Members dboomer Posted January 28, 2006 Members Share Posted January 28, 2006 Way I see it .. it's not the underpowered amp that's the problem. It's the system operator that's pushing the level too loud for too long. You just can't push gear past it's limits and expect it to be reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted January 28, 2006 Members Share Posted January 28, 2006 Originally posted by dboomer Way I see it .. it's not the underpowered amp that's the problem. It's the system operator that's pushing the level too loud for too long. You just can't push gear past it's limits and expect it to be reliable. Now Don, if we could just find a way to package this and sell it we could become millionaires! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q moder Posted January 29, 2006 Members Share Posted January 29, 2006 Thats what I'm thinking too dboomer. From what I understand the program rating is what number you observe and adhere to and too many people are observing and adhering to the maximum listed rating. If you operate at maximum all the time, YES you will blow a driver no dout no matter who makes it. All Pa cabs are pretty listed in the same way. Program power rating then their maximum power rating. The club series is better because its meant to be. Thats why it costs more. Duh!. If you a buy a Squire Strat and then American Standard Strat. Which one do you think you'll pay the most for and would be the best? The BR is simply a less expensive cab for more beginner bands. You could always still use them as monitors later though. The program rating on a clubs are ususally 500 watts or even more. The BR series is only rated at 250 watts program. So its half as much. The BR is a little bit smaller too because again its not designed to take as much power as the club cab. But compare the two cabs otherwize and you'll pretty find that they both share a very simular design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted January 29, 2006 Members Share Posted January 29, 2006 Originally posted by Q moder Thats what I'm thinking too dboomer. From what I understand the program rating is what number you observe and adhere to and too many people are observing and adhering to the maximum listed rating.If you operate at maximum all the time, YES you will blow a driver no dout no matter who makes it. All Pa cabs are pretty listed in the same way. Program power rating then their maximum power rating.The club series is better because its meant to be. Thats why it costs more. Duh!. If you a buy a Squire Strat and then American Standard Strat. Which one do you think you'll pay the most for and would be the best? The BR is simply a less expensive cab for more beginner bands. You could always still use them as monitors later though. The program rating on a clubs are ususally 500 watts or even more. The BR series is only rated at 250 watts program. So its half as much.The BR is a little bit smaller too because again its not designed to take as much power as the club cab. But compare the two cabs otherwize and you'll pretty find that they both share a very simular design. I always pay more attention to the RMS rating,not the program number. Especially in this case where the VC is only 2 1/2" on the FR cabs and 2 1/2 or 3" on the subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted January 29, 2006 Members Share Posted January 29, 2006 Sorry, but I view all speaker power ratings with suspician. Often, the same speaker with the same driver compliment will grow it's power rating over it's lifespan. It's just too subjective of a number when compared to how the speaker is likely to be used in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted January 29, 2006 Members Share Posted January 29, 2006 Originally posted by Q moder If you operate at maximum all the time, YES you will blow a driver no dout no matter who makes it. All Pa cabs are pretty listed in the same way. NO THEY ARE NOT!!! and that's a big problem. They may seem to say the same thing but how they get that number makes a BIG difference. Do not assume that one manufacturer's numbers equal another's even if you think the manufacturer is reputable. You need to fully understand their test method. For example ... our's and JBL's are NOT tested the same. They stress the drivers differently. I'm NOT saying that JBL doesn't meet their spec .... I'm saying that we have different specs that we hold to. And then some manufacturers don't tell you how they arrive at their spec number at all ... a totally useless spec! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted January 29, 2006 Members Share Posted January 29, 2006 Originally posted by dboomer NO THEY ARE NOT!!! and that's a big problem. They may seem to say the same thing but how they get that number makes a BIG difference. Do not assume that one manufacturer's numbers equal another's even if you think the manufacturer is reputable. You need to fully understand their test method. For example ... our's and JBL's are NOT tested the same. They stress the drivers differently. I'm NOT saying that JBL doesn't meet their spec .... I'm saying that we have different specs that we hold to.And then some manufacturers don't tell you how they arrive at their spec number at all ... a totally useless spec! This makes it all the more difficult for some of us the figure out exactly what we're supposed to be looking at. I took a look at the JBL website which goes into depth as far as how they come up with their power ratings. I'm still confused. RMS = ??? to JBL's specs? Perhaps we need to have a listing/sticky which shows which amps are a good match for which speaker. Of course, we would have to establish a 'standard' of each speaker vs amp would be per channel etc. If bridged mono is required, then it would have to be clearly stated. As usual, a disclaimer would be required too!!! For example: JBL Mpro418 subs - QSC PLX 3402. What do you all think? Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by JohnnyGraphic This makes it all the more difficult for some of us the figure out exactly what we're supposed to be looking at. I took a look at the JBL website which goes into depth as far as how they come up with their power ratings. I'm still confused. RMS = ??? to JBL's specs? Perhaps we need to have a listing/sticky which shows which amps are a good match for which speaker. Of course, we would have to establish a 'standard' of each speaker vs amp would be per channel etc. If bridged mono is required, then it would have to be clearly stated. As usual, a disclaimer would be required too!!! For example: JBL Mpro418 subs - QSC PLX 3402.What do you all think?Johnny You're making things far more complicated than they need to be. A little knowledge and a pile of common sense are really all that are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by JohnnyGraphic This makes it all the more difficult for some of us the figure out exactly what we're supposed to be looking at. I took a look at the JBL website which goes into depth as far as how they come up with their power ratings. I'm still confused. RMS = ??? to JBL's specs? Perhaps we need to have a listing/sticky which shows which amps are a good match for which speaker. Of course, we would have to establish a 'standard' of each speaker vs amp would be per channel etc. If bridged mono is required, then it would have to be clearly stated. As usual, a disclaimer would be required too!!! For example: JBL Mpro418 subs - QSC PLX 3402.What do you all think?Johnny This is where experience and especially operating a service shop is so revealing. For example, a 418 uses a 4 ohm "G" version of the 2241 driver. My experience is that the driver is most reliable when operated BELOW 600 watts if you plan on driving it hard night after night. The 4 ohm amplifier rating is what you want to look at, meaningthe 3402 is too big... but would be ideal for the 8 ohm versions. 2 boxes would give you the 4 ohm load and about 1000-ish watts/2 drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by agedhorse This is where experience and especially operating a service shop is so revealing. For example, a 418 uses a 4 ohm "G" version of the 2241 driver. My experience is that the driver is most reliable when operated BELOW 600 watts if you plan on driving it hard night after night. The 4 ohm amplifier rating is what you want to look at, meaningthe 3402 is too big... but would be ideal for the 8 ohm versions. 2 boxes would give you the 4 ohm load and about 1000-ish watts/2 drivers. Wait a minute, didn't you say in another thread that the 3402 would be a good match for the MPro 418? This is 1100 into 4 ohms. Not trying to be difficult, but trying to understand and learn. I currently have a RMX2450 going into the SRX4718 (same driver). This is rated at 750 @ 4 ohms per side. Am I looking for trouble? Perhaps tlbonehead is right and I AM making it too difficult on myself! Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Unalaska Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 An RMX2450 is a good match for the MP418, maybe a bit on the high side. If you feel you're running out of low end I'd suggest adding another pair of 418's rather than more power to the same box. p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q moder Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Oh see now I get accused of owning Yamaha stock or being with them in some way. But I'm just a product end user who likes his Yamaha's. But other folks here saying that Yamaha cabs are bad are actually employees of Peavey. No axe to grind of course. But you know these Yamaha's are just junk. GO PEAVEY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by Q moder Oh see now I get accused of owning Yamaha stock or being with them in some way. But I'm just a product end user who likes his Yamaha's. But other folks here saying that Yamaha cabs are bad are actually employees of Peavey.No axe to grind of course. But you know these Yamaha's are just junk. GO PEAVEY. Well,I certainly don't work for Peavey or any manufacturer. The BR series cabs are really not very good and the Clubs are ok. They are MDF/particle board construction with decent components. They are getting kind of high priced for what you get,IMO. And I've heard the subs and they really don't seem to produce a lot of what they should produce. You just seem to be stuck on the brand regardless of whether or not there are better choices out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted January 30, 2006 CMS Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by Q moder Oh see now I get accused of owning Yamaha stock or being with them in some way. But I'm just a product end user who likes his Yamaha's. But other folks here saying that Yamaha cabs are bad are actually employees of Peavey.No axe to grind of course. But you know these Yamaha's are just junk. GO PEAVEY. Well, first, unless I misinterpreted the comment, the "accusation" was just harmless ribbing because you seemed somewhat hell-bent to defend the Yammies. No harm no foul, but again, maybe I misread. The only person in this thread whom I know works for Peavey is dboomer, and he wrote *nothing* derogatory about Yamaha. And really, nobody suggested you shouldn't like your Yamaha's. The Club is a mainstay in its market, but the subs are probably the weak link and this is also fairly well known in the business. The power rating is considered a bit high by some folks here who make some pretty decent income reconing the results of powering them too high. This is a common result of having a sub that doesn't put out what you expect, and then try to eek out a bit more by piling on the power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by Unalaska An RMX2450 is a good match for the MP418, maybe a bit on the high side. If you feel you're running out of low end I'd suggest adding another pair of 418's rather than more power to the same box.p Thanks for the good suggestions! Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by JohnnyGraphic Wait a minute, didn't you say in another thread that the 3402 would be a good match for the MPro 418? This is 1100 into 4 ohms. Not trying to be difficult, but trying to understand and learn. I currently have a RMX2450 going into the SRX4718 (same driver). This is rated at 750 @ 4 ohms per side. Am I looking for trouble?Perhaps tlbonehead is right and I AM making it too difficult on myself!Johnny If I did, I missed the 4 ohm part with a brain fart! If it's a modified M-PRO w/ 8 ohm "H" version drivers, it would be ideal. Also, if all you have is 3402's, a limiter on the input to limit the input to -2.5dB below the clip point would also work, but would be a waste of amp power & money if buying new. A 3003 is the largest amp I would recommend, a 2402 would be better in the long run. If you need more output, add cabinets and power, not just power!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by agedhorse If I did, I missed the 4 ohm part with a brain fart! If it's a modified M-PRO w/ 8 ohm "H" version drivers, it would be ideal.Also, if all you have is 3402's, a limiter on the input to limit the input to -2.5dB below the clip point would also work, but would be a waste of amp power & money if buying new. A 3003 is the largest amp I would recommend, a 2402 would be better in the long run. If you need more output, add cabinets and power, not just power!!! Thanks aged. I don't have the 3402, just a pair of RMX2450's which should be a good match (I also am running a pair of MPro 415's). I was looking at alternatives for a lighter weight rig as I am just coming off back surgery (which is why I'm here so much these days!!!). The PLX seem like a nice lightweight amp (21 lbs vs 51 lbs!!!). Not sure if it is worth selling and buying all over again. Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 2450 is a good match power-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted January 30, 2006 Members Share Posted January 30, 2006 Muchos gracias senor!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q moder Posted February 1, 2006 Members Share Posted February 1, 2006 I don't have any Yamie subs. So I can't really say that they are great. Its just that I have had good results in my experience with my other Yamie gear. I even have a Yamie P120. But I only own one Yamie amp. Its not bad. Its not outstanding or anything but it is reliable. I have two Mackie amps and have no problems with them or the single QSC that I have. They all seem about equal in quality to me. I really hope that some one from Yamaha reads this and something is done about the drivers in the subs. If they are not equal to their rating then the should be either down rated or get some better drivers in them. I still think that the BR is a lower line cab and as such should not really be compared with higher end cabs that its not intended to compete with. Its intended to be a lower end cheaper cab and you get what you pay for. I would not expect a lower end guitar to be the equal of a higher end guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 1, 2006 Members Share Posted February 1, 2006 Most manufacturers have the same problem with "rating creep", not just Yamaha. It's an industry problem, fueled by consumers looking at only power handling when selecting apeaker product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted February 1, 2006 CMS Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 I don't think the Yamaha sub is incorrectly rated...if you match amplifier RMS to what the Yammie's RMS would be if they listed it (~300W per driver). The problem is that everyone thinks their program rating is A-okay-fine to use as the amp RMS rating, and since this is a relatively inefficient box (the real problem), they have to really push it to get desired output. Then poof........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q moder Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 A lot of companies too seem to only show the ratings in their litature and not on the actual cabs anywhere. You would think that the major brands in using the program rating so much would realize that this could lead to them getting and undeserved rep for poor performance and quality. I don't think any one buys subs to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Q moder You would think that the major brands in using the program rating so much would realize that this could lead to them getting and undeserved rep for poor performance and quality. And this does happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q moder Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 So what is actually meant by program rating then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.