• 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.

Shuttle 9.0?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#82
I think cab choices are even easier with the 9.0
Get a pair of Uber 210's and call it a day. I tested it wit the Ubers 210 ans the 212. The 210's power wise are the perfect match... tho I am sure a pair of 8 ohm Uber 212's would seriously kill... maybe even and Uber210/212 combo. MMMMM sweet


dDaddybass said:
Uber 410, 1000 watts. ?
Click to expand...
 
#83
hasbeen said:
I did see your comment the other day about a mono-block 8.0. In fact, I forwarded that one to Jeff.

We have product "in the can" though, several months before we announce it. A couple of TB'ers here have actually been playing this amp for a bit too. As well as Ed Friedland, Chuck Rainey and Doug Johns.
Click to expand...

I meant about the squash of the other guy.

Though I must say the SM 12.0 has no such squash or if it does one has to have the amp so loud his ears are bleeding before it does. :D

The Shuttle 9.0 is really what a lot of people are looking for. The tiny little package, that is simple and easy to use, with lots of power on tap. Now I know there are players out there that require multiple sounds with a foot switch but many require one really good sound.

My hat is off to you guys in regards to listening to us Bass Players wants and desires. You have delivered the Holy Grail.

Your customer service is known to be second to none. Your products are cutting edge. You seem to be really up front about marketing your products. None of that bait and switch stuff and none of the little minions running around pushing your products in secret. Everything with you guys seems to be up front and beyond reproach.

Thank you sincerely.

Greg D Beasley
 
#84
Buzz said:
I'm curious about cabinet choices with the 9.0. If running say the NEOX212T (a 4 ohm 600 watt RMS cabinet) should I be concerned with the additional 300 watts over powering it? It seems like the cabinets and amps currently pair up well. i.e. Shuttle 6.0 with 4 ohm 600 watt cab.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be concerned. ....I run a GBE1200 into a Neox-212T. Keep in mind though, that if you want to, you can blow a 1000 watt cabinet with a 500 watt head.

If you over eq it and slap your open palm against the strings and pups (which I see people do....not sure why), the spike can do damage to your speakers.
 
#85
Red Planet said:
I meant about the squash of the other guy.

Though I must say the SM 12.0 has no such squash or if it does one has to have the amp so loud his ears are bleeding before it does. :D

The Shuttle 9.0 is really what a lot of people are looking for. The tiny little package, that is simple and easy to use, with lots of power on tap. Now I know there are players out there that require multiple sounds with a foot switch but many require one really good sound.

My hat is off to you guys in regards to listening to us Bass Players wants and desires. You have delivered the Holy Grail.

Your customer service is known to be second to none. Your products are cutting edge. You seem to be really up front about marketing your products. None of that bait and switch stuff and none of the little minions running around pushing your products in secret. Everything with you guys seems to be up front and beyond reproach.

Thank you sincerely.

Greg D Beasley
Click to expand...

thanks for the kind words Greg.
 
#86
I think where this will outshine the rest is that the eq on the 6.0 is wonderfuly musical and you really DO notice the extra power in feel when you run a single 8 ohm cabinet. For the week I ran it I never saw a clip light. It was a tone I love but with the juice to back it up. The Max12.0 is great power wise when you run 4 ohms a side... if you are only running an 8 ohm cabinet you are only getting 375... some may say you won't hear a 75 watt difference. I beg to differ. If you run a 25 watt amp themn a 100 watt amp you hear the difference do you not? I hope a Max9.0 will be in the future however, my band cried when they knew I had to pack up the 9.0 and send it back. They said in a band format the extra power was felt better with a smoother low end. I ran them that week with a single Uber210, dual Uber210's and the Uber212. Having the head room on an Uber212 made even more 215'ish.
 
#87
Buzz said:
I'm curious about cabinet choices with the 9.0. If running say the NEOX212T (a 4 ohm 600 watt RMS cabinet) should I be concerned with the additional 300 watts over powering it? It seems like the cabinets and amps currently pair up well. i.e. Shuttle 6.0 with 4 ohm 600 watt cab.
Click to expand...

