• 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.

LM2 vs. NeoPak

#141
agedhorse said:
Here's an example of why 2 ohms may be a necessary specification:

I got an e-mail from a player who had a (very nice) compact 8 ohm 410 cabinet and a NeoPak amp. That was his rig, nothing more. He wanted to maximize the output for his application, so a simple re-wiring of his cabinet to 2 ohms total load was the best solution for his application. In this case, an amp rated at 4 ohms was not a good choice for him as the NeoPak gave him more power (full 500 watts) than an amp that would have required him to leave his cabinet wired at 8 ohms. It is not possible to wire an 8 ohm 410 to 4 ohms.
Click to expand...

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeenteresting.

How come an 8 ohm cab can be wired to 2, but not 4 ohms?
 
#142
CaptainWally said:
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeenteresting.

How come an 8 ohm cab can be wired to 2, but not 4 ohms?
Click to expand...

An 8 ohm cabinet with 4 drivers will be wired in a series-parallel arrangement resulting in 8 ohms total. The only other wiring arrangements are series (32 ohms total) or parallel (2 ohms total).

Total series impedance = Z1 + Z1 + Z4 + Z4 = 32

Total parallel impedance = 1/(1/Z1 + 1/Z2 + 1/Z3 +1/Z4) = 2

Series-parallel Total impedance = 1/(1/Z1 + 1/Z2) + 1/(1/Z3 + 1/Z4) = 8
 
#143
okay...well, it's 10pm here in Connecticut and I just had to pick up Jeff G. at the airport and take him out to dinner. So, I'm going to bed now and I'll read all this stuff in the morning.

Well, after watching the Fox News gals. :D
 
#144
jzucker said:
I'm sorry but that sounds disingenuous. In fact, it's probably in bad taste for a manufacturer to make statements like that in a public forum about his own product.
Click to expand...
Now I've seen it all. A LMII owner complaining that one of GB's products doesn't satisfy their own product manager. Sheesh. Anything you can say to smack down the competition, eh? Some of you guys just kill me.

Why don't you just tell us what Roger's needs are then since you know so much better than him the type of situations he plays in.

Really, if some members of the LMII mob-squad can't play nice when other heads are discussed as an option to what they play, perhaps they should just stay out of the discussion. I could care less who plays what, but this pettiness is getting old.
 
#145
Eublet said:
Now I've seen it all. A LMII owner complaining that one of GB's products doesn't satisfy their own product manager.
Click to expand...

Duh...That's not the point at all. My statement (which I've since deleted) has to do with manufacturers getting into biased discussions about their products vs. the competition. And by the way, I'm not part of the LMII mob-squad. I happen to love my acoustic image contra and several other amps. The only experience I have with genz benz is the shaggy carpet cabs they made in the early days. I'll be happy to make an unbiased report should I get a chance to play through a neo-pak.
 
#146
They've been engaged in factual discussions about amp design, physics, and other such ideas, not in product comparisons. There's a big difference. And if Peter Murray showed up here to talk I highly doubt the mob-squad would mind one bit.
 
#147
Eublet said:
They've been engaged in factual discussions about amp design, physics, and other such ideas, not in product comparisons. There's a big difference. And if Peter Murray showed up here to talk I highly doubt the mob-squad would mind one bit.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that *you're* the one calling names here. Maybe you should take a break...Nobody's calling you a genz-goon...
 
#148
Wow ... pleeez, guys, can we take it down a notch? There has been a lot of cool info disseminated in this thread, and I for one don't want to see it closed.

I'm not talking to anyone specifically, just a general plea for some restraint and courtesy.

Best Regards
 
#149
Just to clarify, I have been comparing the specific specification differences and the misunderstandings IN GENERAL, as it applies to ALL amps in these specification groups (2 ohm minimum rated and 4 ohm minimum rated). Please don't turn this into a "competition" that it's not. It's about two different amp design perspectives.
 
#150
Eublet said:
Sorry, Brad. They are the same power. No spin. 500 watts is a representation of power in any physics book.

