QSC or Peavey (1 Viewer)

[SteveCallas]

Looking for an amp for my subwoofer - it will need about 400-500 watts at 4ohm. I've narrowed it down to the QSC RMX 1450 and the Peavey PV 1500. I know the reputation QSC has for quality and durability, but I don't know much about Peavey. Both are about the same weight, both are an AB class amp, QSC delivers 450 watts, Peavey delivers 500 watts, both have variable speed fans, both are solid down to 6hz, both are $400 new, basically on paper they seem equal.

I just don't know much about Peavey and would like to hear from some who do. If not, I know the QSC is a safe bet.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Steve,

As it seems you already know, QSC generally has a better reputation than Peavey, but that’s more relevant to professional users in demanding sound reinforcement or touring applications than home theater users. Home theater buffs regularly use even low-end pro amps like Behringer and Samson in their installations with no problems, so I don’t see any reason to prefer the QSC over the Peavey, except perhaps for status. Not that that's not worth something...

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[EvanW]

ive done pro audio for alittle while, peavey makes good amps, same for QSC, and if u havent looked yamaha makes good ones also, they tend to cost alittle more but bang for buck the crown XLS series is the way to go.

 

[SteveCallas]

Yeah I have looked at the Crown XLS, but it doesn't have variable speed fans, it's not very good really down low, and it weighs about half as much as the QSC. I guess I'll stick with the QSC.

 

[Leo Kerr]

I have absolutely nothing to go on with this, but in our touring rig, and then at work (a hobby job and a 'day' job here,) we've used QSC and Crown.

There's something about Peavey that makes me leery, and I have absolutely nothing to go on against them.

On the other hand, I've never had any trouble with any of the Crowns or QSCs... and some of the Crowns have been in daily operation for twelve years, averaging 9 hours/day.

Leo

 

[EvanW]

give u a example weve been using a peavey powered mixer , me and the ones before me scince 1979. daily.

 

[Leo Kerr]

As I tried to imply above, and I don't think I did a good job, I have no idea where my bias against Peavey came from; all I know is that it appears to be there.

Still, even if, in the interest of fairness, eliminate QSC, Crown, and Peavey, just because I've mentioned them at all, there are still a lot of very nice amplifiers out on the market...

Leo

 

[SteveCallas]

I think I know what you're talking about in regards to being leery of Peavey. It's just that you don't hear much if anything about them, whereas Crown, QSC, or even Mackie are pretty much the standard. I can't ask for more out of a $400 amp than what the QSC will deliver, so I will just go with that.

Once I shift my focus onto a pre pro and amps, I might decide to go with QSC RMX 1450s all around.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Mackie amps a standard? Hardly. Don’t know if things have changed recently, but I’ve never heard pro users say anything good about them. Apparently they had (or perhaps still have) some serious design flaws.

As far as standards go, even the “big-dog” name brands like Crown, Crest and QSC have their budget lines. Just keep that in mind and don’t expect the same performance from the RMX-1450 as the megabuck models the touring elites use.

By the way, another “bang for the buck” brand you might want to look in to is Carvin, which has the advantage of selling manufacturer direct so you eliminate the dealer mark up. Their DCM1500 is the same price you’re quoting for the RMX-1450, but it’s rated for 500 watts @ 4-ohms RMS (i.e., two-channel continuous) not EIA (i.e., a single channel at 1kHz) like the 1450. It’s a know fact that the less-strenuous EIA rating inflates power ratings by up to 20%. (All of QSC’s other amps are RMS-rated, by the way.)

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[SteveCallas]

Hey Wayne, thanks a lot for the Carvin suggestion. It looks like a pretty nice amp. I hadn't even noticed that the QSC was not 450 watts RMS, although I wouldn't be needing that much for my sub anyway.

Called them to get some more info and ended up in a bit of an argument with one of their salesmen, lol. I asked what the 3db low frequency dropoff point was and he said 20hz. I said I needed lower than that and he said no I don't because subs don't go that low. I told him mine will be solid down to 14hz and he basically said it was a waste because I can't hear it and nothing goes that low! =)

Anyway, I checked the manual and it's actually only 1.5db off at 10hz, which is good.

I also found the HD1800 for $279.00. Made from the same exact internals as the DCM1500 and delivers 600 watts x2 RMS continuous. They said the only differences are that the HD1800 doesn't have speakon outputs and doesn't have a clip limiter circuit. Also, it is on sale which is why it only costs $279. I think I will jump on that. Any other opinions before I do?

 

[EvanW]

as wayne stated peavey more than holds there own, we once had a girl bring in some powered 3 way mackie towers, the active series those did sound sweet hehe.never used mackie otherwise.

 

[SteveCallas]

Well I think I am pretty set on the Carvin hd1800 unless someone knows something about Carvin that would make me change my mind. 600 watts x2 continuous rms, variable speed fans, good damping, good slew rate, good down low, only $279.

I doubt the lack of a clip limiter will affect me much considering my sub won't draw anywhere near 600 watts unless I crank it up to insane levels.

 

[Leo Kerr]

...and for most settings, lacking speakon connectors isn't really a drawback - especially if it has standard binding posts.

Leo