• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Genz-Benz Shuttle Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#502
haha, guys. Good stuff. Actually I'm hoping this next one is more of a momma's boy. Our first son is a daddy's boy, so much so that it sometimes hurts my wife's feelings. :D He wants to be a guitarist, though, so you guys pray that I can straighten him about before he ruins his life! :D
 
#504
Had an audition tonight that doubled as a rehearsal for a gig Saturday night. If I didn't pan out they were just going to play without bass, having the keyboardist fill in the bass. I took the new ministack, so here's a review.

Man, the little Shuttle 3.0-10t plus extension ROCKED!!! The band was a *loud* Texas blues-Stevie Ray style player through a Fender Blues Jr. absolutely cranked, with another guy switching between rhythm guitar and a Fender Rhodes through a giant Fender (Super Reverb I think, with four 10's or something), plus a drummer and a latin percussionist. Now, the drummer is a good drummer, and was playing a small kit, and he knows how to play with moderate volume. But still ... this isn't a quiet little folk band or anything. I had my Stingray 5 fretless into the Shuttle ministack. I had the eq flat except for a couple of clicks of treble cut, and had the LF filter engaged. The eq on the Stingray was flat. I had both the pre and master at NOON, and balanced everyone. This is a smoking little stack, at a total weight of about 33 pounds. I can't believe it. The guitarist / singer had a Hartke 410 in the rehearsal space and I was ready to give it a try if necessary, but I wasn't even close to maxing out the little Shuttle stack.

So you'll have a better idea of the feel of the band, here's the setlist we played tonight:

Texas Flood-Stevie Ray Vaughan
When the House is a Rockin'-Stevie Ray Vaughan
Slow Dancin in a Burning Room-John Mayer
Rodeo Clowns-Jack Johnson
I'm Tore Down-Eric Clapton
Reconsider Baby-Eric Clapton
Angel of Mercy-Jonny Lang
Hoochie Coochie Man-Eric Clapton
Gravity-John Mayer
Five Long Years-Eric Clapton
I don't trust myself-John Mayer
Get Up, Stand Up-Bob Marley
Steal My Kisses-Ben Harper

Fun stuff!

I'm still interested in the Shuttle 6.0 ... but man, for a lot of my gigs I just won't need more than this little 300 watts into 2x10 puts out. And like I said, I can always slave my NeoPak driving the Neox212t for another 350 watts into 2x12. Incidentally, I'm *really* digging the FET pre in this little Shuttle. I like the tube in the NeoPak as well, and both channels of the GBE600 ... but this little FET shuttle is rich, warm and punchy. Couldn't be happier.

Oh ... I got the gig. This will be fun, and a *great* workout after I've been playing mostly upright stuff with acoustic acts for the last few years. Cool, funky, electric blues. Lots of Stevie Ray, Clapton, John Mayer, Jonny Lang, etc. And everyone flat loved the fretless. And the Genz amp ... no one could believe the sound coming out of it. Especially when I had them pick it up!

Taking it to the gig Saturday night. We'll see how it goes.

Cheers
 
#505
Oh, any Nashville area cats who want to hear this stuff live, I'm playing at Past Perfect juts off Broadway at 10pm this Saturday, 2/09/2008. Artist is Brian James. He's a smoking guitarist, too, so it'll be fun to listen to even if I suck, lol ... ;)

Cheers
 
#506
liam_g said:
Oh, any Nashville area cats who want to hear this stuff live, I'm playing at Past Perfect juts off Broadway at 10pm this Saturday, 2/09/2008. Artist is Brian James. He's a smoking guitarist, too, so it'll be fun to listen to even if I suck, lol ... ;)

Cheers
Click to expand...

That sounds like a cool gig! Unfortunately I can't make it, because I've got a gig on the same night. Good luck.
 
#508
bassmeins said:
I have a question about the power of the Shuttle 6.0 .
How could it be, that the amp takes 400 Watts (max. average power consumption) and gives 600 Watts to the speakers? Thank you for your help.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...


that's what an internal power supply does. Power transformers in "traditional" amps.....switch mode power supply in this amp.

Any further info than that and I'd be making it up ...as I'm not an engineer. Perhaps agedhorse will come along and add further info.
 
#509
hasbeen said:
that's what an internal power supply does. Power transformers in "traditional" amps.....switch mode power supply in this amp.

Any further info than that and I'd be making it up ...as I'm not an engineer. Perhaps agedhorse will come along and add further info.
Click to expand...

While class D amps are very efficient (I think the efficiency is due to the class D amp versus the power supply type.. I think!), they can't put out any more power than they take in! I have a feeling that's a misprint, or that's it's based on 8ohm operation. Not that it really matters one way or the other.
 
#511
deekay911 said:
I'm not sure that 400W of electrical energy is the same as 600W of sound energy...
Click to expand...

I'm over my head here also... Agedhorse will set us straight. I believe they are the same thing though, and that the 400 watt 'input' is based on the 'typical' 8ohm operation when using the 'Shuttle combo'. The class D amps are very efficient (very little energy lost to heat, which is why most class D amps don't have a fan), and some are considered 80% to 90% efficient (I think). So the 400 watt in / 375 watt out at 8ohms is about the same ratio as you see in the Walter Woods, iAmps, and other 'class D' amps I've seen.
 
#512
Surely an amp will draw the same power, if its at the same levels (and bass) going into a 4 ohm cab, and an 8 ohm cab.

The higher impedance requires more enery to push the volume, i know what im trying to say, but its coming out as jibberish :p

And yeah, im assuming misprint, either that or GB are breaking the rules of physics by creating a machine capable of producing more energy than it uses!
 
#513
that's what an internal power supply does. Power transformers in "traditional" amps.....switch mode power supply in this amp.
Click to expand...

