Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 12:48:51 AM
)Has anyone ever used this brand before??? And if so how did they hold up and were they a good clear amp.
What is the life of the amp B4 u trash it..
Mon section is 32 CHANNEL ALLEN HEATH
6 GPS 2600
6 DBX EQ
6 DBX COMP/LIMIT/GATE
16 QW MON
1 QW 118 (BASS CAB FOR DRUM FILL)
Post by: Thomas Creek on March 05, 2009, 02:10:40 AM
Post by: Andy Peters on March 05, 2009, 02:45:47 AM
| Thomas Creek wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 00:10 |
I was reading about these on another forum and they pointed out that the specs for the EP4000 are the same as the EP2500. They just added a new peak power rating to the spec sheet. |
That's some funny shit.
-a
Post by: Tim McCulloch on March 05, 2009, 02:55:21 AM
| Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 01:45 | ||
That's some funny shit. -a |
Mark Twain can be mis-quoted as having said: "there are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Specifications."
Post by: Tim Charpentier on March 05, 2009, 03:17:13 AM
. The website indicates that the amp gives 2400 watts RMS & 4000 peak. I like the fact that they show both ratings so that you can match your speakers more accurately. I dislike the resale value of Behringer products, but I know people who have had good success with their amps. I just bought a used QSC 2450 off Ebay & didn't have a chance to use it on a gig until AFTER the complaint/refund period. One of the channels was shot, so I guess I could have done better with a new Behringer. Who knows. Let us know how it works out.
Post by: Paul McKeown on March 05, 2009, 11:19:15 AM
I had occasion to open it up when cleaning out their amp rack. The inside construction looked pretty good - being as it's a QSC clone, not surprising.
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 01:12:03 PM
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/EP4000.aspx
Post by: Tim Weaver on March 05, 2009, 01:15:38 PM
Dude, you bought behringer!But seriously, I've seen many bands flog them for a while with no major problems. You should be alright, but I gotta say, a used name brand anything has more resale value than a NIB B-ringer.
Just to rub it in a little more, last year I bought (all used) 2 Carver PT-1800's, 2 PT-2400's, and 2 QSC 1602's mounted in 2 racks all for 1700 bucks. The deals are out there if you look for them. And I was able to test all of these amps out before buying.
Granted the racks are beat to hell, but whaddya want for that price!
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 01:18:26 PM
. The midle of next week ill let you know what they sound like cause im gonna hook them up and test them thourly for a bout a 12 hr run at a comp stage volume(LOUD ) and if they can hold up to that then we may have a chance 
Post by: Stavross (Sam Buck) on March 05, 2009, 01:23:36 PM
| Jack Wooten wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 12:12 |
SPECS FOR EP-4000 http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/EP4000.aspx |
It doesn't even list its power at 8ohms.
Plus I bet those things weigh a ton.
With the price that used PLX's are going for I can't imagine spending money on one of these.
Oh well someone has to bail out the Chinese economy.
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 01:26:43 PM
Post by: Paul McKeown on March 05, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
| Thomas Creek wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 02:10 |
I was reading about these on another forum and they pointed out that the specs for the EP4000 are the same as the EP2500. They just added a new peak power rating to the spec sheet. |
Ah, the power of gossip!
EP4000
2 x 2,000 Watts into 2 Ohms; 2 x 1,400 Watts into 4 Ohms; 4,000 Watts into 4 Ohms (bridge mode)
Weight 36.6 lbs
EP2500
2 x 1,200 Watts into 2 Ohms; 2 x 750 Watts into 4 Ohms; 2,400 Watts into 4 Ohms bridged operation
Post by: Alex Marine on March 05, 2009, 01:46:59 PM
| Paul McKeown wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 10:36 | ||
Ah, the power of gossip! EP4000 2 x 2,000 Watts into 2 Ohms; 2 x 1,400 Watts into 4 Ohms; 4,000 Watts into 4 Ohms (bridge mode) Weight 36.6 lbs EP2500 2 x 1,200 Watts into 2 Ohms; 2 x 750 Watts into 4 Ohms; 2,400 Watts into 4 Ohms bridged operation |
look at the actual spec sheet not what the website says......
they are the same.
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on March 05, 2009, 01:47:57 PM
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on March 05, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
Why would a regional sound company(looking to get into touring?) want to own Behringer anyway...?
Evan
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 02:09:19 PM
. the thing is ive seen alot of is.. People shun on the cheaper products. My company, i started it with the peavey sp siries cabs and the old 3 space cs 800. Oh yeah and a mark 4 mixer.
Post by: James Babcock on March 05, 2009, 02:34:30 PM
Haha! Actually I have been using a bridged EP2500 for nearly 5 years now to run my Buttkicker, it holds up. I would imagine it would be fairly noisy in most FOH applications, but it works fine for what I use it for. Not a big deal if it craps out, I would still have my IEM's in.
Rock on,
James
Post by: Mike {AB} Butler on March 05, 2009, 03:03:38 PM
Methinks you are pushing too hard on that $387 price as your justification - judging from your words in this last post, as well as your first. I'm just curious WHY..
I used high quality amps when I worked for others starting out. I went out on my own, I bought cheapo's and had to baby them.. and suffered the consequences for such. I moved back up the chain.. and never looked back. The quality, reliability, and integrity of the "expensive" units simply spoke volumes for NOT ever buying the cheap-off-the-block econo-units again.
Think about it. IF they're selling these at your "low price".. and obviously are putting these out the door for a fraction of the selling price.. what is THEIR cost to produce? We have no way of knowing that tradeoffs in components, sheetmetal, assembly, and test weren't made that affect overall quality.. and this is a unit that hasn't been out in the field for a long time (data sheet perhaps copied from the other model.. and specs not yet altered.. as unit is too new?).. and we all know that any new product release has a chance for errors.
While it's "probably" safe to use it on monitors, I sure don't like it when I get musos, producers, and managers screaming at me in the middle of a show.. because the monitor went down.
Like the EP-2500, only time will tell..
regards,
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 03:33:18 PM
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 05, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Post by: Dick Rees on March 05, 2009, 03:40:07 PM
| Jack Wooten wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:33 |
It was just a thought.... I know they are cheaply produced and just giving them a shot. I WOULD NEVER USE them on a foh app. just monitors |
Jack....
When it gets down to defending less expensive products.......
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on March 05, 2009, 03:43:51 PM
| Jack Wooten wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 15:33 |
It was just a thought.... I know they are cheaply produced and just giving them a shot. I WOULD NEVER USE them on a foh app. just monitors |
Because musicians totally don't need a quality system! Musicians that can hear themselves is totally overrated. I know I always buy cheap stuff for monitor world and spend the big bucks on FOH gear, because I don't have to listen to it!
Did you catch the sarcasm?
Evan
Post by: Greg Cameron on March 05, 2009, 04:23:24 PM
Greg
Post by: Dick Rees on March 05, 2009, 04:36:31 PM
| Greg Cameron wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 15:23 |
A new low for Behringer. I guess the bad economy is making them more disparate than usual... Greg |
I'll say!!! disparate
1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements
Source: Merriam Webster On line
Post by: Harry Sookraj on March 05, 2009, 05:02:52 PM
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on March 05, 2009, 05:26:24 PM
| Jack Wooten wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 10:18 |
This offers alot more power than the ep-2500 |
Actually, the power ratings seem to be the same. As others have mentioned, they added "peak" power ratings and a new model number.
I'm just pleased to see that they seem to have written and illustrated the owner's manual largely themselves … unlike when the EuroPower amps first came out.
Post by: Bob Leonard on March 05, 2009, 06:07:07 PM
| Bob Lee (QSC) wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 17:26 | ||
Actually, the power ratings seem to be the same. As others have mentioned, they added "peak" power ratings and a new model number. I'm just pleased to see that they seem to have written and illustrated the owner's manual largely themselves … unlike when the EuroPower amps first came out. |
Bob,
I couldn't stand it anymore and had to look. I see where they have "adjusted" the peak output power rating to fall directly in line with the 4050HD. I also see where they have an amp that uses the same technology, has the same ratings, and is 34lbs lighter.
Now if my wife lost 34LBS I would be thrilled, however, if someone tells me they have a duck just like my duck it better weigh the same as my duck.
Sounds like the 2450 clone grew a few more output devices, is using the same toroids and about .5 lbs more heat sink.
Peak output my ass. I hope they come with fire extinguishers.
Post by: Dick Rees on March 05, 2009, 06:16:14 PM
| Bob Leonard wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 17:07 | ||||
Bob, I couldn't stand it anymore and had to look. I see where they have "adjusted" the peak output power rating to fall directly in line with the 4050HD. I also see where they have an amp that uses the same technology, has the same ratings, and is 34lbs lighter. Now if my wife lost 34LBS I would be thrilled, however, if someone tells me they have a duck just like my duck it better weigh the same as my duck. Sounds like the 2450 clone grew a few more output devices, is using the same toroids and about .5 lbs more heat sink. Peak output my ass. I hope they come with fire extinguishers. |
Post by: Greg Cameron on March 05, 2009, 06:21:05 PM
Greg
Post by: Pete Sams on March 05, 2009, 07:02:07 PM
EP4000:
RMS @ 1% thd Sine wave both channels driven 4ohm....950w
RMS @ 1% ths sine wave Bridged mode 4ohm.....2400w
I'd say they figured out how to get a little more power out of a 2500 in 8 and 4 ohms. That's about it really, whoopie...
Waste of 387
Post by: Sean Chen on March 05, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
If EP-4000 is the same quality as EP-2500, you have a winner.
Post by: Mats Fagerkull on March 06, 2009, 10:00:56 AM
| Sean Chen wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:55 |
EP-2500 is the only Behringer product that I have no complaint. Everything else from them has some issue: noise, quality,... If EP-4000 is the same quality as EP-2500, you have a winner. |
Uhmm, Sean you might have missed it but if I understand the other posts correct there shouldn't be any difference between EP-4000 and EP-2500. THAT'S what they are saying, it is *the same amp* with "updated" spec sheet
At least it seems to looks like that to the tech savy, I haven't bothered to check it myself./mats
Post by: Silas Pradetto on March 06, 2009, 10:17:42 AM
Paying $387 for these is a complete rip off. First, EP2500s were (are?) considerably less than $300 new. Second, you can get real amps like a QSC GX5 for LESS MONEY new, and it's probably more powerful in reality. Third, you can get even better amps than GX series used for that much money. I've seen many RMX 2450s selling in the $350 range lately.
Betting any part of your show on cheap gear is just not a cool idea, especially since real gear could have been acquired for the same $.
Post by: Mike {AB} Butler on March 06, 2009, 11:27:07 AM
| Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 10:17 |
Just in case this hasn't been clarified: Paying $387 for these is a complete rip off. First, EP2500s were (are?) considerably less than $300 new. Second, you can get real amps like a QSC GX5 for LESS MONEY new, and it's probably more powerful in reality. Third, you can get even better amps than GX series used for that much money. I've seen many RMX 2450s selling in the $350 range lately. Betting any part of your show on cheap gear is just not a cool idea, especially since real gear could have been acquired for the same $. |
Well, apparently it would seem in some cases, some people can't get those kinds of deals.
Post by: Jack Wooten on March 06, 2009, 12:32:32 PM
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on March 06, 2009, 12:40:41 PM
| Tim Charpentier wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 00:17 |
...I just bought a used QSC 2450 off Ebay & didn't have a chance to use it on a gig until AFTER the complaint/refund period. One of the channels was shot, so I guess I could have done better with a new Behringer. |
That's not sensible.
Post by: Silas Pradetto on March 06, 2009, 01:09:50 PM
| Mike {AB} Butler wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 11:27 | ||
Well, apparently it would seem in some cases, some people can't get those kinds of deals. |
MAP on the EP2500 was $300 I think. I googled GX5 and came up with some selling for $350. And I know I've seen used RMX2450s in the Marketplace for $350.
I'm not quoting dealer costs or anything, just what's publicly available.
Post by: Dan O. Anderson on March 06, 2009, 02:07:53 PM
| Quote: |
First, EP2500s were (are?) considerably less than $300 new |
Not quite. They're $350 new.
Second, I actually bought 2 of these years ago when I had a band and we needed some cheap monitor amps. I've since removed them from the rig and use them as backup. They're heavier than hell, but other than that I've got no complaints with 'em. I think they'd do a fine job as an install amp in a bar gig somewhere...
There's a product for everyone...
Cheers,
Dan
Post by: Jonathan Goodall on March 06, 2009, 02:46:26 PM
http://www.musicways.co.nz/customer/product.php?productid=25 52&cat=337&page=1
At the current exchange rate an EP2500 is = to $500 USD in lil ole New Zealand at present.
By comparison a QSC GX5 = about $750 USD https://www.soundstore.co.nz/p-2654-qsc-gx5-power-amplifier- 700wch.aspx or http://www.soundsystems.co.nz/products/amplifiers--qsc/
Post by: Mike {AB} Butler on March 06, 2009, 03:01:56 PM
I wasn't aiming at you in particular when replying to Silas..
I DO admit to a bias towards a company with a documented history of IP "borrowing".. the regulars here do know my views on the subject.. I won't expound the the nth time..
As everyone sez, if it works, great.
IMO, though, we all have to be careful that the new purchases we make don't kill the goose or geese that lays the golden egg.. buy from the companies that you want to stay around 10 years from now..
Regards,
Post by: . on March 06, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
| Jack Wooten wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 11:32 |
OK guys im sorry to have even brought this up. I know alot of you frown on the Behringer products. So thanx for all of your input on this situation. |
You've got a good flame suit!
Post by: peter.golde on March 06, 2009, 07:54:40 PM
I don't know about this new product though, peak power? Sounds shady.
