|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.210.50.86
Hey all.While my Marantz 510 is out for a couple of days, I hooked up a spare QSC 1400 amp I had in my PA rig, strictly as a temporary measure.
Here's the thing. It sounds really, really good. Maybe better than the Marantz? It sounds much like the Marantz, but with better imaging. I can hear EXACTLY where everything is across the stereo field. And not just left to right, but there seems to be a depth to it. Everything is just more "there", like you took a blanket off the speakers. My wife even noticed it & told me about it before I said anything. And she's not a hi-fi nut.
I've listened to a lot of different types of amps over the years. Krells, a Levinson, Futterman monoblocks, the Marantz, pro PA amps of all kinds... This really surprises me.
I'm actually considering selling the Marantz & keeping the QSC in the system. Somebody stop me before I do something stupid.
Follow Ups:
If I'm not mistaken your 1400 was QSC's first series of amplifiers. It probably doesn't have the mechanically noisy switching power supply which would make it a nice choice for home use.I'm a fan of uniquely executed designs that are realistically priced and I have no allegiance to method. MFA, Ampeg, PS Audio, acoustic, Ayre, QSC, Acoustic Image, and Nuforce, are all residents. I've been thrashing a QSC's PLX 2402 in a road rig since their introduction and haven't had a single issue with it. I'm currently powering some Meyer Sound cabinets using two of QSC's new Powerlight Series 3 PL 380's for a small full range PA. The combination of class D and a switching power supply QSC has created a truly monster amplifier.
For all you NuForce SE users the PL 380 is like an SE on steroids. Unfortunately the switching power supply and the fan noise remind you that this is a professional product designed for a much more demanding environment.
The only denial I can see is the idea that a pro amp can't power a home stereo with finesse even though it's obvious their design goals are different. For an even more economical alternative to high power low cost amplification I would suggest Crest or Samson.
I know with great certainty that the usual path to the final MSRP for Hi End equipment is vastly inflated and many times the cost of manufacture. It would probably be a surprise to you that a $5,000 amp may cost $700 To build. This is not a comment on pro amps in hoime audio systems but a comment addressing the price issue. The pro amp obviously is sold at closer margins and may not be built with any boutique expensive parts, but that doesn't automatically translate into a poor sound.
That said expensive home audio tends to sound good.I heard a Dartzeel, Grandprix tt and racks, a Jena labs cabled system today which would cost at least 50 grand. It sounded very good but $50 thousand+??? You have to be mentally ill to do that I am sorry. If you like that pro amp don't listen to this "it can't be good" crap. It might very well be and if you like it then it is good, for you anyway. So in conclusion F em.
Oh yeah. I'm sure the MSRP of a lot of the boutique pieces are hugely inflated. Actually, I'd be surprised if a $5,000 amp cost even $700 to build.Seriously, maybe I don't possess the hearing ability of some audiophile folk. Everyone's different. But I've heard $40,000 amps, (a pair of $20,000 tube monoblocks) and amps costing only several hundred. There have been some differences, sure. But to my ears, they weren't huge differences. And those differences could've just as easily been attributed to the speakers or something else in the chain.
There have been several strictly controlled tests held on the audible differences of amplifiers, including one pretty well-known ABX test done by CBS labs in Stereo Review. There were amps in all price points and types, ranging from a pair of incredibly expensive Futterman tube monoblocks all the way down to a cheap $200 Pioneer receiver. They matched the levels of the amps meticulously & used a couple of different highly regarded speakers for the test. The results were pretty much 50/50 on all of the tests, even comparing the cheap Pioneer to the Futterman tube amps. And even among the group of die-hard audiophiles, the results were totally random.
That's not to say that there aren't any differences at all, but I've never been able to hear a staggering difference between any two reasonably decent, properly functioning amps of any type. I think there's likely a bigger difference to be heard from other factors like speakers, speaker placement, furniture, source components, ear wax, and the like.
But that's just my opinion, and I don't know everything.
