# QSC Amps - CX Vs. RMX or PLX



## IamQuestar (Sep 21, 2010)

I'm one of the decision makers on a new speaker array we are looking at purchasing and installing in our church sanctuary. We have received a quote from a local company which includes 2 CX 1102 amps. They'll be driving 8 ohm loads, so able to supply 700 W/ ch. What I am wondering is this: is the CX line worth the difference in cost? I have used QSC amps on tour, and have always liked them, but it's been the RMX line. The CX 1102 costs $2300 A RMX and PLX in the same power range (775-800) are $1000 less. So a savings of 2 grand just on the amps.

Is there any argument that warrants the increase in cost to go with the CX line? This is something that may break the deal. We have very limited resources (it has taken over 5 years of yelling and screaming about our current system's problems to get this far) and the quote we received is way beyond our reach, so I am trying to see where we can trim the fat, without sacrificing too much quality.

Any opinions? Thanks!

--Andrew


----------



## rwhealey (Sep 21, 2010)

IamQuestar said:


> I'm one of the decision makers on a new speaker array we are looking at purchasing and installing in our church sanctuary. We have received a quote from a local company which includes 2 CX 1102 amps. They'll be driving 8 ohm loads, so able to supply 700 W/ ch. What I am wondering is this: is the CX line worth the difference in cost? I have used QSC amps on tour, and have always liked them, but it's been the RMX line. The CX 1102 costs $2300 A RMX and PLX in the same power range (775-800) are $1000 less. So a savings of 2 grand just on the amps.
> 
> Is there any argument that warrants the increase in cost to go with the CX line? This is something that may break the deal. We have very limited resources (it has taken over 5 years of yelling and screaming about our current system's problems to get this far) and the quote we received is way beyond our reach, so I am trying to see where we can trim the fat, without sacrificing too much quality.
> 
> ...


 
Will you be moving the amps? I would think the RMX (Is CMX the install version?) would be fine sitting in a rack, but good luck lifting more than a couple without a forklift...

I'm a big QSC fan but you may also want to look at the Crest Pro200 series - I used a few that worked great and they're not too expensive.


----------



## MNicolai (Sep 21, 2010)

My personal opinion based on the facility we just opened a couple years ago is that contractors will put whatever the highest price amp is on the market with the specs that fit the bill and a whole heck of a lot of features you'll never need or want.

"But I CAN log into the amp with my computer!"

But you never will.

"But it has all of these great voltage ranges!"

That you'll never touch.

"It's even got a 6-year extended warranty through QSC!"

They've all got 6-year extended warranties through QSC.

"It's got this built-in DSP!"

Yea, but are you even using it or do you already have a dedicated DSP outside of that? For that matter, are you excited about this feature despite the fact your audio installer never configured a bit of it, so as far as you're concerned the amp is just taking garbage in and pushing garbage out?

Sorry if I've not been of any help; I'm just reasonably displeased that we were sold a full (almost) floor-to-ceiling rack of Crown CTs amps for several tens of thousands of dollars that realistically have a lot of features we don't use, need, or want, but because of those features cost literally 2-3 times the price of amplifiers that would've given us the same end result.

Don't fall into the gimmick hole. If you see a lot of features that you know you'll probably never use, you've probably wandered into the money pit of endless novelty features that a lot of people don't need.

Cue Brad Weber intellectually discussing all of the different features and differences in gross detail that I've written off in one fell swoop. (I make it sound ominous, but he's _brilliant_ when it comes to this stuff, so be rest assured that he knows he's talking about.)


----------



## Chris15 (Sep 22, 2010)

In response to Mike, connecting by PC may not be an operational need in many cases, but in terms of inital setup, it can be hours of work saved...
BUT, I tend to think you don't NEED it if you aren't using onboard DSP, unless you have a control system of some description that is monitoring amp status, which is a nice thing, but not if you need to hack away at the cost.

You mentioned an array... Is line array actually the best tool to achieve the desired coverage in your space? Just because it's the latest and greatest toy, some seem to think that makes it right for every application. It's not. Line array also tends to be pricey.


----------



## derekleffew (Sep 22, 2010)

IamQuestar said:


> I'm one of the decision makers on a new speaker array we are looking at purchasing...


 

Chris15 said:


> ...You mentioned an array... Is line array actually the best tool to achieve the desired coverage in your space? Just because it's the latest and greatest toy, some seem to think that makes it right for every application. It's not. Line array also tends to be pricey.