Post by: Matthew 'Stitch' Pence on March 07, 2009, 03:12:09 AM
Post by: Deryl Voutila on March 24, 2009, 09:19:06 AM
Post by: Kim Guibord on March 24, 2009, 10:24:32 AM
So when other people tell you to not buy the cheaper amps and go with a proven company, I would disagree, I would try the cheaper amps if that is where you can go financially and if they work good for you than thats awesome.
Post by: Mike {AB} Butler on March 24, 2009, 11:31:37 AM
| Collin Benjamin wrote on Tue, 24 March 2009 10:24 |
I eventually went to crown amps on that rig only because of the Behringer name not that they were bad amps it was just the name, But in my other rig that I had a boatload of Itech amps, and not just one but all of them had to go for repair more than a couple times. So when other people tell you to not buy the cheaper amps and go with a proven company, I would disagree, I would try the cheaper amps if that is where you can go financially and if they work good for you than thats awesome. |
So, you had to buy amps twice.. because of the brand name on them. Even more the reason why going with a reputable name brand matters.. apparently, it mattered to your customers (or someone) enough for you to do the swap, I'm guessing..
Sure, the Itechs were bad news in the first round.. every manufacturer has their dogz. But, thankfully, there are a lot of other good manufacturers to choose from.
Regards,
Post by: Kim Guibord on March 24, 2009, 01:01:48 PM
Post by: Mike {AB} Butler on March 24, 2009, 01:39:53 PM
You DID say the NAME was why you decided to switch, though..?
Regards,
Post by: Scott Cain on March 24, 2009, 03:55:26 PM
The Behringers are not QSC, of course QSC has a great amp,and I own those too. I dont think the EP2500 is as actually as strong as the QSC2450 but its half the price.
Everybody that knows anything about sound knows the difference between Behringer and QSC,I get tired of hearing it called the QSC clone. Behringer has a decent amp at a decent price and QSC has a great amp that cost twice as much, but there again you get what you pay for..
Post by: Scott Cain on March 24, 2009, 04:11:20 PM
| Collin Benjamin wrote on Tue, 24 March 2009 09:24 |
I had a "B" rig a couple of years ago that I used all Behringer amps bridged in mono, I was using some spare EAW KF650e cabs for tops & Yorkville LS1208 for subs processing was a Ashly Protea 3.24 (mono rig) That rig kicked some serious butt, I eventually went to crown amps on that rig only because of the Behringer name not that they were bad amps it was just the name, But in my other rig that I had a boatload of Itech amps, and not just one but all of them had to go for repair more than a couple times. So when other people tell you to not buy the cheaper amps and go with a proven company, I would disagree, I would try the cheaper amps if that is where you can go financially and if they work good for you than thats awesome. |
I've never had a Behringer amp go out and I push them hard,2500 bridged.
BUT, I do not think they are putting out the power they claim they do, probably the EP4000 will actually put out the 2400 watts they claim the EP2500 will do. My QSC2450 and Peavey CS amps sounds stronger, thats what I've based my opinion on.
I started with B amps because of the price,expecting them to fail and at the price they were, if I could get a couple of years out of them I would throw them in the trash.Going about 5 years now.I may buy another,but I will never buy another Crown.
I have heard recently from a dealer that he feels the quality may be not as good as used to be,who knows,and this dealer has been selling high quality sound equipment for 10 years and B equipment was his cheap line and he has had less trouble with the B than the others
Now, if I was in the pro sound buisness making money with my tools I would invest in a better amp,but nothing wrong with having a cheap B amp for backup or to run monitors.Just MHO.
Post by: Josh Shetter on March 24, 2009, 04:56:21 PM
| Quote: |
BUT, I do not think they are putting out the power they claim they do, probably the EP4000 will actually put out the 2400 watts they claim the EP2500 will do. |
The ep2500 will output 2000w before experiencing thermal issues.
I don't see the EP4000 outputting more. It's the same weight.
Post by: Andy Peters on June 26, 2009, 05:41:40 PM
| mika wrote on Fri, 26 June 2009 07:33 |
if you have just little knowledge in electronics,you can modify ep to sound perfect and run cold. the hart of any amp is first component that recive and amplify soun wave,and it is operational amplifier-op amp. behringer op amps is 4580 and it is old design and poor specifications,and very cheep. and other amplifiers that are a litle more expensive have the same opaamp or little beather(crown,qsc). but if you change 4580 to some other(opa 2134) or some else that is newer and hi end,you got new hi end amp with perfect sound and power. i can put my 2500 to test with any other and i bet i can beat them. sory for bad englich. |
You've gotta be fucking kidding.
-a
Post by: Bob Leonard on June 26, 2009, 06:50:16 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 26 June 2009 17:41 | ||
You've gotta be fucking kidding. -a |
I was in Glouchester the other day and I noticed every lobster boat had some type of Behringer amp on board.
They call them anchors.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 26, 2009, 07:00:11 PM
| Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 26 June 2009 17:50 | ||||
I was in Glouchester the other day and I noticed every lobster boat had some type of Behringer amp on board. They call them anchors. |
I don't think there's enough iron in them to hold down an anchor chain let alone a fishing trawler. How's the North Shore these days?
JR
PS: you mean this mod won't make "perfect sound and power" while running cold too?
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on June 26, 2009, 09:00:50 PM
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on June 26, 2009, 09:58:20 PM
| Jeff Wheeler wrote on Fri, 26 June 2009 18:00 |
I like my EP2500s. Waiting to see how some friends react tonight to my having swapped them in place of where I had XTi 2000s before. |
Depends on who brings the marshmallows.
Post by: Bob Leonard on June 27, 2009, 07:02:30 AM
| mika wrote on Sat, 27 June 2009 03:18 |
all company put cheep parts in they amps. the price of 4580 is wery cheep, i mean when you bay it on 1 to 100 pieces it cost about 10,15 cents,ne 5532 is in qsc and it is beather and it costs about 30 cents. opa 2134 cost about 6 dolars. you know what i mean. when they make amps,they make 10000 pieces at example, 10 cents vs 6 bucks,what will you chose! just look at the specs of this amps,and carefully look at the thd,slew rate,noise. you will see big diferent. http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/56735/BURR-B ROWN/OPA2134PA.html http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/7452/NJRC/NJ M4580D.html or just ask any audiophile about this.in the amp first part that must been perfeci is op amp and then supply,output stage transistors. ep 2500 is a good build amp. h class,48000 mf kapacitors,toshoba 2sc 5200 transistors.when i put new op amp in my,i couldnt beleve what i hear. the sound difference is big.when i run it 100 percents on 4 ohm it is a half cooler than before. you can put new op amp and in computer sound cards. yust look at the spec of hi end sound cards. they firs say what op amp is inside. |
Here's some things you need to understand.
1. You need to go to your profile and change "mika" to your real and full name. You might also put in a location which I think may be the Behringer plant in China, or deep in the woods under a bridge.
2. Learn how to use the spell checker.
3. A single component is not the sum of all components. Specifications mean little or nothing unless accompanied by other figures including real world tests for MTBF. Reliability is more important than a difference of .0001 in tolerance or noise level.
4. A single OP AMP will not make your amplifier run cooler, and if the amp was that good you wouldn't have to change anything to make it sound great.
5. I wouldn't ask an audiofool which side of the toilet paper to wipe my ass with let alone their opinion of an amplifier used for live sound.
6. See #1 and #2.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 27, 2009, 10:18:34 AM
| mika wrote on Sat, 27 June 2009 02:18 |
all company put cheep parts in they amps. the price of 4580 is wery cheep, i mean when you bay it on 1 to 100 pieces it cost about 10,15 cents,ne 5532 is in qsc and it is beather and it costs about 30 cents. opa 2134 cost about 6 dolars. you know what i mean. when they make amps,they make 10000 pieces at example, 10 cents vs 6 bucks,what will you chose! just look at the specs of this amps,and carefully look at the thd,slew rate,noise. you will see big diferent. http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/56735/BURR-B ROWN/OPA2134PA.html http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/7452/NJRC/NJ M4580D.html or just ask any audiophile about this.in the amp first part that must been perfeci is op amp and then supply,output stage transistors. ep 2500 is a good build amp. h class,48000 mf kapacitors,toshoba 2sc 5200 transistors.when i put new op amp in my,i couldnt beleve what i hear. the sound difference is big.when i run it 100 percents on 4 ohm it is a half cooler than before. you can put new op amp and in computer sound cards. yust look at the spec of hi end sound cards. they firs say what op amp is inside. |
Your suggestion that swapping out the input opamp would make that much of a difference is difficult for me to believe.
From the data sheets you linked to, the 2134 is a slightly better part, as it should be for that price difference. Whether this will translate to a significant audible difference in the context of the full circuit is not as obvious.
Without studying the schematic I can't answer definitively but in general there will be both voltage gain stages and current gain (buffers) between that input opamp and the final output. This suggests that slew rate and linearity will be dominated by the following stages not the opamp. Only if the opamp is a horrible performer at low gain- line level could it degrade the signal purity the amp receives from it's input.
The 4580 is not that horrible by itself, so replacing it shouldn't make a huge "night and day difference". Further, there is no way that it should cause the amp to run cooler which is dominated by the amplifier's output stage design.
It is a common practice among audiophools to judge a design by looking at the parts list, when they don't understand what those parts do. They 'ass'ume they can improve a product's performance by throwing more expensive parts at it. It is the work of the engineers who design these products, look at the individual parts performance in the context of what matters to the design. Putting in a better part than is needed makes the product more expensive and less competitive. Using a cheaper part than is required is bad design.
Behringer has been known to "borrow" designs and often substitute cheaper parts, so if you notice a noise floor difference from your swap, maybe you could get the same improvement from using a $0.25 opamp (5532).
I will not blindly defend Behringer products, but I do vigorously reject the "all you need to do is throw a $6 opamp at any design" to improve it... Life isn't that simple.
BTW, the performance of a computer sound card should be dominated by the CODEC not the opamp used. While it is always possible to substitute cheaper and cheaper parts in any design until a product is degraded.
Buying from well respected manufacturers will make the internal component selection a non-issue.
JR
Post by: David A. Parker on June 28, 2009, 08:14:26 AM
Post by: Josh Shetter on June 30, 2009, 11:36:52 PM
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on July 01, 2009, 11:01:11 AM
| Josh Shetter wrote on Tue, 30 June 2009 22:36 |
How about we discuss the new EPX3000. |
I am interested in that as well, but don't have one yet. Here is a thread.
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/446650/23647/?sr ch=EPX3000#msg_446650
Post by: Stu Batt on September 17, 2009, 12:15:45 AM
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 17, 2009, 09:59:41 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Wed, 16 September 2009 23:15 |
I'd like to hear from someone who actually owned and used these for a while (or the EP2500) come in with a problem rather than just bashing them for the sake of it...as for misleading power figures well lets say behringer are hardly the only guilty ones at that...I cant think of one amp that actually rates its power at RMS watts full bandwidth both channels driven with less than .05%THD @ 8ohms...any figure other than this is meaningless for comparisons...anyway Ive been in this game for 25 years and while I find a lot of the Beh gear is useless garbage (but has its place in the amatuer end of the game) the EP2500 is amazingly reliable and puts out reasonable usable grunt for not many $$$...having said that its not something you point out to a client or boast about owning, but it sits there quietly and compotently doing its job...so unless you have actually had a problem with these keep opinions separate from facts |
Way to jump on a thread that's been dead for months and tell people to "stop" posting their opinions..
You would have a better chance of success by just saying nothing. | Quote: |
I cant think of one amp that actually rates its power at RMS watts full bandwidth both channels driven with less than .05%THD @ 8ohms...any figure other than this is meaningless for comparisons. |
That comment just doesn't make sense... You can't think of an amp that specs that way, but that's how they all should be compared? Perhaps you could explain why that alone is the only specification that is meaningful.
Welcome to the lounge.
JR
Post by: David A. Parker on September 17, 2009, 06:39:08 PM
Post by: Stu Batt on September 17, 2009, 07:38:44 PM
same as speaker rating...Alnico JBLS used to be rated at 100watts, white cone yamahas were 250 watts...JBL rated 24hrs sinewave, yamaha toneburst for 1 second......
Ive been in this game for so many years and heard every bit of crap and we are still basically amplifying a signal from a bit of wire wrapped around a magnet (microphone) and boosting to move a bit of wire joined to a chunk of cardboard or aluminium wrapped around a magnet (speaker or compression driver) without it distorting too much but marketing forces have to reinvent it.....
its just speakers in boxes guys, and if you want it to sound good the operater is more important than the brand name
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 17, 2009, 10:46:09 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Thu, 17 September 2009 18:38 |
because if you'd been around the block in anything more than a pram you would know thats how amps always were rated before someone started fudging the figures to make their amps appear more powerful than the opposition, and suddenly people are claiming to have 10k rigs run by 3 power amps... same as speaker rating...Alnico JBLS used to be rated at 100watts, white cone yamahas were 250 watts...JBL rated 24hrs sinewave, yamaha toneburst for 1 second...... Ive been in this game for so many years and heard every bit of crap and we are still basically amplifying a signal from a bit of wire wrapped around a magnet (microphone) and boosting to move a bit of wire joined to a chunk of cardboard or aluminium wrapped around a magnet (speaker or compression driver) without it distorting too much but marketing forces have to reinvent it..... its just speakers in boxes guys, and if you want it to sound good the operater is more important than the brand name |
Well I have been around the block in more than a pram, but I don't know if that alone is a suitable reason for authority.
I was hoping to learn your justification for the specific criteria of 05% THD full bandwidth (20-20k?). There are lots of amps probably still in use by people here that can't meet <.05% at 20kHz.
I think the issue that you are ranting about is the practice, more common in some other categories, to measure max output power at closer to clipping to buy a few watts for those consumers who are easily impressed. But rather than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at .05%, amp manufacturers often deliver a distortion spec at rated power (that could be better or worse than .05%) and a max power spec at some relaxed distortion. I've often seen 1% used in SR amps, 3% or even 5% in guitar amps, and so on. One is a distortion spec, the other is a power spec, both are useful in their own way. So two different specs. One characterizes distortion, the other power. The only useful advice is to not confuse which is which.
