• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Crest CA-9 vs. QSC PLX2502 (PLX2 Series)

Which power amp?

  • Total voters
    92
#181
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
If you run out of preamp headroom before you get the desired results, then yes, you need higher gain in the amp. If the amp's maximum gain still isn't high enough, then you need to either boost the signal in between the preamp and the amp or use an amp with higher gain. High gain is the CA9's advantage in this respect.
Click to expand...

This may be what I have been experiencing.
 
#182
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
you'll find the tone indistinguishable among good power amps below their clipping points.
Click to expand...

How far below?

Maybe the problem for me all along was that the 1602 only puts out the 350-odd watts that Bink's test shows it is capable of at 20hz. And then maybe I'd have better results with a PLX that had more headroom?

I had no desire to be any louder, just wanted more fullness.
 
#186
bongomania said:
Playing "Bob's advocate" here ;), the common factor is that people use the same preamp with the same settings for both amps. Since the power amps have different sensitivities, the preamp output has to be adjusted in order to get "equal" results.
Click to expand...

That's no doubt true for some people. But I'd wager that most of us here, in particular those posting in this thread, know better than to compare unequal amps at equal settings.

If only noobs were claiming that lead sleds sounded better, I wouldn't put any stock into it. But experts and highly experienced users have saying so. I'm the first to acknowledge that experts can be wrong... but in this case, which experts?

I still don't think either side can claim the scientific high ground. Some evidence has been presented, but how scientific is it? Have we seen all the evidence, or only part of it? Also, laboratory results can vary widely from the real world results. Is it possible that lead sleds perform better than switching amps when voltage is lower than expected?
 
#187
tombowlus said:
Not sure what point you are making, but go ahead an misquote me, if it helps. :D
Click to expand...

I've posted in enough of these threads that my point should be well known. I've done the analysis. My ears tricked me (and so did everyone else's in the room) until we used a multimeter to match gains. Now I believe that there is ZERO difference between the two amps I evaluated outside of psychological effect.
 
#189
tombowlus said:
My experience (including use with the CA9, PLX 3002 and World 2.1) has been limited to the following preamps (and perhaps one or two that I am missing):

Aguilar DB 659
Aguilar DB 680
Alembic F-1X
AMP SL-1
Ashdown EVO II RPM-1
Bergantino line driver (prototype)
Demeter HBP-1
Demeter VTBP-201s
EBS MicroBass II
Eden Navigator
Epifani Quest II
Fender TBP-1
Kern IP-777
PreSonus Eureka
Read Purity
Stewart UDP-1a

With each of these preamps, I could not dial in the level of performance on the PLX 3002 or World 2.1 that I was getting out of the CA9. I was able to get usable tone and volume out of all three, for sure, but across a variety of volume levels, a variety of gigs, and a variety of associated equipment, I (and my bandmates) consistently preferred the results obtained when the CA9 was involved.

FWIW, I have no axe to grind with any company, nor do I have any affiliation with Crest (or Peavey). While I don't mind heavy weight gear, of course I'd rather lug lightweight gear. And, if anyone searches the archives, I was a strong proponent of the PLX 3002 for some time. All I know is that my best got better when I stepped up to the CA9.

Tom.
Click to expand...

The Demeter preamps have a hot output. You could (or someone else who wants to try) dial it in with those driving a PLX or Stewart. I think the Eden and Aguilar pres do, too, but I'd have to check.
 
#190
Kindness said:
I've posted in enough of these threads that my point should be well known. I've done the analysis. My ears tricked me (and so did everyone else's in the room) until we used a multimeter to match gains. Now I believe that there is ZERO difference between the two amps I evaluated outside of psychological effect.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I did not recall you or your position.

So, then, what exactly is my agenda (since that is apparently your point)?
 
#191
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
Louder would give you more fullness (see "equal loudness").
Click to expand...

This statement doesn't fit in with my most recent experience though, so maybe you can help me understand whats up. At a club I've played a number of times just using my UL502 at gig level, it has sounded very good for the most part. Most recently, I played this same venue adding the CA-9 into the equation, but while my overall volume was a touch lower than usual, my tone seemed overall fuller. Am I misunderstanding something occurring here?
 
#192
xgabriele said:
This statement doesn't fit in with my most recent experience though, so maybe you can help me understand whats up. At a club I've played a number of times just using my UL502 at gig level, it has sounded very good for the most part. Most recently, I played this same venue adding the CA-9 into the equation, but while my overall volume was a touch lower than usual, my tone seemed overall fuller. Am I misunderstanding something occurring here?
Click to expand...

Did you run the preamp of the UL502 into the CA9, or did you use a different preamp with the CA9?
 
#193
tombowlus said:
Sorry, but I did not recall you or your position.

So, then, what exactly is my agenda (since that is apparently your point)?
Click to expand...