Can not any cluster of loudspeakers be called an array, and not necessarily be a line array?


----------



## Chris15 (Sep 22, 2010)

derekleffew said:


> Can not any cluster of loudspeakers be called an array, and not necessarily be a line array?


 
I guess there are an array of things that qualify as arrays, but the vogue at present seems to have it refer to a line array in most cases.


----------



## museav (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris15 said:


> I guess there are an array of things that qualify as arrays, but the vogue at present seems to have it refer to a line array in most cases.




derekleffew said:


> Can not any cluster of loudspeakers be called an array, and not necessarily be a line array?


Yes, definitely and has been that way as long as I can remember. A personal perspective but when I see the term "cluster" I think more of horns with compression drivers and separate bass bins than of multiple 'arrayed' boxes. Then you have things like Bessel arrays, curvilinear arrays, subwoofer arrays and so on.

As to the original question, several amplifier manufacturers make products specifically intended for different markets, in some cases even different versions of the same product for different markets. One pretty common situation is to have amp models intended specifically for applications such as installed systems or cinemas. This may be reflected in the amplifier's ratings, such as being rated for driving 70V systems or being THX rated, or in aspects such as the input and output connections used. In some cases, the output connections used in 'install' amplifiers relate to code and certification compliance requirements for installed systems in the countries where the product is sold. You may also have functions or capabilities specifically related to the different applications. For example, an 'install' amp may have the level controls on the rear panel or have it where the knobs can be removed or covered to prevent tampering. It might also have inrush limiting or random power on delay to help support remote power control.

In some cases particular models may only be available to Contractors and not available to MI or retail dealers or vice versa, manufacturers restricting availability of certain products to those meeting certain related qualifications is not unusual. This may also affect warranty, perhaps not the length of the warranty period but rather how warranty issues are handled. When I was working for a Contractor in the rare occasion when an 'install' or 'contractor' amp would fail it was quite common for a new amp to be sent overnight from the manufacturer and then we'd ship the failed amp back in that packaging. No questions, just get it replaced and then the dealer and manufacturer can deal with it later. A retail product may apply a different approach, such as needing to return the 'bad' product before a replacement can be shipped.

In the case of the QSC amps noted, the CX and PLX2 amps are quite similar and are effectively install and touring versions, respectively. The CX does have some of the features noted above such as removable terminal strip input connectors and covered, barrier strip output connectors as well as an integrated security cover for the level controls. The CX models do have a data port that the PLX2 models do not, that port can be used for some of the lower cost 'plug-in' DSP modules that QSC also offers or they can also be used for remote power control and monitoring. I have used the ports on the CX for these purposes but they may or may not be applicable to a specific application.

I will admit that some amplifier, speaker and other product manufacturers offering separate install products is sometimes used to assist in limiting who is likely to bid on the work. Specifying or quoting QSC CX amplifiers will likely tend to discourage companies from bidding on the project unless they are a qualified dealer for those specific 'install' products and that can represent some value. You also have to be careful when comparing prices, if bidders have priced the competing models and that is what is being compared that is one thing but comparing the prices online or mass retailers show for touring/MI and install products may not give an accurate representation of the prices you would pay for those same products as part of a system bid. Retailers may have to show full list price for any Contractor products they offer when a Contractor may pay much less for those products. Conversely, a Contractor may not be able to purchase or offer some 'retail' products at as low a price as the retailers. So comparing the online prices for comparable CX, PLX2 and RMX amps most likely does not accurately reflect the actual costs that would be applied as part of an installed system bid.


----------



## IamQuestar (Sep 22, 2010)

Thank you for all of the quick responses.

To answer a few of the questions brought up:

This is an installed system, so there will be no moving anything once it’s installed in the rack, so using heavy i-was-a-boat-anchor-in-a-previous-life amps is not a problem. The amp rack is in a locked authorized-personnel-only room, so security panels to prevent tampering are of minimal value.

When I used the term array, it was not in reference to a line-array, but rather a group of speared “arrayed” along an arc above the front center of the platform. Yup, it’s a cluster. The system was designed based on a computer model of our room (it is a unique shape, with many sonic challenges) that was done by the manufacturer.