The serial copier is probably just copying the specs from the original designer.
relax mate..
JR
Post by: Tim Weaver on September 17, 2009, 11:14:02 PM
Main Specifications:
Power Output: Min. RMS, both channels driven, from 10 to 20,000 Hz, with no more than 0.005% total harmonic distortion 120 watts per channel into 8 ohms
Load Impedance: 8ohms
Total Harmonistic Distortion (POWER AMP IN): less than 0.005% at or below rated min. RMS power output
Intermodulation Distortion (60Hz : 7kHz = 4:1 SMPTE method): less than 0.005% at or below rate min. RMS power output
Rise Time: 0.8 usec
Slew Rate: 250 V/usec
Frequency Response (at 1 watt) (OVERALL): DC to 300,000HZ +0db - 3db
Damping Factor (1 kHz, both channel driven): 150 into 8ohms
I know that when I had it on a scope we got over 160 watts / channel out of it before any appreciable distortion was seen. So I think this is how we should rate amps now. For no other reason, other than this is a really great sounding amp. So if we're all agreed, I'll call up SAE tomorrow so they can make the change. Cool?
8-p
Post by: Stu Batt on September 18, 2009, 12:39:54 AM
someone with 2 jands sr3000s and a mackie 1400 boasting about their 10k rig, and some production manager falling for it so I dont get the gig purely because I have quoted a 3k rig that actually is putting out the same power.
35 years ago a good rig was a JBL rig 18" or 15" subs, 15",12" or 10"mids and 2" compression driver, with whatever decent grunty amps, triamped , with a soundcraft desk and a couple of KT graphics and some DBX compressors, and a stack of SM58s and 57s, and a D12....lots changed hasnt it???...when you compare the changes in video reproduction, audio has moved basically zilch...
basically bigger power amps allow more compact boxes and signal processors instead of analogue crossovers give a bit more scope for change...and the loudspeakers are still very little changed since the 1930s...better glue needed for more heat is about it...
at the end of the day its still speakers in boxes ...
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 18, 2009, 11:07:58 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Thu, 17 September 2009 23:39 |
at the end of the day if they were all measured under the same conditions there would be a more realistic result...there used to be a standard then it got both fudged and fully misunderstood... |
In the US we went through the power amp specification nonsense back in the '70s and ended up with FTC regulations concerning 1/3rd power amp preconditioning and such, that were useful when all amps were class A/B but is archaic now.
| Quote: |
someone with 2 jands sr3000s and a mackie 1400 boasting about their 10k rig, and some production manager falling for it so I dont get the gig purely because I have quoted a 3k rig that actually is putting out the same power. |
Rigs should be compared by SPL, not how much power the amps put out. Even SPL can be gamed, so it needs to be SPL @ a bandwidth and coverage pattern. I have seen decisions made completely ignoring speaker efficiency.
| Quote: |
35 years ago a good rig was a JBL rig 18" or 15" subs, 15",12" or 10"mids and 2" compression driver, with whatever decent grunty amps, triamped , with a soundcraft desk and a couple of KT graphics and some DBX compressors, and a stack of SM58s and 57s, and a D12....lots changed hasnt it???...when you compare the changes in video reproduction, audio has moved basically zilch... basically bigger power amps allow more compact boxes and signal processors instead of analogue crossovers give a bit more scope for change...and the loudspeakers are still very little changed since the 1930s...better glue needed for more heat is about it... at the end of the day its still speakers in boxes ... |
Perhaps I have a different perspective than you, but I have seen plenty of changes in 35 years. Amps have gotten smaller, lighter, and more efficient. Loudspeakers were laggards for a while but line arrays are better at putting sound on the meat in the seats better than the old wall of sound, and recently modern speaker designers are in a creative burst of both applying DSP to classic loudspeaker problems, or novel horn designs.
Professional PA will always get hind teat to the bigger dollar consumer market for R&D dollars, but these are interesting times for speakers IMO.
Of course opinions vary.
JR
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 18, 2009, 11:28:04 AM
| Tim Weaver wrote on Thu, 17 September 2009 22:14 |
This is the performance spec of my home amp. Main Specifications: Power Output: Min. RMS, both channels driven, from 10 to 20,000 Hz, with no more than 0.005% total harmonic distortion 120 watts per channel into 8 ohms Load Impedance: 8ohms Total Harmonistic Distortion (POWER AMP IN): less than 0.005% at or below rated min. RMS power output Intermodulation Distortion (60Hz : 7kHz = 4:1 SMPTE method): less than 0.005% at or below rate min. RMS power output Rise Time: 0.8 usec Slew Rate: 250 V/usec Frequency Response (at 1 watt) (OVERALL): DC to 300,000HZ +0db - 3db Damping Factor (1 kHz, both channel driven): 150 into 8ohms I know that when I had it on a scope we got over 160 watts / channel out of it before any appreciable distortion was seen. So I think this is how we should rate amps now. For no other reason, other than this is a really great sounding amp. So if we're all agreed, I'll call up SAE tomorrow so they can make the change. Cool? 8-p |
This reinforces my points. If the amp can do .005% at rated power, why spec it at only .05%? While I admit I am suspicious that there is not a huge audible difference between .05% and .005% THD, amp designers need to be allowed to present the fruits of their (design) labor.
Measuring power at clipping by eye can vary quite a bit, so defacto standards of power at say 1% measured with bench equipment actually removes an opportunity to fudge numbers. The real problem is that consumers may buy an amp with tens of watts more power that may in practice be indistinguishable from each other.
In decades of dealing with consumers in such markets they are hungry for these weak distinctions between products that have become more commodity like every day. Sellers are rewarded for feeding consumers these merchantable distinctions. As all amps have pretty much gotten good enough, pimping them based on excessive slew rate, damping factor, or whatever is IMO disingenuous. A little like politics.
JR
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on September 18, 2009, 11:48:47 AM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 10:07 |
...FTC regulations concerning 1/3rd power amp preconditioning and such, that were useful when all amps were class A/B but is archaic now. |
Could you expand on the quoted statement? I'm not buying top-shelf amps and probably won't anytime soon, but I am interested in why that spec is not useful for modern amps.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 18, 2009, 01:05:09 PM
| Jeff Wheeler wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 10:48 |
Could you expand on the quoted statement? I'm not buying top-shelf amps and probably won't anytime soon, but I am interested in why that spec is not useful for modern amps. |
Sure.. 1/3 power is the worst case for thermal dissipation in class A/B amps, so FTC regulations used that to pre cook amps before testing to insure heat sinks were adequate. Glass G/H amps will typically not be working hard at 1/3rd power and can be tuned (with rail voltages) to breeze through 1/3rd power testing. Class D amps, likewise do not experience peak dissipation at 1/3rd power. Therefore (IMO) it is an archaic stipulation that only applies to small conventional technology modern amps. Most amps above a few hundred watts (at 8 ohms) are NOT class A/B.
JR
edit- the subject EP-4000 is class H /edit
Post by: Stu Batt on September 18, 2009, 08:08:22 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 10:07 |
Perhaps I have a different perspective than you, but I have seen plenty of changes in 35 years. Amps have gotten smaller, lighter, and more efficient. Loudspeakers were laggards for a while but line arrays are better at putting sound on the meat in the seats better than the old wall of sound, and recently modern speaker designers are in a creative burst of both applying DSP to classic loudspeaker problems, or novel horn designs. Professional PA will always get hind teat to the bigger dollar consumer market for R&D dollars, but these are interesting times for speakers IMO. Of course opinions vary. JR |
line arrays have been around for years, and at the end of the day are still just "speakers in boxes"...I'd already made the point of amplifier efficiency, and the switchmode PSU is the main reason for lightness otherwise you still need a good (ie heavy) power transformer...Im really not hearing anything greatly different or better than a good JBL rig from years ago, and maintain technology has gone virtually nowhere in audio...advertising certainly has, manufacturing techniques have and the price has come way down, but its not a greatly different product than years ago, and the 2 main components (the first and last..the mic and the bit of cardboard attached to a voice coil) are pretty well the same....
applying DSP to speaker problems ...what DSP parameters are there apart from eq, bandwidth control, compression, phase and time delay?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 18, 2009, 09:08:35 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 19:08 |
line arrays have been around for years, and at the end of the day are still just "speakers in boxes"...I'd already made the point of amplifier efficiency, and the switchmode PSU is the main reason for lightness otherwise you still need a good (ie heavy) power transformer...Im really not hearing anything greatly different or better than a good JBL rig from years ago, and maintain technology has gone virtually nowhere in audio...advertising certainly has, manufacturing techniques have and the price has come way down, but its not a greatly different product than years ago, and the 2 main components (the first and last..the mic and the bit of cardboard attached to a voice coil) are pretty well the same.... applying DSP to speaker problems ...what DSP parameters are there apart from eq, bandwidth control, compression, phase and time delay? |
I attribute the shift to consumer style marketing at least for semi-pro audio, to a certain company in Woodinville, Wash. a couple decades ago. Once out of the bottle that genie ain't going back in.
Yes, column speakers have been around forever but practical line arrays that actually worked for stadium use appear to be a relatively recent development. I don't call them an improvement per se, just more cost effective at putting sound into a controlled area. As with all things audio there is no free lunch.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I find the recent work done by Danley, and Gunness in loudspeakers more than a linear or incremental advance. While the pervasive use of DSP everywhere is just consumer technology filtering up to the pro end.
You can pass sound with two tin cans and some string, but technology marches on.
JR
Post by: Steve Milner on September 18, 2009, 09:12:46 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 20:08 | ||
Im really not hearing anything greatly different or better than a good JBL rig from years ago, and maintain technology has gone virtually nowhere in audio... |
Exactly what type of paradigm shift are you looking for to take place in the audio world, before you are satisfied that technology in our field is advancing?
Step behind a Digidesign Venue or even an LS-9 or 01V96 and tell me that technology hasn't gone anywhere in 35 years! Sure the concepts and fundamentals employed are all working towards the same goals, but the technologies are miles apart from what was available even in recent decades.
Also... if you have actually been around the block in anything better then a pram, you would be hip to the fact that JR most likely had something to do with the design and engineering of said pram.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 18, 2009, 09:31:49 PM
| Steve Milner wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 20:12 | ||||
Exactly what type of paradigm shift are you looking for to take place in the audio world, before you are satisfied that technology in our field is advancing? Step behind a Digidesign Venue or even an LS-9 or 01V96 and tell me that technology hasn't gone anywhere in 35 years! Sure the concepts and fundamentals employed are all working towards the same goals, but the technologies are miles apart from what was available even in recent decades. Also... if you have actually been around the block in anything better then a pram, you would be hip to the fact that JR most likely had something to do with the design and engineering of said pram. |
yes..but its still bits of cardboard floating around, and Digidesign venue doesnt make it sound any better, just easier for the operator (as long as they are familiar with them) and possibly more at mercy of the operator...I do a lot of festival gigs...4 or 5 days, 20 plus acts per day, 10 mins changeover and no soundcheck with everything from a hurdy-gurdy & a sitar miked up to a hardcore band, so memory recall wouldnt be much help at all, but hands on the dials certainly is...an analogue desk is just fine for this, and in that environment Ive heard mixes on a digital taking longer to get together, and the amount of times Ive seen an operator watching the screen rather than the band makes me wonder if its disconnecting us from our role of sound reinforcemnt...my point is I could go to a gig with a good 1980s PA, and it would sound just as good as anything out there now because its fundamentally the same requirement desired, and all the technology doesnt make it sound any better...I just keep on seeing the wheel remarketed
Post by: Steve Milner on September 18, 2009, 09:54:15 PM
This is not meant to be a hard question... you are obviously not impressed with what the industry has done over the past 35 years, what with all of those bits of cardboard floating around... so what are your ideas on how we can advance technology?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 18, 2009, 10:22:45 PM
| Steve Milner wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 20:12 |
Also... if you have actually been around the block in anything better then a pram, you would be hip to the fact that JR most likely had something to do with the design and engineering of said pram. |
Thanks but my career in engineering prams was cut short prematurely in my teens when the narrow minded lake association, at Lake Owassa, NJ outlawed my plywood speedboat before I even got the motor fired up. Ironically it had a mostly flat bottom like a pram, but it wasn't one.
I put it in the water one weekend, it was outlawed before the next. Probably just as well... I wasn't planning on fishing with it. I have always been in a hurry, even when going nowhere.
JR
Post by: Greg Cameron on September 18, 2009, 10:25:36 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 18:31 |
Im really not hearing anything greatly different or better than a good JBL rig from years ago, and maintain technology has gone virtually nowhere in audio... ...my point is I could go to a gig with a good 1980s PA, and it would sound just as good as anything out there now because its fundamentally the same requirement desired, and all the technology doesnt make it sound any better...I just keep on seeing the wheel remarketed |
If you honestly believe that best rigs of today don't sound any better then a JBL rig from the 80's, I seriously think you should get your hearing checked. re you seriously saying that a JBL HLA rig sounds just as good as an L'Acoustics K1 system? Yes, woofers and midrange cones are still made of paper, or rather composites. And the basic principles of sound haven't change. But there have been substantial advancements in waveguide systems, speaker arraying, DSP, driver power handling/output and huge power amp output that have had a very noticeable positive impact on sound quality over systems from 20+ years ago (or even 10 years ago for that matter). This has made for systems that are capable of far better dynamic range and clarity then hanging a pile of boxes in the air with honky horns, power compression/limitations, tons of comb filtering and lobing.
