ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 05:36:36 am 
Started by andy foster - Last post by andy foster
oooops should have said i can return both jbl tops as they are only a couple of months old, and swap for any of the above with a slight extra payment.

i cant wait for the warranty reapir and would be more than happy to get my hands on a better pair of speakers, are they better though?

so which speaker will provide the best top end? i will never run them on there own. they will always be above a single or double rcf 8003mk2.

many thanks for the replies guys.

the rcf is a plastic box with some great internals or so it seems.

the yamaha dsr115 has a 7 year warranty and also good specs.

I would like to say i used a set of jbl 712 prx for years on my mobile disco rig and i absolutley loved them, i got a job recenlty in a bar where they were running a pair of yamaha dxr112 and i have to say reading these forums i was expeccting alot more from the dxr. simply no comparison on the yamaha dxr vs jbl prx range. the yamaha is one flat sounding speaker and this after many months of comparison.

i hope the dsr115 will not disapoint me in the same way the dxr112 did.

im only choosing 15" boxes so the stack looks good on the eye, ive got a couple of prx712 and they look lost ontop of the subs. even though i know they sound just as good if not better.

 on: Today at 05:13:40 am 
Started by Yusak Christ - Last post by Robert Lofgren
The m32/x32 can actually do 38ch using the 6 aux inputs as well. They are easy to forget sometimes.

however it has one key limitation; it only allows for 32 mic inputs whereas the LS9 can handle 64, I believe.

 on: Today at 02:36:24 am 
Started by Jeff Bankston - Last post by Russell Ault
[...]psu cables that protects you from lost neutral connections in the FOH power run. Lived that dream.

Always unplug the white Camlock first to test if the power is still on? (For those who don't work with Camlocks much, this is a joke; please don't ever do this.)

In (only slightly) more seriousness, in theory you could probably run most modern consoles off of hot-hot-ground 208V, so I suppose a NEMA 6-15 (etc.) to IEC 60320-C13 would, in fact, be a PSU cable that protects you from lost neutral connections in the FOH power run...


 on: Today at 02:22:31 am 
Started by Justice C. Bigler - Last post by Russell Ault
Orwell would be impressed, or perhaps wonder why it took so long...

...or why we didn't heed his warning?


 on: Today at 01:54:26 am 
Started by Chris Poynter - Last post by Luke Geis
I would say it's normal for pretty much any mic, some just more so than others. It is more prevalent with cheaper mics for a multitude of reasons. The predominant reason is probably due to lack of shock absorption or element isolation. This would be followed closely by uninsulated bodies/shells that are resonant and conduct the handling noise into the mic element.

When you look at higher dollar mics, they typically have better elements which are more able to reject noise and the shock mount/mic isolation fixture is of course better. Many mics will also use goop, silicone, or hot glue to insulate and reduce handling noise. All the little things add up. With wireless mics the issue is harder to deal with though. There are other components that have to fit into a reasonably sized shell. Lower end product lines are going to be fraught with more issues like handling noise because in order to get to the $$$$ amount they have to cut corners. The quality of the sound may have been made as a focus, but to save a couple bucks, they slacked off on the body engineering to reduce handling noise.

I say its normal simply because most wireless mics do have some handling noise. I feel that Sennheiser provides the best value for the dollar and presents a better product than sure at the same dollar amount. I think this is possible for them because they don't have a large number of model lines and don't change the model's lines very often. They made a good product initially and let it ride longer.

 on: Today at 01:24:58 am 
Started by Bob Faulkner - Last post by Stephen Kirby
So, Bobs gone from knocking off raccoons with a potato gun to a high powered water pistol.  They'll never go hungry and they'll always be clean.  ;)

 on: Today at 12:28:59 am 
Started by Ara Ayrassian - Last post by Ara Ayrassian
I have a single SH96 with updated midrange drivers this is in excellent condition email for photo's

 on: Today at 12:11:07 am 
Started by Steve Litscher - Last post by Scott Holtzman
Second sites arent needed any more.  Bootstrap and proper responsove programming solves this.

The site is a reasonable effort from non-proammers.  They iaed a Wix template.  It was born from a decenr open source system and is a turd for suckers.

It's an easy way to stand up a site.  I would only pay with PayPal.  The way the CC processor is plugged in doesn't use a disagreator to abstract CC from identifying info,  the whole transaction is sent in one x509 session.

Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk

 on: Yesterday at 11:45:47 pm 
Started by Steve Litscher - Last post by Ray Aberle
You missed the point that Safari is most often the culprit for not being standards-compliant these days. It might require code that's specific to a certain browser to work in Safari.
However, in this case, I think it's something else.

What version of Safari are you using? renders fine on my iPhone 6 in Safari and on my Mac in Safari.
Once again.... you might be not understanding the concept of The Internet...

The concept here is that we have an information source that SHOULD NOT BE dependent on the browser(s) accessing it. To dictate a model of browser for successful access to information defeats the purpose of the internet.

Now, granted that if someone is requiring security (purchases) then having a standard of privacy is important. But, since it only takes about 47 seconds to code in "Browser_Check" to a website (and then decide to send said result(s) to a separate site) that's a moot argument. A basic website should be willing and able to present its content to ANY user regardless of browser type. Why require users to have the "latest and greatest" browser just to view your website?!?


 on: Yesterday at 11:19:50 pm 
Started by Bob Faulkner - Last post by Rob Spence
Any good electric units these days? I really donít want another engine (unless it is diesel ).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 14 queries.