Anyway, I didn't mean to stir up a controversy. My initial post was only meant to say that I was surprised that the QSC amp sounded a bit better than the Marantz. I thought they might sound very similar, or if anything, the Marantz sound a tad better. I was just surprised that it was the other way around.
I've owned maybe 50 or so amps and preamps since I caught the bug in '73. I tried and tried to get the sound I wanted, but for the most part, the amps sounded pretty much the same. Maybe my Krell has a slightly better bottom end and my Threshold a smoother top, but I'm not even sure about that. To me the components sounded pretty much the same and spending more made little or no difference.
I got into tubes for awhile in the early '90s and liked the sound much better, but I had a lot of tube problems so went back to solid state in the mid-late '90s.
I ventured back to tubes again about a year ago and could not be happier. Finally there was the sound quality I searched the world for and the tubes today are much more robust and reliable.
I don't think tubes sound better than solid state. They sound different. I like the difference, however.
Thanks for your post. Seems like we think somewhat alike on the audio path.I am a regular dealer in all manner of audio stuff. But I only wound up that way because I was buying and selling so much gear 'searching for the sound' as the Grateful Dead put it. Yup...I could hear some differences in the equipment, but there were SOOOOO many variables that whenever I got a combination that I liked I was afraid to touch anything!
However, (and I REALLY agree with you on this one....) I chose my speakers FIRST, (stacked Quad ESL-57's) because as you said, there are HUGE differences in the TYPE of sound from these when compared to source components. In essence they determine the basic NATURE of the sound that you will hear.
Then....after MUCH swapping, (and I mean, with no exaggeration, HUNDREDS of components) I finally found an amplifier that when I plugged it in, from the VERY FIRST SECOND OF LISTENING, I knew this was what I had been looking for. So I set about optimising my system using these amps (monoblocks) and speakers as the basis for the system. In my mind I feel fortunate that I have not once been tempted to move away from these. Other components have come and gone a few times over since then, but I have never felt dissatisfaction with the FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCKS of my system. I think in this sense we share the same audio values and experiences.
There are just simply too many other variables that affect the sound. Cables, tweaks, tube rolling, but to a LESSER degree than speakers FIRST and then amps....
But don't ya know that there's always something new coming along..... DOH!
=====================A good story.....Just one thing that REALLY rocked my boat in terms of how many variables there were in the system. Because I am a tube dealer, I have had HUNDREDS of matched pairs of all kinds of rare tubes go through my system. But after an evening of swapping tubes in and out of my amps (I had put together about 10 different pairs of rare 12AU7's and settled into some critical listening with a good friend,) at the end of the night after we had spent a few hours talking about how great the system sounded and how (this is the important part...) I COULDN'T EVEN IMAGINE THE SYSTEM GETTING ANY ORDER OF MAGNITUDE BETTER (little changes, sure, but quantum leaps...no way) we popped in a pair of tubes that were close cousins but not identical (my tech looked at the schematics and told me it would be ok for me to hot swap them...and WHAMMO! Just WHAMMO! An absolute HOLY SH*T moment in my search for the best possible sound from my system.
What had sounded the closest to a live performance that I have EVER EVEN IMAGINED a few minutes earlier all of a sudden sounded veiled and flat in comparison to what we were now hearing. From swapping ONE FRIGGIN TUBE! It was, by definition, UN-believable. And my reaction to this moment was torn between wanting to jump up and down and shout with joy because I had found a piece of the holy grail puzzle as far as my system synergy was concerned and wanting to cry thinking about how many 10's of thousands of permutations were possible with all of the other tubes and components in my system to try and raise it even further. A glass ceiling had been pierced for sure.
I'll throw in that I have NOT done much experimentation since then. My system sounds superb, to me. Can it get better? Apparently Yes. But I'm not going to KILL myself trying to get there. Just gonna plod along at my own pace and if I make any new discoveries along the way, well....I'll just take those as small gifts.
Though I'm not a tube guy, just because of the economic side of it. The parts I especially liked were:
"whenever I got a combination that I liked I was afraid to touch anything!"
I know what you mean. That's why the Marantz amp stayed in my rig for so long. And I still really like it. I still think it sounds quite nice.