I don't think you have any agenda. I believe either (1) you haven't taken a close enough look or learned enough of the physics behind it to reach the same conclusions I have or (2) I might be tricked by what I've learned with my various degrees, other educational experiences and my personal experience with testing CA-9 and a QSC PLX3002. I believe science teaches us one thing, overwhelming personal experience of bassists on this board teaches us the opposite and that anyone arguing about it can't assert anything other than their personal experience and understanding.

I believe you are firmly convinced there is a huge difference, I believe I am firmly convinced there is none and I believe either one of us could be completely wrong. I wouldn't want to bet on which one of us it is, because I honestly don't know.

I also believe that rather than spending any time in this thread I could use the search function and relive the exact same conversation... (potentially with a few name changes here and there) :)

I guess I should address your actual response, my point was just that I think your experiences are influenced by psychological effect. That does not mean I am right, it's just what I believe. My point was not that you have some agenda. I've never seen you post anything ever that appeared like you had some personal agenda other than a love of music, a love of music equipment, sharing your love with others.
 
#195
Kindness said:
I also believe that rather than spending any time in this thread I could use the search function and relive the exact same conversation... (potentially with a few name changes here and there) :)
Click to expand...

Oh, I did search, and read a number of threads, but they were 1,2,3 years old. Who knows, maybe opinions change over time? But in this case, it looks like they haven't and they same conversation is just being rehashed, and for that I apologize.
 
#196
xgabriele said:
Oh, I did search, and read a number of threads, but they were 1,2,3 years old. Who knows, maybe opinions change over time? But in this case, it looks like they haven't and they same conversation is just being rehashed, and for that I apologize.
Click to expand...

My tone must be totally lost in translation today. There is no need to apologize. The more this stuff is talked about the better. My point is I see people saying one thing, others saying another, and no one seems to move from one side to the other.
 
#197
Kindness said:
I don't think you have any agenda. I believe either (1) you haven't taken a close enough look or learned enough of the physics behind it to reach the same conclusions I have or (2) I might be tricked by what I've learned with my various degrees, other educational experiences and my personal experience with testing CA-9 and a QSC PLX3002. I believe science teaches us one thing, overwhelming personal experience of bassists on this board teaches us the opposite and that anyone arguing about it can't assert anything other than their personal experience and understanding.

I believe you are firmly convinced there is a huge difference, I believe I am firmly convinced there is none and I believe either one of us could be completely wrong. I wouldn't want to bet on which one of us it is, because I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Your beliefs are duly noted. :D

Personally, I choose the gear I use based upon how it performs for me, in a gig environment. I don't discount the claims that Bob and others are making, and in fact, I generally enjoy taking in as many different viewpoints, data, measurements, theories, etc. as possible. I can see how, through the application of certain theories and under certain circumstances it shouldn't matter. But, when I get different gear on a gig, and one unit soundly outperforms the others, I don't pass it off as "this should not be the case" and stick with the under-performing unit.

Also, I don't think we have specifically talked about how good/bad AC can affect certain amplifier technologies. I have heard from several here on TB that my SMPS amps shouldn't clip out, sound like crap, and blow speakers (even when not putting out much volume and low end), but I there is one venue with crappy power that I play fairly regularly where that is exactly what happened with either my PLX 3002 or the World 2.1 (both of which tested out fine after the respective incidents), though my CA9 works like a champ in this same room.

Again, my agenda is to use what works and sounds the best for me. I really have no other hidden goal. If you have found what works and sounds the best for you, then stick with it. :)

Tom.
 
#199
tombowlus said:
Also, I don't think we have specifically talked about how good/bad AC can affect certain amplifier technologies. I have heard from several here on TB that my SMPS amps shouldn't clip out, sound like crap, and blow speakers (even when not putting out much volume and low end), but I there is one venue with crappy power that I play fairly regularly where that is exactly what happened with either my PLX 3002 or the World 2.1 (both of which tested out fine after the respective incidents), though my CA9 works like a champ in this same room.
Click to expand...

I haven't run into that situation personally, but if I did even once, I'd be hauling a CA9 to every gig from that point forward. :)

"Theory" is never all inclusive, any person that thinks they or other humans know everything about any subject isn't paying much attention to what goes on in reality.
 
#200
xgabriele said:
I used the preamp of the UL502. I currently don't own any other preamps or heads.
Click to expand...

If room acoustics and your EQ curve didn't change, then you have a valid observation.

It should be mentioned that a better test would be to alternate between both setups at the same gig. It's possible that on the recent gig your bandmates were using different EQ curves that allowed your bass to sit in the mix a little better.

And yes, I acknowledge that the best test is a double-blind in a controlled environment, etc etc, but who of us are set up for that? I also believe real-world testing can be valid if fairly done. And again, it seems very logical to me that the differences between one type of amp and another will become apparent (or more apparent) in less-than-ideal conditions.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back