1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

New RAD 1000P power amp? (Pascal module)

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by rzero, May 16, 2018.


  1. rzero

    rzero

    Apr 21, 2014
    Tempe, AZ
    RAD 1000P Power Amplifier

    Just wondering if anyone has had a chance to hear one of these.

    I had a chat with @radbass, and he said, "It’s smaller, lighter, and faster and has more impact than the ICE module based amp. It also has sweeter highs and mids."

    From the site:

    Description
    A new collaboration between my friend Randy at RAD Engineering and MAS. The new Rad 1000P. It is a single channel power amp with the new custom Pascal class D amp. The "custom" is the WAY more beefy power supply. A typical 1000 watt Class D amp will yield --at the most--5 to 10% more power available for peaks, the RAD 1000P will yield 1500 to 1800 watts of peak power. This means HEADROOM. For a bassist this is everything. The initial "bump" on the attack of the note is likely at least 3db higher than the "meat" of the note. This demands twice the amp power. The RAD 1000P has more "slam" than any amp I've used.

    4 weeks lead time right now.---should be lower in the future

    Technical Specifications
    Class D
    1000 Watts RMS
    1800 Watts Peak

    10 " by 7" deep 2 1/2" high
    4.5#
     
  2. agedhorse

    agedhorse Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 12, 2006
    Davis, CA (USA)
    Development Engineer-Mesa, Product Support-Genz Benz
    For clarity and accuracy, how are you defining peak power?
     
    rufus.K and JGR like this.
  3. radbass

    radbass supporting member Supporting Member Commercial User

    May 15, 2007
    south of chicago
    Owner RAD Repairs and RAD Engineering ,guitar, bass, and amp repair and limited custom instrument and amp building.
    Pascals specs.
     
  4. Mike Arnopol

    Mike Arnopol Supporting Member Commercial User

    Jan 4, 2005
    Chicago
    Owner of MAS Soundworks
    I'll have to find out, Andy. This is what was told me by Pascal's chief engineer. All I really understand is RMS. I was told that the peak or burst power (not sure the difference) went up drastically with the super--beefy custom power supply. I can tell you from experience (I've tried with and without the power supply add-on) that the difference is not subtle.It's like the difference between an early class D design and a huge class A/B. These mods were not designed by us---this is all suggestions from Pascal's designers. Anyone who is on the fence as far as class d being able to hang with the best class A/B---time to get on the other side. Andy--could you please educate us as to the difference between RMS, peak, AES, program, continuous, and burst power? I always go by RMS, but this obviously doesn't tell the story of the additional headroom with the changes to the power supply. I played one class d amp rated at the same 1000 watt RMS power and the Pascal wasted it as far as solidity, impact, headroom and envelope.
     
    NKBassman and wave rider like this.
  5. agedhorse

    agedhorse Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 12, 2006
    Davis, CA (USA)
    Development Engineer-Mesa, Product Support-Genz Benz
    Good question, that's exactly why I brought this up.

    I will try to define those terms, but note that different manufacturers sometimes have their own interpretation too.

    "RMS" Power is kind of a misnomer because the RMS drops out BUT it's generally assumed to be a power measurement based on RMS voltage measurements of a sine wave into the rated impedance (DC resistance for specification purposes). When using the equation P = Vsquared/R, when you square the "square root", the "RMS" units drop out .

    "Peak" Power is generally considered to be the power based on the peak voltage rather than the RMS voltage of a sine wave. Because the peak voltage is 1.414 times the RMS voltage, when you square 1.414 you get 2. This is why the peak power of an undistorted sine wave is always exactly 2 times the value of "RMS" power. It's just another way of describing exactly the same amount of power, but using different units. It's no different than defining an amount of liquid as 1/2 gallon or 2 quarts.

    "Burst Power" is generally considered to be the amount of power, stated in RMS terms, of a short burst of undistorted sine wave. While the hi-fi industry accepted 20mSec as the time period of the burst, that's really only applicable for full range signal where the dynamics are typically in the midrange or high frequencies (such as a snare drum). For bass guitar, the typical waveform profile is quite different, so 20mSec would represent only 1 cycle at 50Hz or 2 cycles at 100Hz which IMO is not very useful for bass guitar. I look to burst capabilities of around 100mSec or more as being more useful for bass. Unfortunately, some manufacturers define burst power by using peak voltage rather than RMS voltage, so the burst power would be 2 times higher than using the RMS voltage. Burst power is the basis for the term "dynamic headroom", but often it's taken quite out of context (especially when describing tube power amps) because the natural compression of some tube power amp circuits gives the impression of greater dynamic headroom but in actuality have less, and all of this impacts feel.

