve_B]

I know that all advice here is given with the best intentions, but it must be remembered that price variations in Europe can be a lot more than in the US.

 

Of the amps mentioned The European prices from Thomann (European wide retailer) are:

 

Behringer.......298 Eur....$384

Crown...........498 Eur....$642

RMX2450.......725 Eur....$935

 

Whilst it may be agreed that the RMX is a better amplifier than the Behringer it can hardly be compared on price.

 

I know a couple of venues that use the Behringer amps and they seem to be OK. Another consideration in Europe is the T.Amp range from Thomann. These work out a bit cheaper than the Behringer. I

[B. Adams]

First of all, Steve, we're not looking at the same amp. The RMX 1850 is the rough equivalent of the Crown, the RMX 2450 is much larger. And while the RMX2450 and EP2500 look similar on paper...yeah, right, I bet. But all that aside...

 

In any case, from what I can tell, an 1850 goes for 666 Euros. Maybe that's a bad sign, in and of itself.

 

The only question I would have would be whether the QSC would outlast 2 Behringers, and I'd still say that's a crap-shoot.

 

Also, what's this going to be used for? Running a pair of 8 ohm mains in small clubs? You might be alright with the Behringer, actually. Running a pair or two of 4 ohm subs, I think the QSC is probably a better choice.

[agedhorse]

My experience is that the Crown reliability in general is higher than the average amp.

 

How's warranty repair service availability for Behringer in your area... that can be an important deciding factor.

[Steve_B]

The 2450 was mentioned by gruvjack, but the 666 Eur of the 1850 is still a lot more than the 298 Eur of the Behringer.

 

The RMX might be a budget range of amplifiers in the US but for someone with a very limited cash flow they are not that cheap in Europe.

 

My point is not about the performance or reliability, just the relative cost.

 

For more real world views check this thread

 

Steve.

[michal888]

Thanks for replies, guys. I think that Crown could be better choice for me than Behringer. Also thanks for advices about QSC, but they are expensive here, so I can

[agedhorse]

You really need to listen to them and compare them directly. There are some good "no name" powered speakers out there but there's also a big selection of no-name junk!

 

The JRX speakers are a low line model, so maybe worth a listen to some other products too?

[moody]

 

Originally posted by michal888 Thanks for replies, guys. I think that Crown could be better choice for me than Behringer. Also thanks for advices about QSC, but they are expensive here, so I can

[Daniel Smart]

 

Originally posted by agedhorse You really need to listen to them and compare them directly. There are some good "no name" powered speakers out there but there's also a big selection of no-name junk! The JRX speakers are a low line model, so maybe worth a listen to some other products too?

 

 

Just about everything compromises somewhere - especially if you're on a budget. If possible it's always good to check out the best you can possibly find so that you have a reference point. That way when comparing the alternatives on your actual budget you can hopefully hear and understand what some of those compromises are and make a qualified decision.

 

-Daniel

[michal888]

 

Originally posted by agedhorse You really need to listen to them and compare them directly. There are some good "no name" powered speakers out there but there's also a big selection of no-name junk! The JRX speakers are a low line model, so maybe worth a listen to some other products too?

 

 

Yeah, that could be cool, but I can

[michal888]

 

Originally posted by moody I wouldn't be able to advise you anyway, but no one here will be able to advise you without knowing the brand and model of the powered speakers. From the sound of it I'd go with the known brands you were about to anyway.

 

 

 

 

OK, so the brand is called RH Sound. Do you know it? No. I just wanted to know some pros and cons of active way, because I know that Crown and those JRX are low line, so I don

[michal888]

 

Originally posted by Daniel Smart Just about everything compromises somewhere - especially if you're on a budget. If possible it's always good to check out the best you can possibly find so that you have a reference point. That way when comparing the alternatives on your actual budget you can hopefully hear and understand what some of those compromises are and make a qualified decision. -Daniel

 

 

 

Thanks man, you

[matt2712]

I dont know wether to have passive speakers or active. i already bought myself passive as it was cheaper at the time, i believe passive is better as there is less chance of EMF interference to the signal cable (if you had Active speakers the signal cable is longer and thus more chance of interference) and there is only one brand of home theatre speakers that has active speakers every other brand uses passive, i dunno but i think ill agree with the minority, and ive never known a PA system to sound better than any good home theatre of equal value.

[GCDEF]

 

I dont know wether to have passive speakers or active. i already bought myself passive as it was cheaper at the time, i believe passive is better as there is less chance of EMF interference to the signal cable (if you had Active speakers the signal cable is longer and thus more chance of interference) and there is only one brand of home theatre speakers that has active speakers every other brand uses passive, i dunno but i think ill agree with the minority, and ive never known a PA system to sound better than any good home theatre of equal value.