It's amazing how much your argument sounds like a club sound guy with a really crappy rig at a club a band I was in several year ago. He kept saying how speakers were nothing more than "paper cones moving air" and that it didn't matter that his rig was all low end speakers with a beat up old Mackie 8 bus board. It was just as good as a system at 10 time the price because it's just "paper cones moving air." Yeah right...
Greg
Post by: Stu Batt on September 18, 2009, 10:49:27 PM
| Steve Milner wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 20:54 |
So.... Exactly what type of paradigm shift in thinking are you looking for to take place in the audio world to satisfy (your) definition of advancing technology? This is not meant to be a hard question... you are obviously not impressed with what the industry has done over the past 35 years, what with all of those bits of cardboard floating around... so what are your ideas on how we can advance technology? |
nought...quite happy as it is...just get tired of hearing about the latest whatever you must buy to keep production managers happy and not hearing any better of a mix...its just for companies to keep selling stuff...and the intersting thing thing is that this stated as behringer bashing, when while i personally dont use it, I'd rather use a cheap behringer rig than a cheap Tapco/MXR?Dod rig of 30 years ago so the real advancement has been lower priced gear being better quality..
Post by: Stu Batt on September 18, 2009, 10:53:39 PM
| Greg Cameron wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 21:25 | ||
If you honestly believe that best rigs of today don't sound any better then a JBL rig from the 80's, I seriously think you should get your hearing checked. re you seriously saying that a JBL HLA rig sounds just as good as an L'Acoustics K1 system? Yes, woofers and midrange cones are still made of paper, or rather composites. And the basic principles of sound haven't change. But there have been substantial advancements in waveguide systems, speaker arraying, DSP, driver power handling/output and huge power amp output that have had a very noticeable positive impact on sound quality over systems from 20+ years ago (or even 10 years ago for that matter). This has made for systems that are capable of far better dynamic range and clarity then hanging a pile of boxes in the air with honky horns, power compression/limitations, tons of comb filtering and lobing. It's amazing how much your argument sounds like a club sound guy with a really crappy rig at a club a band I was in several year ago. He kept saying how speakers were nothing more than "paper cones moving air" and that it didn't matter that his rig was all low end speakers with a beat up old Mackie 8 bus board. It was just as good as a system at 10 time the price because it's just "paper cones moving air." Yeah right... Greg |
had a friend who bought a Court system..they rang Stephen Court for some info...his reply was its just speakers in boxes...I stillhear a lot of bad sound out of good rigs and good sound out of mediocre rigs, and Im tired of hearing overdone out of context bottom end because someones got the power to do it
Post by: Elliot Thompson on September 18, 2009, 11:16:04 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 03:53 |
had a friend who bought a Court system..they rang Stephen Court for some info...his reply was its just speakers in boxes...I stillhear a lot of bad sound out of good rigs and good sound out of mediocre rigs, and Im tired of hearing overdone out of context bottom end because someones got the power to do it |
That stems from user error it has nothing to do with the components.
One just needs to look at an 18-inch woofer designed today compared to 30 years ago. I have no records on any 18-inch driver that offered a 9mm xmax much less housing a 5 inch voice coil.
Best Regards,
Post by: Steve Milner on September 18, 2009, 11:17:48 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 22:49 | ||
nought...quite happy as it is...just get tired of hearing about the latest whatever you must buy to keep production managers happy and not hearing any better of a mix... |
So aside from having to supply the new fancy modern gear that I am assuming you do not have, you are quite happy with the advancements in technology in the past 35 years; although you are still maintaining that there have been no advancements other then that from your perspective, Behringer gear is a better bang for your buck then Tapco was back you your hay-day?
You should check out Penn & Teller's series on Showtime...
If you are in the business of supplying gear to meet the needs of a production manager... I would have to assume that these production managers come with a production budget... if the gear cannot be rented/hired or purchased within budget, then they don't get the gear.
Obviously it's nice to see the ROI on gear you actually own more often, but sub-renting in a console, or a specific speaker setup for a few shows (with the appropriate mark up for your trouble) should not be the end of your world.
Once I get my DeLorian up and running again, maybe I can come back and check out your HLA rig...
Post by: Andy Peters on September 19, 2009, 12:05:24 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 17:08 |
applying DSP to speaker problems ...what DSP parameters are there apart from eq, bandwidth control, compression, phase and time delay? |
Your problem is that you think of DSP as simply a replacement for analog functions (other than delay, of course).
-a
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on September 19, 2009, 12:21:15 AM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 19:22 |
I put it in the water one weekend, it was outlawed before the next. Probably just as well... I wasn't planning on fishing with it. I have always been in a hurry, even when going nowhere. JR |
Dang - the same thing happened to me a couple of bogs over from Clementon Lake, NJ.
Lawn-Boy engine. Wooden box stuffed with greased rags for the through hull. No transmission. Belt drive. Centrifugal clutch.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 19, 2009, 12:22:20 AM
| Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 23:05 | ||
Your problem is that you think of DSP as simply a replacement for analog functions (other than delay, of course). -a |
and what parameters are there different...i have no argument its got more scope, but my argument that its still a link from a microphone to a speaker, which operate on the same principle of 30 years ago seems to have been lost
Post by: Stu Batt on September 19, 2009, 12:29:53 AM
| Steve Milner wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 22:17 |
, Behringer gear is a better bang for your buck then Tapco was back you your hay-day? Once I get my DeLorian up and running again, maybe I can come back and check out your HLA rig... |
my hayday is making the assumption Im some stupid old git who isnt up with the times...I make my living 100% from the music industry and have for 35 years and continue to do so...Im booked because I can cut the gig,make it sound good and appropraite for music style and venue not because I follow every current fashion in sound...I buy what I need to when I need to and run my business at a good profit....and the Delorian wont be much use for carrying a PA unless technology gets em small enough to fit in the passengers seat.
Post by: RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS on September 19, 2009, 12:30:29 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Wed, 16 September 2009 21:15 |
...I cant think of one amp that actually rates its power at RMS watts full bandwidth both channels driven with less than .05%THD @ 8ohms...any figure other than this is meaningless for comparisons |
Who gives a fuck! If you are worried about running your amps at or very near the rated output then you brought the wrong rig out to your event! My amps are rated at 1350 watts into 8 ohms 20hz to 20K hz +/- .15dB with a typical THD+noise of less than .01%, that far exceeds your standards! Of course this really doesn't matter either as I will run them anywhere from 16 ohms to 2 ohms per channel depending on application so again, who cares what the specs in the fancy marketing papers claim for 8 ohms!
My amps also have a very smart limiting feature (much different than a typical peak limiter in most amps) that prevents the output from exceeding 1% THD. While 1% seems really high compared to your imaginary .05% figure it is WAYYYYYY less than the THD of the speakers themselves which are probably 10% or higher so the tiny little bits of slightly measureable distorion in the amplifier circuit are for the most part meeningless.
I also don't really care too much about the rating because I run anywhere from 10-20dB of headroom at all times except for maybe a very rare occasion where a really loud passage may get close to the rated output.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 19, 2009, 12:35:50 AM
| RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 23:30 | ||
Who gives a fuck! If you are worried about running your amps at or very near the rated output then you brought the wrong rig out to your event! My amps are rated at 1350 watts into 8 ohms 20hz to 20K hz +/- .15dB with a typical THD+noise of less than .01%, that far exceeds your standards! Of course this really doesn't matter either as I will run them anywhere from 16 ohms to 2 ohms per channel depending on application so again, who cares what the specs in the fancy marketing papers claim for 8 ohms! My amps also have a very smart limiting feature (much different than a typical peak limiter in most amps) that prevents the output from exceeding 1% THD. While 1% seems really high compared to your imaginary .05% figure it is WAYYYYYY less than the THD of the speakers themselves which are probably 10% or higher so the tiny little bits of slightly measureable distorion in the amplifier circuit are for the most part meeningless. I also don't really care too much about the rating because I run anywhere from 10-20dB of headroom at all times except for maybe a very rare occasion where a really loud passage may get close to the rated output. |
well I couldnt give a fuck what the rating system is as long as ther's some sort of standard so real comparisons can be made and stupid power claims aren't made by companies selling or using the gear
Post by: RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS on September 19, 2009, 12:44:44 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 21:35 | ||||
well I couldnt give a fuck what the rating system is as long as ther's some sort of standard so real comparisons can be made and stupid power claims aren't made by companies selling or using the gear |
If you want that then you must also want there to be a standard that all speaker boxes must have a madatory impedence of exactly 8 ohms throughout their entire frequency range???? If not then your desire for a standard is useless!
If you want to have any kind of a realistic idea of how many watts a speaker if pulling from an amp you need to know the amp's maximum voltage and the impedence of your boxes at all given frequencies. That is something that isn't always realistic to know although the data should be available from the speaker manufacturers.
Post by: Steve Milner on September 19, 2009, 01:07:15 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 00:29 | ||
my hayday is making the assumption Im some stupid old git who isnt up with the times...I make my living 100% from the music industry and have for 35 years and continue to do so...Im booked because I can cut the gig,make it sound good and appropraite for music style and venue not because I follow every current fashion in sound...I buy what I need to when I need to and run my business at a good profit....and the Delorian wont be much use for carrying a PA unless technology gets em small enough to fit in the passengers seat. |
The DeLorian bit was a joke... I thought that would have been obvious... much like how the technological advancements in the sound reinforcement industry over the past 35 years are completely obvious to the rest of the planet.
I did not mean to imply that you were old and I am honestly happy to hear that your calendar is full and that you are making a profit; but that does not change the fact that you are trying for some reason to argue that since the basic principals of sound reinforcement have not changed, as a result, the technology that HAS changed is somehow not valid.
You also chose to make that point in a reply to a poster who was personally responsible for creating and engineering some of those changes. Not that it matters really, I'm sure JR has some thick skin, but it's just not a relevant argument.
If you choose as a BE to select and use 35 year old gear, and your clients dig it, that's totally cool. If you are in the business of providing gear; then you should provide what is called for and get over your personal opinions. I am still at a loss for what the problem here is for you.
By the way, if you can show me where I could have purchased either the Courtyman E6 or the Audio Technica Microset headset mics, or an Audio Technica UniLine lectern mic 35 years ago... I might start to consider your theory that mics have not changed much either.
It's not all rock concerts and festivals, and although a sm57 is cool for the president, I'm not getting away with a set of those strapped to a Lucite lectern in a marble atrium anytime soon. I'm also not getting away with hardwired lav's or headset mics that can even be seen from more then 10 feet away on most gigs. Try to get an ambassador or congressmen to strap on a headset mic from 20 years ago... yeah right!!!!
These are all tools that I use almost everyday, along with countless others while doing my job and are all perfect examples of technology advancing. You don't have to use the new technology, or even like it... but a modicum of respect would not be out of order for those who design the freaking amazing tools we have to use these days.
Post by: Andy Peters on September 19, 2009, 02:01:36 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 21:22 | ||||
and what parameters are there different...i have no argument its got more scope, but my argument that its still a link from a microphone to a speaker, which operate on the same principle of 30 years ago seems to have been lost |
You might wish to take your head out of your ass and look around.
It's not that the parameters, as such, are different. It's the whole approach to signal processing that's different! The example of "Gunness Focusing" is instructive because he does NOT look at the problems of horn response the same old way. Certainly there is math behind what he does, but it's most certainly not the standard z-transform method of implementing analog filters. To be honest, it's difficult to explain what this all means to someone without a signal-processing background because it can't be described in terms of filter Q, bandwidth and gain.
Yes, in the end it's some person making noise into a microphone and said noise, only louder, coming out of a speaker. But as the others have been trying to say, the equipment in the entire signal chain HAS improved in the last thirty years.
Have you actually HEARD a properly set-up d+b J-system rig, or the K1 or VDOSC? If you had, you wouldn't be arguing that your obsolete rig is good.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on September 19, 2009, 02:37:02 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 18:31 |
yes..but its still bits of cardboard floating around, and Digidesign venue doesnt make it sound any better, just easier for the operator (as long as they are familiar with them) and possibly more at mercy of the operator |
I, and the others, will argue that a Digi Venue (or other digital desk) WILL make it sound better, because now the user can have all of the EQ and dynamics processing available on ALL channels, and scene recall and other useful features make mixing easier.
But we could do it on an H3K, too
| Quote: |
...I do a lot of festival gigs...4 or 5 days, 20 plus acts per day, 10 mins changeover and no soundcheck |
My road manager and I had a breakfast discussion about festivals last Friday (right before we picked up the band and drove up to one).
There are lots of good reasons to do festivals, and festival tours, including
*) the fans get more music for their money (if they have the stamina),
*) PA gear costs are less because instead of one headline and one support act using a system, now you have a dozen bands using that same rig,
But then we ticked off the list of reasons why festivals aren't great:
*) typically no soundcheck means that the people mixing spend the first song doing soundcheck,
*) no soundcheck means the band doesn't know how the stage will sound before they hit, which just makes it harder for them to play,
*) it's just plain weird playing in the early afternoon.
*) Add in hired backline and the players have to adjust to that too.
It's hard for a band to do a one-off for a festival and as such their performance won't be their best.
| Quote: |
with everything from a hurdy-gurdy & a sitar miked up to a hardcore band, so memory recall wouldnt be much help at all, but hands on the dials certainly is...an analogue desk is just fine for this, |
It is, if the system and stage guys have their shit together and they've had proper advance information from all of the acts. If anyone drops the ball it's not good.
| Quote: |
and in that environment Ive heard mixes on a digital taking longer to get together, and the amount of times Ive seen an operator watching the screen rather than the band makes me wonder if its disconnecting us from our role of sound reinforcemnt... |
You're blaming the tools for the operator's lack of experience with the kit. That's really not fair.
