• 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 vs crown power amps?

#22
Kael said:
To which I reply "Nyah nyah, I have a MA2402 and you don't!" Seriously, it's the best power amp I've ever owned/used/seen a picture of. It is however VERY pricey, and may not be price competitive for some people. Diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

Kael, how many times do I have to tell you that I hate you?!? ;) :D

One day, one will be mine, -oh yes.....:D
 
#24
Poon,

LOL! Honestly, it is a very hi-fi item that can do any ohm rating without a sweat. It's crystal clear & has unlimited low-end wallop. I was only considering a Crown Reference series(more $$$ & bigger), but, they won't do 2ohm loads...I'm happy with my MA...

cheers,
~S~

PS: Shop around, there seems to be some big price differences with new units...
 
#26
Sorry Mr. Circle, but maybe you were'nt aware that the Power-Tech 3 is [and I Quote] "Safe with all types of load Impedances: rated for 4 to 8 ohms in stereo, 8 to 16 ohms in Bridged Mono, and 2 to 4 ohms in Parallel Mono Mode"; I'M reading from my original Reference Manual which came with the amp when I bought it. I believe you can also down load these same specs directly from Crown's Website.
 
#27
Had to go there, didn't you? :rolleyes:

Crest was an independent company that developed innumerable acclaimed amps well before Peavey came along. Yes, Peavey has benefitted from entry-level Crest designs that are dual-marketed beside the Peavey label. But the pro-stuff, including the CA series are stilll unbeatable at the price point. You CAN pay more and get a LITTLE better, but doesn't the fact that we're comparing the CA-9 to the 2402 say something in itself? It's like a Sterling going toe-to-toe with an MTD435.

At the end of the day, would you really complain if Peavey was handling your business distribution and customer service processes? They're about the best there is at both! To wit--who did better after a buy-out...SWR...or Crest?

Munjibunga said:
Since no one has bothered to mention it yet, Crest is owned by Peavey. Oh, not that there's anything wrong with that, but ...
Click to expand...
 
#28
Munjibunga said:
Since no one has bothered to mention it yet, Crest is owned by Peavey. Oh, not that there's anything wrong with that, but ...
Click to expand...

O.K., that's it. Munji has helped me make my decision; I'm scapping buying an MTD-635 or a Lull PJ5 until I can get my Crown Macro-Tech!!! :D


O.T. Seriously, I can't say I ever had a single reliability problem with any of the Peavey gear I owned back in the day, and I beat the living daylights out of all of them, including a CS400 and CS800 power amp. I can only hope my CA-9 will be as bulletproof. :bassist:
 
#29
I have a crown macro 1200 with a vintage alembic F2B preamp.. nothing sounds like it... incredible.. I have used BGW 750s, QSC in the past but the crown is the real thing.. never got to use a crest.. I also have a Carvin DCM1500 that really sound good for the price, but nothing has the fast punch that i hear in the crown
 
#31
4runner said:
"Safe with all types of load Impedances: rated for 4 to 8 ohms in stereo, 8 to 16 ohms in Bridged Mono, and 2 to 4 ohms in Parallel Mono Mode"
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. If the amp is rated "8 to 16 ohms in Bridged Mono" then you could only safely power a 4 ohm cab like the NV610 using one side of the amp, no?
 
#32
arbitrary said:
so which again would be better matched for the nv610 : the ca9 or ca6?
Thanks
Click to expand...
If you're fixed on getting a Crest CA9 or CA6, what will your NV610 handle at it's ohm rating and then it's a matter of enough output for some good headroom. It's obviouse that the CA6 will be less in watts and price. IMO, you can never go wrong with more headroom, it's depends on will you ever need it.
 
#34
Psycho Bass Guy said:
BTW, Macro-Techs and Micro-Techs are the SAME amps; the price difference comes from the Macro-Techs having the ability to accept Crown Network and PIP computer controller cards. If you don't need that or the big knobs in front, save the extra money and get a Micro.
Click to expand...

This is why I got the Micro Tech 1200, the Macro wasn't necessary nor was the extra wattage in headroom of a 2400, so I saved some money, the MT1200 was more than enough, so might it be for you with the CA6.
 
#35
mrcircle said:
Exactly my point. If the amp is rated "8 to 16 ohms in Bridged Mono" then you could only safely power a 4 ohm cab like the NV610 using one side of the amp, no?
Click to expand...
Please Read a little further, from the Quoted Specs MrCircle, The Power Tech 3 Also Boasts of being capable of 2 and 4 ohms in "Parallel Mono" Mode; Which is Bridging the Left, And Right Channels to deliver 1,500 watts into 2 ohms, or, 1,080 watts into 4 ohms, which [IMO], would be great with the NV 610 cab. That being said, what do you think?:hyper:
 
#37
4runner said:
Please Read a little further, from the Quoted Specs MrCircle, The Power Tech 3 Also Boasts of being capable of 2 and 4 ohms in "Parallel Mono" Mode; Which is Bridging the Left, And Right Channels to deliver 1,500 watts into 2 ohms, or, 1,080 watts into 4 ohms, which [IMO], would be great with the NV 610 cab. That being said, what do you think?:hyper:
Click to expand...

Yes, "parallel mono" (single input-->dual output) is different from "bridged mono" (single input-->single output). Only the bridged mode lets you use the combined wattage with a single cabinet.
 
#38
mrcircle said:
Yes, "parallel mono" (single input-->dual output) is different from "bridged mono" (single input-->single output). Only the bridged mode lets you use the combined wattage with a single cabinet.
Click to expand...

Crown amps (most of them, anyway) have a unique way of doing parallel mono. It disables the negative feedback loop on one channel, and you connect the outputs together in parallel. This gives the same output voltage capability but doubles the current capability, which is suitable for low load impedances.

In this sense, "parallel mono" is the truly parallel counterpart to the series configuration that "bridged mono" is.
 
#39
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
Crown amps (most of them, anyway) have a unique way of doing parallel mono. It disables the negative feedback loop on one channel, and you connect the outputs together in parallel. This gives the same output voltage capability but doubles the current capability, which is suitable for low load impedances.

In this sense, "parallel mono" is the truly parallel counterpart to the series configuration that "bridged mono" is.
Click to expand...

So did I get it wrong, Bob? How does that translate into the actual number of watts available to drive a single 4 ohm cab like the NV? Is it the same as with bridged mono? :confused:
 
#40
Bob Lee (QSC) said:
Crown amps (most of them, anyway) have a unique way of doing parallel mono. It disables the negative feedback loop on one channel, and you connect the outputs together in parallel. This gives the same output voltage capability but doubles the current capability, which is suitable for low load impedances.

In this sense, "parallel mono" is the truly parallel counterpart to the series configuration that "bridged mono" is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Bob, I was having a Little difficulty Explaining Crown's definition of running Parallel Mono; which is ln essence, combining the sum total of channels,one, and two, and running the two amps together as one @ 2 or 4 ohms. I remeber that my CA9, when in parallel mode, was more like stereo mode; you'd feed channel A input, and drive channels A and B speaker loads separately.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back