Mesa M9 Carbine Power Reduced?

[Fawkesguy]

....I bet the M9 would be an animal through a Greenboy cab at low or high volumes.

It is. I've played a few gigs with my M9 since I got it a couple of weeks ago, and it's amazing. Last Saturday I played a 200 person wedding in a huge room and it filled that room with loud, fat bass. This past Tuesday I played a quiet corporate Christmas party at a fancy little martini bar and it sounded fantastic. I'm very happy I bought another M9, regardless of its power rating.

 

[KJung]

The "fastness" of the M9 is what i really dig.. Some people say it has too much low end. But that is what you have Bass Control and a 9 band GEQ... For me it sounds great with a sub low that is "just there" and not EQ'd in.. dare i say like a $$$ Channel strip.. I bet the M9 would be an animal through a Greenboy cab at low or high volumes.

+1 The M6/M9 are unique. The 'fastness' you describe is IMO and IME due to the very aggressive upper mids baked into the EQ... very sharp initial note attack.

The 'too much low end' that many talk about is a bit of a different thing than you are describing. It has to do with hi passing and sub bass (the stuff you can't really hear). The shelving bass control and even the 30hz slider don't really help there that much (without dialing out some of the stuff down low you actually want). With a cab with the mighty LF drivers like the fEARful, it doesn't matter much since those drivers were originally designed for subwoofer applications, and they just kind of laugh at sub bass). If you are looking for literally subwoofer/PA type lows, that combination is amazing.

With other, more normally voiced backline cabs (Mesa cabs, Eden cabs, Genz cabs, etc.), the M6 and M9 are among the few heads that can very much be improved by putting an external hi pass filter like the FDECK or Thumpinator between your bass and amp, after any effects. You won't hear any difference (with the FDECK set at 35hz roll-off, but your drivers will piston less and the whole rig becomes more efficient (and you have less of a chance of damaging your woofers due to 'over-excursion' (i.e., farting them to death!).

While it was a bit cheezy for Mesa to secretly cut the power ratings of the M9 and M6, I agree that it isn't much of a performance issue. My experience with an original M6 (so, basically the new M9) and a fEARful 15/6 is that even at 8ohms, that head will drive that cab to pretty much full performance. Quite impressive. I believe a 'watt is a watt' for the most part, but the M6/M9 watts seem 'different' (in a good way).

Lower power on the M9 in exchange for reliability and no shut-downs mid gig.... that is a good trade-off for me personally.

 

[svtb15]

I have no use for an FDECK or Thumpinator.. I enjoy deepness of the M9. M6. MBF800.... If i have to add all that crap to get rid of something, im going to select a different bass, cab or an amp to get 'er done..

 

[B-string]

I find it interesting that people can be happy with getting less than they originally paid for. Others complain about no real usable "industry standard". A diverse group we are.

 

[Jim Carr]

According to service literature even the 600W SSP module should have 12 Mosfets...

Dude. If you look at the photos of my M9 (above), it is quite clear that the device, as built (mine is the 34th unit produced), only has enough room on the chassis for 10 MOSFETS. 12 would not fit.

The "service literature" you refered to is not a Mesa document, AFAIK. What was it? We need a citation here.

I feel 100% certain that my amp was made with the same number of metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors it now sports!

 

[svtb15]

Jim you are correct.

The M9 was ORIGINALLY 10 Mosfets but now employs 8...
The Fathom/ M6 has 8....
Big Block 750 has 12.
Titan had 22

From WayBackmachine web
M9 http://web.archive.org/web/20100724...Product_Info/Bass_Amps/carbine/M9Carbine.html

M6
http://web.archive.org/web/20100824...com/Product_Info/Bass_Amps/carbine/index.html

Titan
http://web.archive.org/web/20100823...e.com/Product_Info/Bass_Amps/titan/titan.html

BB750
http://web.archive.org/web/20100823.../Product_Info/Bass_Amps/bigblock/bigblock.htm

The original MP600s had 12 mosfets but latter updated to 8 higher current type

 

[KJung]

I have no use for an FDECK or Thumpinator.. I enjoy deepness of the M9. M6. MBF800.... If i have to add all that crap to get rid of something, im going to select a different bass, cab or an amp to get 'er done..

Yes, that is why I don't own either an MBF800 or an M6 or M9 Seriously, though, you would be surprised at the impact with the M6 and M9 especially. However, whatever

 

[svtb15]

Thats why i like the M6 and M9.. They doesn't delete half the signal ( message) by default. Its all , or mostly all there... I think the available onboard EQ is MORE than enough.
No need to start applying a thumpinator in the path. IMO...
Music isn't just hearing, its feeling it too... Many dont get that part of it.

 

[teemuk]

Had to check it out...

Big Block 750 has 12.

Yes. It uses the "Simul-State" hybrid power amp design, which the M-Pulse line used as well. These had 12 MOSFETs for 600W output power rating.

The later amps seem to employ a different design, "TransClass", which I assume is all-solid-state. These have far less MOSFETs for the same amount of output power. These are also the designs that went through the aforementioned reliability modifications.

I think the big question now is. What MOSFETs are used in TransClass design? The SSP used BUZ901/BUZ906 complement.

 

[onda'bass]

This discussion has prompted me to get a fdeck....I have always noticed the cones moving a ton when playing, and cutting from the amp is not enough. I look forward to trying it out.

 

[lomo]

With my LDS 15/6, the driver can handle both the M9's power and low end, so I feel no need to either protect the cab or maximize the head's efficiency with a high pass filter. There's no need to fix what ain't broke in my rig. I just enjoy. Our guitarist worked for many years as a pro sound engineer for a rental company-he set up and ran sound for a number of big international acts....he still shakes his head in wonder at what my cab can do, especially under the M9.

