• 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 freeLog 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
If I were within 2db. What would the difference be?

What about 3 or 4 db.

Isn't there an equation we could use to put some perspective on the effect? If you don't know, then how can you claim it is a significant factor?

You're approaching this from a place of "I know there is no difference", and that is not good science.

There is a graph in the article that I cited. Feel free to use it.

No, I'm approaching it from a position of "power amps that don't significantly distort the signal or alter the EQ or anything else that detracts from accuracy will exhibit very similar sonic performance." Double blind listening tests bear that out repeatedly. That's better science than "Psychological? Nah, couldn't be. Different volumes? Nah. Sighted test? Nah, it couldn't be that either." ;)
 
Chances are the switching amp has a regulated power supply. The rail voltage inside the amp is going to remain stable even if the supplied line voltage varies. (within reason)

I would doubt that a lead sled would have this.

The PLX amps have unregulated supplies, so if the AC voltage sags, their maximum output--the peak voltage at which the amp clips--will dip proportionally to the change in line voltage, just like a "lead sled" amp will. The gain will not change in either one, though; only the headroom will decrease.
 
Double blind listening tests bear that out repeatedly.

Show me a write up of one that includes both the CA and the PLX. That would shut me up right quick and make me very happy. I've never seen one.

As far as F-M in these tests were talking about a small subdivision between two of the curves:

f-m.jpg


Pretty subtle, no? Its dramatic on a large scale, but not so much on a small one. And the graph really is not fine enough to describe differences in levels that I can't detect as being simply "louder".
 
I'm not familiar with the UL502, so I don't know whether it's made for accuracy or has some custom response tailored into it. But if it's designed like a pro power amp, with flat response, low distortion, et al, then matching it up volume-wise with the CA9 or any other amp, for that matter, will also match it up tone-wise.

I know this is only part of the discussion, but it touches on a relevant point. I've experienced significant performance differences when using the pre of a highly rated bass amp into a ca9, compared with the performance of the onboard power amp. I put it down to what Bob is maybe hinting at, that the onboard power amp isn't built like a pro power amp. It doesn't have the same standards of accuracy and performance. I really like simple things about my ca9, that are common to pro amps, like the way it doesn't pop when you turn it on or off of if the power goes out. Like other pro audio amps, it behaves in a professional fashion.
 
The PLX amps have unregulated supplies, so if the AC voltage sags, their maximum output--the peak voltage at which the amp clips--will dip proportionally to the change in line voltage, just like a "lead sled" amp will. The gain will not change in either one, though; only the headroom will decrease.

I was thinking along the lines of a true switching amp with a switching power supplies. I'm not sure about the QSC line if there is one.

An affect of lower rail voltage is also how you implement the limiter. If the amp is working on a lower rail voltage, clipping would start at lower wattage. If the limiter is strictly at some preset level it won't kick in and clipping will get through. Not that moderate clipping is a bad as everyone makes out - Only at extremes. Edge cases is what we seem to harp on around here.
 
Anecdotal note: At one point earlier this year I had three preamps (Aguilar DB659, Demeter VTBP-201, Avalon U5) and was trying to narrow it down to one. I noticed that plugging the line level output of the U5 into my PLX2 1804 made things sound a lot more "full" than the other preamps did and the entire rig certainly got louder overall. These results were not consistent with what I experienced when using headphones or doing general recording. I almost kept the U5 over the others based on this alone. In hindsight I wonder how well it would have worked to take one of the other preamps and run it into the Avalon compared to running them directly into the QSC.
 
It won't be fully scientific but you could do something like this:

Setup the test.
Don't trust your ears, pick up a reference mic, a cheap Behringer ECM80000 would work, but really any quality mic will be a good start. The mic won't vary as your hearing will.

Get some kind of EQ with a gain knob.
Pick up Fdeck's FreeRA (or similar) software. Plug in the mic to the PC.

Hook up Amp 1 and measure it.
Hook up Amp 2, the EQ, and adjust it to match Amp 1.
Make sure the EQ doesn't introduce any noise or distortion - you will hear this and be able to discern the difference. (Some software can measure this)
You may find you don't need any EQ to get them to measure the same - just adjust the levels.

The test:
Now with your back turned to the Amps and EQ, have a friend randomly switch between them. Sometimes not switching at all. Your friend needs to stay as impartial as possible, Humans pick up on subtle things like body language, breathing, "Hmmms" , etc.

Google ABX Audio Testing.
Good luck,

It'd be interesting to see your results along with the measurements. Maybe your friend could save the measured files or wave files for each test cycle.
 
Awww what the hell. I just made a deal to buy a 2402, which has similar power specs to my CA6.

Can someone send me instructions on how to match gains to make sure my double blind ABX is valid? :help:

Sure!

Step1. Follow the setup procedure outlined by Seamonkey.

Step2. Buy a bottle of Knob Creek Bourbon. No substitutes please.

Step3. You and your buddy drink until blind.

Step4. Commence test.

As others have said, in a double blind test, for sure you won't be able to tell the difference, and you won't care. Win/win! :D
 
Get some kind of EQ with a gain knob...

Hook up Amp 2, the EQ, and adjust it to match Amp 1.
Make sure the EQ doesn't introduce any noise or distortion - you will hear this and be able to discern the difference. (Some software can measure this)
You may find you don't need any EQ to get them to measure the same - just adjust the levels.

Wouldn't the use of EQ pretty much throw the test out as a valid comparison of how the power amps sound? Gain matching makes sense, but I'm a bit confused as to the EQ part of your process.

Tom.
 
Wouldn't the use of EQ pretty much throw the test out as a valid comparison of how the power amps sound? Gain matching makes sense, but I'm a bit confused as to the EQ part of your process.

Tom.

I'm interested in the answer to this, also. If all modern, well designed amps are uncolored gain then wouldn't the use of an EQ be a moot point. Wouldn't the gain be the same regardless of frequency?
 
Awww what the hell. I just made a deal to buy a 2402, which has similar power specs to my CA6.

Can someone send me instructions on how to match gains to make sure my double blind ABX is valid? :help:

So you didn't trust the results I posted in that other thread?:crying:

You'll need a signal generator, RMS-reading meter, and a dummy load. To do a true ABX test you'll need an ABX fixture as well. Link Removed one you can build.
 
I guess I should have been more specific, this will be a listening test with me playing my bass (IMO, the only way to really test the issues I care about!). At least blind, hopefully double, with the key being the elusive gain matching. Its that last step I need help with.
 
So you didn't trust the results I posted in that other thread?:crying:

You'll need a signal generator, RMS-reading meter, and a dummy load. To do a true ABX test you'll need an ABX fixture as well. Link Removed one you can build.

Hey, I like this list I found on the ABX site:

Ten (10) Requirements For Sensitive and Reliable Listening Tests

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible differences to be most easily heard.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice it and have a useful reaction to it.

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible problems are heard.

(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull, too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must be noise-free, etc..

(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume differences.

(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and non-disruptive as possible.

Since I've previously been criticized for using my playing as a test vehicle (which I think is silly), perhaps this time I'll record my bass as repeatable program material. I'll have to see if I can get a recording that captures the real essence of my sound on playback. The best I have that would be convenient is a Roland VS880, which isn't great.

When audio testing is discussed, I know there will be many for whom a test is never good enough (especially if it shows results contrary to what they would like them to be), but a single blind test where my wife (who could care less) executes the ABX for me is at least in the 99th percentile of validity -- good enough for me. I'm hoping to dream up a way to make it double blind.

I'm hoping I don't hear a difference so I can quit lugging the CA! I think there is a chance the 1602 just wasn't powerful enough for me (since it really only puts out 350-odd watts at 20hz), and that I was running too close to the ceiling to get linear response. Maybe the 2402 will work for me.
 
I guess I should have been more specific, this will be a listening test with me playing my bass (IMO, the only way to really test the issues I care about!). At least blind, hopefully double, with the key being the elusive gain matching. Its that last step I need help with.

1) Use a 1KHz sine wave signal at sufficient level to drive the less sensitive amp to 50 to 100 watts into your dummy load. At 8 ohms, 100 watts = 28.3 volts RMS. Use a big enough dummy load to accommodate this.

2) Adjust the more sensitive amp to output the exact same voltage, or at least to 0.1 volts or closer. Per that other thread, you will likely have to hunt around a bit to find an output voltage that both amps will readily match. Detented pots are a pain, and you may even have to try to get "in between" the detents.

In the case of the CA9 and the PLX 1804, I used approximately 20 volts output. That was one place I could stay off the detents and still get a good match.

PM me and I'll lend you a big dummy load if you don't have one. You pay shipping both ways, OK? You can also buy one from Parts Express or elsewhere.
 
2) Adjust the more sensitive amp to output the exact same voltage, or at least to 0.1 volts or closer. Per that other thread, you will likely have to hunt around a bit to find an output voltage that both amps will readily match. Detented pots are a pain, and you may even have to try to get "in between" the detents.

This was the only "tricky" part of the process when I did my testing. It took some time to find voltages that were as close to identical as possible.
 
The question at hand is whether any EQ would be needed to make them sound the same. According to Bob, it is not.

You may not, but you need to measure it. The impedance of your preamp, or the amp input may vary with frequency (it's unlikely, they are not speakers, but it's possible). You have to get past what you can measure to see if the listening is different than the measurement. Setting the gain at just one frequency, like 1khz, may not be accurate across the frequencies that matter for bass. If you want to just use one frequency, then pick 100hz. But then don't say one amp was brighter than the other since you didn't check the gain at other frequencies.

Fdeck's software is very simple. You won't need meters, or dummy loads. If you don't use it then maybe you could get your friends to adjust the gain, and possibly EQ so they sound the same before you do the listening test.
 
You may not, but you need to measure it. The impedance of your preamp, or the amp input may vary with frequency (it's unlikely, they are not speakers, but it's possible). You have to get past what you can measure to see if the listening is different than the measurement. Setting the gain at just one frequency, like 1khz, may not be accurate across the frequencies that matter for bass. If you want to just use one frequency, then pick 100hz. But then don't say one amp was brighter than the other since you didn't check the gain at other frequencies.

Fdeck's software is very simple. You won't need meters, or dummy loads. If you don't use it then maybe you could get your friends to adjust the gain, and possibly EQ so they sound the same before you do the listening test.

So you believe that well designed pro PA amps may sound different from one another when used with the same bass preamp? That is exactly what many of us have experienced, and is what I'm trying to test for.

Input impedance is definitely something that I've been thinking may contribute to that, but hasn't really been discussed.

Bob maintains that this is not true and that matched gains (no mention of frequency) would eliminate any difference. I take it you disagree with that?