Yorkville NX Vs. QSC K Series

[abzurd]

What I found interesting was that it appears to have a 2" compression driver (I assume they mean the VC size)

 

Yamaha has been misrepresenting their compression driver sizes for at least 10 yrs. If you dig you'll find it is indeed the voice coil size, but they do everything they can to lead you to believe it is the exit size. It's always irked me. They are one of the few companies to frequently advertise the compression driver size and not include that it's the voice coil. They were also the first I can recall to publish their specs at -10 dB and not bother publishing the -3 dB part in most literature. They now put the -10dB next to the number but fail to include a -3 dB spec in a lot of their marketing. IMO, a -10 dB spec is worthless. I don't care what a speaker can do at 1/2 the volume of other frequencies. Unfortunately, I've noticed more and more manufacturers switching to the -10dB spec in their standard marketing.

[agedhorse]

Additionally, the Yamaha shows 850W going to the LF driver (450W to the HF which we all know is BS). What I found interesting was that it appears to have a 2" compression driver (I assume they mean the VC size). I was eviscerated by agedhorse for suggesting that a larger HF driver indicated any kind of quality difference since it is possible to have serious design problems with a larger HF driver. Still ....

 

That's 1" exit, 2" diaphragm driver, very average (not bad, but not outstanding either). It's not what we call a large format driver with a 1.4" or greater exit and a 3" or larger diaphragm.

 

The tradeoff is that a 1" exit must be crossed over higher than a larger format so on a 15" cabinet the voicing of the 15 will have to bear that in mind and the polar pattern may not be ideal due to beaming if it's up >1.5kHz. This is what seperates the "men from the boys".

[335BoB]

Thought I'd ask this question here. I was just looking through the PRX manual online and on page 30 they show different cables and connections. I have a K8 that has dual rca jacks on the back panel that make it easy for my daughter to hook up her mp3 player. (This was a HUGE hit this past summer and is one of the reason I hung onto one of the K8's) I believe the Yorkville has something also but not sure. The PRX is the same as my SxA360. Page 30 shows a cable to hook up a "pair" of PRX's. What kind of cable is there to use just one speaker from a mini 1/8" stereo jack from an mp3 player. (Not a typical question for the big boys)

This was a concern when I was planning on selling both of my K8's but now it's more out of curiosity since most likely the SxA360 will never be used in this application now.

 

Let me throw one more out there. (I'll duck) Should I consider selling my SaX360's to buy a pair of PRX612's?

[OneEng]

 

That's 1" exit, 2" diaphragm driver, very average (not bad, but not outstanding either). It's not what we call a large format driver with a 1.4" or greater exit and a 3" or larger diaphragm. The tradeoff is that a 1" exit must be crossed over higher than a larger format so on a 15" cabinet the voicing of the 15 will have to bear that in mind and the polar pattern may not be ideal due to beaming if it's up >1.5kHz. This is what seperates the "men from the boys".

 

 

Speaker -------------- xover point

DSR112 -------------- 1.5Khz

PRX612 -------------- 2.0 Khz

k12 ------------------ Not listed?

UPA-1P -------------- 1.2Khz

 

I threw in the Meyer for reference sake (I believe that everyone would agree that it is a high end benchmark). It looks like the DSR lies between the Meyer and PRX. It would be interesting to know what the X-over for the K12 is, although it is a cosmetic issue IMHO. The real test is in a real listening experience.

 

That being said, at least one poster thought the DSR112 was better than both the K12 and PRX612. Of course, everyone has their own taste.

 

The trend in the reports on the web is still that the K12 doesn't do well at high levels. The issues with "color" aren't that important to me since I would never have JUST the speaker. I would always use a small mixer since that allows much better control of the vocal and instrument eq and volume as well as providing a single place to hook up the music input for breaks.

 

Has anyone here heard the DSR112?

[ibanez_dude]

I've used some K series stuff for a number of gigs. While I've definitely used nicer stuff, I was fairly impressed with them overall

[agedhorse]

The UPA-1P uses a large format HF driver which allows for a lower crossover point and the LF driver is designed specifically with that in mind. You could not successfully use a medium format (say 1" exit) driver at 1.2kHz at high levels with today's power amps and expect high reliability as well as good sound quality.

