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

[seakamp]

I have owned a CA9 and a PLX 2 1802 (close enough for comparison?). Well, to make a long story short, as others have noted, there is no comparison. The CA9 crushes it. There is something special about that power amp.

The CA9 has a fullness to it that can not be described (by me) in words. It faithfully reproduces the total sound produced by the bass while leaving nothing behind. The PLX does sound perfectly full and fine, that is, until you A/B it with a CA9.

 

[Big String]

No disrespect to any ladies, but you know, I think my use of that animated pic is getting a little old. Time for the lovely Alizee to move on.

Noooooooooooooooooo!

 

[oddio]

The CA9 crushes it. There is something special about that power amp.

I've observed the same. I have several other great power amps, but the CA9 is the one I always end up haulin' around as part of my rig.

 

[Tony G]

Well, so far from everyones reactions and responses, I guess I better just man up and carry around that CA-9.

 

[seakamp]

I have to say that the CA9 does sound better. If weight is a big factor then I'd suggest thinking over the 2.1 or 2502. There IS a sonic difference, no doubt. The question you really have to ask is...

Is the sonic difference worth the weight?

For me, I'd NEVER put a CA9 in anything but a 2 space rack on its own. The solo rack for the CA9 really helps in the transportation stages. I couldn't imagine hauling a CA9 with a large rack, tuner, power conditioner, pre, etc...

I got rid of my pre/power setup thinking I was going to move to heads. I thought that out all wrong, so now I'm back to the modular setup. While I'm sure I will eventually replace my CA9, #1 on my list was a lightweight power amp that had enough juice for days. The PLX 2 1802 is fine for me, easy haul and I don't mind putting it in the same rack as my pre... only 1 trip for my rack.

I must say that I currently do not have a CA9 but I am keeping a deep 2 space rack around for the time when I put one back in the stable

 

[tombowlus]

I would love to find a lighter 2 space rack that fits the length of the CA-9, but I just haven't. Since I only use the CA-9 for gigs, I keep it in its own rack, and my UL502 sits in a Gator rack bag that I use for everything including gigs and rehearsals, so that I don't have to carry the CA-9 around to rehearsals and such. I got the rack pretty cheap, I think for about $50 here, and it fits the CA-9 great. It is a plywood Anvil ATA style rack, and weighs about 20-25lbs on its own. It is heavy, and makes the CA-9 feel even heavier, but it fits it great.

I actually have my CA9 in a 'generic' but very sturdy rack bag. It is quite light, but works great. I'll see if I can figure out who makes it.

 

[Tony G]

I have to say that the CA9 does sound better. If weight is a big factor then I'd suggest thinking over the 2.1 or 2502. There IS a sonic difference, no doubt. The question you really have to ask is...

Is the sonic difference worth the weight?

For me, I'd NEVER put a CA9 in anything but a 2 space rack on its own. The solo rack for the CA9 really helps in the transportation stages. I couldn't imagine hauling a CA9 with a large rack, tuner, power conditioner, pre, etc...

I got rid of my pre/power setup thinking I was going to move to heads. I thought that out all wrong, so now I'm back to the modular setup. While I'm sure I will eventually replace my CA9, #1 on my list was a lightweight power amp that had enough juice for days. The PLX 2 1802 is fine for me, easy haul and I don't mind putting it in the same rack as my pre... only 1 trip for my rack.

I must say that I currently do not have a CA9 but I am keeping a deep 2 space rack around for the time when I put one back in the stable

Ok, well knowing that you really like the CA-9, and you've gone to the 1802, is the difference in weight worth the sonic difference to you?

 

[Tony G]

I actually have my CA9 in a 'generic' but very sturdy rack bag. It is quite light, but works great. I'll see if I can figure out who makes it.

Please do. I haven't found any rack bags that are deep enough to hold the CA-9 without it sticking 5 inches out the back.

 

[tombowlus]

I love both the tone and the volume I get from the Stewart World 2.1.

The Stewart World 2.1 is my current favorite of the lightweight 'PA style' power amps. I have not tried the PLX series 2, though (but I'd love to test drive one some time).

Tom.

 

[Tony G]

The Stewart World 2.1 is my current favorite of the lightweight 'PA style' power amps. I have not tried the PLX series 2, though (but I'd love to test drive one some time).

Tom.