As for your cab efficieny stuff, you are right. It will matter. But the simple fact of the matter is that whatever cabinet combination one would hook up to a LMII to get a 4 ohm load, that combination could be doubled on a Neo-pak, and it would sound bigger. Of course at some point it becomes impractical to scale things out. But as many have pointed out, depending on personal cab preference and how you choose your rig, it becomes important what head you have. Simple fact is that I couldn't run a lot of 212 cabs in tandem with a LMII because they are 4 ohms. I couldn't run a 212/112 combo because the result is usually 2.67 ohms. And I couldn't run a lot of 410's in tandem either since many are 4 ohms each these days. There is no spin here. We're just talking, and pointing out how the Neo-pak has a HUGE advantage over the LMII in at least on area. I hope that doesn't mean the LMII mob-squad will start showing up with their pitch forks. I don't see anything here that needs debunking at all.
Click to expand...
This is nothing but spin.

You can run as many cabs as you can buy with either amp as long as you pay attention to impedance.

Why does it have to be the same cabinet run with either amp?

The Neo-Pak only has an advantage for the person who likes it more than the LMII; and likewise, the LMII only has advantages for the person who likes it more than the Neo-Pak.

Seems to me they're both going to be very popular amps, but this whole deal of attaching any kind of provisions for making one amp better than the other (like having to be the same cabs) is unhelpful at best.
 
#155
jzucker said:
Nobody's calling you a genz-goon...
Click to expand...
Myself, I'd be honored to be called a Genz-Goon! laughing.. I most definitely 'are' one! The Neo-Pak is an outstanding head.

I'm surprised that no one yet has pointed out that the difference between 350 watts and 500 watts, if comparing these two amps at a 4 ohm load with a single driver cabinet, would not be that audible in a real world environment. You wouldn't even have a 3 dB difference in maximum SPL, which would require the LMII to produce twice as many watts as the Neo-Pak, or 700 watts.

When gigging the head, the Neo-Pak has the headroom available to largely negate the rated power difference at 4 ohms. Plus it has a well-designed limiter which allows the player to hit it hard on transients safely. AFAIK, the LMII does not have a limiter, so if you crank it up for max power, it will run out of headroom and distort.
 
#156
MichaelVee said:
Myself, I'd be honored to be called a Genz-Goon! laughing.. I most definitely 'are' one! The Neo-Pak is an outstanding head.

I'm surprised that no one yet has pointed out that the difference between 350 watts and 500 watts,
Click to expand...

Again only true if you're comparing specs. The LMII is the LOUDEST amp I have ever played through. I have not compared it to the neo-pak but specs mean very little. There are too many variables.
 
#157
MichaelVee said:
.

I'm surprised that no one yet has pointed out that the difference between 350 watts and 500 watts, if comparing these two amps at a 4 ohm load with a single driver cabinet, would not be that audible in a real world environment. You wouldn't even have a 3 dB difference in maximum SPL, which would require the LMII to produce twice as many watts as the Neo-Pak, or 700 watts.

When gigging the head, the Neo-Pak has the headroom available to largely negate the rated power difference at 4 ohms. Plus it has a well-designed limiter which allows the player to hit it hard on transients safely. AFAIK, the LMII does not have a limiter, so if you crank it up for max power, it will run out of headroom and distort.
Click to expand...


This is another misunderstood issue IMO. With relatively low power heads, another 150 watts can make a HUGE difference in feel and open, clean headroom (i.e., a compressed low end versus a full open low end. The OP also found a volume difference. Going from 800 to 950 watts, I agree with you. Going from barely enough watts (depending on the volume situation needed) to 'just enough watts' can easily be the difference between a 'good' tone, and a pushed/compressed tone with lower wattage amps.

The OP seems to back this up with his initial review of the volume of both units.

This is also IME, why, for example, there is such a massive difference betwen the MB SD800 and the F1... similar design and specs, with the 800 having about 250 more watts. It's not so much pure volume (even though the SD800 is louder), but the massive low end oomph and punch delivered at moderate ahd high volumes versus the lower powered head.
 
#159
jzucker said:
plus, there's some funny stuff going on with some of these power ratings. The Eden 550 is a good example. It's not nearly as loud as its power rating.
Click to expand...

From everything I've heard, the GB power rating is a very honest one. I would guess the 350 watts of the Neo-pak are the real deal. However, once you get into relatively low wattage for bass (200-300 watts), I've found you can REALLY hear the difference kicking it up to the 500-600 watt level when really cranking on the E and B strings. Louder, yes, but that's not the main issue... open, quick, clean and 'relaxed' is more of the impact IME with a relatively high percentage increase in power when starting from a relatively low level.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back