Print

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

[Bob Leonard]

So it seems that QSC has embraced the wattage number wars whole heartedly. A quick read by someone not knowing better might lead them to believe "dynamic" watts is where it's at, or maybe overlook the fact that the 4000 watt amp is both channels added together, even though there is no mention the amp can be bridged. I call skullduggery on this.
 
http://qsc.com/products/Power_Amplifiers/Gxd_Series/

[John Roberts {JR}]

So it seems that QSC has embraced the wattage number wars whole heartedly. A quick read by someone not knowing better might lead them to believe "dynamic" watts is where it's at, or maybe overlook the fact that the 4000 watt amp is both channels added together, even though there is no mention the amp can be bridged. I call skullduggery on this.
 
http://qsc.com/products/Power_Amplifiers/Gxd_Series/

Perhaps because that is exactly what customers respond to. Nobody got rich understating their product performance.

FWIW QSC was early to the game with less than full duty cycle amps with 2 ohm capability. And everyone followed them down that rabbit hole because the customers embraced it with dollars..

This is probably business as usual.

JR

[Bob Leonard]

I think you might mean bullshit as usual. What the hell are "dynamic" watts John? Is this another reference to the amount of power that can be achieved for 2 or 3 Nano seconds on a very cold day just north of the south pole?

[Bob Faulkner]

I'm concerned about this model.  Is this their GX series amp, with a "d" in it to show it is a class-d amp?  I'm not sure I would want this amp in my system... even for monitor duty.

[Brad Dillon]

Yea seems very misleading of them to list the "dynamic" numbers ahead of the actual numbers lol

[John Roberts {JR}]

I used to be a power amp product manger and will spare you "the only honest man in Dodge" speech (Ivan?) but continuous power is only required for a narrow subset of LF bandpasses of multi-way systems being pounded hard with low bass. Even then there will be some small crest factor, but not much. I know because we were selling continuous duty amps back then and the market rewarded and embraced partial duty cycle power.

Most sound reinforcement delivered by typical systems is operated nowhere near full duty cycle. In fact with the "new school" 2 ohm amps (new a few decades ago) that used resettable breakers to limit primary current. Those amps would trip after only several seconds at full power. While consumers happily bought and used truck loads of them.

I will not defend QSC unequivocally. If in your opinion it is deceptive a pox on their house. If it's from a new copy writer who doesn't know what he doesn't know, maybe this will reach and inform him.

I am old enough to remember the silly power amp ratings back in the '70s before the FTC clamped down, with an IMO over-reaction, but they stopped the marketing hyperbole dead. That is the nature of regulation when the government regulators step into markets to "help" us.

As I have posted ad infinitum I would embrace a transient/dynamic power/duty cycle spec (while I don't know how to make one perfect for all markets). Back when I was making an amp with a boosted rail and high crest factor I used the old IHF spec (20 cycles of 1kHz tone burst repeated every 500 mSec). This spec is arbitrary too and not a perfect fit for all musical genres, but you have to start somewhere. (Note: My 100W burst power amp would make more than 125W for the first microsecond but since I was the only honest man in Dodge, I used the smaller more conservative number from the end of a 20 mSec burst. Still a respectable step up from 35W continuous power.  )

JR
 

[Geoff Doane]

I'm concerned about this model.  Is this their GX series amp, with a "d" in it to show it is a class-d amp?  I'm not sure I would want this amp in my system... even for monitor duty.

Doesn't seem to be a GX amp.  These weigh roughly the same as the PLX2 (1104 and 1804) amps, but have DSP.  Maybe the GX -series has good name recognition, and they want to retain that.

There might be something to the new copy writer theory though.  He is beating the "destructive amplifier clipping" drum again. 

GTD

[Scott Holtzman]

Doesn't seem to be a GX amp.  These weigh roughly the same as the PLX2 (1104 and 1804) amps, but have DSP.  Maybe the GX -series has good name recognition, and they want to retain that.

There might be something to the new copy writer theory though.  He is beating the "destructive amplifier clipping" drum again. 

GTD

I found it odd the first feature was "modern styling"  The first thing I though to was GX-5 and GX-7 with the DSP.  Appears not to be so.

Out of curiosity it was stated the GX-5/7's are not suitable even for monitors.  They have been my monitor amps for years and never let me down.  Since half of what I thought to be true has be debunked here might as well  start on the other half.  Bob, care to elaborate on the below comment?

Is this their GX series amp, with a "d" in it to show it is a class-d amp?  I'm not sure I would want this amp in my system... even for monitor duty.

[Bob Leonard]

Bob Faulkner's statement, not mine.

My concern's, regardless of hardware type may just be too old school. Give me the continuous power at a specified load for a specific period of time. Like in my early HAM radio days transmitters and linear amplifiers were rated "key  down" for a specific period of time at a measured output in real watts. As a matter of fact, there was a famous manufacturer who advertised their linear's as key down forever at 2000 watts RF. There ad's featured a skeleton holding down his morse key and the linear still running strong. Give me that and I'll never complain, the very reason I have the faith I do in JBL's drivers.

I imagine these amps are priced accordingly, and as long as "real" watts are used as your guideline they'll last forever just like anything else QSC makes.

[Stephen Swaffer]

 

As I have posted ad infinitum I would embrace a transient/dynamic power/duty cycle spec (while I don't know how to make one perfect for all markets). Back when I was making an amp with a boosted rail and high crest factor I used the old IHF spec (20 cycles of 1kHz tone burst repeated every 500 mSec). This spec is arbitrary too and not a perfect fit for all musical genres, but you have to start somewhere. (Note: My 100W burst power amp would make more than 125W for the first microsecond but since I was the only honest man in Dodge, I used the smaller more conservative number from the end of a 20 mSec burst. Still a respectable step up from 35W continuous power.  )

JR

I would think a standard test-regardless of its being applicable to a given genre-would allow comparison,  Of course, getting the industry to agree on a standard rating won't happen until audio techs as a whole demand real info and not bragging numbers.  Then adjustments can be made for content that would allow you to know what you needed when upgrade replacement time came around.

Personally, if I read the fine print specs and find a manufacturer is in the habit of overstating things I tend to write them off as a supplier-at least as far as my first or second choice goes.  Where else are they cutting corners?  Give me a quality product with honest specs and I won't try to beat you up on pricing.   

[ProSoundWeb Community]