Print

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

[Tony Mamoh]

The specs for the 'new' QSC K12.2 claims it delivers 2000watts. The previously issued K12 was always advertised to deliver 1000watts.

What on earth makes the K12.2 have 2000 watts? The drivers appear very similar. The major difference in both boxes seems to be the Bluetooth enabled feature on the new K12.2 . Is there something I am not seeing? Or is this the usual game of manufacturers playing with numbers to give buyers a quick attraction (until they read the fine prints.....wherein lies the devil and/or the truth)?

[Mac Kerr]

The specs for the 'new' QSC K12.2 claims it delivers 2000watts. The previously issued K12 was always advertised to deliver 1000watts.

What on earth makes the K12.2 have 2000 watts? The drivers appear very similar. The major difference in both boxes seems to be the Bluetooth enabled feature on the new K12.2 . Is there something I am not seeing? Or is this the usual game of manufacturers playing with numbers to give buyers a quick attraction (until they read the fine prints.....wherein lies the devil and/or the truth)?

The amp has 3dB more headroom?

Mac

[Will Knight]

The specs for the 'new' QSC K12.2 claims it delivers 2000watts. The previously issued K12 was always advertised to deliver 1000watts.

What on earth makes the K12.2 have 2000 watts? The drivers appear very similar. The major difference in both boxes seems to be the Bluetooth enabled feature on the new K12.2 . Is there something I am not seeing? Or is this the usual game of manufacturers playing with numbers to give buyers a quick attraction (until they read the fine prints.....wherein lies the devil and/or the truth)?

Here is an extract from QSC explaining the new power amp strategy for the K2.

"....Legacy K Series ampliers were measured on a test-bench to deliver up to 500W+500W into an optimal load, with Peaks of 1000W. In contrast, the new K.2 amplier has been measured in-system to deliver 900W into the LF driver, with Peaks of 1800W. This smarter power distribution of 1800W+225W results in almost twice the power delivered to the LF driver compared to legacy K (1800W vs 1000W Peak)."..

[Nathan Riddle]

Great! An extra 800w of peak power that is useless for all but advertising!

I wonder why spend the r&d on a new amp that won't yield better results?

(The new dsp/drivers excluded)

[Thomas Le]

It's all marketing, there's no way a QSC k2 speaker can beat a JBL SRX800P even though the k2 and SRX800P both tout 2kW. The SRX800P can rip apart with up to 136dB max SPL while the k2 12 only does 132dB max SPL.

[Mal Brown]

Form a systems architecture standpoint, QSC's new amp topology makes sense.  Lows need more power.  Highs, less...  if they can bench it, they can use it to market.

As far as the JBL stuff goes, after my experience with PRX 612m's ...  JBL is in my rear view mirror...  while I do love my SI 3 and mini stage box setup, I have no love for Harmon these days.   Talk about hyped marketing... and their overall lack of product support is underwhelming to say the least.

[Scott Bolt]

I am waiting to hear one side by side with my DSR112 before I pass judgement

Note that the DSR112's have a similiar amplifier topology (more amp going to the woofer than the tweeter); however, the rubber hits the road, it is about how good it sounds, and how loud it can get and still sound that good.

[Paul G. OBrien]

The SRX800P can rip apart with up to 136dB max SPL

Speaking of marketing BS...

The original K series was a 600w rms box for all intents.. the compression driver never uses more than about 100w of the 500w available to it, so the new series is an upgrade.

[Mac Kerr]

The specs for the 'new' QSC K12.2 claims it delivers 2000watts. The previously issued K12 was always advertised to deliver 1000watts.

What on earth makes the K12.2 have 2000 watts? The drivers appear very similar. The major difference in both boxes seems to be the Bluetooth enabled feature on the new K12.2 . Is there something I am not seeing? Or is this the usual game of manufacturers playing with numbers to give buyers a quick attraction (until they read the fine prints.....wherein lies the devil and/or the truth)?

Maybe I was too subtle. What exactly do you think the difference in performance with 2 nearly identical speakers is when one of them has a peak power consumption of 1000W and the other is 2000W?

The difference is that most people will be able to tell that one of them is slightly louder than the other when they are each driven to their performance limits assuming all other factors are the same. 3dB, the smallest difference in SPL that most people can discern. That is the difference between 1000W and 2000W, 3dB.

Using watts as a descriptor of speaker performance is a marketing ploy, it has little or no relation to actual audio performance.

Mac

[Andrew Broughton]

3dB, the smallest difference in SPL that most people can discern.

It's more commonly agreed that 0.5 to 1db is the smallest change in level discernible by humans.

[Mark Wilkinson]

It's more commonly agreed that 0.5 to 1db is the smallest change in level discernible by humans.

I share this opinion.  I think 3dB is a big change.
 
But in full disclosure, I also think 6dB is a perceptual doubling,
.....and that the commonly claimed 10dB perceptual doubling is based on a historical misunderstanding of pioneers' work, like Fletcher-Munson's,
a misunderstanding that has been repeated time and again until accepted as "true". Sorry to swerve.......

[Mac Kerr]

It's more commonly agreed that 0.5 to 1db is the smallest change in level discernible by humans.

Most people without listening critically will not hear .5 or 1dB, most will hear 3dB.

Mac

[Corey Scogin]

Form a systems architecture standpoint, QSC's new amp topology makes sense.  Lows need more power.  Highs, less...  if they can bench it, they can use it to market.

More accurately, the previous design didn't make much sense if indeed the HF amp mirrored the power capability of the LF amp.

[kel mcguire]

I've yet to hear the new series so I'll reserve my opinion. Regardless of the amp specs, QSC isn't unaware of the thousands of users who wanted a bit more headroom before that clippy, fizzy sound set in. If there is 3dB more headroom on the series and a re-thought DSP, I'd be pretty happy. And considering the price points haven't changed, these might be surprising. The built in EQ and delay on the series is really nice too.

[Bill Hornibrook]

Yeah I've got more faith in the updated compression driver, new power amp, and contemporary DSP than in peak SPL and power amp numbers. The old K series is what.... 8 years old now? It was definitely time for QSC to re-work their very popular powered speaker line.

I haven't yet heard of a direct A/B comparison of old K to new at limit, but I would expect the new to sound more composed just because this is QSC. It would be awesome if someone with both would do that.

[Sean Barry]

 I know this is a rather old thread, but....It sucks that QSC dumped the handy dandy PowerCon in and out with a jumper cable included for a single Edison in! The PowerCons are a quick and easy and safer way to hook up a QSC quasi line array. My $.02

[Ivan Beaver]

It's more commonly agreed that 0.5 to 1db is the smallest change in level discernible by humans.

Agreed, but 3dB is what most "normal people" would notice as a change in an average situation, without listening for a change.

And of course anything inbetween-----------------

[Ed Taylor]

I've not been in front of the .2 series. I can imagine pushing the LF harder would make a difference.

i can say that the original K12s were surprisingly loud.

I have been on a couple stages where I was booked to do the live band portion of the party, with a seperate DJ oh deck to do their thing.

my rig would be full 3-way tops stacked on subs. Gave me all I needed for the room. granted each of my boxes were only rated at 700 watts, but SPLs were still solid.
DJ would roll in with just a pair of K12s..no subs...crank em to the point of ugly hurt you levels that "seemed" to be louder than my larger rig could hit..

[Mal Brown]

I know this is a rather old thread, but....It sucks that QSC dumped the handy dandy PowerCon in and out with a jumper cable included for a single Edison in! The PowerCons are a quick and easy and safer way to hook up a QSC quasi line array. My $.02

I have a dozen or so K series boxes in my inventory.  None have powercon.  All are IEC as are the KW boxes in my inventory...

What choo been smokin' Willis?

[Chris Grimshaw]

I can imagine pushing the LF harder would make a difference.

... If the driver can handle it. Another poster mentioned 900w RMS, 1800w peak from the amplifier.
There aren't many 12" drivers in the world that'll put up with that, and those that can don't get loaded into plastic boxes.

Chris

[Scott Bolt]

... If the driver can handle it. Another poster mentioned 900w RMS, 1800w peak from the amplifier.
There aren't many 12" drivers in the world that'll put up with that, and those that can don't get loaded into plastic boxes.

Chris

The trick of course is in the DSP.  Sure, the amp in the box might be capable of 1800W .... and that certainly makes a great marketing line ...... but the DSP limits the power to the speaker to numbers we all know are more reasonable.  The SPL (while still a flawed measurement) is a better measure of "how loud" the speaker can get (of course there is nothing saying that you can stand to listen to the quality of the speaker when it gets that loud ).

I haven't heard the .2's yet, but the K12's didn't handle being pushed hard well.  They started limiting the woofer and kept on feeding higher levels to the horn giving a very "harsh" sound to them when turned up.  I am sure QSC worked on this for the .2's.

[Bob Stone]

The trick of course is in the DSP.  Sure, the amp in the box might be capable of 1800W .... and that certainly makes a great marketing line ...... but the DSP limits the power to the speaker to numbers we all know are more reasonable.  The SPL (while still a flawed measurement) is a better measure of "how loud" the speaker can get (of course there is nothing saying that you can stand to listen to the quality of the speaker when it gets that loud ).

I haven't heard the .2's yet, but the K12's didn't handle being pushed hard well.  They started limiting the woofer and kept on feeding higher levels to the horn giving a very "harsh" sound to them when turned up.  I am sure QSC worked on this for the .2's.

Yup, the .2's stay far cleaner at higher levels than the older ones did, the horns don't outrun the woofer anymore...not to say they're the best sounding at very high output, but the .2's are an improvement in that department. I'd guestimate a couple more useful db.

[Ken Braziel]

Yup, the .2's stay far cleaner at higher levels than the older ones did, the horns don't outrun the woofer anymore...not to say they're the best sounding at very high output, but the .2's are an improvement in that department. I'd guestimate a couple more useful db.

Agreed, I used a pair of 12.2's as tops for an outdoor series at a venue for the last season before lockdown, I had been using the original 12's previously. The .2's are a solid improvement especially at higher volumes (I don't mix especially loud by habit - mostly Americana & singer-songwriter stuff).

I replaced most of my original K12's with the 8.2's primarily for monitors but in the right situation they work great as mains (with a sub of course). I mostly work small to medium sized stages so they fit better on stage physically than the 12's and shock people regularly with their capabilities. Plus I can fit about twice as many in my van.

I gotta lot of QSC K stuff, after decades of having to tune systems to make them sound decent it's nice to have plug&play setups where I can just pull the models appropriate for each gig. Been spending much of today pulling a system for a show tomorrow so it's on my mind...

[ProSoundWeb Community]