NO!!! You can't get more power out than you put in! Power supplies trade around voltage for current, but power is always conserved (minus any inefficiency in the circuit design).

This was explained in a thread that I posted about a Carvin B800 input power rating.

Energy has to be conserved. If there is 600W of power going to the speakers, then the amplifier has to be drawing AT LEAST 600W from the wall. Otherwise you're more energy out than you put in, which is impossible, as others have said.

The disconnect is as KJung said: The input power rating on the back is an average of some sort, for typical operating conditions. My guess is it's for a 4 ohm load, with typical signal input.

Asad
 
#515
The input power reflects duty cycle, a form of averaging that in our case reflects the worst maximum power the amp will consume when operating with approximately a 6dB crest factor. It works out to the amp's draw when operating at between an AVERAGE of between 1/3 and 1/4 rated CONTINUOUS power. The power supply serves to average out the current draw. A 300 watt amp typically delivers about 100 watts AVERAGE but uses the entire 300 watts to handle peaks in the output signal.

Another example is pro audio PA amps, the standard specification is to reflect the 1/8 of continuous power level, and that's what testing labs use for most of the safety and EMI tests. Because bass amps are typically used at higher duty cycle, we increase the numerical rating to reflect this real life fact.

If you look at say the QSC or Crown specs, they gice the current draw for their amps at various drive levels and duty cycles but typically use the 1/8-power current draw (or power consumed) on the backs of their amps.
 
#516
asad137 said:
NO!!! You can't get more power out than you put in! Power supplies trade around voltage for current, but power is always conserved (minus any inefficiency in the circuit design).

This was explained in a thread that I posted about a Carvin B800 input power rating.

Energy has to be conserved. If there is 600W of power going to the speakers, then the amplifier has to be drawing AT LEAST 600W from the wall. Otherwise you're more energy out than you put in, which is impossible, as others have said.

The disconnect is as KJung said: The input power rating on the back is an average of some sort, for typical operating conditions. My guess is it's for a 4 ohm load, with typical signal input.

Asad
Click to expand...

Your upper case NO doesn't make you any more right or me more wrong. But you've obviously missed the little nuclear generator in the Shuttle. And your energy thing doesn't explain the flying saucer I saw.
 
#517
agedhorse said:
The input power reflects duty cycle, a form of averaging that in our case reflects the worst maximum power the amp will consume when operating with approximately a 6dB crest factor. It works out to the amp's draw when operating at between an AVERAGE of between 1/3 and 1/4 rated CONTINUOUS power. The power supply serves to average out the current draw. A 300 watt amp typically delivers about 100 watts AVERAGE but uses the entire 300 watts to handle peaks in the output signal.

Another example is pro audio PA amps, the standard specification is to reflect the 1/8 of continuous power level, and that's what testing labs use for most of the safety and EMI tests. Because bass amps are typically used at higher duty cycle, we increase the numerical rating to reflect this real life fact.

If you look at say the QSC or Crown specs, they gice the current draw for their amps at various drive levels and duty cycles but typically use the 1/8-power current draw (or power consumed) on the backs of their amps.
Click to expand...

you told me it was the awesomeizer circuit.
 
#518
hasbeen said:
you told me it was the awesomeizer circuit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but yesterday when we spoke you said it was the same P-32 Space Modulator that the martian from the Warner Bros. cartoon was going to use to blow up the earth so he could see the moon better.

You said that the scene where it get lost is where you guys kinda "found" it and then instead of using it to blow up a planet, you harnessed it to power your Shuttle amps- and blow up the Little Mark II/F1, Walter Woods, anything small by Eden (like thats gonna be difficult), Acoustic Image Focus/Clarus amps, iAmp and others that I don't remember off hand. But it was quite an impressive list.
And also clean out your....err....um....colon or somethnig like that. (You said like eating 4 boxes of Shredded Wheat in one sitting..don't know what that means really)

So, come clean guys-
Is it a:
P-32 Space Modulator??????
Nuclear Generator ?????
Colon Blow????
or Awesomeizer Circuit????

(careful how you answer AgedHorse & HasBeen- this could reslut in a poll here on TB!!:D)
 
#519
hasbeen said:
you told me it was the awesomeizer circuit.
Click to expand...

For the benefit of a good handful of folks here (you know exactly who you are), you will note that it's not an "ULTRA-awesomeizer" circuit. ;)

It is also absolutely correct that output power can not exceed the input power (for identical time slices and no energy storage), that would be a perpetual energy machine. But "that" law of thermodynamics really applies to energy which is power inetgrated over time. As soon as time enters into the equation, that makes energy storage possible. This is how ALL amplifier power supplies work.
 
#520
agedhorse said:
The input power reflects duty cycle, a form of averaging that in our case reflects the worst maximum power the amp will consume when operating with approximately a 6dB crest factor. It works out to the amp's draw when operating at between an AVERAGE of between 1/3 and 1/4 rated CONTINUOUS power. The power supply serves to average out the current draw. A 300 watt amp typically delivers about 100 watts AVERAGE but uses the entire 300 watts to handle peaks in the output signal.

Another example is pro audio PA amps, the standard specification is to reflect the 1/8 of continuous power level, and that's what testing labs use for most of the safety and EMI tests. Because bass amps are typically used at higher duty cycle, we increase the numerical rating to reflect this real life fact.

If you look at say the QSC or Crown specs, they gice the current draw for their amps at various drive levels and duty cycles but typically use the 1/8-power current draw (or power consumed) on the backs of their amps.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your quick answer.
I was only a little confused, because you (with the GBE 1200) and other manufactors use normaly the term "maximum power consumption" and not "average maximum power consumption". And I'm not a technican, so please forgive my ignorance. :hiding:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back