 

I think the DSR-112, the KW122, the PRX-612 are all in roughly the same class, the K12 a little less but still it's going to be more of a personal preference based on the tradeoffs of size, weight, cost, cosmetics, and performance.

[OneEng]

And yet another question, I know that the word "Mackie" is a lightning rod in this form (usually for good reason), but has anyone heard the Mackie HD1221? The specs are here: http://www.mackie.com/products/hd1221/pdf/hd1221_ss.pdf

 

I have heard several Mackie powered speakers over the past 10-15 years and the only word that comes to mind is "HARSH" (and possibly painful).

 

I haven't heard the new ones in all honesty, so it may be different.

 

I also find I have a prejudiced against the words "Mackie" and even "Yamaha" from past experiences so I am looking for someone less biased than myself to determine if this is a justified prejudice or if things have changed

 

The UPA-1P uses a large format HF driver which allows for a lower crossover point and the LF driver is designed specifically with that in mind. You could not successfully use a medium format (say 1" exit) driver at 1.2kHz at high levels with today's power amps and expect high reliability as well as good sound quality. I think the DSR-112, the KW12, the PRX-612 are all in roughly the same class, the K12 a little less but still it's going to be more of a personal preference based on the tradeoffs of size, weight, cost, cosmetics, and performance.

Thanks agedhorse. Given my intended use model(s), the priced differential associated with the KW12, I think I can rule them out (an additional $800.00 a pair seems very steep).

 

From another forum:

I compared the Mackies to all self powered speakers guitar center offered. The Mackie was the only box that wasn't a toy. Flat magnitude and phase response = awesome. A quick forum search will bring up some good info on them.

 

I know from the specs that portions of the speaker are designed by EAW which has a very respectable reputation in pro sound, but it is still hard for me to swallow the idea of owning a Mackie speaker

[Rumorsband]

I've been pushing my prx 612's in the bedroom...LOL ...hard to tell. OK ...next question. When I used my yorkville with the hpf and the york sub...no crossover was needed. The JBL's do not have a hpf (thats on the sub) so I have been trying the prx 612's with my NX 720 sub like I did with the NX 55's ...no crossover ...I hear some tonal blled thrus as would be expected.... so i borrowed a friends EV (Tapco) EVT EX 18 electronic crossover (its old) and tried it that way. The definition is amazing, however it seems like all the volume is gone from all the cabs. I need to really raise the levels to get close to the volumes without the crossover...forgive me, but I havet used a x over in years... Is it because its old? Do Xovers soak up power? Would I experience the same with a newer model?

[agedhorse]

 

Thanks agedhorse. Given my intended use model(s), the priced differential associated with the KW12, I think I can rule them out (an additional $800.00 a pair seems very steep).

 

The difference isn't going to be even close to $800/pair... maybe $3800/pr

[OneEng]

 

The definition is amazing, however it seems like all the volume is gone from all the cabs. I need to really raise the levels to get close to the volumes without the crossover...forgive me, but I havet used a x over in years... Is it because its old? Do Xovers soak up power? Would I experience the same with a newer model?

 

I don't know that crossover in particular; however, check for an input gain and/or an output gain that you can adjust.

 

With the PRX in "monitor" mode isn't that the same as a HPF?

[Rumorsband]

 

I guess I was thinking KW122. I was not able to find a reference to a KW12. I am guessing that it is a very expensive speaker. I don't know that crossover in particular; however, check for an input gain and/or an output gain that you can adjust. There is a mid/hi level yes. They (EV) tell you to turn the sub all the way up and then adj the mid/hi's, but its still not as loud. With the PRX in "monitor" mode isn't that the same as a HPF?

