Amps available today ?

Because switch mode psu I’ve had in the past didn’t like generators the sae amps didn’t like generators either but never had an issue with the transformer amps

Edited by martinsson - 13 December 2019 at 8:45pm

levyte357- wrote: Elliot Thompson wrote: levyte357- wrote: C-Audiofreak wrote: Performance and reliability as well as longevity not bothered on weight prefer a transformer rather than switch mode psu  Why ? QSC CX1102  more  power, lighter, sounds just as good as MA2400 - Lightweight, Cheap QSC PL4        matches MA3600VZ For Kick (Not sub) Void Infinite   8MK2, blows away MA3600VZ/MA5000VZ on sub With the exception of the CX 1102 (Which cannot touch the Crown MA 2400 for bass) all the other amplifiers are discontinued. Best Regards, All the amps I mentioned, are easily obtainable in the UK. And anyone using Crown MA2400 on sub, in 21st century, needs more than help.

Ever so slightly OT, but still connected to the topic, in the other end of the cable I see the oposite situation, since power became cheap, or cheaper when compared to what you had to pay for ~2kW/Ch in the early nineties, loudspeaker development towards high efficiency started to decline.

martinsson wrote: Ever so slightly OT, but still connected to the topic, in the other end of the cable I see the oposite situation, since power became cheap, or cheaper when compared to what you had to pay for ~2kW/Ch in the early nineties, loudspeaker development towards high efficiency started to decline. My thinking is that this has lead to the current state of affairs where all but a very few offer anything but stock standard inefficient surfacemounted designs with the subs tuned down to the borderline infrasonic, which apart from being excedingly booring soundwise (according to me) also does harm to the definition, punch and details of the presentation. Sorry about this little OT adventure, just had to write that even if it makes me come across as old and grumphy ;) (I'm really not)

I disagree. Efficiencies were able to be found elsewhere because power was a ‘solved problem’

Much of the old ‘efficient’ cabinets or designs lauded by those with rose tinted nostalgia glasses have horrendous levels of distortion, bad pattern control, exhibit pattern flip, have poor frequency extension, and lack time coherence. Issues that become much more prominent when deployed in large arrays.

That’s not to say they were bad designs. They weren’t. They were great foundations to build upon.

These are all areas that have seen immense focus and improvement in the past 20 years. If you think sound was ‘better back then’ you’re living in a nostalgia narrative. I do think that maybe things have gone too far into ‘turnkey’ with the term ‘engineer’ being misapplied to many FOH guys these days, but there is no denying that progress has been made. Especially in terms of coverage. There is no excuse for ‘cheap seats’.

Audio is a set of compromises, that an ‘engineer’ is willing to CHOOSE to make. It may seem that we have chosen to sacrifice a lot for convenience in the major leagues, but there is also quite a lot to achieving that convenience. I think this is the difference between people who actively work in the research side of the industry and those who are users or punters. It all seems like nothing is done but there is a lot - after all, if you do your job well in sound, it should be invisible and all the focus given to the performer.

Edited by toastyghost - 14 December 2019 at 8:28am