PA System with Bass?

[Stinga1990]

ok, so I'm interested in this topic as I'm putting together a small/med sized PA and have been following certain Live Sound topics on TB. I have no strong feelings about manufacturers either way. I'm focused on a full live music rig and not just for bass reproduction ... for which I greatly prefer a bass specific rig (in my case a Mesa WD800 into a selection of Berg cabs depending on needs). I have tried to use PA cabs in the past, going all the way back to some passive JBL 2-way boxes in the 80's, and I have never liked that kind of "flat-ish, monitor clean" kind of sound.

I'm sure the Yamaha stuff is good. right along with the QSC and the other prosumer stuff thats available today. I'm wondering how the the DXR15MkII blows the QSC K12.2 away.
Spec wise they are pretty close:
DXR15MkII: 49Hz-20kHz @ -10db, 1100w total, 700w continuous (600w LF, 100w HF) 134dB peak SPL
QSC K12.2: 45Hz-20kHz @ - 10db, 50Hz-20kHz @ -6db, 2000w total, 1800w LF, 225w HF, 132dB peak SPL

Purely spec wise, it would appear that the QSC out guns the Yamaha in available power and Frequency coverage at the -10 dB mark (Yamaha does not list the -6dB range for its product which may be a more meaningful spec for use as a bass cab), but the Yamaha has a 2dB peak SPL value over the QSC. Seems pretty close to me.

I can see where someone would like the sound of one box over another just from trusting their ears (not a bad way to judge of course), but I'm wondering how one of these boxes could "blow away" the other.

On paper it really does look like it should be the other way around. Break down the specs on the website, and the QSC only has an extra 300w RMS going to the main woofer. 900w RMS into a 12 inch vs 600w RMS into a 15 inch. Yamaha are also more conservative with their specs. I also felt from testing them that much of the extra power is responsible for the QSC having a similar low end frequency response via DSP. The Yamaha seems to get a lot of its response from the cabinet. In practice the Yamaha is the louder more efficient speaker and it sounds bigger, and puts out it's low end more effortlessly. Watts only tell part of the story

 

[Stinga1990]

The QSC also sounds compressed on the lowest notes. I play a 5 string, and the Yamaha just sounded more natural and full. It will outgun any small 115 combo and could probably carry a small gig. The QSC simply isn't as efficient as it's constrained by the small speaker and cab. Still the best powered 12 pa speaker for bass though.

 

[Stinga1990]

ok, so I'm interested in this topic as I'm putting together a small/med sized PA and have been following certain Live Sound topics on TB. I have no strong feelings about manufacturers either way. I'm focused on a full live music rig and not just for bass reproduction ... for which I greatly prefer a bass specific rig (in my case a Mesa WD800 into a selection of Berg cabs depending on needs). I have tried to use PA cabs in the past, going all the way back to some passive JBL 2-way boxes in the 80's, and I have never liked that kind of "flat-ish, monitor clean" kind of sound.

I'm sure the Yamaha stuff is good. right along with the QSC and the other prosumer stuff thats available today. I'm wondering how the the DXR15MkII blows the QSC K12.2 away.
Spec wise they are pretty close:
DXR15MkII: 49Hz-20kHz @ -10db, 1100w total, 700w continuous (600w LF, 100w HF) 134dB peak SPL
QSC K12.2: 45Hz-20kHz @ - 10db, 50Hz-20kHz @ -6db, 2000w total, 1800w LF, 225w HF, 132dB peak SPL

Purely spec wise, it would appear that the QSC out guns the Yamaha in available power and Frequency coverage at the -10 dB mark (Yamaha does not list the -6dB range for its product which may be a more meaningful spec for use as a bass cab), but the Yamaha has a 2dB peak SPL value over the QSC. Seems pretty close to me.

I can see where someone would like the sound of one box over another just from trusting their ears (not a bad way to judge of course), but I'm wondering how one of these boxes could "blow away" the other.

I don't like the clean monitor sound either, which is basically a clean di feed amplified. I run a preamp/di pedal with the Yamaha that has drive, eq, and impulse response loading. If bass is going to be di I'd rather a pure monitor for reference of what foh is getting as opposed to a traditional bass rig being a glorified monitor who's sound never makes it to the foh in any shape or form.

 

[agedhorse]

ok, so I'm interested in this topic as I'm putting together a small/med sized PA and have been following certain Live Sound topics on TB. I have no strong feelings about manufacturers either way. I'm focused on a full live music rig and not just for bass reproduction ... for which I greatly prefer a bass specific rig (in my case a Mesa WD800 into a selection of Berg cabs depending on needs). I have tried to use PA cabs in the past, going all the way back to some passive JBL 2-way boxes in the 80's, and I have never liked that kind of "flat-ish, monitor clean" kind of sound.