 

I dont think the monitor mode is a hpf... and jbl does not call it so. I think monitor is equiv to flat, and main is equiv to boost. My Eons had flat, boost and cut (cut would be the hpf)

[335BoB]

 

I dont think the monitor mode is a hpf... and jbl does not call it so. I think monitor is equiv to flat, and main is equiv to boost. My Eons had flat, boost and cut (cut would be the hpf)

 

 

I was reading through the manual yesterday and thought is was kinda vague in the description. I took away from that that "I" think the Main is equivalent to fullrange and Monitor is a bass cut to keep the rumble out of the monitors that you can sometimes get. I thought the 80-100hz Hi-pass filter on the individual channels of a board would take care of that so I'm not sure the function of this button on the speaker.

 

Pg 19 of the manual states:

MAIN/MONITOR: Switching between

[OneEng]

Rumosrband,

 

I am not sure based on the documentation provided for the PRX if "monitor" is actually a HPF. Did you get the crossover output up to reasonable levels yet?

[modulusman]

 

 

 

I have some PRX512ms and 535s. The 512 mave the main/monitor button the 535s the boost/flat button. The switch in the monitor in position cuts some of the lows. We use it in this position when we use the 512 with subs. Same with the 535s.

[Mutha Goose]

For the PRX-612, look at the frequency response plots (p. 20). The monitor position is flat and the main position is providing a little bit of boost around 100Hz (~10dB) and 8kHz (~5dB). They even call it "EQ Boost/Flat" in the manual.

 

There is a HPF on the 612 of sorts. This is handled by the DSP and is a fixed frequency filter that is not bypass-able. The low-cut off point is chosen to be where they felt best suited when used as a system with their sub, hence the coinciding hi-cut off on the subs. This is basically true for all DSP-based powered speakers.

[drumstix]

 

I guess I was thinking KW122. I was not able to find a reference to a KW12. I am guessing that it is a very expensive speaker

 

"

 

I think your getting some numbers crossed amigo. Aged is calling the KW122 a KW12. The UPA that is mentioned is the Meyer box that cost around $3800. (more per pair)

I would say or guess that the Meyer UPA and maybe the JBL VP box with a slight few others are the creme of the crop.

 

There are a hand full of speakers that cost around $2500 each that are somewhere between these top dog speakers and the $1000 price range like the KW122 or Yamaha DSR. I dont know they would fit in on the ladder. A couple that come to mind are the RCF TT22A and KV2 EX12. I dont know myself, perhaps they will perform with the UPA and VP.

 

Speaking of large HF drivers, the JBL VP has a 4" diaphragm driver with a 1.5" exit.

[agedhorse]

Sorry for the typo, that was indeed supposed to be KW-122.

[Rumorsband]

 

For the PRX-612, look at the frequency response plots (p. 20). The monitor position is flat and the main position is providing a little bit of boost around 100Hz (~10dB) and 8kHz (~5dB). They even call it "EQ Boost/Flat" in the manual. There is a HPF on the 612 of sorts. This is handled by the DSP and is a fixed frequency filter that is not bypass-able. The low-cut off point is chosen to be where they felt best suited when used as a system with their sub, hence the coinciding hi-cut off on the subs. This is basically true for all DSP-based powered speakers.

 

Before buying...when i called JBL customer service I was told the monitor is equl to flat and main is a boost. They also said I would need an electronic xover if using a sub that didnt have one ...the nx 720 has a setting for the lows but the manual states it sends a thru signal so it wont cut off lows going to the tops. Now my stupid question to end the year. What is DSP? I have been going back and forth with and without the electronic xover and although there is more "clarity" when in use, I do not hear unpleasant tones going to the 612's

[OneEng]

 

Before buying...when i called JBL customer service I was told the monitor is equl to flat and main is a boost. They also said I would need an electronic xover if using a sub that didnt have one ...the nx 720 has a setting for the lows but the manual states it sends a thru signal so it wont cut off lows going to the tops. Now my stupid question to end the year. What is DSP? I have been going back and forth with and without the electronic xover and although there is more "clarity" when in use, I do not hear unpleasant tones going to the 612's

 

 

DSP - "Digital Signal Processing". Inside the speaker is a small computer which does real time analyzation of the incoming signal as well as monitoring the output signal from the main amplification. Using computing algorithms, the output is determined based on the current reading of the input, the rate of change of the input from the last time sample, and the rate of change of the rate of change (sorry, engineer talk).

