The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:23 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonHLau View Post
Your economical reason is invalid here. A QSC K8 is cheaper than either a Soloamp or Bag Amp. Even throwing in a speaker stand, the K8 is still cheaper than the Bag Amp and several hundreds of dollars cheaper than a Soloamp. Dealers won't discount the Bag Amp either (so they told me) so I can even get a K10 w/speaker stand for less than a Bag Amp.
Well hold on Gordon The QSC does NOT have an eq section. It does NOT have reverb. It does NOT have feedback notch filters and most importantly and almost universally overlooked is that both The BagAmp and The SoloAmp were and are designed to address the fairly narrow range of problems and obstacles that present themselves to gigging acoustic guitar players. That puts the designer at an advantage over the guy at QSC that had to take into consideration just how many uses the K8 or K10 would need to cover. Add the cost of a Mackie 1202 and a cheap reverb and your certainly in a different ballpark cost-wise.

Again we're comparing apples to oranges...or worse.

Now of course if one is looking for a "jack of all trades" that perhaps could be used to spin records at a party, serve as a make-shift monitor at a gig, serve as a PA system for a lobby at a restaurant or just provide FOH stuff without the need for EQ and or effects the QSC IS a more cost effective solution without doubt.

YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:38 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Hunter View Post
The QSC amplifiers are, I think, analog designs. The letter designation in, Class D, does not stand for digital.
The QSC K10 is using technology known as "Digital Switching". In this case depending on your definition of digital amps it is in fact digital and from an industry perspective Class D and E do infer Digital Switching Amplifiers. Just the weight alone would send up a red flag. The ENTIRE box (speakers and all) is 27 pounds. I've got 200 watt analog power amps that are nearing 100 lbs alone.

YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:40 AM
BoB/335 BoB/335 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,340
Default

This is strictly for MY purposes. IF "I" were to go for a BagAmp "I" am expecting to be using a small mixer with effects. So for ME the BagAmp vs K10 are in the same ballpark for cost, portability, and use.

I would also like to say as the owner of a few different QSC amps in the past and present, I am very disappointed in their lacl of info in the specs for the K series and it shows a lack of professionalism.
The BagAmp lack of specs I have no comment for.

Most of the last part of this discussion leaves me thinking it's best to stay with a rack mount power amp and passive speakers.
(Maybe I should look into those 803's. Where IS Chris anyway???)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:41 AM
geokie8 geokie8 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Hunter View Post
The QSC amplifiers are, I think, analog designs.
After a quick little research, Class D refers to the switching mode of the transitors allowing greater power with less weight. It can be analog or digital depending upon how the output signal is controlled.

The QSC references its DSP technology while the JBL specifically says "Class D digital amplifier technology." I think it's fair to refer to both as digital amps (but, hey, I found this all on Wikipedia).

geokie8
__________________
Taylor 515
Taylor 315

Last edited by geokie8; 01-02-2010 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:18 PM
tdrake's Avatar
tdrake tdrake is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posts: 834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
Well hold on Gordon The QSC does NOT have an eq section. It does NOT have reverb. It does NOT have feedback notch filters and most importantly and almost universally overlooked is that both The BagAmp and The SoloAmp were and are designed to address the fairly narrow range of problems and obstacles that present themselves to gigging acoustic guitar players. That puts the designer at an advantage over the guy at QSC that had to take into consideration just how many uses the K8 or K10 would need to cover. Add the cost of a Mackie 1202 and a cheap reverb and your certainly in a different ballpark cost-wise.

Again we're comparing apples to oranges...or worse.

Now of course if one is looking for a "jack of all trades" that perhaps could be used to spin records at a party, serve as a make-shift monitor at a gig, serve as a PA system for a lobby at a restaurant or just provide FOH stuff without the need for EQ and or effects the QSC IS a more cost effective solution without doubt.

YMMV
What he said.

For the record, my current rig is a Yammy MG mixer with reverb and compression and a powered PV speaker. I've owned but sold a Loudbox 100.

If I did upgrade my humble outfit, haven't decided what route I'd go -- which is why I've been following these discussions. I just don't think I need light and super loud in a single unit.

Heck, in the dozen or so shows in which I used the Loudbox I never came close to cranking it past half way up, but I did find that all alone it sounded "small" no matter how loud, and so I could never really get into taking advantage of its excellent portability. ...my impression is that the line array approach would solve that, but I've yet to hear one of those systems in operation... out here in the sticks as we are.