The quote we received was prepared by a local dealer/contractor who the manufacturer brought into the picture. They have a good reputation, with several large local projects to their name.

There were a few things on this quote that caused me to say “You’ve got to be kidding.” First, we told them we were looking at about 10k for a budget, but that it could probably stretch to 12-13k if needed, and we thought it would be worth it. The quote returned was over $26,000 – and that’s with us hanging the speakers and running the cable.

The first outrageous item was $10,161 for an ATM Flyware rig. While this is some great stuff, we are on a budget, and don’t need flexibility. This will be setup once, and left for the next 20 years (I hope). To the dealers credit, he did say that he could (or we could) have it built locally for les than a third the cost. In fact we can probably do better than that, as a man in our church as a machine/fabrication shop and may build what we need for the cost of materials.

Then there were the amps, which I mentioned in the original post. The dealer, guessing that we may have a little sticker shock, said we could go with the CX-702’s (425 watts/ch) for $1920 ea. instead of the CX-1102 (700 watts/ch) for $2375 ea.. That’s only a $450 reduction on each piece. One of the benefits of the CX ’02 models is they can drive 2 ohm loads, but we are not doing this, we’ll be going into 8 ohms, so it just seemed like way too much money, when we’re trying to keep this down to 12-13k. The speakers and DSP controller are just under $9400, so with a couple RMX4050 instead, and saving almost $2000 on the pair, I think we’ll be a lot closer to making this doable.

Thanks again for all the answers!

--Andrew


----------



## museav (Sep 22, 2010)

IamQuestar said:


> There were a few things on this quote that caused me to say “You’ve got to be kidding.” First, we told them we were looking at about 10k for a budget, but that it could probably stretch to 12-13k if needed, and we thought it would be worth it. The quote returned was over $26,000 – and that’s with us hanging the speakers and running the cable.


Of course this begs the question of whether what you asked for in terms of functionality and quality was also defining a $10k to $13k system. Having to quote something well over budget in order to support the goals defined for a space happens but if that is the case they should have made you aware of it and worked with you to resolve things one way or the other.


IamQuestar said:


> The first outrageous item was $10,161 for an ATM Flyware rig. While this is some great stuff, we are on a budget, and don’t need flexibility. This will be setup once, and left for the next 20 years (I hope). To the dealers credit, he did say that he could (or we could) have it built locally for les than a third the cost. In fact we can probably do better than that, as a man in our church as a machine/fabrication shop and may build what we need for the cost of materials.


Is that person going to test the rig to verify the load capacity? Will the rigging support the speaker array adjustments that will almost certainly be necessary during the initial installation? Are they going to design and provide the attachment of the array rigging to structure? Are they installing everything including providing any scaffolding required? Do they carry appropriate liability insurance to protect the church? Are they a registered Structural Engineer? The point is that it is not unusual for the design and indirect costs related to flying speakers to well exceed the actual physical rigging equipment costs, especially when addressing installation in an existing facility. I've had projects where just the related scaffolding costs involved well exceeded your entire rigging budget. So don't confuse the physical rigging hardware cost with the overall cost.


IamQuestar said:


> Then there were the amps, which I mentioned in the original post. The dealer, guessing that we may have a little sticker shock, said we could go with the CX-702’s (425 watts/ch) for $1920 ea. instead of the CX-1102 (700 watts/ch) for $2375 ea.. That’s only a $450 reduction on each piece. One of the benefits of the CX ’02 models is they can drive 2 ohm loads, but we are not doing this, we’ll be going into 8 ohms, so it just seemed like way too much money, when we’re trying to keep this down to 12-13k. The speakers and DSP controller are just under $9400, so with a couple RMX4050 instead, and saving almost $2000 on the pair, I think we’ll be a lot closer to making this doable.


The difference in list price between a CX1102 and a RMX4050HD is $625 while the difference in dealer cost is around $400, so saving $2,000 on two amplifiers seems a bit optimistic. Adding to that, $1,920 is $200 over the list price of a CX702 and $2,375 is $100 over the list price of a CX1102, so either the prices noted seem high or they represent more than just the physical amplifier cost, maybe they also include some related installation, adjustments, system warranty and so on that might also have to be added to any other amp models.


Comparing equipment pricing you can find online to line item pricing in bids can be quite misleading unless you are sure that what you are comparing are only the actual equipment costs and not any related 'soft' costs, labor, profit, support or any other indirect costs.