It sounds like you live in the world where you have poor advances, poor communication and poor planning. In that world I'm sure the 80s PA (PM3K at FOH?) is probably the only rig the festival budget will allow, and it seems like nobody cares. But there are other shows and other festivals where that's simply unacceptable.
| Quote: |
my point is I could go to a gig with a good 1980s PA, and it would sound just as good as anything out there now |
That's absurd. With skilled mixer-persons, competent and prepared system folks and a good band, a properly-deployed modern rig WILL sound MUCH better than the 80s rig.
-a
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 19, 2009, 10:12:09 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Fri, 18 September 2009 23:35 |
well I couldnt give a f**k what the rating system is as long as ther's some sort of standard so real comparisons can be made and stupid power claims aren't made by companies selling or using the gear |
As I have already mentioned there is a defacto 1% standard used for distortion in "power at clipping" numbers at least for the live sound reinforcement market. I still haven't heard your justification for .05%, and how low the distortion can be at rated power will vary between designs.
You haven't addressed the real unresolved spec in this area, namely amp thermal duty cycle. Nobody actually needs, and very few would pay for 24x7 duty cycle, so we are left with amps that deliver a rang of thermal performance that mostly works for most people. As people make purchase decisions based on specs like damping factor or slew rate that don't really impact their application.
JR
Post by: David A. Parker on September 19, 2009, 10:33:24 AM
Post by: Martin Queckenstedt on September 19, 2009, 11:36:52 AM
Can we keep the BS off the forum and stay on topic or does someone need to go get a big stick?
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on September 19, 2009, 11:37:42 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 04:49 |
...just get tired of hearing about the latest whatever you must buy to keep production managers happy and not hearing any better of a mix...its just for companies to keep selling stuff..... |
Stu, you make many decent points but you are putting them across in a matter that provoces the flaming you are receiving from some people.
I think your above statement is very true, there is fierce marketing in equipment sales. As there is anywhere else. How many times do you see cars advertised every day? It's just four wheels rolling to move a box of steel, right? Yeah, but how it's done is the big difference.
Think of the DSP example you made. Even if the DSP is still only changing stuff that analog units could do you can "stack" a bunch of filters that would be really expensive (not an audio concern, granted) and noisy in the analog realm. I'm talking about boosting and cutting small portions of a full range signal in different bandwiths, all while individually changing the phase and delay of the different filters. Possibly even changing the filter characteristics to the amplitude of the incoming signal. Now, try to do that with just analog stuff! And this is just one example. One example that could be implemented to make old or poorly designed boxes sound better, too.
Or how about stronger magnets in microphones? They lead to more sensitive microphones, which leads to less overall gain to acheive the desired SPL - which in the end leads to less overall noise in quiet shows.
Speaking about microphones. How are those 80's wireless mics working out for ya'?
New materials in loudspeaker drivers give us better heat dissipation, which in turn leads to lower power compression, which again means the sound of the rig doesn't change as much mid-show.
Speaking of stronger magnets, they make the loudspeakers more efficient, too. This means we can acheive the SPL we need from one box without getting into power compression.
How many examples will you need before you will admit that improvements have actually been made?
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on September 19, 2009, 12:32:44 PM
| Martin Queckenstedt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 10:36 |
I subscribed to this thread because I was curious about about the EP4000 and (almost) all I am getting now is noise from this thread. |
It's a discussion forum. You never know what you may learn when a thread gets off-topic.
With that said, the EP4000 is the same as the EP2500. It has a different label and an up-rated spec sheet. I own both and every time I hook up my subs, I get an A/B comparison. Performance of these two amps is identical.
If you are not already familiar with the EP2500, I think it's a decent amp at a low price with a short warranty period compared to the QSC RMX. I am using EP2500/EP4000 or RMX2450 for subs in all my modest rigs. They are fine for other purposes, too; but I have other amps that are better (for me) for tops and monitors.
Post by: Andy Peters on September 19, 2009, 04:52:54 PM
| Martin Queckenstedt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 08:36 |
Are there any moderators on this board to keep the kids in check? I subscribed to this thread because I was curious about about the EP4000 and (almost) all I am getting now is noise from this thread. Can we keep the BS off the forum and stay on topic or does someone need to go get a big stick? |
You must be new here.
The moderators are typically tolerant of threads wandering off-topic, especially when people are trying to prevent bullshit from being presented as gospel.
Besides, this thread hasn't completely veered off into a discussion about cars and/or beer!
-a
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 19, 2009, 06:26:24 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 15:52 | ||
You must be new here. The moderators are typically tolerant of threads wandering off-topic, especially when people are trying to prevent bullshit from being presented as gospel. Besides, this thread hasn't completely veered off into a discussion about cars and/or beer! -a |
Don't drink and drive, you could spill your beer...
JR
PS: If it wasn't for the BS this place wouldn't be any fun at all...
Post by: Drew West on September 19, 2009, 08:08:06 PM
| Quote: |
Now if my wife lost 34LBS I would be thrilled... Don't drink and drive, you could spill your beer... |
The two most important things said this entire thread. I love this forum!
Post by: Stu Batt on September 19, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 01:01 | ||||||
You might wish to take your head out of your ass and look around. It's not that the parameters, as such, are different. It's the whole approach to signal processing that's different! The example of "Gunness Focusing" is instructive because he does NOT look at the problems of horn response the same old way. Certainly there is math behind what he does, but it's most certainly not the standard z-transform method of implementing analog filters. To be honest, it's difficult to explain what this all means to someone without a signal-processing background because it can't be described in terms of filter Q, bandwidth and gain. Yes, in the end it's some person making noise into a microphone and said noise, only louder, coming out of a speaker. But as the others have been trying to say, the equipment in the entire signal chain HAS improved in the last thirty years. Have you actually HEARD a properly set-up d+b J-system rig, or the K1 or VDOSC? If you had, you wouldn't be arguing that your obsolete rig is good. -a |
gee personal abuse time....I hear lots of PAs all the time...they sound as good as the operator...Ive heard great systems sound like shit and Ive heard really ordinary systems sound great....and I listen to the music not the PA or some hamfisted operator
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 19, 2009, 10:58:22 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 21:30 |
gee personal abuse time....I hear lots of PAs all the time...they sound as good as the operator...Ive heard great systems sound like shit and Ive heard really ordinary systems sound great....and I listen to the music not the PA or some hamfisted operator |
No, you are missing the point, still... The best fader pusher can't make obsolete hardware compete with decades better technology.
You need to smell the roses, you seem to be stuck in a rut. Maybe that rap works on the local sheila's but it doesn't play here...
JR
Post by: Steve Milner on September 20, 2009, 06:21:32 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sat, 19 September 2009 22:30 |
gee personal abuse time....I hear lots of PAs all the time...they sound as good as the operator...Ive heard great systems sound like shit and Ive heard really ordinary systems sound great....and I listen to the music not the PA or some hamfisted operator |
So, just to clarify this one... you are saying:
"the PA system sounds as good as the operator."
and then in the very same paragraph:
"I listen to the music, not the PA or some hamfisted operator".
Seriously? ... What does this even mean? I'm lost...
.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 20, 2009, 07:39:12 PM
| Steve Milner wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 17:21 | ||
So, just to clarify this one... you are saying: "the PA system sounds as good as the operator." and then in the very same paragraph: "I listen to the music, not the PA or some hamfisted operator". Seriously? ... What does this even mean? I'm lost... . |
the best compliment I had last weeks 3 day festival was "I didnt even notice the PA"...anyway obviously Ive pissed everybody off here and Im a complete amatuer idiot so I'll crawl under a rock and continue making a living from everybodys throwaways and have someone like Eric Bibb tell me "I wish I could have someone who can make me sound like you did at every gig..."
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 20, 2009, 08:03:20 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 18:39 |
the best compliment I had last weeks 3 day festival was "I didnt even notice the PA"...anyway obviously Ive pissed everybody off here and Im a complete amatuer idiot so I'll crawl under a rock and continue making a living from everybodys throwaways and have someone like Eric Bibb tell me "I wish I could have someone who can make me sound like you did at every gig..." |
It's OK to be confident, and you are clearly proud of your mixing skills, but you have made several specific claims about technology that aren't supportable. That is probably what has damped your welcome here.
------
Not noticing the PA should be normal, not an exception worthy of praise. The meat in the seats should notice the music and the artist''s performance, if they are hearing the PA, they are hearing something wrong about the PA.
We all know that an inexperienced operator can get less than the full potential from any system. That is not a news flash. This is the Lounge, "a place for weekend warriors, small sound company operators, bands running their own PA and newbies." So bragging here about how good you mix could be considered boorish. I will write it off to you being new to this website and not familiar with the different areas. I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to brag on ourselves (try the Basement).
A more appropriate discussion for "the lounge" is maybe sharing some of your vast experience at how to get transparent sound from very old systems. I suspect several folks here are running less than SOTA hardware. However perhaps in a different thread than this one about behringer power amp specs, that for the moment is not even talking about specs or amps.
JR
Post by: Stu Batt on September 20, 2009, 09:17:06 PM
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on September 20, 2009, 09:42:23 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 18:17 |
its interesting that when i have this discussion on the road more than half of the people working in the industry agree with me to greater or lesser extent, |
Start a thread on "old stuff" and why it's superior.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on September 20, 2009, 09:50:50 PM
| Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 21:42 | ||
Start a thread on "old stuff" and why it's superior. |
You can find lots of people who "worship" old loudspeakers-the older the "better".
Some pay LOTS of money-and not for the antique reason-but for the "sonic" reasons.
I have not heard any of these old 60-80yr old loudspeakers-but have a hard time believing they can sound better than well executed designs of today. I could be wrong.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 20, 2009, 11:25:27 PM
| Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 20:50 | ||||
You can find lots of people who "worship" old loudspeakers-the older the "better". Some pay LOTS of money-and not for the antique reason-but for the "sonic" reasons. I have not heard any of these old 60-80yr old loudspeakers-but have a hard time believing they can sound better than well executed designs of today. I could be wrong. |
dont actually recall saying old is better than new...more made the point it basically sounds the same with a new label, but people in the game of selling it or hiring it are hardly going to agree with that .....
i actually couldnt give a rats ass about what i used (obviously within reason) as long as i can pull a sound out of it and its got some headroom and has been maintained properly ...there seems to be perception that the thing that sounded fantastic and everybody worshipped 5/10/20 years ago suddenly sounds like crap...in my country we dont have the luxury of snapping our fingers and speccing up the newest kid on the block at every gig, and I maintain some older rigs sound just as good as them...for some reason Im treated as a leper for stating this and its been misconstrued to the point Im running a western electric multicell horn with a 3 watt amplifier and a shure 6 knob mixer with a tone control and saying it'll blow off a line array
Post by: Steve Milner on September 20, 2009, 11:56:59 PM
I apologize if you feel like anyone has jumped on you unfairly in this thread; that was not my intent at least. Open and free discussion is the reason that I come to this forum; your opinions are just as valid as everyone else, but people will ask and expect you to back up your statements with some type of real data or real world experience. Generalizations, rumor, and hearsay, while prevalent on any online forum, don't usually make it too far around here.
Finally, as far as posting about what (big name) acts complimented your amazing mixing skills, it's just unnecessary. There is no need to validate your opinions here by name dropping; let your opinions stand on their own, and stand up for your opinions and back them up with some real info. If you do this, you will gain the respect of the community here much quicker.
I hope you choose to continue to contribute to the forum, I am sure with all of your experience, you have much to offer.
Respect
Post by: Tim Weaver on September 21, 2009, 02:12:27 AM
Somebody said that an HLA system was an "old" system. I don't believe that to be true. The HLA uses Neo drivers in it's space framed movable horn flare. It's a pretty cool cabinet design for flying.
Also it has traditionally sounded pretty bad. Modern DSP, however has changed that. I've teched and run HLA systems for over 10 years and at first using a BSS omnidrive it was a challenge to get them sound good. They could be tweaked into passable, but they never got good. Enter the DBX 4800 and it's a whole 'nother story. These cabs sound good with JBL's new settings, and as always they get absolutely, brutally loud.
I think of an old system as a Perkins box, or the old JBL concert series, or EV's MTL system. All of those have serious problems in one way or another. Mostly they won't array properly at all. A perkins box can sound pretty good when used one a side.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 21, 2009, 02:51:14 AM
| Tim Weaver wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 01:12 |
I'm just going to toss this out there because I feel it clears up two things at once... Somebody said that an HLA system was an "old" system. I don't believe that to be true. The HLA uses Neo drivers in it's space framed movable horn flare. It's a pretty cool cabinet design for flying. Also it has traditionally sounded pretty bad. Modern DSP, however has changed that. I've teched and run HLA systems for over 10 years and at first using a BSS omnidrive it was a challenge to get them sound good. They could be tweaked into passable, but they never got good. Enter the DBX 4800 and it's a whole 'nother story. These cabs sound good with JBL's new settings, and as always they get absolutely, brutally loud. I think of an old system as a Perkins box, or the old JBL concert series, or EV's MTL system. All of those have serious problems in one way or another. Mostly they won't array properly at all. A perkins box can sound pretty good when used one a side. |
im still trying to work out who decided Ive got a HLA system...
Post by: Richard Rajchel on September 21, 2009, 03:39:25 AM
There are a few new products coming out very shortly that I'm quite interested in that would be great competition for these amps an you won't be quite as embarrassed to mention you own them even. The Peavey IPR series is one that I'm looking at closely. Incredible price/performance ratio, and very light weight to boot.
Like I mentioned above with the mics and amps of Behringer I would guess that they are decent enough because there are very few MOVING parts. Just about everything else Behringer I've ever used made a better door stop than actual sound equipment.