 

 

Why bump a 5 year old thread to post something irrelevant? What is it with first time posters and thread archeology?

[modulusman]

I dont know wether to have passive speakers or active. i already bought myself passive as it was cheaper at the time, i believe passive is better as there is less chance of EMF interference to the signal cable (if you had Active speakers the signal cable is longer and thus more chance of interference) and there is only one brand of home theatre speakers that has active speakers every other brand uses passive, i dunno but i think ill agree with the minority, and ive never known a PA system to sound better than any good home theatre of equal value.

 

Powered speakers get there signal from shielded mic cables. Should be very little interference if any. Comparing home theater with live audio is apples and oranges.

[monthlymixcd]

I dont know wether to have passive speakers or active. i already bought myself passive as it was cheaper at the time, i believe passive is better as there is less chance of EMF interference to the signal cable (if you had Active speakers the signal cable is longer and thus more chance of interference) and there is only one brand of home theatre speakers that has active speakers every other brand uses passive, i dunno but i think ill agree with the minority, and ive never known a PA system to sound better than any good home theatre of equal value.

 

 

(Wait, these posts are still going to disappear with H-C Forum 2.0, right?!?)

 

OMG... what a stOOpid post. Seriously?!? We are all dumber for having read it. I feel like an @$$ for even bumping it with this reply, but...

 

O M G

 

Hey Matt2712,

Buy Behringer. LOTS... of Behringer. You can't own ENOUGH Behringer!

 

Oh... and Welcome to the Forum?

 

(Sheesh.)

[jwlussow]

 

I dont know wether to have passive speakers or active. i already bought myself passive as it was cheaper at the time, i believe passive is better as there is less chance of EMF interference to the signal cable (if you had Active speakers the signal cable is longer and thus more chance of interference) and there is only one brand of home theatre speakers that has active speakers every other brand uses passive, i dunno but i think ill agree with the minority, and ive never known a PA system to sound better than any good home theatre of equal value.

 

 

Passive speakers use unbalanced cables and carry power to the speakers, active speakers use balanced XLR cables that carry line level signal to the amp in the speaker. Unbalanced speaker cables can introduce more noise, XLR can mean cleaner, less noisy signal. Over simplification but pretty much true.

 

Your home theater example is true...as long as you are comparing $100 PA systems to $100 home theater systems. Actually, I assume the same might be true for my $20,000 PA system and a $20,000 home theater system. I'll bet my PA can handle dynamic load better, though. I doubt if that home theater system sounds very good doing live heavy metal, either. Kind of like comparing the a Ford Fiesta against a Cessna. They are not meant to do the same job but it is possible a Fiesta can stay airborne while falling off a cliff...at least until it has deceleration trauma. The Cessna isn't that great for getting good gas mileage on the highway, though. Which is better?

 

Thank God these posts are going away. We will not have to relive some of the idiocy that is happening right now.

[agedhorse]

 

Passive speakers use unbalanced cables and carry power to the speakers, active speakers use balanced XLR cables that carry line level signal to the amp in the speaker. Unbalanced speaker cables can introduce more noise, XLR can mean cleaner, less noisy signal. Over simplification but pretty much true.

 

 

Completely incorrect.

 

There will be less potential for interference with a passive speaker level signal because the levels are MUCH higher and the impedances much lower. Balancing doesn't matter, and it should be noted that some amps have balanced (bridged) output with the speaker acting as a transformer primary. Even if you are unaware that the topology uses bridged methods. Many class D amps are done this way.

 

With a good balanced active speaker, noise levels will be no problem whatsoever either.

[abzurd]

Anyone driven that new 58' Edsel? Looks like a sweet ride. I'm thinking of getting one

[jwlussow]

 

Completely incorrect. There will be less potential for interference with a passive speaker level signal because the levels are MUCH higher and the impedances much lower. Balancing doesn't matter, and it should be noted that some amps have balanced (bridged) output with the speaker acting as a transformer primary. Even if you are unaware that the topology uses bridged methods. Many class D amps are done this way. With a good balanced active speaker, noise levels will be no problem whatsoever either.

 

 

I sure am glad these threads are going to disappear....

 

I guess it is true that one is never to old to learn something...

[monthlymixcd]

(I'm pretty much a layman and) My thinking has always been that the signal carried by speaker cable (PA or HiFi) is post-amplification and any interference it might absorb at least isn't going to be amplified and is therefore negligible unlike the signal chain anywhere before the power amp stage.

 

BTW - I've heard that it's always best to coil your excess cables as it gives you a free volume boost.