Of course, as my manager/wife would say: is it really worth slapping down $500-800 to save another trip or two out to the car?

td
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:30 PM
sventvkg sventvkg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpruceTop View Post
Hi Sventvkg,

I was very hesitant to post my spoken-word audition impressions to the board because of the possibilty of pointed responses such as yours, which are justified, no doubt, given my less-than comprehensive auditioning. I'm not sure that your assessment of Mackie SRM450 Active Monitors is correct because hasn't many a solo act and small band relied on these speakers over the last decade or more? To me, they sound crisp and clear, and although they're capable, per specs, of achieving 55 Hz @ -3 dB, and usable to 45 Hz @ -10 dB without any onboard circuitry enhancement, the last thing I would call a Mackie SRM450 is boomy. Please, if anything, call them sterile- or neutral-sounding because of their flat frequency response and I'd know where you're coming from.

My posting wasn't anti-QSC in any way but merely suggested that if a person or band already has a quality small PA system they're happy with at the moment, a QSC K Series speaker just may not be a night-and-day difference for them. Of course, I'd encourage a prospective buyer to audition the new QSC K Series speaker in all manner of ways that may give them a "Eureka" moment and compel them to buy some. For me, given my limited audition, I didn't have that special moment but would definitely consider buying some QSC K Series speakers in the future.

Regards,

SpruceTop
hey spruce, i'm sorry man..If they sound good to you, then use em. I'm a HIGHLY experienced Engineer, both live and studio and know zillions in the industry both touring major artists and shows and local level and no one thinks highly of the mackies.,.yes they are popular because of good marketing and the pricepoint at the time they came out. To my ears they sound boomy and brittle..more of a DJ cab then a live music PA. My assessment is shared by many who's opinions I HIGHLY value as well, but YMMV.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:34 PM
sventvkg sventvkg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpruceTop View Post
Hi Joseph,

Which is why, I'd assume, that my three-year old Mackie SRM450 active Monitors, with more conventional but heavier power amps: a Class G, Parametric Servo Feedback for low frequency, and Conventional Class AB for high frequency is probably more reliable under varying operating conditions than the new Class D power-amp-Based Mackie SRM450V2. The older SRM450 is 10 lbs. heavier than the newer SRM450V2. Also, the older SRM450 speakers have a conventional magnet in their low-frequency speaker but the new SRM450V2 low-frequency speakers are neodymium-magnet equipped. Maybe some of that extra weight is worth it for the greater reliability of the SRM450 power amps? What do you think? Thanks.

Regards,

SpruceTop
Again Spruce..with all due respect to you brother, SRM450's are NOT known as reliable speakers..It's easy to check that out for yourself. They have a tendency to shut down under heavy loads and I've personally witnessed it happen. I'm sorry to even say this and i'm not trying to be a contrarian *** here. Just letting you know my experience knowledge of the rep of those speakers. Sorry man.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:35 PM
geokie8 geokie8 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,078
Default

OK, and now for the bummer. (And I really don't want to hijack this thread so I know you all feel my pain -- it's not necessary to post the sentiments).

All of this amp/ speaker talk got my juices flowing so I decided today would be the day I jumped into the truck and cruised on down to check out the BagAmp. I really didn't have the time but I was going to tack it onto the end of a short business trip (i.e., to take a photo of a house).

I threw the Gibson into the car, a mic, a mixer, some odds and ends, and was ready to pull out of the driveway. Just to be sure, I checked to make sure the camera was where it should be. Alas, whoever broke into my truck and swiped my GPS last week also took my camera. I'm so bummed I took everything back out of the truck.

I guess I'll find something else to do today. (Writing a blues song sounds about right).

Sorry, I thought I'd have something to share about the BagAmp tonight.

geokie8
__________________
Taylor 515
Taylor 315
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:55 PM
GordonHLau GordonHLau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Hunter View Post
How are you determining the headroom of the BagAmp and the K10?
Herb,

Are you doubting the K10 has more headroom than the BagAmp?

Gordon
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-02-2010, 01:38 PM
GordonHLau GordonHLau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
Well hold on Gordon The QSC does NOT have an eq section. It does NOT have reverb. It does NOT have feedback notch filters and most importantly and almost universally overlooked is that both The BagAmp and The SoloAmp were and are designed to address the fairly narrow range of problems and obstacles that present themselves to gigging acoustic guitar players. That puts the designer at an advantage over the guy at QSC that had to take into consideration just how many uses the K8 or K10 would need to cover. Add the cost of a Mackie 1202 and a cheap reverb and your certainly in a different ballpark cost-wise.
Have you ever tried the BagAmp? The BagAmp has just a single 'tone' control for its EQ that IMHO, is useless. The reverb was subpar, IMHO and it has NO notch filter. I suspect most users will have to use outboard gear if they go with the BagAmp. Whatever outboard gear you are going to need with the K8 or K10, you are going to most likely need with the BagAmp also. I do agree with you that SA, BA and Bose PAS are a different design that allows you to put the speakers behind you so that you hear what the audience hears.

