• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Genzler Amplification ! New Genz Benz ?

I guess I'm assuming that designs are finished, they are past the prototype stage and well into certifications.
Sounds like the manufacturing chain is done and perhaps priced and contracted.

This gets back to the age old question of how long is too long to announce new products.
You want to get the buzz going to stimulate sales ASAP but also not too soon to piss customers off by mentioning some new great thing and make them wait years for it.

You just never know how much tweaking will be needed. TrickFish as an example thought everything was good to go last year, as far as I have heard only cabs have shipped so far. Not their fault, just the way things are these days unless you want to be a small scale boutique builder with greatly limited production.
 
OK, while we're dreaming. How about this
1800 watts class d
Shuttle max foot print, maybe smaller.
Two channel
CH 1 shuttle (ish)
Ch2 Streamliner (ish)
Blendable
E loop for each channel
Aux input
Headphone 1/8 in
Multiple position locking handle
or how about the opposite?

900w mono
1/4" and XLR ins
volume knob
maybe a 30-40Hz defeatable filter switch on the back

call it the "genzler black box"
 
Regarding some of the speculation, our cabinets will be made in the USA. Amplifiers manufactured by a trusted Taiwan family run electronics company, which Scott and I have an exceptionally close working relationship. Their quality and capabilities are impeccable.

Thanks, will definitely be lookin' forward to checkin' out the cabs, gotta pass on the amps though. It is what it is and no one will change my mind.
Don't think it is needed, but good luck to ya.
 
But...but....but....oh never mind.
34a37ba07d55bf2096de864ffcfb52b0be4bd38a.gif
 
I saw some posts about 2 ohm capable designs and IMO, if it can be done at a reasonable cost, why not build that capability in? Even if more power wasn't available (kind of like the Mesa 2/4 ohm switch for example), just the option of being able to hook up two 4 ohm cabs is a welcome thing to me. With how many 2x12's are out there now that run at 4 ohms, having the option of hauling a pair of 2x12's with a 2 ohm capable reasonably sized head (IMO) maximizes the combination of volume, size and portability along with reasonable modularity. Looking at past GB products, the most direct route to this config would be a ShuttleMax and a pair of NX2-212's. It would be nice to see something like that in the mix for sure!

Yes! My only complaint about my Tone Hammer. I have 2 Genz Benz Uber 212s. One home and one at rehearsal space. I haven't needed more than one at a time but it sure would be nice to know I could if I wanted to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatwoundFunk
or how about the opposite?

900w mono
1/4" and XLR ins
volume knob
maybe a 30-40Hz defeatable filter switch on the back

call it the "genzler black box"
I like the HP filter idea. While we're dreaming, I'll take an option to include something like a Barbershop clone in the front end, a built-in Turbo Tuner, and either two channels with separate instrument inputs OR a built in instrument ABY switch so I can leave my pedal board at home. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatwoundFunk
If there is a filter. MAKE IT defeatable... my old Neve 1073 had a HPF. But left it OUT... . it had a luxurious LOW end EQ.. Extended down to the basements of hell without Boom.. I used that with a crown in the 80s... would love to get that on a bass amp but be able to HP at maybe 30hz for those that want it.
 
A quick Google Patents search yielded this as the only GB patent.
For patent geeks out there, here is the link to the actual file on USPTO (which is completely searchable, if you are so inclined):
Invalid Link Removed

In fact, I have to say that the claims in this patent are the most oddly presented claims I have ever seen; in that the independent claims 1, 7, and 14 are progressively broader. It is far more typical to present the broadest claim first and then narrow in successive claims. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that USPTO is more and more allowing nearly all claims and forcing the courts to determine infringement. In the (good (not so much)) old days, you would put the narrower claims last; so that a US patent examiner could disallow the broader claims up to some point of refinement. Times change, I guess.
 
I think all patents have to be searchable. Otherwise, how would an inventor be able to know if they are violating any patents?

I am still a bit groggy and uncaffinated so I am not going to try to make sense of the strange Legalese dialect of Engineerspeak that that patent is written in, but I am sure that someone with some experience will step in.
In fact, there is minimal legaleze and no engineer speak. You simply look at the limitations described in the broadest claim. That is what the invention owns as domain. In the case of this GB patent, it is an amplification device that is 1) in a compact case, 2) has a PCB with certain heat generating elements, and 3) has a cooling tunnel. You would have to read the Description for definitions; but that is the essence of it. It has to have those three things to be within the claim.
 
OK, while we're dreaming. How about this
1800 watts class d
Shuttle max foot print, maybe smaller.
Two channel
CH 1 shuttle (ish)
Ch2 Streamliner (ish)
Blendable
E loop for each channel
Aux input
Headphone 1/8 in
Multiple position locking handle
Well, that would be great. I'm currently trying to get my car to do my laundry also.