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on September 21, 2009, 06:08:02 AM
| Richard Rajchel wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 02:39 |
not that the Behringer will kick butt at 2 ohms, but I'm sure it's being done. |
I use them bridged into SRX728S without problems.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 21, 2009, 07:11:23 AM
| Richard Rajchel wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 02:39 |
GX5s can't be bridged and only go to 4 ohms...not that the Behringer will kick butt at 2 ohms, but I'm sure it's being done. The EP2500 is one of the few Behringer products I have little to complain about. The microphones are acceptable as well. I know of about a dozen of these in my area that have been in use for over 4 years and not one failure. I'm sure they aren't being babied either. The band I was in had on on monitor duty for about 4 years as well and we beat it up pretty good with nary a hiccup. There are a few new products coming out very shortly that I'm quite interested in that would be great competition for these amps an you won't be quite as embarrassed to mention you own them even. The Peavey IPR series is one that I'm looking at closely. Incredible price/performance ratio, and very light weight to boot. Like I mentioned above with the mics and amps of Behringer I would guess that they are decent enough because there are very few MOVING parts. Just about everything else Behringer I've ever used made a better door stop than actual sound equipment. |
id think twice about using the Beh mics for a few reasons...while they sound OK they have handling noise issues, and a mic is possibly the most critical part of the chain, and the first so any mistakes here cant be fixed...and its seen by everyone using it, and really how much cheaper than an SM58 is it?
the amps do their job just fine for most situations for a fraction of the price you could pay, and in reality how many people look at your amp rack closely
Post by: Richard Rajchel on September 21, 2009, 08:51:38 AM
Post by: Stu Batt on September 21, 2009, 08:56:33 AM
| Richard Rajchel wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 07:51 |
I think when my old band bought the mics they were 3 for $60. Like I said...no moving parts. They've lived through about 4 years in a box with all the mic cords and speaker cables, and while they are pretty crispy on the high end they are at least useable. I've since upgraded to Audix mostly, and of course a 58 or two for the die hards that insist... |
sm58...diehards??....turn on the television sometime and have a look at some shows of live gigs...tell me how many times out of 100 you DONT see an SM58...
a mic does have a moving part which is how it works, and the whole capsule mounting system is critical to the handling noise...put a behringer mic in a cradle with a mic stand on a wooden floor next to an SM58 and stamp on the floor....you'll never use one again
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on September 21, 2009, 10:30:41 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 08:56 |
sm58...diehards??....turn on the television sometime and have a look at some shows of live gigs...tell me how many times out of 100 you DONT see an SM58... |
When I've seen these live "talent" competitions I haven't seen much Shure wireless/SM58, mostly Sennheiser and Audio-Technica wireless for vocals, if it matters. (Lots of Sennheiser, actually) The last time I actually saw an SM58 on TV I think was one of the presidential candidates always used it, about a year ago, during the race, while the other used Sennheiser.
Take Care,
Phil
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on September 21, 2009, 10:33:29 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 02:51 | ||
im still trying to work out who decided Ive got a HLA system... |
I don't think he was saying that you had one, just using it as an example.
I don't think you ever mentioned what gear you like to use?
I have to agree with many of the comments made here, you have some valid points. But I have to say that I agree that technology has definitely advanced, you just have to look at Danley Sound Labs and then you can't say advances aren't being made, even in the speaker industry.
I think you are making the point that *physics* hasn't changed and sound is still made in the same way, but we are finding new and better ways to use physics to our advantage as seen with the Synergy horns from Danley.
Take Care,
Phil
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on September 21, 2009, 11:32:01 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 14:56 | ||
sm58...diehards??....turn on the television sometime and have a look at some shows of live gigs...tell me how many times out of 100 you DONT see an SM58... a mic does have a moving part which is how it works, and the whole capsule mounting system is critical to the handling noise...put a behringer mic in a cradle with a mic stand on a wooden floor next to an SM58 and stamp on the floor....you'll never use one again |
Seems to me most A-level bands that play festivals or club gigs go with the Shure SM58/Beta 58 that the sound co provides if they don't carry their own mics.
The first clue that an acts is carrying their own mic package is that the lead singer is using something other than the Shure SM58/Beta 58.
Edit: Inserted word.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 21, 2009, 11:51:10 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 22:25 |
dont actually recall saying old is better than new...more made the point it basically sounds the same with a new label, but people in the game of selling it or hiring it are hardly going to agree with that ..... i actually couldnt give a rats ass about what i used (obviously within reason) as long as i can pull a sound out of it and its got some headroom and has been maintained properly ...there seems to be perception that the thing that sounded fantastic and everybody worshipped 5/10/20 years ago suddenly sounds like crap...in my country we dont have the luxury of snapping our fingers and speccing up the newest kid on the block at every gig, and I maintain some older rigs sound just as good as them...for some reason Im treated as a leper for stating this and its been misconstrued to the point Im running a western electric multicell horn with a 3 watt amplifier and a shure 6 knob mixer with a tone control and saying it'll blow off a line array |
Not to put words in your mouth, but my sense of your comments is that sound systems don't sound different (better) than they did decades ago, This is just inconsistent with the experience of many here.
======
On the subject of microphones (the other weak link in the signal path after loudspeakers), there too we have seen many improvements over the decades. The popularity of the SM-58 with some professional users is related their known response, sensitivity, and polar characteristics. So much of live sound is about getting decent monitor level on stage quickly without feedback. People don't want to reinvent the wheel at every gig, with some new mic that while better in one respect may perform worse wrt feedback due to differences in another. The SM-58 is not a superior mic, but a well known mic that works.
I suspect the trend toward IEM (another modern development that wasn't around decades ago) will make the application of new microphones less of an adventure.
JR
PS: Nobody is picking on you. Your characterization of being treated like a leper is only in your mind. Your comments seem intentionally inflammatory. Life doesn't have to be one long argument.
Post by: Greg Cameron on September 21, 2009, 12:53:24 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 08:51 |
On the subject of microphones (the other weak link in the signal path after loudspeakers), there too we have seen many improvements over the decades. |
I couldn't agree more. There are more purpose built mics out there than ever before which have remarkably improved the translation of instruments to speakers. I'd much rather have an Audix D series drum pack than a box full of SM57's (thought the 57 still makes a fine snare mic). Vocal mics have improved, small condensers, etc, have all become better and made getting the mix easier with less EQ and mic placement headaches. Sure, the MD421, the RE20, etc. are great sounding useful mics. But they're pain to deal with and sound that's as good or better can be achieved with more compact & sturdier modern offerings.
Greg
Post by: Greg Cameron on September 21, 2009, 01:41:43 PM
Tim Weaver mentioned the improvement with sound on the HLA with the latest processing from dbx (hey whaddya know, technology improving the sound quality). While I'm sure it's vastly improved over the original, I doubt that it's as good as a lot of the newer boxes out there simply because it was a box that was originally designed more to be loud rather than sound good. A lot of the newer boxes take the approach of trying to make it sound good and then make it loud which IMHO is a better approach if sound quality is what you're after. Obviously in days gone by with smaller amps and relatively low power handling of drivers, getting it loud was the priority at the expense of quality. Now with better driver designs, horns/waveguides, super powerful amps, processing, etc., more concern can be given to making things sound better since 'loud' isn't as much a problem. And things do sound better, no question about it.
Greg
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on September 21, 2009, 05:45:47 PM
| Greg Cameron wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 19:41 |
And things do sound better, no question about it. Greg |
This thread reminds me of the "enough rig for the gig" Woodstock thread a few weeks back. IIRC some of the "old timers" stated the sound wasn't half bad, despite the ancient and insufficient technology... If we stop looking at the individual improvements of certain types of gear and just consider "what do the shows sound like", I guess Stu is correct - plenty of bad sounding shows these days also!
Post by: Greg Cameron on September 21, 2009, 07:18:12 PM
| Kristian Johnsen wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 14:45 |
If we stop looking at the individual improvements of certain types of gear and just consider "what do the shows sound like", I guess Stu is correct - plenty of bad sounding shows these days also! |
I agree. But all things being equal with properly deployed systems and competent people at the helm, it's hard to argue that old technology is just as good. As usual, the human variable can be a detriment or asset to a show.
Greg
Post by: Stu Batt on September 21, 2009, 08:03:22 PM
| Phil Lewandowski wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 09:30 | ||
When I've seen these live "talent" competitions I haven't seen much Shure wireless/SM58, mostly Sennheiser and Audio-Technica wireless for vocals, if it matters. (Lots of Sennheiser, actually) The last time I actually saw an SM58 on TV I think was one of the presidential candidates always used it, about a year ago, during the race, while the other used Sennheiser. Take Care, Phil |
montreaux jazz festival, roger daltrey....few samll talent competitions like that
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 21, 2009, 08:18:05 PM
Was that the guy who would trash the mics by swinging them around by the cord? No wonder they gave him a SM58.
JR :
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on September 21, 2009, 08:20:00 PM
Post by: Andy Peters on September 21, 2009, 08:24:46 PM
| Jeff Wheeler wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 17:20 |
I always assumed the SM58's ability to survive his performances helped it become the industry-standard. |
One hopes that in The Who's case, Daltrey's vocal mic is assumed to be a consumable -- used for one show only, if it even lasts that long.
-a
Post by: Stu Batt on September 21, 2009, 09:40:21 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 21 September 2009 19:24 | ||
One hopes that in The Who's case, Daltrey's vocal mic is assumed to be a consumable -- used for one show only, if it even lasts that long. -a |
he actually used 565s back in those days...
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 21, 2009, 10:47:35 PM
JR
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 03:14:17 AM
Post by: Ivan Beaver on September 22, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
Regarding your DN360-does it have the balanced outputs option? If not-I would call it obsolete.
I think most of the argument here are on the side of mics and loudspeakers. These are the worst offenders in sound reproduction-and where some of the greatest strides have been in increasing the performance in recent years.
Yes lots of "advances" have been made in electronics-mostly in the control side of things-but not so much in how much better they "sound".
I do agree it is the person who uses the tool that can make a big difference-but I don't how good of a mix "engineer" somebody is, if the sound system does not have good coverage, bad interactions etc, he cannot fix that or mix so that it is less noticable. Maybe he can strick a "happy medium", but now you have more places that are not "right". And he has to do a lot of walking around to get a handle on how the system is reacting. Most engineers don't do that-they make it as good as they can-and go to the next gig.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 08:16:49 AM
| Ivan Beaver wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 06:43 |
You are missing the point. It is not the date-but the technology. Regarding your DN360-does it have the balanced outputs option? If not-I would call it obsolete. I think most of the argument here are on the side of mics and loudspeakers. These are the worst offenders in sound reproduction-and where some of the greatest strides have been in increasing the performance in recent years. Yes lots of "advances" have been made in electronics-mostly in the control side of things-but not so much in how much better they "sound". I do agree it is the person who uses the tool that can make a big difference-but I don't how good of a mix "engineer" somebody is, if the sound system does not have good coverage, bad interactions etc, he cannot fix that or mix so that it is less noticable. Maybe he can strick a "happy medium", but now you have more places that are not "right". And he has to do a lot of walking around to get a handle on how the system is reacting. Most engineers don't do that-they make it as good as they can-and go to the next gig. |
dn360b...but if it wasnt balanced and connected to a crossover/processor by 3 inches of cable in a rack how would not not balancing detrimentally affect it?
...and as for the mic argument I still see SM58s or Beta58s more than any other mic on pretty well all levels....the amount of times Ive been told to ditch the 58 and get up to date...lets not forget the ATM41, BeyerM88 (Phil Collins used one which was a good enough reason for me not too), MD Sennheiser Prince used ...the list goes on, they've all disappeared but the 58 still goes on and on and no-one I know would refuse to use one, but certainly tell other mic bandied around no thanks...
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 22, 2009, 10:55:42 AM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 02:14 |
just looked at the build date on my DN360....1989....guess that makes it obsolete? |
Now you're just being argumentative. That looks like a straw man.. but I'll take a swing at it anyhow.
| wiki |
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2] |
It is entirely possible for newer technology to be better, without immediately obsoleting all previous technology. Modern amplifiers are not significantly more linear, but smaller, lighter and more efficient. Old technology amps still work they are just less convenient and often more expensive W/$ (In the not so good old days it was $/W).
re: Your DN360 I can imagine a future when manually operated GEQs will be quaint and perhaps obsolete, but we are not completely there yet. An IEM system without monitor speakers will not have feedback to notch out with a 1/3rd octave GEC. General sound shaping is better served by a 2/3 octave or parametric.
JR
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 06:31:48 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 09:55 |
re: Your DN360 I can imagine a future when manually operated GEQs will be quaint and perhaps obsolete, but we are not completely there yet. An IEM system without monitor speakers will not have feedback to notch out with a 1/3rd octave GEC. General sound shaping is better served by a 2/3 octave or parametric. JR |
its gonna be a long time away for me when a manually operated eq will be obsolete...altho I did have one person bypass my KT when he brought his own LX9 in and used its onboard eq with the faders operating it...still manual tho, and I still ask why anyone would bypass a KT to use onboard LX9 eq to a room they had to tune.
also re the balancing question...does anyone here balance inserts??
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on September 22, 2009, 07:20:29 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Wed, 23 September 2009 00:31 |
also re the balancing question...does anyone here balance inserts?? |
Yes, any time the desk allows.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 22, 2009, 07:27:18 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 17:31 |
its gonna be a long time away for me when a manually operated eq will be obsolete...altho I did have one person bypass my KT when he brought his own LX9 in and used its onboard eq with the faders operating it...still manual tho, and I still ask why anyone would bypass a KT to use onboard LX9 eq to a room they had to tune. also re the balancing question...does anyone here balance inserts?? |
Several companies do, I recall APB has an option. It is not generally done on lower end products because of the cost.
------
In my crystal ball... the rooms don't get equalized every night... but then what would the sound guy do?