"we popped in a pair of tubes that were close cousins but not identical...and WHAMMO!"
That's kind of what I thought when I swapped amps. I wasn't expecting that.
"I'm not going to KILL myself trying to get there. Just gonna plod along at my own pace and if I make any new discoveries along the way, well....I'll just take those as small gifts."
Yup. I'm happy. So I think I'm good for awhile.
After reading through all this thread, it surprises me that some people have such a big prejudice against pro audio gear. Just like home audio stuff, there is good and bad, but a couple things to remember about pro audio gear before you turn your nose up:1. EVERYTHING you like to listen to on your home audio gear was recorded with pro audio gear! (unless you made the recording yourself, of someone playing live)
2. Pro audio gear, pretty much at any price point, is meant to be nearly indestructible, which isn't easy due to the punishment electronically and physically it has to withstand. So yes, cheaper amps will be pure class B to keep from smoking output transistors every half hour, and components will be chosen based on price/reliability before sound quality.
3. Regarding #2 above, it is a severe mistake to think that all, or even most, pro audio gear is built that way. Just try pricing a Neve recording/mixing console, or just the pricing of spare parts, or even 20-year-old USED spare parts from one. They don't skimp on anything. Google a photo of one, and count the pots and faders, and realize that every one of them will have a Penny & Giles logo stamped on it. Any audiophiles remember that name?
4. If you are still not convinced, listen to the Pat Metheny Group's "The Road to You" album, which was recorded live in Europe, all outdoor venues (like soccer stadiums). Yes, I know all the instruments and mics went through a mixer, and then divided out into the PA and the recording equipment, but still, it was all pro audio gear, you still get the sound of what was going out into the crowd, and it's one of the best-sounding recordings I've ever heard made in such large outdoor locations.
Anyway, it's IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce music in the home that actually sounds like the real thing. You might fool yourself into thinking that it sounds like a live performance, but it cannot. The best you can do is to try to get it to just sound good.There are tons of reasons for this, which I can tell by your post that you probably already know. So I won't go into those reasons. But the whole point of the audio hobby is just to enjoy it & have fun. And I hope you continue to do so for many years.
nt
QSC is a 'pro' amplifier manufacturer. They build several lines of commercial type PA amplifiers. Based In California, IIRC, and the name is a mix of the initials of the founders, if memory serves me right. No frills products, whopping power transformers, and very good reliability in my experience.
Switchmode power supplies. The little 1804 I have weighs in at something like 12 pounds soaking wet, somewhat lighter than my Spectral preamp! Yet it is one of the most linear, powerful amps I have heard. Gotta love technological progress.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
Model QSC running my Analysis Omega planar/ribbon speakers. I have had Thresholds, Brystons, Atma-sphere, Spectron, (all of which I own), Hurricane,Cary, Levinson, Art Audio (beautiful sound but just not enough power for the panels) and some others that leave no real memory.The QSC, coupled with the Spectral DMC30S preamp, outshines them all. Granted, the Atma-sphere was at a dissavantage due to the panel's impedance. But the QSC beats each amp at its own game! Better bass control than the Spectron with Sense Cable, better and smoother highs than the Thresholds (the t-holds might be a tiny bit better at very soft levels...maybe...but not at volume), more slam than either the Bryston or the Spectron, and better mids than the Bryston (which, in my system, was always a relaxing and enjoyable thing).
Clarity, soundstaging,foot-tapping timing, imaging, dynamics Macro, and amazingly, micro. But what shocked me and my friends were the tonal qualities in this system. And the tonal balance doesnt change when the going gets tough. You have to get to gross clipping to notice any change or sense of strain in the amp. At 900wpc,into the panels impedance, I never get to gross clipping unless just being insane.
I have noticed the same thing as another poster here, that many high-end amps,for instance the Thresholds, in direct comparison to the QSC, seem to sound compressed even when running well within their power rating.
I am leaning more and more to pro gear...there is a much better bang for the buck, and in the real stuff, great quality control and robustness.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
did you have with 900wpc?Just curious.
