I'm tired of people shilling QSC amps in this newsgroup.
These amps sound awful.
It's ironic that the ABXers would discredit themselves by choosing QSC as
their "poster amp".
If they want a poster amp, surely there are better choices. Parasound's
larger amps have been mentioned as giant killers.
But QSC? NOT.
QSC makes junky, workaday amps for sound reinforcement. Great for rockers
listening to killowatts at 200 meters. Venue amplification is an entirely
different thing from hifi, as anyone who has ever been to a concert knows.

Special amps for "special people."

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.

"Robert Morein" said:

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.


Real men DIY their amps :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.


Real men DIY their amps :-)

Some would say tubes are for girlie men

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.

When jused with normal speakers at normal levels, they should be more than
adequate and sonically transparent.

" wrote in
message
link.net
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and
sold purpose, which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a
HOW organ and PA integrated system that used three of
them in "straight" mode and one other used as a rotating
speaker driver. Sounded great. As a hi-fi amp they are
probably better than some of the
**** sold thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly
deficient when used with high efficiency speakers at low
volumes. In other words, they sound just lie a Mcintosh
MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
When jused with normal speakers at normal levels, they
should be more than adequate and sonically transparent.

QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
sighted testing.

"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound,

If the mega watt amp is flat with low distorion and noise over it's
operatiing range, as most are, then it certainly could. SS amps I've seen
measured are usually flat over their oeprating range until they get to the
limit of their max power, tehn they start to go through the roof.

If you had something like the QSC putting out 700 wpc into 8 ohms and you
know you will never need it deliver anything near that for more than a few
milliseconds, it would indeed be quality sound. Certianly better than a 150
WPC amp being driven to clipping frequently, which probably happens more
often than people realize.


but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

In what sense do you mean properly mate?

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

The subjective review portions of SP's equipment reviews are essentially
worthless IMO, since they don't use any sort of quick switching.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs?

I don't hink so, for the reasons I outlined above.

That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

If you can get a mega watt amp for the same price as a lesser powered amp,
that keeps you from running the risk of ever clipping, I think I vote for
the bigger wattage amp every time.

"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much of the finesse in
the reproduction of music is with transients. Certain CD recordings have
enormous dynamic range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails. This produces dynamic
compression within the amp.
Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not be undersized,
since crossover distortion is not a concern.
Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated circuitry than smaller
ones. This can manifest in extended low frequency response even at small
signal conditions.
British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that there are many low power
British amps that seem to work without the compromises I have seen in low
power offerings from many companies.
Bob Morein