 

Essentially, it is like a car "drive by wire" example. In newer vehicles, the throttle doesn't actually go to the throttle, it goes to the computer. The computer then uses a small stepper motor to adjust the throttle for you.

 

I am not sure what you are saying about the cross-over. Does it make the sound better or worse?

[Mutha Goose]

A DSP is a Digital Signal Processor. It is a processing engine optimized to perform mathmatical manipulations on data, in this case digital audio. When designing a DSP-based power amplifier with a speaker, you control extactly which frequencies are getting thru the DSP to the speaker. It is the DSP's compensations that allow for a system level flat response (phase and freq) and that is defining the pass-band. As a design engineer, you wouldn't pass freq's that the rest of the system is incapable of handling. Why would you in a tuned system when all that is needed to prevent these offending signals is a single line of code or an adjustment of a single parameter modifier?

 

You will not get a more efficient use from powered systems through external control like you can with passive speakers. The reason JBL mentions to use a x-over when "if using a sub that didnt have one" is for system correctness, not to protect a speaker or improve efficiency. It is to reduce the system level mis-match errors (overlap between the tops and subs). If you are using a PRX-612M with a non-PRX sub, and that sub can easily work up to 110Hz, I would use a crossover set to about 110 Hz (Personally I think the 90Hz setting for the 612 is too low). However, if you are using the 612 with a PRX618 sub, the sub's hi cut-off and the 612's low cut-off are matched. I haven't swept mine yet to listen for anamolies at these points, but I don't expect any. After all, they did design these to work together as a matched system. In other words, I expect that they have done this work and have modified their algorythms to be correct for this setup. After all, that is the benefit of going with a powered system.

[OneEng]

Sorry for the typo, that was indeed supposed to be KW-122.

Then a pair of them would be ~$800 more than a pair of PRX612's based on what I have been able to find on the web ($1100 ea KW122, $700 EA PRX612).

 

@Rumosrband,

 

The DSP is acting as a equalizer in the PRX612. It has 2 preset eq's. Without this, you could easily do the same thing with an off-board eq.

 

I suspect in the future, we are going to see many more options in speakers with regard to the amount of input you can access from the back panel. I predict a small LCD monitor and a set of "soft keys" to access tons of programing information much like a rack mount efx unit has today. At this time, the computing is there, but the input is pretty slim

[OneEng]

If you are using a PRX-612M with a non-PRX sub, and that sub can easily work up to 110Hz, I would use a crossover set to about 110 Hz (Personally I think the 90Hz setting for the 612 is too low).

I don't know, sounds about right to me. Don't you think that the PRX612 can handle the load for 90-120Hz frequencies? That sounds right up the alley for a 12" speaker to me, but then again I don't design these things either

[Mutha Goose]

 

...which does real time analyzation of the incoming signal as well as monitoring the output signal from the main amplification...

 

 

Actually it is very rare for the DSP to be monitoring anything at the outputs other than simple diagnostics. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Even compression and limiting algorythyms are based on "expected" output behaviors, not monitored behaviors. This is because the additional components required to sample and feedback the outputs can get expensive or can have adverse effects on the audio quality and become the short fuse for reliability.

[Mutha Goose]

 

... Don't you think that the PRX612 can handle the load for 90-120Hz frequencies? ...

 

 

That is a close call for me at the higher SPLs. Of course this depends on the box and driver. But then again, depending on the sub's design, those can be on the high end as well.

[OneEng]

 

Actually it is very rare for the DSP to be monitoring anything at the outputs other than simple diagnostics. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Even compression and limiting algorythyms are based on "expected" output behaviors, not monitored behaviors. This is because the additional components required to sample and feedback the outputs can get expensive or can have adverse effects on the audio quality and become the short fuse for reliability.

 

 

Really! I am surprised.

 

Considering the vast array of DSP's available today, I would think that it would be a negligible cost (I know, no such thing as negligible in the consumer market) in monitoring the output and there would be a considerable value to doing so (both for diagnostics and control algorithms).