The 900wpc was for the QSC. I apologise if the post was not clear.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
If you found use for the extra 9 db afforded by the QSC amp, then I'm not at all surprised you found favor with the unit.
though I do admit it is nice to have that sense of macrodynamics on big music. Hearing more realistic drum thwacks, with all the overtones intact, whilst a flute is doing its thing, is pretty amazing. The QSC gives these panels a good deal of a horns attack, with what I consider to be the better coherence behaviour of these panels. All part of the trade-offs we make....The ability of the QSC to handle major bass notes while not losing any of the high frequency stuff is much better than in the T-200. I suspect that it may have to do with the much faster recovery of the switchmode power supply over the linear one.
I am not saying the QSC is the Second Coming of amplifier design. I would not be suprised if on more efficient speakers, the T-200 might end up ruling...as long as the amp never needs to go past 1/8 throttle it may prove superior on fine detail and harmonic structure. Or not. Same for the Atma-sphere amp; give it the speaker load it wants and it no doubt could cream the QSC. But on difficult loads requiring power and control, the QSC rocks.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
Well if I am not mistaken your Analysis Omegas are not a particularly difficult load. 4 or 5 ohms, pretty darn flat and largely non-reactive load is it not? About 87 db/watt sensitivity as well. Ok, the Art audio is definitely at the lower limit. The Atmasphere was also probably not delivering much power into this load (maybe only about 20 watts).However; either you have a very large room or like to listen insanely loud to need 900 watts from this speaker. You will have long before reached its dynamic excursion limits. To reach 100db should only require about 20 watts of clean power (that's for a stereo pair at about 4 meters away). My guess is that it is peak rated up to about 110db which still would be well under 900 watts (more like 250 watts).
BTW, I do agree with you that a lot of amps sound compressed even well within their limits. I am surprised to hear that the QSC does not sound this way.
*
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
...have noticed the same thing as another poster here, that many high-end amps,for instance the Thresholds, in direct comparison to the QSC, seem to sound compressed even when running well within their power rating.Well within their power rating. As determined how? The '81 Stasis I use in my vintage system does not clip gracefully. In its current home, that is never a consideration because I run it at <10 watt levels.
I can answer that by a couple of things...1)I would be playing at the level that my friend's SET did not clip at and most of the SS amps would sound somewhat constrained at that volume level...and since that is subjective....
2) A scope on the speaker terminals. At no time did I get a voltage at the terminals that would equal more than 50 watts into my speaker's impedance and that was pretty darned loud. (This was at a volume level somewhat louder than the SET could manage.)
3) As you say, Thresholds do not clip gracefully. I know the sound of (one hand) clipping. Although, come to think of it, the T-200 does clip rather gracefully for SS. The QSC clips even more gracefully, which would make sense for an amp designed for live performances.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
"1)I would be playing at the level that my friend's SET did not clip at and most of the SS amps would sound somewhat constrained at that volume level...and since that is subjective...."This is due more to the design of the amps and not their power output. The Art Audio will be no feedback where the others are moderate to high negative feedback designs. I have found that especially with panel speakers, which are well damped to begin with, high damping amps (meaning those with negative feedback) will make the sound overdamped and boring or constrained.
I am surprised that you can even make the QSC clip on this speaker without damaging the speaker. It must be clipping well short of 900 watts.
in short bursts. I did manage to clip the QSC on some rock music (no really deep bass that would bottom the panel). It was insanely loud.At the merely sane loud, the amps minus 10db light seldom, if ever, blinks.
I beg to differ on one item; the panels always sound better on amps with great bass damping and control. Thats when they come alive, at least on the bass. This is the first SS amp that brings the entire range alive though.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
Power is addictive. I'd like to have about 800 watts with my stats.