JR
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 07:37:18 PM
| Kristian Johnsen wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 18:20 | ||
Yes, any time the desk allows. |
sure if it allows, which is very rarely and must be quite difficult to do a foolproof "make and break" circuit with XLRs or 2 TRS jacks, the break would only be on the return I'd imagine ..my point was someone said if a KT didnt have the balancing option it could be considered "obsolete"...my point is balancing over a very short run (ie insert leads or between items in a rack) is hardly a life or death situation, and most KTs would be used in this situation, and a majority of inserts are TRS unbalanced
KTs earlier DN3030 had an electronically balanced out (and as far as I can see was the only difference between the 3030 and the 360) but the DN360 was only the transformer "B"option as KT considered electronic (read 50cent IC and max 10 resistors and caps with an inverted phase and non inverted output) to be not up to their standards...altho pretty well everything else uses the IC circuit so not sure what they meant...
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 22, 2009, 07:59:48 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 18:37 |
sure if it allows, which is very rarely and must be quite difficult to do a foolproof "make and break" circuit with XLRs or 2 TRS jacks, the break would only be on the return I'd imagine ..my point was someone said if a KT didnt have the balancing option it could be considered "obsolete"...my point is balancing over a very short run (ie insert leads or between items in a rack) is hardly a life or death situation, and most KTs would be used in this situation, and a majority of inserts are TRS unbalanced |
I don't know if this is another straw man.. I seem to recall some issues with at least one model of Klark-Technic EQ that was single ended output and used the wrong convention for which pin was hot. This caused problems for unbalanced wiring looms that were looking for the signal on the other output line.
Nobody argues that short insert runs need to be balanced for acceptable sonic performance, but in serious sound reinforcement gear should make sound every time you plug it into other professional gear.
If it doesn't it isn't obsolete, it's faulty (or the gear you plug into is). This problem was sorted a while ago, but there may still be some legacy gear floating around, so this post isn't a total waste of bandwidth. (Pin two hot, except when it's not).
JR
Note: The serious balanced inserts use a select switch, not switching jacks.
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 08:09:04 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 18:59 | ||
I don't know if this is another straw man.. I seem to recall some issues with at least one model of Klark-Technic EQ that was single ended output and used the wrong convention for which pin was hot. This caused problems for unbalanced wiring looms that were looking for the signal on the other output line. Nobody argues that short insert runs need to be balanced for acceptable sonic performance, but in serious sound reinforcement gear should make sound every time you plug it into other professional gear. If it doesn't it isn't obsolete, it's faulty (or the gear you plug into is). This problem was sorted a while ago, but there may still be some legacy gear floating around, so this post isn't a total waste of bandwidth. (Pin two hot, except when it's not). JR Note: The serious balanced inserts use a select switch, not switching jacks. |
not a strawman, just an observation/comment...
the pin 2/3 problem ...i think that was when the UK and US standards for the hot pin were different..
.I remember 25 years ago taking along a Soundtracs(yuk) desk to a gig out of the carton...unbalanced XLRs out into and unbalanced EQ (a DOD i think...up there with the soundtracs)...result.. the band probably sounded better than ever (ie nothing) pin 2 to earth into pin 3 to earth)...out with the multimeter and soldering iron
the soundtracs had the charming balanced mic input....2 resistors straight into the invert and noninvert inputs of an NE5532, and one other opamp for everything else in the channel, and they were being flogged as a competitor to a 400B
Post by: Greg Cameron on September 22, 2009, 08:29:55 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 15:31 |
also re the balancing question...does anyone here balance inserts?? |
Anytime the desk supports it, and many of them do. Many mid grade desks do. Even my A&H GL4000 uses TRS balanced inserts. High end large frame desks ala Midas use XLRs and the insert is activated via switch. But of course, if you do top shelf gigs then you know this already...
Greg
Post by: Fred Merkle on September 22, 2009, 08:41:29 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 19:59 |
I don't know if this is another straw man.. I seem to recall some issues with at least one model of Klark-Technic EQ that was single ended output and used the wrong convention for which pin was hot. This caused problems for unbalanced wiring looms that were looking for the signal on the other output line. |
Yeah. That would be the DN360.
Which is exactly why the transformers are helpful. -Fred
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 22, 2009, 09:16:02 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 19:09 |
not a strawman, just an observation/comment... the pin 2/3 problem ...i think that was when the UK and US standards for the hot pin were different.. .I remember 25 years ago taking along a Soundtracs(yuk) desk to a gig out of the carton...unbalanced XLRs out into and unbalanced EQ (a DOD i think...up there with the soundtracs)...result.. the band probably sounded better than ever (ie nothing) pin 2 to earth into pin 3 to earth)...out with the multimeter and soldering iron the soundtracs had the charming balanced mic input....2 resistors straight into the invert and noninvert inputs of an NE5532, and one other opamp for everything else in the channel, and they were being flogged as a competitor to a 400B |
I wrote a column on the pin 2/3 hot subject back in the early '80s. At that time it was almost 50-50 and there was no clear US/Brit division, with both polarities mixed from both countries.
There was an old IEC standard for pin 2 hot, and after the AES endorsed pin 2 hot (mid '80s?) , most companies complied. While it took longer for some than others.
JR
Post by: Andy Peters on September 22, 2009, 09:21:06 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 15:31 |
also re the balancing question...does anyone here balance inserts?? |
To ask the question others are asking:
What desks do you own that do NOT have balanced inserts?
Any console brought out to any reasonable festival should have balanced inserts.
-a
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 09:54:41 PM
| Greg Cameron wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 19:29 | ||
Anytime the desk supports it, and many of them do. Many mid grade desks do. Even my A&H GL4000 uses TRS balanced inserts. High end large frame desks ala Midas use XLRs and the insert is activated via switch. But of course, if you do top shelf gigs then you know this already... Greg |
is this some sort of dig? I do all shelf gigs....and usually if someone is carrying a favorites insert rack most of the insert looms are TRS and as the reason for balancing is noise reduction over long runs I doubt it matter over short runs
Post by: Stu Batt on September 22, 2009, 10:03:33 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 20:21 | ||
To ask the question others are asking: What desks do you own that do NOT have balanced inserts? Any console brought out to any reasonable festival should have balanced inserts. -a |
if I take a mixwiz to a small gig of course it doesnt have balanced inserts...if I use a soundcraft 8000 nope, if I use a midas it does...I own what I need that is used all the time and pays for itself, I subhire what wont pay for itself and add it on the bill...to make a living I need to diversify greatly living in a country the size of the US with 5 cities over 1 million people the budget is not always so great...
Im not stupid enough to buy gear that wont pay for itself, but does that somehow mean I either dont know how to use it, or not worthy of an opinion based on my experience
...the original start of this was about a KT being unbalanced which I said if its in an insert or small rack to rack connection isnt an issue, but now its turned out another chest puffing mines bigger than yours
Post by: MARK PAVLETICH on September 22, 2009, 10:14:41 PM
Post by: Bob Leonard on September 22, 2009, 10:24:26 PM
| MARK PAVLETICH wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 22:14 |
Simple chronological correction here. Set the time dial on your De Lorean to 1998, not 1988 if you want to see a brand new JBL HLA rig. The subs from those things still compare very well with anything I've heard as far as extension and output.I know, I still use them. Pattern control no, but certainly they go deep and loud.The HLA was sold with a DSP (JBL DSC268/280) even back in those prehistoric times........ |
Well put, and accurate.
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on September 23, 2009, 12:25:06 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Wed, 23 September 2009 03:54 | ||||
is this some sort of dig? I do all shelf gigs....and usually if someone is carrying a favorites insert rack most of the insert looms are TRS and as the reason for balancing is noise reduction over long runs I doubt it matter over short runs |
Stu.
Another reason for the balanced inserts on separate sends is that it's a lot easier to cascade two inserts. All you need is a TRS female-TRS female barrel and you're good to go. In the other case you have to fumble around in the back of the inserts rack (which often will be closed back).
I recently built some inserts racks that will be used with mixers that have unbalanced tip send and unbalanced ring send AS WELL as desks that have balanced inserts on two TRSs.
My solution was to make insert looms that are permanantly attached to the inserts rack and hooked up to the back of the gear. The looms have separate cables/jacks for send and return and work with desks that have balanced send/retur on separate connectors as is.
When used with unbalanced inserts desks all one needs to do is connect the send and the return jack of the loom to a small adapter that goes from one TRS male - 2 x TS female. To cater for a reversal in ring/tip as send all one does is to reverse which TRS of the loom goes into which TS on the adaptor.
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on September 23, 2009, 06:20:17 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 22 September 2009 05:16 |
MD Sennheiser Prince used |
SKM 4031, or at least that's what the gold-plated one I used to work on was.
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 04, 2010, 01:31:39 PM
Post by: John Chiara on May 04, 2010, 02:00:16 PM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 13:31 |
I have owned and operated the EP4000 for a year at school dances, weddings, and other events and never had a problem at all with my amp. People just assume it's junk without even owning one. I had a Qsc usa1310, peavy pv2000, and a crown xls series amp and many more before my EP4000 and I love my EP4000 more then that other junk. I power mine at 8 ohms which gives me 550 watt rms per channel. 4 ohms would give me 950 watts rms per channel, and 2 ohms would give me 1250 watts rms. Bridged mono at 8 ohms would be 1750 watts rms, and 4 ohms bridged would be 2400 watts rms. I paid $350 plus sales tax and worth every cent. If some celebrity musician said these were the best then everyone else would say the same. I tried to beat and kill my amp and haven't been able to do so. I figured thats why there is a warranty. She is still pounding out the tunes today. I use mine daily. Anyways, I am sure people who make fun at Behringer amps never even picked one up in their hands. |
A sidenote...did an annula outdoor gig last year with notoriously low voltage problems....and pretty much everything in the amp rack turned off except the Behringer....including QSC RMX and Mackie amps.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 04, 2010, 02:03:21 PM
Welcome to the LAB...
What was your question?
JR
Post by: Pat Latimer on May 04, 2010, 02:09:59 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 14:03 |
You joined just to post that? Welcome to the LAB... What was your question? JR |
A zombie at that!
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 04, 2010, 02:12:36 PM
Post by: Jean-Pierre Chamberland on May 04, 2010, 02:54:45 PM
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 04, 2010, 02:57:44 PM
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 04, 2010, 02:58:44 PM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 13:12 |
NO, not just to post that but to join. Am I not allowed for some reason? I thought this was a forum. |
The original poster's question has long been answered.
This long after that thread has gone dormant, you could just start a new thread to proclaim you "love" for your amp.
As ex-product manager for the PV2000, it is not above criticism (big, heavy, old technology), but not what i would consider junk. In fact a true class AB using metal (TO-3) power devices, has it's attractions, if you don't have to lift it. That said It is a back breaker that I wouldn't wish on anybody these days, which is why all modern value amps use multi rail technology for those power points (smaller lighter, cheaper).
| Quote: |
If some celebrity musician said these were the best then everyone else would say the same. I tried to beat and kill my amp and haven't been able to do so. I figured thats why there is a warranty. She is still pounding out the tunes today. I use mine daily. Anyways, I am sure people who make fun at Behringer amps never even picked one up in their hands. |
You don't seem to hold this community in very high regard with your characterization. You will find after spending some time here that this place is hands on, and experience based. There are many valid criticisms of all brands, and many folks here have been using power amps long before Uli entered the power amp business with his RMX copy.
The Behringer value amps, are pretty similar to value offerings from other major manufactures. I expect most amps to still be working one year after purchase.
Welcome to the lounge.. the kinder gentler area of the LAB.
JR
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 04, 2010, 03:02:29 PM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 04, 2010, 03:05:12 PM
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 04, 2010, 03:05:23 PM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 14:02 |
Yup, got a problem with it? stay off the forum. |
Nice guy, this one.
You know, it's usual etiquette for a newbie to play nice until he figures out who he's talking to.
You, apparently, own not a bit of etiquette. Glad we've cleared that up. Hope you enjoy those who are less polite than I am about this sort of behavior.
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 04, 2010, 03:07:18 PM
And, no, I don't post opinions here - I'm not one of those people I'm talking about. I'm a relatively inexperienced person with enough sense to play nice with those who know their shit.
And, no, you're not one of the latter.
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 04, 2010, 03:09:55 PM
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 04, 2010, 03:11:24 PM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 04, 2010, 03:13:36 PM
Post by: Stu Batt on May 04, 2010, 06:57:02 PM
Post by: Evan F. Hunter on May 04, 2010, 07:05:43 PM
Evan
Post by: Jeff Wheeler on May 04, 2010, 07:14:41 PM
| Stu Batt wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 17:57 |
wait for the SM58 bashing, when they wont acknowledge that they are still the most popular mic out there |
I can still hate it even though it's popular, right? I mean, it's the microphone's celebrity that makes it evil. It associates with all those Hollywood-types and doesn't understand the world of blue-collar musicians, who ... also use the SM58. Has anyone seen it's birth certificate? Just where are these microphones being manufactured?
As an update, I still have five EP4000s which work an average of 20 hours a week, and they still work correctly. I just knocked on wood, because the warranty on the first two expires soon!
Post by: Stu Batt on May 04, 2010, 07:27:47 PM
And the behringer amps much as I hate to say it work a treat and take a caning, and you can hide them and no-one knows you are using behringers...I certainly wouldn't entertain the idea of using anything else they make, but find the amps an exception.
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 04, 2010, 07:54:55 PM
I wasn't even one of those he was talking to (I have two Behringer amps), but I didn't like the tone he took with the knowledgeable folks on here. And when I took him to task for his FIRST entry being an attack on those far more knowledgeable, he decided to go for the childish "grow up" commentary. Predictable.
Had he stuck to, "I like this gear, and it performs well for me," I'd have just chuckled at the resurrection of the old thread.