Let me address this topic in general, and in a little bit more depth too, as it applies to all large amps of this power as well...

It's not the available power of the amp that causes damage to the speakers, it's HOW the power is used. If the power is used without regard to the limitations of the speakers connected, it is indeed possible to damage speakers.

The RMS power rating of a speaker is basicly the thermal limits of the speaker's voice coil, and under most conditions, is a reasonably safe level to power a speaker at.

The "program" power rating of a speaker (where used anyway) is generally accepted to be 2x the RMS rating and is generally considered to corrolate with the mechanical limitations of the speaker. This is not all that accurate though, since the mechanical limitations vary with frequency. For example, a cabinet that has a rated -10dB bandwidth of 40Hz on the low end will also typically have a power handling level of roughly 3-6dB less than the program rating at that point. This means that if you dig in at the very bottom end, and you power at 2x the RMS rating of the cabinet, you are likely causing mechanical damage to the surround-cone joint as well at the spider structure (assuming you are not already slamming the bobbin into the backplate).

How a cabinet behaves at the bottom end depend on the driver's parameters as well as how the driver is used in the cabinet. Smaller cabinets tend to sacrafice the very low end for better cone control and higher outout a few Hz higher. Ingeneral, this is a very worthwhile tradeoff for most players, since this very low end limitation can be overcome by increasing the number of cabinets, which also increases the overall fullness. This has been done for years in the touring pro audio world, otherwise they would be moving around 4000 lb subwoofer cabinets ;).

Now there are circuits and approaches we can and do in an amp's design to minimize this problem, and to extract better performance out of all compact cabinets, but as the power levels increase, the player shares in this responsibility to use common sense and good judgement to protect their speakers from damage.

1. If you are looking for a lot of deep bottom end, especially at high volumes, a single 10, 12 or 210 is probably not going to get you there regardless of brand/model etc. Choose an appropriate speaker system for the job. This may mean doubling up on a smaller cabinet for some gigs, or using a larger cabinet. The 9.0 with a NeoX212 is probably a good match for most players, assuming they aren't beating the snot out of their bass. Even the 210 is probably ok for a reasonably minded player, but I would recommend the 8 ohm version which limits the power to around 550-600 watts or so.

2. If you hear the speaker distorting, or straining, or sounding "rough", you may be exceeding the mechanical limits of the speaker and it would be wise to look into your rig's suitability for the volume you are trying to achieve. Not all speakers are rated as conservatively as we rate ours.

3. If you find that you like the sound of the amp when hitting the output limiter regularly, you might wantto be sure you are powering the speaker system at closer to the RMS rating of the speaker. The act of hitting the limiter hard increases the average power delivered to the speaker, do derating the speaker's rated power handling capacity is probably a good idea.

4. If you play big gigs, outdoors especially, rely on the PA (assuming it's a real PA) to carry the deep bottom. The PA does not generally have the same limitations in cabinet size and weight that a compact bass rig has.

5. If you slap, and like real bottom end while slapping, it would be wise to power the speaker at around it's RMS rating as well. The act of slapping puts a lot of stress on a speaker and the slapped signal can contain some additional subsonic signal that stresses the drivers.

The take-home message here is that more common sense is necessary the larger the amp becomes relative to the speaker. This is true for all amps and speakers, not just ours.

Hope this helps.
 