So while I see where you are coming from as to clipping, your example lends no weight to the discussion. rp1 is best placed to answer your specific query as to how he determined that the other amps were working within their power bandwidth. At any rate, the power rating of the QSC which by no means the powerful model in that series rules out a sizable percentage of audiophile amplifiers, more so for tube amplifiers where a 900wpc amplifier is a behemoth, however it is a very modest rating for a PA amp.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
they didnt even bother to put a class H power supply in it. Near as I can tell from the specs, the power supply on this model is set to one rail voltage. The bigger models switch voltage rails as power needs go up.It is also the low current model, designed to only drive max continuous power into 4 ohms. The 1802 can drive into a continuous 2 ohm or less load. Aside from old Apogee's I cant think of a home speaker that needs that.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
That's for chiming in rp1, I always look forward to your posts as well as Bold Eagle's, I was beginning to despair that you had left to our little squabbles.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
*
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I bet I could change about $4 of caps and then you would change your mind.
Actually, I'm thinking of doing that myself. I found a couple of carbon resistors in the Marantz with cracks & I'm waiting on the new ones to get here to change them. So I'm thinking of doing a few caps while I'm in there. Sure wouldn't hurt.
Maybe but how is the TONE of the amp? I don't mean compared to the old Marantz I mean compared to LIVE? My experience with nearly all SS amps (especially inexpensive pro types) is that they might have sharp this and image that but they do this at the expensive of natural tone and instrumental decay. It makes the soundstage seem less cluttered and people think that is right but without tone everything sounds just wrong. I don't say this amp is flawed that way, I haven't heard this model, but I have heard enough of them to know that it CAN sound this way. Just something to keep in mind during your evaluations.
And it's extremely quiet. It's as close to "live" as a lot of the more expensive amps I've heard, according to my memory. But unless I hook up a host of megabuck tube and SS monoblocks to the same speakers & precisely match the levels with all and do an ABX comparison, I can't say if this amp is better or worse than "amp x".But I like it & it plays music.
"But I like it & it plays music"
I answered honestly. I said:"Without doing an ABX comparison, I can't say if this amp is better or worse than "amp x"."
And that's the truth.
Older amps tend to sound really rolled off on the top end. I can't tell you if they were always that way (we didn't really have tweeters back then so nobody can really say), or that the caps or other components have just faded to give us that end result. Most vintage components I've had at home have sounded kind of rolled off to a certain extent.I'm not too keen on vintage gear for that reason, unless it is tube amps with good iron that you can rebuild the front ends on with modern components. Old caps suck.
Space
"Tax the rich, to feed the poor, 'til there are no, rich no more" Ten Years After
It is a 30 year old amp. If it were re-outfitted with new caps & such, it probably would result in an improvement. As it was, it sounded very good to me, but I think the QSC is somewhat better. Mostly in the imaging department.Thanks to you and all of you who have chatted sensibly and amicably about the subject.
QSC is not inexpensive. Economies of scale dictate prices. QSC will sell 10,000+ of that model, at least. If they had the numbers of a small high end amp manufacturer, the QSC would be much more expensive.
To those who think that a pro amp cannot sound good, I ask: Exactly why is it that a pro amp cannot sound good?
There are some "compromised" pro amps out there. An example are the Behringer amps, imo. In the end you get what you pay for. Some people need a lot of power and cannot afford anything else. Most musicians do not have the money for a pro high end amp like the QSC.
Yep. I won't argue with you on that. You're right about economics of scale.I am surprised by the quality of some of Behringer's other gear that they have produced (I'm a part-time musician) so I wouldn't rule out that their amps sound bad unless you've heard 'em though. Our drummer runs a concert sound business. He owns Shure Beta 58 mics and Behringer vocal mics. The only difference between the two are that the Behringers are just a touch hotter, and they have better feedback rejection. I've heard some good things about their Europower amps, though I've not heard the amp itself. A lot of the other Behringer gear is made with good quality parts inside. They're inexpensive because they're bolted together in China, where labor is dirt-cheap.
And really when you think about the idea that professional amps sound bad when compared to live music, unless you're listening to live orchestral music, most of the music you listen to live is amplified... through professional amps like Crown, Crest, and QSC.
I don't see what the big deal is. SS marantz amp + Yamaha preamp? Shouldn't take much to best that combo....