----------



## IamQuestar (Sep 23, 2010)

museav said:


> Of course this begs the question of whether what you asked for in terms of functionality and quality was also defining a $10k to $13k system. Having to quote something well over budget in order to support the goals defined for a space happens but if that is the case they should have made you aware of it and worked with you to resolve things one way or the other.



What we asked for was the best quality that would fit within (or at least in reach of) the budget allowed. The primary goals and needs are beyond a forum discussion, but regardless, there are more options available.


museav said:


> Is that person going to test the rig to verify the load capacity? Will the rigging support the speaker array adjustments that will almost certainly be necessary during the initial installation? Are they going to design and provide the attachment of the array rigging to structure? Are they installing everything including providing any scaffolding required? Do they carry appropriate liability insurance to protect the church? Are they a registered Structural Engineer? The point is that it is not unusual for the design and indirect costs related to flying speakers to well exceed the actual physical rigging equipment costs, especially when addressing installation in an existing facility. I've had projects where just the related scaffolding costs involved well exceeded your entire rigging budget. So don't confuse the physical rigging hardware cost with the overall cost.



To answer your questions: Yes. Yes. The design is done, as is the needed engineering. The design and materials for attaching to the structure are not included in the quote. As mentioned, members and employees of the church are going to do the installation. Insurance ect. has already been thought of and addressed. We own the necessary scaffolding already. I understand your points. Also understand, that all of the details that are going into this are far beyond the scope of a forum post, so what I stated was, out of necessity, truncated.


museav said:


> The difference in list price between a CX1102 and a RMX4050HD is $625 while the difference in dealer cost is around $400, so saving $2,000 on two amplifiers seems a bit optimistic. Adding to that, $1,920 is $200 over the list price of a CX702 and $2,375 is $100 over the list price of a CX1102, so either the prices noted seem high or they represent more than just the physical amplifier cost, maybe they also include some related installation, adjustments, system warranty and so on that might also have to be added to any other amp models.



I am aware that the prices that were quoted to us exceed the list prices. All labor, setup, programming etc. are in other line items on the quote, so the inflated prices on those amps is just that, inflated. Now, it’s possible the extra $$ over list could cover shipping, but it doesn’t cost twice as much to ship the 702 vs. 1102. The $2000 savings is the difference between the price quoted for the CX, and prices (including shipping) found from on-line retailers.


museav said:


> Comparing equipment pricing you can find online to line item pricing in bids can be quite misleading unless you are sure that what you are comparing are only the actual equipment costs and not any related 'soft' costs, labor, profit, support or any other indirect costs.



I understand soft costs, but these items are specified in other areas of the quote. I don’t have a problem with profit either, I own a business with a similar structure, albeit a different industry, where merchandise sales are a small part of the profitability, where as the labor – in installation, service, and training make up the lions share of the profits. At the same time, I also understand we are cutting into the potential profits of this contractor because we are going to do as much of the labor as possible using volunteers. The contractor knew this going in, and stated that there was no problem, that he would be happy to work with on this.

All that said, we, as a church, are responsible for using the moneys given to us in the best way possible, and providing the best services and facilitation of our ministries as possible. That is what has prompted this entire thread to begin with. I was concerned about this pricing, and wanted some expert opinion on substituting similar spec’ed equipment and a significant savings on cost. Now if you were to tell me that the CX amps will last twice or three times as long as the RMX, I’d have to say that there is a good argument for sticking with the CX, but I haven’t gotten that message.

Again thank you all for your interest, and willingness to spread some of your hard-earned expertise.

--Andrew


----------



## museav (Sep 24, 2010)

IamQuestar said:


> The $2000 savings is the difference between the price quoted for the CX, and prices (including shipping) found from on-line retailers.


It used to be that many Contractor products were simply not available to retailers or all products available to all dealers. The influence of some of the big online retailers has changed this. However, because they are Contractor products, the MAP or Minimum Advertised Price for QSC CX amps is full list price while MAP on the RMX amps is below full list price. Thus the cost a retailer can advertise for the two amps does not accurately reflect the associated dealer costs or the costs if you purchased them from a Contractor dealer. Although not the case here, you conceivably could have two products with significantly different prices advertised by retailers, yet they could have the same list price and dealer cost and the same cost to you from a dealer, just different MAP prices.

