Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chris Van Duker]

I've always been a fan of QSC as a company, and I've been a happy user of their amps for many years. I know they've had a lot of success with their speaker products, and I know they still sell a lot of amps as well, but it seems that the new product releases on the amp front have slowed to a crawl. The CMX line is just an install-i-fied RMX, and if I'm not mistaken, there's been a grand total of one MI amp released in the past two years, the GX7. The PLX series, once a category leader, are now competing against amps at lower prices, lower current consumption, and half the weight. And not much has happened at the high end, either... the PL380 is coming up on 4 years old.

Their main competitor, Crown, has integrated DSP amps (with display) at both ends of its product line, and even Behringer seems to have a competent product in this category. When Peavey finally gets their IPR 7500 on the market, they'll have a low-end amp at a power point within 1 dB of QSC's flagship, at less than half the price.

Is QSC simply resting on its laurels, because it has products which are selling well enough? Does it have a bunch of products in development hell? Super-extended beta? Anybody have an idea what's going on?

[Jim McKeveny]

And they have lost speaker design guru Mark Engebretson to VUE.

[David Sturzenbecher]

Placing DSP inside the amplifier goes against the company's integrated design philosophy set forth by their DSP platforms, Basis, and now Qsys. These platforms gain monitoring functionality when paired with higher tier amplifiers via dataport cables.   This philosophy, like all has pro's and con's but can indeed work very well.

[Robert Weston]

Doesn't seem like they are whithering.  With the products QSC is producing, it's hard to "add" more to something that is already at the top of the game.  Besides, adding bells & whistles to an amp doesn't necessary make it a better amp; it makes it a management issue.  I use all QSC ampflication in my system (no bells/whistels to manage or BIOSs to upgrade).

[paul bell]

On one hand I like an amplifier that does just that-amplify. Add in all the other stuff like processing and/or DSP and it greatly increases what can go wrong.

On the other hand, it is nice to tell an amplifier what maximum current can be sent to the load and for how much time.

As their big gun is "only" 8,000 watts, it would be nice (and I agree overdue) for a next series up-sized amplifier to keep up with The Jones's.

To QSC's credit, the CX series (which is based on the PLX chassis) is US made and still very often specified by designers and architects. I've had many PLX/CX units in use in clubs that have be on for months at a time and clogged with dirt & dust but they still work just fine.

I'm hanging on to my stock of 9.0 and 3.8x amplifiers.

[Jeff Bankston]

i will probably never buy another qsc amp again ever ! my old series 3 3500 and 3800 amps still work great. some were made in 1982. its hard to find a 3800 for sale. building amps that last a long time can put a company out of business. qsc shouldnt have built these amps that good , cause i would have ben a repeat customer. i prefer an amp thats just an amp and nothing more. i dont need no dsp or no stinking badges either. a foto for those to young to know what a series 3 is. btw the local movie theater still has the old series 1 amps in use. they have a window on the upper level where the restrooms are the show the inside of one of the projection rooms. theres a tall rack full of them and a processor. series 1 & 3 were made from 1982-1993.

[kristianjohnsen]

Placing DSP inside the amplifier goes against the company's integrated design philosophy set forth by their DSP platforms, Basis, and now Qsys. These platforms gain monitoring functionality when paired with higher tier amplifiers via dataport cables.   This philosophy like all has pro's and con's but can indeed can work very well.

David, honestly not trying to be rude.  But this is one post I just don't understand what is trying to tell me.

[David Sturzenbecher]

David, honestly not trying to be rude.  But this is one post I just don't understand what is trying to tell me.

I just don't see QSC making an amplifier with DSP on-board any time soon.  There processing line has become more affordable within the past month with the release of their Qsys 250i/500i DSP processors. These processors talk to QSC amps through the data port creating a unified control surface for DSP and amplification monitoring, the same way their "basis" processor line worked. While their original Qsys product offering was geared towards the install market, the 250i would be very functional in a rack of touring QSC amps.

[kristianjohnsen]

I just don't see QSC making an amplifier with DSP on-board any time soon.  There processing line has become more affordable within the past month with the release of their Qsys 250i/500i DSP processors. These processors talk to QSC amps through the data port creating a unified control surface for DSP and amplification monitoring, the same way their "basis" processor line worked. While their original Qsys product offering was geared towards the install market, the 250i would be very functional in a rack of touring QSC amps.

Thanks David, I see what you mean now

[Joshua R Berneking]

Here is what bothers me the most about QSC. We own a Wideline 10 System and would really like to upgrade from the QSC SC28 to Lake LM26 System processors for our amp racks. This would give us ethernet control, and ability to Run Dante or AES into our amp racks for our drive system. Why haven't we:

"It is not possible to simply take the parameters from a QSC processor, transfer them to another processor and get the same results. Other processor manufacturers use different algorithms and design techniques that will produce a different transfer function even if the settings are substantially the same. As a result, QSC is unable to provide settings or tuning support for our line array systems when used with any processors other than those specified by QSC."

This is quoted direct from the QSC website. Its crap, if I wanna use Lakes to process my Wideline 10s. I feel I should be able to get some support from QSC on roughing in the DSP settings. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

[ProSoundWeb Community]