BillFitzmaurice.info

Has anyone owned, used or heard a Matrix XT800 amp, and can they comment on the sound quality in relation to the crown XLS 1500 or QSC GX5 offerings.

...I am in a medium-term (time-wise) search for an amp and have already discussed the power requirement for a pair of premium driver jack 12's in another thread, and this morning I was talking to a friend who services and repairs music equipment, including other electrical stuff, i.e. TV's etc. He says he's repaired quite a few Crown XLS amps and the insides are not as quality as the Matrix amps, ...though obviously, he must have had some Matrix's in to know that. So the rest of it boils down to features, sound quality and to a degree price and warranty. I'm more interested in sound quality though here, since the price is not a great deal more for the XT800 over the Crown or QSC. Of course there are cheaper amps, but I'm not going there at this stage.

(I am equally baffled by the knowledge that they are all different 'classes' of operation, class D, AB and H, ...so all there is to go on is tone....?)

The other slight oddity (from a P.A. angle) is that Matrix have made a daughter product of the XT800 for guitarists, the GT800FX, which seems to get rave reviews from all the AXE-FX users. I'm just wondering, if I'm also using my jacks for bass guitar as well as general PA usage, if there is merit in going down the GT800FX route (it's another 15% more expensive than the straight XT800) and would it serve admirably for PA duty. Any thoughts appreciated!

Charles

If you are using the Eminence Deltalite II 2512, then the XT800 should be fine. If you are using the Kappalite 3012HO, however, you are leaving 3dB on the table. The XT2000 would be a better choice for the Kappalite 3012HO, IMVHO. I, personally, given the choice, would use the XT1000 for the 2512, and the XT2000 for the 3012HO. I'm a big fan of bringing too much instead of not enough.

Sound quality, or SQ, is very subjective & reserved for "odd"iofiles.

As far as the GT800, it is a guitar amplifier. Specs are very vague on the Matrix website, so I can't do a direct comparison.

I really like the 4 channel offerings, as I never run PA without subs, and the thought of a 8.5 kg (18.75 pounds) amp handling bi-amp duty is just.... well,.... it makes me feel funny in certain places!

Many thanks for your thoughts DJ. I'm using the 3012HO in my Jacks. The topic of maximum sensible power for full range jack 12's was covered in this thread when I was trying to work out amp sizing: http://billfitzmaurice.info/forum/viewt ... 25&t=15819 There's quite a lot of input from many folks, including Bill.

The only part I'm not sure of now, is what happens to maximum permissible (based on distortion) power if the jacks are not run full range, but are run with subs; does it go up, down or stay the same?

I've thought about 4 channel amps before, but the power available on the pair of channels one would use for the tops always seems OTT, and the 4 channel versions seem to be heinously expensive. It appears more cost effective to have two separate amps for tops and subs, and offers some small redundancy should one amp go down.

Charles Jenkinson wrote:The only part I'm not sure of now, is what happens to maximum permissible (based on distortion) power if the jacks are not run full range, but are run with subs; does it go up, down or stay the same?

Typically, maximum applicable power is excursion limited, meaning the driver will exceed Xmax before it reached Pe. Even running full range, tops will complain loudly if pushed too far. If you take away the highest excursion/lowest frequency of the driver by raising the high pass filter frequency, then you might get a little more out of the tops. This is one of the many reasons why I always run subs. I bandpass my T39s from 40Hz to 80-100Hz (I tune the crossover frequency to the room) then the tops are band passed from 80-100Hz to 16kHz, all using steep filters. In difficult rooms, I experiment until it sounds the best.

Charles Jenkinson wrote:I've thought about 4 channel amps before, but the power available on the pair of channels one would use for the tops always seems OTT, and the 4 channel versions seem to be heinously expensive. It appears more cost effective to have two separate amps for tops and subs, and offers some small redundancy should one amp go down.

I like it because no matter if I bring 1 set of cabs (2 tops & 2 subs) or 2 sets (4 tops & 4 subs) I only have to carry 1 8.5kg amp. Since all my equipment lives in a trailer, redundancy is not a requirement. I did strictly weddings, corporate events, private parties, etc, never bars or pubs. I wanted to keep my equipment footprint and profile as compact and unobtrusive as possible.

If OTT stands for Over The Top, it is, but, as I say, I would rather have it, and not need it, than need it and not have it. Pricing is not available to me, as I'm in the states. But I would pay extra for the convenience of not having to carry 4RU of amps.

FTR, if you are running your pair of tops to the edge more often than not, you need to double your cabs. If you are running full range cabinets into distortion, you should be running separate tops and subs.