Post by: Stu Batt on May 04, 2010, 08:05:13 PM
| Gerry Seymour wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:54 |
He didn't get flamed. Some of us objected to his over-the-top manner of expression. He basically came on and said, "Well, it's good gear and those of you who bash it are all idiots who don't know what you're talking about." I wasn't even one of those he was talking to (I have two Behringer amps), but I didn't like the tone he took with the knowledgeable folks on here. And when I took him to task for his FIRST entry being an attack on those far more knowledgeable, he decided to go for the childish "grow up" commentary. Predictable. Had he stuck to, "I like this gear, and it performs well for me," I'd have just chuckled at the resurrection of the old thread. |
fair enough....I just read his post as these are Ok , why does everybody bag em out because of the brand name
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 04, 2010, 08:13:26 PM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 07:39:36 AM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 07:43:56 AM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 07:48:32 AM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 07:52:09 AM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 07:54:06 AM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 08:03:49 AM
Post by: Dave Scarlett on May 05, 2010, 08:28:24 AM
QSC creates new product designs like the RMX series, Behringer steals them.
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 05, 2010, 09:38:30 AM
That said, as I mentioned earlier, I do own some Behringer stuff, and haven't had any huge complaints about it. Most of it is pretty clearly entry-level, but with few exceptions it has performed at least as well as you'd expect for the price. I wouldn't compare it to more expensive gear, of course - more money can always get better gear.
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on May 05, 2010, 09:52:17 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 04:39 |
The company is so huge that the factory is basically it's own town, they have there own housing on site for employees to live for free. |
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 05, 2010, 10:04:55 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 07:03 |
Well I have found that qsc's rmx and the Behringer ep series amps are very simular in design mostly internal. They are not the same but very simular. Behringer came out with the design first and qsc rmx came out after. You can find many competiters products modeled after each other Example; Ford ranger and Mazda pick-up. Same truck differant brand name. |
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
What is your source for the chronology of those two amps? Many people reading your post, were around when those amps were introduced so know which came first (RMX).
If this is not intentional misinformation it is incredibly poorly informed and flat out wrong. If just ignorant you should read more and post less. If trolling you should please stop.
JR
PS Ford and Mazda have long had a working relationship, and Ford holds an equity (ownership) interest in Mazda (was 33% but Ford sold off a bunch). Behringer does not have any commercial relationship with QSC or other amp makers that would formally share technology with them.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 05, 2010, 10:21:04 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 06:39 |
Thats pretty good. I think they are worth the try. A company has to start somewhere and they admit there products have been not the best in the business in the begining. The company is so huge that the factory is basically it's own town, they have there own housing on site for employees to live for free. |
It is not unusual for large contract manufacturers in China to build dormitories adjacent to their factories, but these are not free, and not strictly for the benefit of the workers. If a production line shuts down, they just send the workers, to the dorm without pay, for a few hours until they get the line running again. If they want to use the workers at odd hours they know where to find them.
Yes, Behringer is large and successful and investing in vertical integration at a time when many others in the industry are going the other way. He needs scale to defend his market position against other bottom feeders who studied how he got where he is, and would love to copy him. I doubt his particular path could be repeated today, most of the low hanging fruit has already been harvested. But it is interesting to watch.
JR
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 10:33:03 AM
Post by: RICKY EMERY on May 05, 2010, 10:35:33 AM
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 05, 2010, 11:03:57 AM
| Dave Scarlett wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 07:28 |
Hi Ricky, as previously mentioned there are some of the most knowledgeable people in the business on this board, and their experience goes way beyond that of us users. FYI - JR was a amp designer at Peavey and Bob Lee now at QSC. QSC creates new product designs like the RMX series, Behringer steals them. |
Thanks for the promotion but I don't really consider myself an amp designer (JD is an amp designer). Ignoring my home brew designs I only did one commercial amp design from scratch at PV ( PMA70+). An odd little 35W continuous, 100W peak, stereo amp for the AMR division (recording) years ago.
Most of my involvement with amplifiers was managing the mixer engineering group who used many many channels of amplification in powered mixers and fixed install products, while these were mostly derivative of earlier PV designs and incremental design improvements. Later I was amp product manager and for a while even managed all of product management, so I consider myself more of a generalist than specialist. That said my office at one point was across the hall from the head of the amp design group and I spent a lot of time talking amp technology with him. So much so I was named co-inventor on an improved heat sink patent, we came up with together while chewing the fat in his office with his packaging guy.
Strictly speaking I don't think Bob Lee works as an amp designer either, while he clearly understands the technology at an expert level, and surely would know which amp came first, including the guy who designed it. IIRC the first Behringer power amp owners manual even copied some sections of Bob's owner's manual verbatim.
JR
Post by: Stavross (Sam Buck) on May 05, 2010, 11:11:46 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 09:33 |
A PRO SOUND/LIGHTING STORE WHO SELLS QSC AND BEHRINGER IS THE ONE WHO INFORMED ME THE THE EP SERIES CAME BEFORE THE QSC RMX. I FIGURED THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SINCE THEY ARE A DEALER FOR BOTH. |
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 05, 2010, 11:12:32 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 09:35 |
THE EMPLOYEES DO IN FACT LIVE ON SITE FOR FREE. THEY HAVE THE CHOICE TO LIVE ON SITE OR AT THEIR OWN HOMES. WATCH YOUTUBE ON BEHRINGER AND IT'S ALL THERE. TALKS ABOUT THE COMPANY AND HOW IT STARTED. |
That video is your source of information?
Can anybody live there for free or only workers? Sounds like part of their regular pay to me. I had "free" room and board when I was in the army..
There is no free lunch...
JR
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 05, 2010, 11:20:17 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 09:33 |
A PRO SOUND/LIGHTING STORE WHO SELLS QSC AND BEHRINGER IS THE ONE WHO INFORMED ME THE THE EP SERIES CAME BEFORE THE QSC RMX. I FIGURED THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SINCE THEY ARE A DEALER FOR BOTH. |
Please tell us which store and who there told you...
I find it difficult to believe a QSC dealer, would not know the actual order of those two product introductions.
You are getting the truth here.
JR
PS: typing in all caps is not good form.
Post by: Gerry Seymour on May 05, 2010, 11:21:01 AM
Post by: Andy Peters on May 05, 2010, 02:47:21 PM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 07:33 |
A PRO SOUND/LIGHTING STORE WHO SELLS QSC AND BEHRINGER IS THE ONE WHO INFORMED ME THE THE EP SERIES CAME BEFORE THE QSC RMX. I FIGURED THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SINCE THEY ARE A DEALER FOR BOTH. |
This line of bullshit has been refuted many times since the Behringer amp was released. The RMX was first. This is well known. There have been tear-downs of both amps, and the Behringer was shown to be a clone of the QSC.
Your "pro sound/lighting store" guy is full of shit. He either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's just trying to sell the Behringers because his margin on those amps may be better. Likely both scenarios apply.
Oh, and by the way: you do realized that you really stepped on your dick here, right? While wearing golf shoes.
-a
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on May 05, 2010, 03:03:00 PM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 05:03 |
Behringer came out with the design first and qsc rmx came out after. |
Uh, no. The QSC's RMX amps (and rev A of the RMX service manual) preceded Behringer's EuroPower amps. The amps, by a few years, the service manual, by about a year.
Welcome to the LAB Lounge, RICKY. I'm Bob Lee, and I created the original owner's manual for the QSC RMX series power amps. And some time later I found out that I'd apparently produced much of the EuroPower's original manual, too.
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on May 05, 2010, 03:10:56 PM
Every once in a while someone who does might ask me for some input on a developing design, usually from a user interface or design-for-serviceability POV. And sometimes I actually contribute some useful advice in that role.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 05, 2010, 04:34:42 PM
| Bob Lee (QSC) wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 14:10 |
True. I don't design the power amps. Every once in a while someone who does might ask me for some input on a developing design, usually from a user interface or design-for-serviceability POV. And sometimes I actually contribute some useful advice in that role. |
Yup, I meant that in the best way, you're not an "obsolete", curmudgeonly old amp designer..
JR
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on May 05, 2010, 06:12:40 PM
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on May 05, 2010, 11:38:00 PM
I do know about our own domestic textile - and later mining - industry practices. There are reasons why "company towns" are no longer tolerated here.
My original observation stands. No matter how a video shines it.
Post by: Lee Patzius on May 06, 2010, 12:50:11 AM
| RICKY EMERY wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 07:48 |
In fact I am stealing gigs from other dj's because people are telling others how nice and loud my system sounds. No distortion heard, and the bass hits great. |
Surprise, surprise... Another DJ post.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 06, 2010, 03:13:58 AM
| Lee Patzius wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 23:50 | ||
Surprise, surprise... Another DJ post. |
Yup. I was going to get around to skewering him later, but it looks like most of the work has been done.
I'll deal with him the way I dealt with some of the other flotsam.. the "Ignore all posts by this user" button!
Have fun, good luck.
Tim Mc
ps. Take a look at the thread "CAMS" on the Classic LAB and see if you can add to the Code discussion.
Post by: Bob Leonard on May 06, 2010, 08:09:42 AM
| Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 23:38 |
I'm quite familiar, having worked for an optical networking company that operated what is euphemistically referred to as "employee housing". I know every reason for them and every defense of them. I am intimately familiar with the accepted labor practices, particularly in the Pearl River delta, for the high-tech industries. I do know about our own domestic textile - and later mining - industry practices. There are reasons why "company towns" are no longer tolerated here. My original observation stands. No matter how a video shines it. |
Tony,
You are certainly correct. In this area, New England, anyone living in the area who knows some history can tell you that housing your employees was nothing more than another form of control and another form of income for the company.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 06, 2010, 10:20:32 AM
| Bob Leonard wrote on Thu, 06 May 2010 07:09 | ||
Tony, You are certainly correct. In this area, New England, anyone living in the area who knows some history can tell you that housing your employees was nothing more than another form of control and another form of income for the company. |
At the risk of sounding remotely like I am defending the practice, and the dormitory system is clearly tilted in favor of the manufacturers. These manufacturing regions attract very poor workers from pretty far away who would probably be living in much worse conditions until their first paycheck or two. Since they often work just to save and/or send money home, they would seek out similar low cost shelter if that wasn't available.
The vast majority of these factory-dormitory complexes don't rise to the scale of a factory town with only one dominant manufacturer in a given area. OTOH Behringer city seems intentionally sited away from other manufacturers. I will not go so far as to suggest it replicates the worst of the factory town system we have seen before in our history, but I will argue that all manufacturer supplied housing isn't remotely altruistic.
JR
Post by: Bob Leonard on May 06, 2010, 11:33:37 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 06 May 2010 10:20 | ||||
At the risk of sounding remotely like I am defending the practice, and the dormitory system is clearly tilted in favor of the manufacturers. These manufacturing regions attract very poor workers from pretty far away who would probably be living in much worse conditions until their first paycheck or two. Since they often work just to save and/or send money home, they would seek out similar low cost shelter if that wasn't available. The vast majority of these factory-dormitory complexes don't rise to the scale of a factory town with only one dominant manufacturer in a given area. OTOH Behringer city seems intentionally sited away from other manufacturers. I will not go so far as to suggest it replicates the worst of the factory town system we have seen before in our history, but I will argue that all manufacturer supplied housing isn't remotely altruistic. JR |
JR,
Well you caught my drift. Having spent a good amount of time in in the far east, and growing up and living in New England with mills very close to my own home it's easy to compare. The type of dormitory housing I see with MOST asian companies replicates my worst military experiences. Living quarters void of all but the most needed creature features and a place to stay while saving some money.
On the flip side none of this is free and in most cases the costs associated with this type of living can and will often prove to be a much higher expense than if quarters were available away from the plant, mill or factory. In most of asia the majority of the people working at these jobs are poorly educated women who have been sent by their families to work and send money home. They have no transportation or for the most part long term goals other than sending that money home. Living in company housing allows them to do just that, however it's a catch 22. Rent and food are paid for with the wages they earn, money which in turn goes back to the employer. And let's not paint this picture with 5 stars. These are small rooms with 6-8-10 people per room in most cases.
The mill housing of New England was very similar to this in the 1800's, and once again the majority of the workers female.
On the other hand, Japan has embraced this practice of corporate unity. Corporate housing, predominantly for single men and women, is spacious by Japans standards, clean and provided free of charge to those who demonstrate the need. The Japanese worker also spends more time at the job, up to 4 hours more per day than an American worker. However, that time is spent building pride in the company and amoung themselves, something lost to American industry today. Lunch breaks often last longer than 2 hours, breaks are for relaxing, and even vacations are taken at company owned resorts, theme parks and cottages free of charge.
I'm not fooled by Behringers video at all. I've spent too much time in that part of the world.
Post by: Mark Walter on May 07, 2010, 08:44:17 AM
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 07, 2010, 10:57:47 AM
The company town system is ripe for abuse but not abusive in nature. It all depends on how it is operated, and if the workers have other options. The appropriate question is how much living space do workers want? The japanese have also set the example for minimalistic personal space with their, overnight hotels(?) that are barely larger than one person, who crawls up into a sleeping bunk carved into the wall. Given free choice where space is dear, they choose tiny, at least for sleeping off their drunk.
I suspect they want ice water in hell and luxurious apartments for workers, but the practical reality is they can't or won't pay for more than dormitories with shared living spaces. We need to try to look at this from their perspective. Longer term workers who have saved a few won, probably find housing off campus. Most short term workers are not there for a career but to save money, so for them the cheapest living space they can find, means they save faster, and can return home to the countryside sooner with a bankroll, or move on to a higher paying job in the city after they gain some experience.
As much as i would like to, I won't accuse Behringer of abusing the dormitory system without proof. By locating away from other factories in a relatively isolated region, his workers are less likely to job hop to a nearby factory, giving him a little more leverage regarding pay.
JR
PS: I never shared a room with more than 40 or so troops in the Army.
Post by: Jack Wooten on June 01, 2010, 12:38:58 AM
Post by: Royce Covington on June 01, 2010, 02:19:15 AM
| Mark Walter wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 05:44 |
Well, this thread was a half hour of my life I'll never get back.... |
just as it was in march of last year...