QSC Amps ROCK!!!

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by atomic_turtle, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. atomic_turtle


    Jun 22, 2003
    Dracut, MA
    Ok, well i bought a new QSC RMX1850 new in original box for 400 about 2wks ago and havent been able to use it because I didnt have the correct speakon cable and I was too lazy to order one online :rolleyes: . Any how I finally found a store that had NL4fc Neutrick conector and made my own peakon to speakon cable using 12ga speaker wire. I tried the amp in a loud band practice session today in bridged mono mode and it kicked some serious a**!!!!!!! :hyper: :hyper: :bassist:

    This thing was hella loud compared to my crest and I didn't even need to push it to clipping to get the loudness that I needed. I just wanted to say thanks to all the people that recommend QSC and I can safely say that after my experience with my small ampeg head and the low line crest it will always be QSC for me. Thanks for letting me rave a bit and to Bob Lee you guys make a sweet product! :bassist:
  2. Razor


    Sep 22, 2002
    You pushing the Senior with the QSC bridged? Am I correct to assume you had been pushing the Senior with the Crest?
    The QSC pushes the Senior to a noticeably higher level eh??
    (<---inches closer to getting a QSC) :D
  3. I picked up a used QSC USA 900 to compliment my B2r power section and now I don't even use the B2r power section anymore. Don't need it.
  4. atomic_turtle


    Jun 22, 2003
    Dracut, MA
    Yes to all of the above Crest and QSC were run bridged into the Senior and I was using the B2R as a preamp. Even my band mates were surprised the difference in loudness that this amp made. I honestly could not believe the difference because the crest is rated at like 500w per channel 1500w bridged for a 4 ohm cabinet and the RMX1850 is rated at 600w per channel and 1800w bridged for a 4 ohm cabinet. Both amps were new too. I was satisfied but a little disappointed with the apparent loudness of the crest plus it seemed to get wicked hot in the bridged mode with the fan running on high all the time. In comparison the qsc was warm and the fan seemed to stay on low speed the whole time. Anyway one week after i bought this crest a guy on ebay was selling like 4 RMX 1850's and some QSC 2000 series amps and I was able to snag this new in factory selaed box for like 400bucks not including shipping. So I couldnt pass this deal up for the QSC that everyone raves about and I can vouch for everything they say. Its clean loudnessis great and we practice way too loud with a heavy drummer and a guitarist who has a Line 6 halfstack and amp that is hella loud. If a good deal comes by you on a QSC amp I would not hesitate buying one. That is my opinion.
  5. john turner

    john turner You don't want to do that. Trust me. Staff Member Administrator

    Mar 14, 2000
    atlanta ga
    yes, yes they do. aguilar db680->qsc plx3002. :hyper:
  6. I concur. I use the 1850HD as well and it rocks. I use it with Ampeg SVT 410 HE (8 ohms) and I do not have to bridge it to get the power I need to play with my band. It pushes 360 watts into 8 ohms when not bridged and I can still be heard over my conga player and drummer. Rarely have I boosted the gain over half way. Me and my band are happy.

    I think these amps are very hard to beat for the price.
  7. fast slapper

    fast slapper

    Dec 11, 2001
    Fresno, CA
    To be fair to Crest, the CPX series is actually just a renamed Peavy PV series amp.
  8. I like everything about the 1850HD--except the weight, that mofo is heavy. Wish I could've afforded a lighter model.

    But for lots of oomph in a well made amp, can't beat it for the price!!!
  9. GRoberts

    GRoberts Supporting Member

    Jan 7, 2003
    Tucson, AZ USA
    Does the PLX series amp perform any differently than the RMX series? I'm wondering what performance or sonic differences might exist between your 1850 versus something like the PLX1602 or PLX2402? Are the PLX series better for Bass than the RMX series? or is it mostly a design/weight difference?
  10. I think the primary difference is the design of the power supply section, the PLX apparently uses a switchmode power supply instead of a linear (translation: the RMX has a heavy power transformer, the PLX doesn't). I don't know about the amp's topology, Bob Lee can answer that if he sees this post.

    In an earlier thread Mr. Lee pointed out that the 1850HD was specifically well adapted for 2 ohm loads because of the large size of its heat sink (it used the same heat sink as its bigger brother).
  11. lo-freq

    lo-freq aka UFO

    Jan 19, 2003
    The Republic of Texas
    Sonic differences should be nil.
    The main difference is weight as the PLX use switching power supplies.
    Also, the RMX are built overseas.
    The RMX HD models are 'over-engineered' to be a bit hardier to handle abuse.
    I was planning on getting the RMX1850HD when I bought my rig. No one in Dallas had any in stock and Larry Morgan Music made me a pretty good deal on my whole rig with a PLX1602 (I ended up trading in a Fender Blackface Vibro-Champ guitar amp to get it back into my cash price range of what I had to shop with).
    I think the 1850HD is a great amp, but my back sure likes the PLX.
  12. Bob Lee (QSC)

    Bob Lee (QSC) In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio! Gold Supporting Member Commercial User

    Jul 3, 2001
    Costa Mesa, Calif.
    Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
    Conventional power supplies aren't linear. ;)

    The audio circuitry in the PLX amps--mainly, the bias circuitry and the clip limiter--is a bit more sophisticated and better-performing than in the RMX amps, but it would be hard to audibly hear the difference.

    You're correct about the difference with the HD models. Each one (RMX 1850HD and RMX 4050HD) share a chassis, fan, heat sink, circuit boards, et al, with a higher-power model (the RMX 2450 and RMX 5050, respectively). But when you have less power to dissipate but the same cooling capacity, you have an amp that is less likely to overheat when pushed hard. But because it has less power, the point at which you would consider it "pushed hard" is lower than with the higher-power models. That's the trade-off.
  13. ZuluFunk

    ZuluFunk Supporting Member

    Apr 14, 2001
    You, Sir, are Correct!!!

    Warwick Quadrupplet>QSC RMX-2450
  14. OK. If you had a 1850HD and a 2450, which one would get hotter when putting say 1800 watts continous at 4 ohms bridged?
  15. Bob Lee (QSC)

    Bob Lee (QSC) In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio! Gold Supporting Member Commercial User

    Jul 3, 2001
    Costa Mesa, Calif.
    Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
    What you describe is a test bench situation, like with a continuous sine wave test tone.

    Of the two, the RMX 1850HD would run a little cooler than the RMX 2450, but unlike the RMX 2450, it wouldn't be able to put out any more without clipping.