    Sometimes, you will see the peak power shown as slightly less than the "RMS" power, the usual reason is that the circuit was designed specifically with distortion characteristics in mind (may be from the preamp, the power amp or a combination of the two). These distortion characteristics may in fact be an integral part of the design, the tone and the feel of an amp, so if that's how the RMS power was defined, the peak power should be based on this specific waveform.

    Hope this helps.
     
  6. radbass

    radbass supporting member Supporting Member Commercial User

    May 15, 2007
    south of chicago
    Owner RAD Repairs and RAD Engineering ,guitar, bass, and amp repair and limited custom instrument and amp building.
    Thanks Andy. What the Pascal engineer was referring to was burst power, not peak to peak, if I recall correctly.
     
  7. agedhorse

    agedhorse Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 12, 2006
    Davis, CA (USA)
    Development Engineer-Mesa, Product Support-Genz Benz
    Do you know if both are specified using RMS metrics?

    The reason I ask is that the difference represents a LOT of power supply sag, more than I have seen in practice.
     
    Stumbo likes this.
  8. radbass

    radbass supporting member Supporting Member Commercial User

    May 15, 2007
    south of chicago
    Owner RAD Repairs and RAD Engineering ,guitar, bass, and amp repair and limited custom instrument and amp building.
    I believe it’s rms and yes it’s more than I’ve seen also. It kind of makes sense considering the crazy amount of extra capacitance the power supply can handle.
     
  9. agedhorse

    agedhorse Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 12, 2006
    Davis, CA (USA)
    Development Engineer-Mesa, Product Support-Genz Benz
    Yes, but that means that the sag amount is equally as huge, as would be the recovery time after the sag.
     
    Stumbo likes this.
  10. MoonQuake

    MoonQuake Supporting Member

    Jan 1, 2011
    Montréal, Qc.
    Is the Pascal module the S-PRO2 ?

    Is it 500W @ 8 ohms / 1000W @ 4 ohms ?

    One 1/4 in and two speakon outs ?
     
  11. radbass

    radbass supporting member Supporting Member Commercial User

    May 15, 2007
    south of chicago
    Owner RAD Repairs and RAD Engineering ,guitar, bass, and amp repair and limited custom instrument and amp building.
    Two speakon-1/4” combos and a 1/4”- xlr input.
     
  12. J.Wolf

    J.Wolf Gear Reviewer - Bass Musician Magazine

    Apr 29, 2003
    Asheville, NC
    "faster and has more impact than the ICE module based amp" based on my experience with the Pascal module in a couple of different systems, I wholeheartedly agree that its a good bit faster and has more impact than the ICE modules like the 250ASX2 (tonehammer etc), 700w (magellan, AG700, B|amp) and 1000ASP (Bergantino IP).

    The pascal is almost scary fast. Very nice upgrade from the Rad1000 (1000ASP) which was the previous high water mark for me re: class D modules.
     
    NKBassman likes this.
  13. Afc70

    Afc70 Modern praise 4 The Ancient of Days! Supporting Member

    Feb 2, 2004
    Northeast Arkansas
    My powered Wayne Jones 2/10 cab has a 1,000 watt Pascal amp, built in. Slams pretty nicely!
     
    allenhumble likes this.
  14. agedhorse

    agedhorse Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 12, 2006
    Davis, CA (USA)
    Development Engineer-Mesa, Product Support-Genz Benz
    Curious, how can you say it's faster when the speed is directly proportional to bandwidth?

    Just to put things in an accurate technical perspective, being maybe a bit familiar with the specs, the claims that you are making don't match the measurements between the IcePower 700ASC (AS1) and this Pascal module.

    For example, when talking about power, let's take a step backwards and look at the basic specs to see what's possible versus what's being claimed. Both of the modules are rated at 30 amps peak current, which is 21 amps RMS. At 4 ohms, this is (21**2 x 4) = 1760 watts yet at a typical sub-nominal impedance of 3.5 ohms (common amongst bass guitar cabinets) this power must either foldback to 1550 watts (or shut down), and no reputable designer would design right up to the overcurrent threshold either, 10% would be the minimum threshold margin so now running the numbers at 19 amps RMS we get 1440 watts into 4 ohms and 1250 watts into 3.5 ohms. The IcePower module on the other hand contains much more design margin, with the rated power at between 700 and 800 watts (depending on the THD) yet is capable of the same output current limit. This means that there is more margin available to drive sub-nominal impedance loads, and even enough to drive a 2 ohm load.

    I don't see anything about burst power in the Pascal data, but under theoretical calculations, 1600 watts might be possible (but not for very long, maybe 20mSec, given how close to the threshold). The Pascal module is current limited not voltage limited. There is no meaningful burst capability within the IcePower because it operates from a regulated rail supply, so it delivers the same power at clipping regardless of external factors (in voltage limited mode) and is not current limited at 4 ohms.