I'm sure the Yamaha stuff is good. right along with the QSC and the other prosumer stuff thats available today. I'm wondering how the the DXR15MkII blows the QSC K12.2 away.
Spec wise they are pretty close:
DXR15MkII: 49Hz-20kHz @ -10db, 1100w total, 700w continuous (600w LF, 100w HF) 134dB peak SPL
QSC K12.2: 45Hz-20kHz @ - 10db, 50Hz-20kHz @ -6db, 2000w total, 1800w LF, 225w HF, 132dB peak SPL

Purely spec wise, it would appear that the QSC out guns the Yamaha in available power and Frequency coverage at the -10 dB mark (Yamaha does not list the -6dB range for its product which may be a more meaningful spec for use as a bass cab), but the Yamaha has a 2dB peak SPL value over the QSC. Seems pretty close to me.

I can see where someone would like the sound of one box over another just from trusting their ears (not a bad way to judge of course), but I'm wondering how one of these boxes could "blow away" the other.

Just note that the power of both of these speakers is not really "continuous RMS" as both speakers are not rated like a true amplifier because of the DSP dynamics processing protection algorithms used. Also, the QSC power is based on peak metrics, so it's ~900 watts "RMS" but again, in practice these numbers can't be achieved due to how the protective limiting is applied (and this is a VERY good thing, it gets more performance out of each box with less risk of a user damaging the speaker).

 

[Stinga1990]

Just note that the power of both of these speakers is not really "continuous RMS" as both speakers are not rated like a true amplifier because of the DSP dynamics processing protection algorithms used. Also, the QSC power is based on peak metrics, so it's ~900 watts "RMS" but again, in practice these numbers can't be achieved due to how the protective limiting is applied (and this is a VERY good thing, it gets more performance out of each box with less risk of a user damaging the speaker).

I do wish I understood what you meant by that. I simply let my ears be the judge and the DXR15 was by far the best off the shelf powered speaker in its price range. It sounds very very natural with an impulse response feeding it and has no issues with the transients of bass playing. Takes preamps and cabsims like a pro and hits like a bass amp. Most powered speakers are terrible for this application as the drivers just aren't up to the task, as you pointed out earlier in the thread. The yamaha seems to be a glorious exception to that rule. I've only used it in rehearsals so far, but it wasn't cranked by any means and my guitarist thought the tone was coming from the ampeg combo next to it. He is real old school about amplification and he wouldn't stop raving about it. The real test will be gigs when they come back.

 

[Yahboy]

Hotone thunder bass > mixer > PA , nice bass tone.

Hotone thunder bass > Edifier S350DB , surprisingly nice bass tone along with big low end and wider tone range than bass combo below 100watts.

 

[agedhorse]

I do wish I understood what you meant by that. I simply let my ears be the judge and the DXR15 was by far the best off the shelf powered speaker in its price range. It sounds very very natural with an impulse response feeding it and has no issues with the transients of bass playing. Takes preamps and cabsims like a pro and hits like a bass amp. Most powered speakers are terrible for this application as the drivers just aren't up to the task, as you pointed out earlier in the thread. The yamaha seems to be a glorious exception to that rule. I've only used it in rehearsals so far, but it wasn't cranked by any means and my guitarist thought the tone was coming from the ampeg combo next to it. He is real old school about amplification and he wouldn't stop raving about it. The real test will be gigs when they come back.

I never said that it wouldn’t work or be a good choice. I was simply commenting on the numbers as it’s a confusing issue related mostly to the marketing that now surrounds powered PA cabinets.

 

[eccles77]

How deep do you find the lows. I had read that the low end on RCFs drops sharply around 80hz in order to pair with the subs. The 315 I tried was certainly lacking in that regard. Sounded too tight. Mid range and highs were buttery smooth and detailed though.

Like I say, it`s going to get a good going over on Tuesday night. It was 18 months ago that I last used it in anger and it did ok. I imagine that the 7 series will able to handle more lows than the 3 series. I would hope so anyway as there is quite a difference in price.

 

[Stinga1990]

I never said that it wouldn’t work or be a good choice. I was simply commenting on the numbers as it’s a confusing issue related mostly to the marketing that now surrounds powered PA cabinets.

I understand. I'd be curious to learn. I've been reading some other threads on power, is it the difference between continuous and RMS Power that causes the confusion?

 

[agedhorse]

I understand. I'd be curious to learn. I've been reading some other threads on power, is it the difference between continuous and RMS Power that causes the confusion?

Yes, no and partially maybe.

Continuous it a time based measurement, RMS is an amplitude based measurement. By manipulating the metrics of the same measurement, along with protective dynamics processing can result in an identical signal giving very different numbers.

 

[Stinga1990]

Like I say, it`s going to get a good going over on Tuesday night. It was 18 months ago that I last used it in anger and it did ok. I imagine that the 7 series will able to handle more lows than

Yes, no and partially maybe.

Continuous it a time based measurement, RMS is an amplitude based measurement. By manipulating the metrics of the same measurement, along with protective dynamics processing can result in an identical signal giving very different numbers.

Is there a way for me to find out what the true RMS rating is? Just to satisfy my curiosity?

 

[NoiseNinja]

As long as you are aware that not all PA speakers have good enough low end response to reproduce the lowest notes of the bass properly and that a full range PA speaker won't roll off the high frequencies like a bass cab without a high frequency tweeter build in typically would.

I personally use a full range PA speaker with proper low end response from it's 300W 15" woofer/mid range driver with an internal crossover that feeds it's 100W 1.7" horn with everything from the upper upper mid range and beyond, and everything bellow to the 15" unit (I think the crossover is set just above 2kHz (my best guess is somewhere between 2kHz and 2.5kHz)), driven by a poweramp section of a guitar amp, which my "ampless" setup goes into, including a faux, EQ based, cabinet simulation, which is basically just a HPF rolling off the high end of my signal above 3.4 kHz or so, plus some additional minor EQ adjustments, ending with a preamp that has it's HPF activated, fixed at 40Hz, and I am extremely satisfied with the result.

The idea and advantage with this approach behind this is that I will get a fairly consistent approximately identical tone from my rig weather I practice with a good pair of headphones at home, recording DI, go through my poweramp and full range PA speaker at band practice, or go through a given venue's PA when gigging.

And I even use a PA speaker which would be considered a budget solution, namely the PA 502 model of the Thomann The Box brand, as said being equipped with a 300W 1x 15" speaker unit + a 100W 1 x 1.7" horn, giving it an overall power rating of 300W (since the high frequencies demands much less from a speaker to be reproduced (beside me having cut a good deal of the very high end to begin with)), but to my ears it sounds great, has approximately flat frequency response and excellent low end representation, all way down to the low E of a 4 string bass (Rated frequency response is 35Hz to 20kHz (-10dB)/45Hz to 18kHz (-3dB), which is lower than even some fairly high end dedicated bass cabs).

In fact it sounds better and have better low frequency representation than my SWR Triad I cab (1 x15" + 1x 10" + Tweeter horn).

And the PA 502 full range PA speaker even has a, admittedly not great, but still quite decent sensitivity of 96dB SPL @1W/1M, vs. the 98dB SPL @1W/1M sensitivity rating of the SWR cab.

 

[agedhorse]

Is there a way for me to find out what the true RMS rating is? Just to satisfy my curiosity?

Not easily, because the dynamics management is quite complicated and hard to measure accurately.

 

[Redbrangus]

Is there a way for me to find out what the true RMS rating is? Just to satisfy my curiosity?

Like @agedhorse said, it wouldn't be easy to ascertain, if it's even possible, because all those systems rely so heavily on processing to milk the last drop of performance from such small, relatively inexpensive packages. To that, I'll add, it's not really important -- the difference between 500 and 700 watts, for instance, is less than 1.5dB. And there's no viable way to compare specs between different manufacturers, as the techniques used to arrive at these marketing-driven numbers vary so widely as to render comparisons on that basis unreliable...at best.

I've never even tried to play a bass through one, but in my work I've used a lot of powered, 2-way PA speakers small enough to go on a tripod. Almost without exception, I'd say that if one of those units would work for you, a $300, 100--200-watt combo would probably serve as well, at least as far as the 'oomph' is concerned. I guess I could see using one if you thought your sound depended on a lot of HF content. Mine doesn't.

 

[agedhorse]

Like @agedhorse said, it wouldn't be easy to ascertain, if it's even possible, because all those systems rely so heavily on processing to milk the last drop of performance from such small, relatively inexpensive packages. To that, I'll add, it's not really important -- the difference between 500 and 700 watts, for instance, is less than 1.5dB. And there's no viable way to compare specs between different manufacturers, as the techniques used to arrive at these marketing-driven numbers vary so widely as to render comparisons on that basis unreliable...at best.

I've never even tried to play a bass through one, but in my work I've used a lot of powered, 2-way PA speakers small enough to go on a tripod. Almost without exception, I'd say that if one of those units would work for you, a $300, 100--200-watt combo would probably serve as well, at least as far as the 'oomph' is concerned. I guess I could see using one if you thought your sound depended on a lot of HF content. Mine doesn't.

In some cases though, it's the difference between 500 watts and 2000 watts, something that the marketing guys salivate over.

 

[Stinga1990]

In some cases though, it's the difference between 500 watts and 2000 watts, something that the marketing guys salivate over.

The marketing sure is creative. I didn't rely on it at all, just my ears, and every powered cab I tried except the DXR15 just didn't cut the mustard.

 

[agedhorse]

The marketing sure is creative. I didn't rely on it at all, just my ears, and every powered cab I tried except the DXR15 just didn't cut the mustard.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply stating that the numbers themselves bear no relationship to reality without the metrics that the numbers come from. If you are comparing products based on the power numbers, it's only fair to compare using the same metrics, otherwise it's highly misleading.