You would always choose the CA-9 over the Stewart 2.1 based on tone alone though?

 

[Zooberwerx]

I have a CA-6 loaded in a dedicated SKB case and, like the CA-9, its heavier than hell...or that's what my wife tells me when she's loading it into my pickup truck.

They're both keepers.

Riis

 

[tombowlus]

You would always choose the CA-9 over the Stewart 2.1 based on tone alone though?

Yes.

 

[CelinderMotoMan]

I have had
Crest Ca6, 9s and LT series
Crown Microtech 600 and 1200s
Stewart World 1.2s
QSC PLXs and USA900
Peavey CS800s
as well as stand alone heads like
Ampeg SVT 3
SWR Sm400s
The Creast CA9 is by far the best for tone. I am afraid that it is the heavy poweramps that deliver that tone that everyone craves. Those heavy transformers storing all of that power can't be beat.

 

[seakamp]

Ok, well knowing that you really like the CA-9, and you've gone to the 1802, is the difference in weight worth the sonic difference to you?

I have only gone to the 1802 due to weight/rack restrictions - I was also able to get my hands on the one I sold so I knew it was something I liked. I don't want to haul 2 racks around right now. A few months ago I had more gear(2-3 power amps, 2-3 preamps) and I was able to leave rigs a houses. I have since downsized and am hauling rigs around. Portability and cost were at the utmost importance in factoring my rig. If I would have the money to have a CA9 AND a 1802 I'd do that for sure.

I will be hauling a Navigator and a 1802 in a 4 space rack now. If I were to get my hands on a CA9... first off I don't have a 4 space rack that I could fit it in, even then I'd rather haul it in a 2 spacer. For me, it will be worth having a bit of tonal sacrifice for a 4 space rack rig that is easily transportable. Eventually I'll probably add another pre and a CA9. At that time I'll be back on top of the world with the best of both worlds. Till then I'm dealing with weight and financial constrictions the best way I can(note the "I" )

 

[Warr Tapper]

I guess what I'm wondering is, would anyone here ever recommend another power amp over the CA-9 based on tone alone?

anything by QSC or Stewart World

 

[Tony G]

anything by QSC or Stewart World

So your saying that you like the tone of QSC and Stewart amps better than the CA-9? May I ask why?

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Either one will work very well as a bass amp, but the CA9 has higher power ratings into 8 and 4 ohms.

The CA9 also has a maximum voltage gain of 86.5× (+38.7 dB), compared to the PLX2502's maximum of 50× (+34 dB). Higher gain is not an indicator of better quality in an amp, but it does make the amp sound louder (and therefore deeper, girthier, etc.) for a given input signal level, so it is often mistaken for one.

Transformers don't "store" power. Capacitors do.

 

[CelinderMotoMan]

anything by QSC or Stewart World

What?? I have owned both and the tone is nowhere near the Crest, both lack depth and warmth. The Stewart is close but I have owned 2 that have had, and heard of others that have had technical issues. I have switched to Thunderfunk amps.

 

[Jeff A]

The Stewart is close but I have owned 2 and heard of others that have had technical issues.

Did you have any problems with yours? I read about some issues with the smaller ones but haven't seen too many issues reported on the 2.1.

I picked up a 2.1 recently because of its lighter weight. My neck is much happier now.

 

[Tony G]

Either one will work very well as a bass amp, but the CA9 has higher power ratings into 8 and 4 ohms.

The CA9 also has a maximum voltage gain of 86.5× (+38.7 dB), compared to the PLX2502's maximum of 50× (+34 dB). Higher gain is not an indicator of better quality in an amp, but it does make the amp sound louder (and therefore deeper, girthier, etc.) for a given input signal level, so it is often mistaken for one.

Transformers don't "store" power. Capacitors do.

If I understand this right, then essentially wouldn't my UL502 be fine alone, but I just need to up the gain or volume a bit more? Yet I do perceive a slight deficit in punching my signal out there, that seems to be picked up nicely by the CA-9. The last gig I played with my CA-9, I had my "perceived" volume lower than I usually do with my band, yet I seemed to cut through better. This is in a room I've played numerous times before with just my UL502. What am I perceiving different? Trust me, if I don't have to carry around the beast of an amp to get the tone and "cutting" ability that I want, that would be what I really want. I prefer simplicity.