In my last post I wrote:"I've listened to a lot of different types of amps over the years. Krells, a Levinson, Futterman monoblocks, the Marantz, pro PA amps of all kinds... This really surprises me."
Perhaps you glossed over this bit, so I included it again. There are a few things I do know for sure:
1) There is a Helluva lot of "snake oil" in the audio business.
2) If you expect amp 1 to sound better than amp 2, it probably will. The reverse rarely happens.
3) After listening to numerous truly "high-end" setups like the Levinson, Krells, Futtermans, and others listed above, I know what "good" sounds like.
4) Your post smacks of smartass elitism and has no constructive value, therefore I'm wasting my time talking to you.
"Levinson, Krells"Oh, my mistake. I thought you said GOOD sound.
By your post it's become apparent that you're just having a bit of fun. My mistake.
"Oh, my mistake. I thought you said GOOD sound."Ah.... and your Music Reference RM9 is the epitome of good sound, how delusional, You obviously have nothing of value to say.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
It might not be the epitome, but it's far better than Levinsons and Krells.....
And since you are intent on critiquing my system, I guess it behooves me to say a word or two about yours....
Digital amp
Digital source
Behringer EQand no analog source.....
Yep, now THAT'S an epitome fer sure, Clem.......
"and no analog source....."and you think that is a critique, you are truly delusional...
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
May I ask you which preamp are you using to drive the QSC ?
Thanks for the very interesting opinion.
Kind regards,
..
Thanks a lot for the kind and interesting reply.
I read that some mods can be carried out on pro amps elevating the quality of the output, like by-passing the usual input op-amp.
But I am not an expert.
Kind regards,
Hi, Beppe.But of course, I'm no expert on that stuff either. I'm just really surprised that it sounds as good as it does.
I did have to have it serviced by the factory awhile back, and one of the things they did was to adjust everything back up to original factory specs, so I'm sure that didn't hurt it's performance.
Cheers,
Bobbo :-)
Thank you again.
A very remarkable amp I understand.
I have read of a lot of people using pro amps with satisfaction in the PLANAR forum, expecially with Maggie, not the easiest of the speaker.Kind regards,
I have the QSC 1450 and it makes my MMGs sound as good as $2k "hi-fi" amps. sharper imaging, greater dynamics...
I have a Samson SX3200 (800 wpc-8 ohms) which is an amazing amp. I had to replace the wind tunnel fans with exact size whispers (22 cfm), because they were too noisy. I am not going to use the 3200 in an all day Woodstock application, but it could do it if asked!
I don't use the 3200 full time in any of my three systems, but it was very musical with my Maggies when I heard it. It is as good as a Krell and Levinson (I own both) soundwise. The Samson gives up a little in the cosmetics department, but it's not ugly like a lot of other pro amps.
I also have factory sealed Samson Servo 600 (225 wpc-8 ohms) which I got with a merchandise credit I had from American Musical Supply.
This topic has been don to death over in the Planar Asylum. It's ok if you like cheap pro amps, but don't be so delusional as to think they are better than the really good stuff.......
"This topic has been don to death over in the Planar Asylum. It's ok if you like cheap pro amps, but don't be so delusional as to think they are better than the really good stuff......."I suggest in this case, it you that is delusional.... Many Audiophile amplifiers are expensive because they are low volume products, that includes the parts such black gates etc. I am willing wager that QSC sells more 1450 amplifiers than the entire output of the whole Music Reference line of amplifiers, and that translates into economies of scale. A really good pro-amp or speaker is competitive with audiophile products except in respect of the facade, face plates, exotic wood etc.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Yeah, whatever......
Now that was much better reply...
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Yours must be the Series I design, and they were surprisingly good sounding. Your ears aren't deceiving you, They are good sounding products and put a lot of home units to shame. I tried to sell them as a home unit, but the lack of name recognition and their rather industrial looks put off too many customers.
And it is one of the earlier models. To those in professional audio circles, QSC is regarded about the same as Crown and Crest amps. But I can see where home listeners might not be familiar with them.When I hooked it up, I was expecting to hear a difference, but I sure wasn't expecting it to be a positive difference.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: