ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: RMX 5050 not impressed  (Read 12045 times)

Nathan Schwarzkopf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
    • http://NTSound.com
RMX 5050 not impressed
« on: July 14, 2004, 06:38:37 PM »

I Purchased the 5050 to run subs bridged at 4ohms. when I set it all up I would say it was less than impressive.  It drove the cabs(ev mtl-4).  I thought 2 plx 3402 beat the pants off of it.
I there a pl 6.0 in the milwakee, madison area I could rent to test.  If anything the rmx's will be a cheap back up.

Figured y'all might want 2 no
AL K.
Logged

Al Limberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1482
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2004, 09:52:13 PM »

I'm interested in exactly how you wired your cabs.  As I recall, the MTL-4 was wired as 2  4 ohm loads, being loaded with 4 eight ohm 18s.  If yours are stock, then bridging the amp in to 2 MTL-4s would appear to be loading it down to 2 ohms bridged and to me, the fact that it survived would seem pretty impressive ;o)

On the other hand, using 2 PLX3402s in parallel mode into the 4 available 4 ohm loads would give you a real solid 4400 watts.  Now if only the MTLs covered that last half octave like a Lab or a BassMaxx........

Maybe you can help me out here.

Thanx,
Al
Logged
If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get one million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside - Robert X. Cringely

Nathan Schwarzkopf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
    • http://NTSound.com
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2004, 12:37:56 PM »

the mtl are mod-ed to make 1 8 ohm circuit.  so I drive 2 sub cabs with 1 amp.  I did a show with them this weekend and they did o.k., they didn't shut down but on the first test run of the amps my face probably looked like this guy Confused .  

for the last  1\2 i've actually looked at some aura subs and then would try to go 5 way but so far its just been a passing thought.
Logged

drpa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2004, 04:36:22 PM »

Your application is typical for large sound company kinds of L.F.  This amp, in my opinion, is not up to THAT task.  I have not tested the 5050, but, I did a 2 ohm, 2 driver per side against ALL comers with the 4050 and found it lacking.  I think your application requires something AT LEAST as good as PLX.  The PL & PLII's have even more punch, and the PLII's sound GREAT on the top end, (REALLY great).
Logged

Elliot Thompson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1573
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2004, 09:56:41 PM »

AL
the mtl are mod-ed to make 1 8 ohm circuit.  so I drive 2 sub cabs with 1 amp.  I did a show with them this weekend and they did o.k., they didn't shut down but on the first test run of the amps my face probably looked like this guy Confused .

Elliot Thompson
A Few Things I've Noticed

1. By you using the series-parallel scheme, you reduced
the speakers sensitivity.

2. By using 2 PLX 3402's, speakers wired in parallel,
oppose the series-parallel scheme, you would'nt have
loss the sensitivity.

Why don't you rent another RMX 5050, and use the same
speaker configuration as you would do with 2 PLX 3402.

But to be honest, you are only gaining 2 dB's more,
using 2 RMX 5050's -vs- 2 PLX 3402's

IMHO, I don't see the RMX 5050 at fault here.

Best Regards,

Logged
Elliot

Tim Padrick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5008
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2004, 10:32:46 PM »

I think I'd go LAB subs, but if you want to stay front loaded, go with the CGN instead of the Aura.  The CGN has a number of improvements that even the latest Aura lacks.  (The CGN is the BassMax driver.)  http://www.bhivemotor.com/

Ronnie Blenden

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2004, 01:19:46 AM »

In response to this post I quote the old saying..."you get what you paid for".  Don't expect an amp that costs half as much as a pro series amp with the same power rating to sound the same.  Bass response is "exactly" where you don't want to use these types of amps.  Then just can't handle it.   The PL 6.0 would flat walk all over an rmx5050 but then again it is built better!!!  Personally I wouldn't use the rmx series if someone gave me a whole rack full of them.  If you want to stick with qsc then go for the power light stuff or stick with the plx series.  Otherwise step up to the plate and buy Crown macrotech, crest pro series or even their CA series.
Logged

Tom Herr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
    • http://www.tandjsound.com
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2004, 08:30:25 AM »

captainjack wrote on Fri, 23 July 2004 06:19

In response to this post I quote the old saying..."you get what you paid for".  Don't expect an amp that costs half as much as a pro series amp with the same power rating to sound the same.  Bass response is "exactly" where you don't want to use these types of amps.  Then just can't handle it.   The PL 6.0 would flat walk all over an rmx5050 but then again it is built better!!!  Personally I wouldn't use the rmx series if someone gave me a whole rack full of them.  If you want to stick with qsc then go for the power light stuff or stick with the plx series.  Otherwise step up to the plate and buy Crown macrotech, crest pro series or even their CA series.


I agree that the PL6 would out perform the RMX5050. However given the choice between, Crown MA5000, Crest Pro Series or QSC PL, I would pick QSC Power Lights everytime. YOMV

Logged
Tom Herr
T&J Sound
Custom Speakers

Bob Lee (QSC)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1788
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2004, 12:30:07 PM »

Hi Al,

Less than impressive in what way?
Logged
Bob Lee
Applications Engineer, Tech Services Group QSC Audio
Secretary, Audio Engineering Society
www.linkedin.com/in/qscbob

"If it sounds good, it is good."
 -Duke Ellington

Nathan Schwarzkopf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
    • http://NTSound.com
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2004, 11:40:16 AM »

Hi

Sorry for not getting back in so long but its been a busy summer.


The subs didn't seem as full.  The sound out of them seemed more transparent than a full wall of sub sound.

I'm sorry I lack the technical descriptions you might be looking for.

Since were talking ... is there suppose to be a pop when the 5050 turns on? 2 do it 1 does not.

Later on fellas

AL K.

Logged

Bob Lee (QSC)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1788
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2004, 11:57:21 AM »

There may be a small pop or thump, but it shouldn't be anything much. If it's loud or really noticeable, there's probably something wrong.

Because of the human ear's non-linear sensitivity to low frequencies, even slight gain mismatches can have a large effect on the perceived loudness or "fullness" of sub systems. I'm not saying that is the cause of your experience, but it is quite common and something that is easily overlooked.
Logged
Bob Lee
Applications Engineer, Tech Services Group QSC Audio
Secretary, Audio Engineering Society
www.linkedin.com/in/qscbob

"If it sounds good, it is good."
 -Duke Ellington

Phil Ouellette

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 457
Re: RMX 5050 not impressed
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2004, 12:21:13 PM »

Bob Lee (QSC) wrote on Mon, 23 August 2004 11:57

Because of the human ear's non-linear sensitivity to low frequencies, even slight gain mismatches can have a large effect on the perceived loudness or "fullness" of sub systems. I'm not saying that is the cause of your experience, but it is quite common and something that is easily overlooked.



The drummer in a church gig I used to do, loved to sneak in and re-eq his drum mics.  I could always tell he had been at it because all of the eq gain controls on his channels were turned up to max boost (like I wasn't going to notice that).  His claim was that it just sounded better that way.  My response was "that's what the fader is for".  Louder always sounds better when comparing gear or eq settings etc.

Phil
Logged
That's "newbiesque" to my friends.
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 19 queries.