Just in case not everyone recognizes this, a change in equipment can actually represent a cost to a project other than just the difference in the equipment cost. Using the amps as an example, the Contractor quoted what they thought was appropriate. Now I don't know anything about the contract terms, what their role is in service, what warranty is offered and so on, but if you ask them the use a different model then in establishing the related costs they may have to consider: 1) the actual equipment cost, 2) the impact on their profit, 3) the effort to provide a revised proposal or quote, 4) any changes in installation and setup (this can include things like greater direct labor or hardware to install the equipment as well as the potential of any Owner Furnished equipment not being available when they planned to have it, not having the expected options and so on), 5) any potential change in risk or effort to support the system and/or product warranty, 6) any changes caused by the product being physically different (e.g. the RMX4050HD being 5.25" or 3RU high versus the 3.5" or 2RU height of the CX702 or CX1102) which can then also relate to 7) any changes required to existing system documents or system design. And all this is in addition to any restocking and order processing costs if equipment has already been ordered. In some cases a change in a specific product may represent no change in cost beyond that of the equipment but in other cases the changes in the indirect costs may exceed the actual changes in equipment cost. It is not unheard of for an equipment cost reduction to increase the related overall contract price, especially if the change occurs after the system design is complete.

I don't know all the details of your situation, nor do I need to, but in general there is some dividing point between a company being a system Contractor and their being an equipment dealer and contract labor provider. Some point at which their responsibility and liability shift from the overall system and installation to much more limited aspects of the work. It sounds like that may become a factor as you try to reconcile the cost with your budget as at some point the Contractor may feel their role or scope of work has been reduced to where they are no longer able to assume some of the responsibility or liability they had planned on assuming.

Being a good steward of the church's money is critical, but it is also quite common for people to focus on the immediate dollars rather than the value or the potential long term cost. You may already be going through this process, but for the sake of others making the best choices is often not just cutting costs, it is reducing the costs in way that best serves you in the long term. There may be times that some DIY work or changes in equipment can reduce the cost without negatively impacting the long term value. But there are also times when it may be necessary to review the basic system concept and functionality in order to see if there are options there as well. In many cases, deleting or delaying some functionality or parts of the system may be a better choice to reduce the cost than making compromises in the system components or installation.


----------



## IamQuestar (Sep 24, 2010)

museav said:


> Being a good steward of the church's money is critical, but it is also quite common for people to focus on the immediate dollars rather than the value or the potential long term cost. You may already be going through this process, but for the sake of others making the best choices is often not just cutting costs, it is reducing the costs in way that best serves you in the long term. There may be times that some DIY work or changes in equipment can reduce the cost without negatively impacting the long term value. But there are also times when it may be necessary to review the basic system concept and functionality in order to see if there are options there as well. In many cases, deleting or delaying some functionality or parts of the system may be a better choice to reduce the cost than making compromises in the system components or installation.



You make some very good points here, and I agree with all that you said. We also acknowledge that the immediate system cost is not the only factor we need to consider. One of the goals we set out for ourselves in the beginning is that we weren't looking for the cheapest way out. If so, we could toss up a few cheap full range cabinets - and they would be an improvement from what we are dealing with now - , but find we end up replacing them a few years down the road - that's not good stewardship either. If this outlay get's us what we need, and lasts us 20 years, well, that comes to a small per-year-of-use cost, and will ultimately be worth it - however, getting there without going into debt to do it is the trick.

--Andrew


----------



## museav (Sep 25, 2010)

The general consensus from those I've spoken with are that aspects such as flown speakers are usually a poor aspect to compromise as they tend to be relatively expensive and difficult to supplement or replace later, thus they tend to not get upgraded or replaced as planned. On the opposite end, mics, mixers, stage monitors and such may be very easy to supplement or replace as budget allows, as well as being possible to rent or borrow when absolutely needed. It can sometimes also be easier to start fund drives or ask for budget or donations for several smaller amounts over time than a larger amount all at once.


----------



## gordonmcleod (Sep 29, 2010)

The only issue i have had with the CX serries is often the ones are 70volt only
We use in cinemas the DCA serries which is almost the same amp
The dataport is nice but does have a insertion loss when used with some of there crossover modules effectivly lowering the gain of the system due to an issue with clipping (the same is true of their DCM monitor/crossover)
I use a lot of the ISA serries amps if weight is not an issue


----------