 

[KJung]

With my LDS 15/6, the driver can handle both the M9's power and low end, so I feel no need to either protect the cab or maximize the head's efficiency with a high pass filter. There's no need to fix what ain't broke in my rig. I just enjoy. Our guitarist worked for many years as a pro sound engineer for a rental company-he set up and ran sound for a number of big international acts....he still shakes his head in wonder at what my cab can do, especially under the M9.

+1 Per my post, an LF loaded cab and that head is a thing of wonder if big, big low end is a goal (and bright, aggressive upper mids). Massive sounding, even with the lower power M9 (i.e., my experience is the M6 could give what the 15/6 needed!).

You won't notice the sub bass with sealed cabs either, which are probably down 30db by the time they hit that sub bass level.

With most other cabs (Berg, Bag End, Genz, GK, Mesa, whatever), not so much IMO and IME, but easily controlled with a hi pass, if one finds they are running out of headroom too early (i.e., overextension of the drivers, etc.).

 

[KJung]

This discussion has prompted me to get a fdeck....I have always noticed the cones moving a ton when playing, and cutting from the amp is not enough. I look forward to trying it out.

It is a great way (with some cabs) to keep that massive low end (i.e., not turning down the bass and losing the massive balls of the M heads), but still not wasting a lot of energy with all that massive pistoning, reproducing frequencies that you can't really even hear. You will be VERY happy IMO, and your rig won't sound any different (and you should be able to actually get it a bit louder with no speaker damage)!

 

[onda'bass]

that what I want to hear!

 

[KJung]

that what I want to hear!

Yeah, the cool thing is, you can actually dial in MORE bass when you control the sub bass a bit. Just dial that FDECK in to just below the frequency when you start to 'hear' a difference, and you will be amazed. You will actually be able to turn up the bass more than you are now. Magic with the M9 for sure.

 

[Jim Carr]

...I think the big question now is. What MOSFETs are used in TransClass design? The SSP used BUZ901/BUZ906 complement.

I count 10 metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors in my M9. There are five BUZ906's and five BUZ902's.

 

[teemuk]

Ok, BUZ902 is pretty much an equivalent of the BUZ901. Both are rated Id=8A, 125W (not 200W!) @25 deg C. Ample drain-source voltage rating for the task, more than 200V. BUZ906 is a similar complement with different polarity.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

So essentially they kept using the very same MOSFETs but just reduced their amount, effectively making each device pass more current and dissipate more power for given output power rating. Simultaneously it reduces the area in contact with heatsink and therefore overall efficiency of the cooling.

I don't see how this could possibly improve reliability of the design.

 

[svtb15]

Transclass are the M series IIRC. . It has a TUBE preamp.. where the Mpulse Series has a tube preamp with at least one additional Tube to drive the MOSFETS .. such as teh Big Block 750, Walkabout,Moulse 360 and 600...

Had to check it out...



Yes. It uses the "Simul-State" hybrid power amp design, which the M-Pulse line used as well. These had 12 MOSFETs for 600W output power rating.

The later amps seem to employ a different design, "TransClass", which I assume is all-solid-state. These have far less MOSFETs for the same amount of output power. These are also the designs that went through the aforementioned reliability modifications.

I think the big question now is. What MOSFETs are used in TransClass design? The SSP used BUZ901/BUZ906 complement.

 

[svtb15]

I AGREE with you. Your cab is a fine example of a fuller range monitor in a gigable form if it is greenboy style... And it wont BOOM like a more poorly engineered consumer grade boxes... My Fave Cab was an old Meyer that used for a while..... Nothing was like that... BUt is was too much $$$ to use .. Sold it


For years i used a NEVE or API module into my Crown MA1200.. For those that are not familiar, the NEVE and API are State of the Art mic pre's from super high dollar recording consoles used to make records at the defunct Record Plant, the Hit Factory and Power Station in NYC..
You really cant get much better sonicly than either one of these modules...
The M series will not mimic those strips BUT it extends almost as low without adulterating and changing what your bass is putting out as much as others. To me its Something that EQ could do alot smoother without HPF which is the current gimmick IMO..
I think if speakers are jumping around like crazy.. it could be technique issue... But there is no ONE way.. I personally dont like to HPF too high or at all, But using EQ is fine IMO..

And that is what i like about the M series... . Its wide,, and booty shaking without Boom .. and it can stay CLEAN..

With my LDS 15/6, the driver can handle both the M9's power and low end, so I feel no need to either protect the cab or maximize the head's efficiency with a high pass filter. There's no need to fix what ain't broke in my rig. I just enjoy. Our guitarist worked for many years as a pro sound engineer for a rental company-he set up and ran sound for a number of big international acts....he still shakes his head in wonder at what my cab can do, especially under the M9.

 

[svtb15]

The newer amps have a different designated part number both on the PCB and the actual part.. Im looking pics that i took of my MP600 and M9 when i had the hoods off.. Cant find then right now..
The newer amps seem to have a different manufacturer too... I cant remember the name off the manufac off the top of my head.
..

Ok, BUZ902 is pretty much an equivalent of the BUZ901. Both are rated Id=8A, 125W (not 200W!) @25 deg C. Ample drain-source voltage rating for the task, more than 200V. BUZ906 is a similar complement with different polarity.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

So essentially they kept using the very same MOSFETs but just reduced their amount, effectively making each device pass more current and dissipate more power for given output power rating. Simultaneously it reduces the area in contact with heatsink and therefore overall efficiency of the cooling.

I don't see how this could possibly improve reliability of the design.