Re: World's Greatest Amp or Dog Turd?


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43895bc1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133045423.969255.72880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> After listening to one today through classic Altec horn driver
>> systems, I believe the answer is, the QSC amplifier is a well built
>> economical and reliable amplifier for high power commercial sound
>> reinforcement. In a home with efficient speakers there are far better
>> choices. It's a mediocre to poor product for that use (or misuse.)
>
> **Duh. QSC, like many pro amps uses 'rail switching' (aka: Class H, Power
> Envelope, or whatever bull*** name you want to give it) to extract more
> power from a smaller package. Many manufacturers call it different things,
> but the result is the same: Crap sound.

Not all QSC amps are class H.
Many of them are class AB.
The only comment I ever heard on Class H sound was that it was better for
over 1KW applications than for lower ones.

Having listened to Several of the old Soundcraftsmen class H amps rated 250
wpc, subjectively compared to other power amps the only sound I would
attribute to them is they were able to produce very powerful bass by
comparison to other amps such as Rotel, Kenwood, Mission, Adcom, Nakamichi,
Sumo, and Luxman. Some of them did as well and others not as much. None of
this was double blind and levels were matche by ear, so the memories and the
comparisons are only what I perceived from those conditions.

Whatever sound class H is supposed to be crap wasn't anywhere near it.



Consider the situation of NAD.
> During the late 1970s and early to mid 1980s, NAD built up a considerable
> reputation for quality sound on a budget. THEN NAD released the 2200 power
> amp. The first product carrying the moniker: 'Power Envelope', later
> shortened to 'PE'. A fancy-schmancy name for rail switching. The same
> disastrous technology used in a multitude of Carver, Yamaha and a bunch of
> other designs. The technology allows the designer to extract more power
> from an amplifier, which has a smaller power supply and less heat sink,
> which leads to lower manufactured cost. Sounds perfect? It is, unless you
> actually want to listen to the fucking thing, of course. Anyway, Power
> Envelope technology was NOT adapted by many of NAD's competitors. Rotel,
> was the standout. Rotel just kept building decent, basic amps, with decent
> power supplies and plenty of heat sinks. Surprise surprise, Rotel's
> fortunes have improved and NAD's have not. NAD, I've noticed, no longer
> make a big deal about Power Envelope technology. Ever wondered why?
> Because it sounds like crap.
>

Or in tweako audio land it got a bad reputation just like direct driver
turntables, which are clearly superior to belt drive, or leaving off tone
controls.

Lots of things seem to become well known fact that are compeltely untrue.

> Anyway, rail switching is fine for headbangers, concert venues and other
> non-critical applications. For decent mid end audio, forget it.
>
>
Fortunately, it's possible to enjoy the benefits of pro audio gear and never
have to buy a class H amp. There are plenty of AB amps that are built for
the pro market that still have wattage in the over kill are for home audio,
that are extremely inexpenisve compared to consumer or ultra high end prices
and perform as good any high end amp made. IOW purely transparent which is
what an amp should be.


.

Loading