I think the BagAmp sounds great, much better than the SA, to my ears. It just didn't seem loud enough for some of the uses I need it for. When I had it cranked, I didn't think it would be enough to fill the 100 person room I played in the following week. However, I could have been wrong since I didn't take into account the line array.

GL
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-02-2010, 03:23 PM
SpruceTop SpruceTop is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 6,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
hey spruce, i'm sorry man..If they sound good to you, then use em. I'm a HIGHLY experienced Engineer, both live and studio and know zillions in the industry both touring major artists and shows and local level and no one thinks highly of the mackies.,.yes they are popular because of good marketing and the pricepoint at the time they came out. To my ears they sound boomy and brittle..more of a DJ cab then a live music PA. My assessment is shared by many who's opinions I HIGHLY value as well, but YMMV.
Hi Sventvkg,

Although I haven't had any problems with my Mackie SRM450 speakers, I'm not disputing the information that you're relating as you seem to be much more traveled and experienced than I am in sound reinforcement circles.

Regards,

SpruceTop
__________________
Huss & Dalton TD-R
Martin HD-28 Trance Amulet M-VT
Martin D-18
Martin D Jr B-Band A1.2N-1470
Taylor 614ce ES2
Taylor 618e ES2
Taylor 356ce 12-String ES2
Taylor 322ce ES2
Taylor GS Mini-e Koa ES2
OME NorthStar Walnut
Eastman EBJ-WL1 Whyte Laydie
Vega 12" Old Tyme Wonder
Rickard 12" Maple Ridge Dobson
Pisgah 12" Walnut Tubaphone
Bart Reiter Regent Whyte Laydie
Deering Sierra Flathead
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-02-2010, 03:28 PM
SpruceTop SpruceTop is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 6,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geokie8 View Post
After a quick little research, Class D refers to the switching mode of the transitors allowing greater power with less weight. It can be analog or digital depending upon how the output signal is controlled.

The QSC references its DSP technology while the JBL specifically says "Class D digital amplifier technology." I think it's fair to refer to both as digital amps (but, hey, I found this all on Wikipedia).

geokie8
I can't recall where, but I remember reading something about Class D amplifiers, because of their design, are always on the verge of self-destructing and it's their controller circuitry that allows them to live and do their thing. Sounds pretty hairy to me! Anybody else read or hear something similar?

Regards,

SpruceTop
__________________
Huss & Dalton TD-R
Martin HD-28 Trance Amulet M-VT
Martin D-18
Martin D Jr B-Band A1.2N-1470
Taylor 614ce ES2
Taylor 618e ES2
Taylor 356ce 12-String ES2
Taylor 322ce ES2
Taylor GS Mini-e Koa ES2
OME NorthStar Walnut
Eastman EBJ-WL1 Whyte Laydie
Vega 12" Old Tyme Wonder
Rickard 12" Maple Ridge Dobson
Pisgah 12" Walnut Tubaphone
Bart Reiter Regent Whyte Laydie
Deering Sierra Flathead

Last edited by SpruceTop; 01-02-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-02-2010, 04:13 PM
Herb Hunter's Avatar
Herb Hunter Herb Hunter is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 18,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
The QSC K10 is using technology known as "Digital Switching". In this case depending on your definition of digital amps it is in fact digital and from an industry perspective Class D and E do infer Digital Switching Amplifiers. Just the weight alone would send up a red flag. The ENTIRE box (speakers and all) is 27 pounds. I've got 200 watt analog power amps that are nearing 100 lbs alone.

YMMV
In a Class D amplifier, is the analog signal arriving at its inputs fed to a analog to digital converter or does it remain an analog waveform? There are designs where the quantization of the output signal at the power stage is controlled by an analog signal. Such a design cannot be called a digital one.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-02-2010, 04:16 PM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Hunter View Post
In a Class D amplifier, is the analog signal arriving at its inputs fed to a analog to digital converter or does it remain an analog waveform? There are designs where the quantization of the output signal at the power stage is controlled by an analog signal. Such a design cannot be called a digital one.
I'm not sure Herb. I looked at the Patent info and it had phrasing that would indicate the signal is converted.

Past that it's a bit convoluted.

Sorry..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-02-2010, 04:24 PM
Herb Hunter's Avatar
Herb Hunter Herb Hunter is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 18,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonHLau View Post
Herb,

Are you doubting the K10 has more headroom than the BagAmp?

Gordon
In other words, you are making an assumption. It is entirely likely that the K10 will have more headroom but that remains to be established. There are amplifiers whose dynamic headroom is much higher than their continuous power rating and others whose headroom is closer to their continuous power rating. One would also have to factor in speaker efficiency and whether power limiters are being used and if so, what their characteristics are. Another factor is the superior projection of a line array.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=