#89
Common sense IMHO is always a must. You have to respect the gear as a whole. A single 10 being driven by a lot of power is dissaster waiting to happen. I do feel however that Genz has done a great job at making the math an easy equation. If you look at the cabs they make power wise there is a head to perfectly match them. i.e. the 8 and 4 ohm power ratings match the cabinets. The 9.0 is the perfectmatch for the uber210's either 1 or 2 the power is dead on...as is the neoXseries and every other head made. The max series is 375 watts to an 8 ohm load and 600 to a 4 ohm load. While the 9.0 power is perfect for the Uber210's
 
#90
So will this Shuttle 9 have the same preamp as the 6?
Meaning will it sound the same but louder or will it be thicker and meatier as well?
I had a GBE 750 before, loved the power/DI/flexibility but was too heavy and too many knobs at the end of the day.
The shuttle 6 I tried sounded a little anemic compared, I tried the Shuttlemax 12 the other day and really liked it but I only need the tube channel, maybe this new guy will be the way to go for me!
 
#92
Doesn't interest me much, since I don't like the front end of the 6.0 much.

HOWEVER..... if they put that power section in the Max 6 (i.e., make a Max 9), THAT would be cool. It would eliminate the limitations of the non bridgable Max 12 (i.e., needing to use 2 cabs to get all the juice), and provide a more 'appropriate' front end IMO to all that power, with the variable voicing controls and the FET/Tube preamp.
 
#93
CaptainWally said:
If you've filed a patent, then all the technical details should be publicly available. :confused:

Didn't find your patent on "Google Patents" after a casual search though.

Looking forward to checking out the 9.0! :hyper:
Click to expand...

Issued patents are publicly available. Patent applications are not publicly available until 18 months after they have been filed, and can be kept confidential even longer than that in certain circumstances (e.g., if no foreign counterpart is filed). Generally you want to maintain the secrecy of patent applications because early disclosure could jeopardize further filings for related inventions, or could result in loss of trade secret protection in cases where the patent application is determined to be invalid.
 
#94
I agree that the Max9.0 would be the deal but for the week I have the 9.0 there seamed to be a lot eq because you have the power to subtract freq with out subtracting power

KJung said:
Doesn't interest me much, since I don't like the front end of the 6.0 much.

HOWEVER..... if they put that power section in the Max 6 (i.e., make a Max 9), THAT would be cool. It would eliminate the limitations of the non bridgable Max 12 (i.e., needing to use 2 cabs to get all the juice), and provide a more 'appropriate' front end IMO to all that power, with the variable voicing controls and the FET/Tube preamp.
Click to expand...
 
#95
Fretlessboy said:
I agree that the Max9.0 would be the deal but for the week I have the 9.0 there seamed to be a lot eq because you have the power to subtract freq with out subtracting power
Click to expand...

+1 That makes sense. I always struggled with the low end voicing of the 6.0. More power would at least help that issue IMO.

But man, a Max 9.0... forget about it... that would be the spec!
 
#96
true. The thing is you can run the global boost and you have %50 more power (at 4 ohms) to push that low end. You just don't run out of power


KJung said:
+1 That makes sense. I always struggled with the low end voicing of the 6.0. More power would at least help that issue IMO.

But man, a Max 9.0... forget about it... that would be the spec!
Click to expand...
 
#97
Top_Ten said:
Issued patents are publicly available. Patent applications are not publicly available until 18 months after they have been filed, and can be kept confidential even longer than that in certain circumstances (e.g., if no foreign counterpart is filed). Generally you want to maintain the secrecy of patent applications because early disclosure could jeopardize further filings for related inventions, or could result in loss of trade secret protection in cases where the patent application is determined to be invalid.
Click to expand...

Aye. Figured the new technology of existing products was patented at least 18 months ago.

Don't care too much, but very interested in checking out the 9.0.
 
#99
Wow. It can only go up from here. What's next - 1200W in a package the size of a book? This brings up a concern regarding all of the new high power amps - sensitivity to line power. When I think back on some of the gigs I've done with less than, shall we say "adequate" line power it really makes me sort of hope the the manufacturers are designing to mitigate this common real-world problem. Given the state of some of the deplorable line power situations with which we must deal, these high-efficiency switching designs can only help. Still, an amp that delivers 900W, even a high efficiency one, should be able to function and at reduced power if necessary at line voltages that sag well below the standard.

Please say it is so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back