    Let's look at output impedance... the Pascal module is ~14mOhm and the IcePower is ~6mOhm, this means that the damping factor of the IcePower module is TWICE as "good" as the Pascal. (Higher DF is commonly assumed to be better, though i personally don't think there is much practical difference).

    Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room... the power supply. The standout difference between the two modules is that the IcePower module uses a PWM regulated supply so the output power is the same regardless of line voltage, yet the Pascal module uses an unregulated supply which does not correct for the inefficiency of the bulk supply's voltage doubler that's necessary for 120v (or 100V) operation. If you look at the rated output power at 120V, it falls to 700 watts RMS rather than 1050 watts that's available at 230V.

    The concept of speed has come up and bantered about without really considering what it means. Speed, as a function of the speed of electron movement itself is the same, essentially the speed of light. Speed as a function of amplifier bandwidth is different, and here IcePower also has the advantage being specified at 70kHz at 4 ohms versus Pascal at 60kHz. In practice, both are plenty fast enough and IMO the differences may simply reflect different approaches to feedback compensation.

    Where the advantage goes to Pascal is when driving 8 ohm loads, the current limit threshold is no longer a factor and the amp can deliver substantially more power into an 8 ohm load.

    Note that I am not saying that either product is inadequate, nor am I disparaging any product. I am saying that the numerical comparisons might lead to a different conclusion. They are simply different flavors of approach.
     
    bobcruz, mmon77, Nevada Pete and 3 others like this.
  15. J.Wolf

    J.Wolf Gear Reviewer - Bass Musician Magazine

    Apr 29, 2003
    Asheville, NC
    My experiences are entirely anecdotal and I have no prowess to go toe to toe with you on a technical level, so without being dismissive all I can say is “take it or leave it“. The pascal in my experience had a faster transient response then the 700 series or the 250asx. This is comparing the power amp in/fx return of amps using these modules, which in and of itself is not the most scientific method, but there you have it.
     
  16. J.Wolf

    J.Wolf Gear Reviewer - Bass Musician Magazine

    Apr 29, 2003
    Asheville, NC
    You don’t have to agree with me on a technical level. Ive come to trust my ears above most everything else
     
  17. agedhorse

    agedhorse Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 12, 2006
    Davis, CA (USA)
    Development Engineer-Mesa, Product Support-Genz Benz
    Absolutely, play what you like. I've never disagreed with this.

    I was simply pointing out that sometimes perception doesn't match up as well with the facts as it might appear.
     
  18. Mike Arnopol

    Mike Arnopol Supporting Member Commercial User

    Jan 4, 2005
    Chicago
    Owner of MAS Soundworks
    That was the impetus behind our using the Pascal.

    Thanks, Andy. Since I have much less knowledge as many of you I have to rely on my ears and comments of EVERYONE that has tried them.Going out of the preamp outputs and doing our best to match volume. Jake is pretty savvy and is very picky. Randy and I have tried all of the amps mentioned and without hesitation preferred the Pascal at the same volume levels. When drummers and PA guys ask what is different because they not only hear me better, but feel me better--and I know that I'm doing a better job of propelling the groove----that's more important to me . I've done the best blind tests I could and everyone said that there was no comparison. Everyone felt that the low end had more physical power and that the notes started more quickly and stopped more quickly.
     
    Afc70 likes this.
  19. Mike Arnopol

    Mike Arnopol Supporting Member Commercial User

    Jan 4, 2005
    Chicago
    Owner of MAS Soundworks
    That being said, the new ICE 1200 is absolutely slammin'. Very close in absolute volume and performance.I'd be hard pressed to decide between the two, but the Pascal can be put in a smaller box. Oh--and regarding their specs Andy, the reason that the amp has lower output at 4 ohms is that they dropped the rail voltage at 4 ohms for stability. The chief engineer at Pascal told me that with the extra capacitance there was no need to drop the rail voltage---he said he hadn't measured the output but surmised that it was closer to 1200 watts with the beefier supply and not dropping the voltage.One advantage of the Pascal is that it's a stereo amp---all of these figures are in bridged mode. With a switch it can be converted back to a stereo amp.
     
  20. Mike Arnopol

    Mike Arnopol Supporting Member Commercial User

    Jan 4, 2005
    Chicago
    Owner of MAS Soundworks
    Maybe the "facts" are not complete enough to state what is actually happening in the real world. If the "facts" say that the 700 has the performance of the Pascal, maybe the "facts" are at fault. The Ice 1200 is another story.
     
    staccatogrowl likes this.