• 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.

Warwick Micro; 1000 watts 4 ohms!

#101
I'd be surprised if Warwick has any illusions about wrenching away a huge share of the light weight amp market with this amp. I'm also sure there are a few people who like the high end audiophile look or for whom appearance is an utter non-issue if it performs well sonically. So unless the thing sounds like complete ass or regularly explodes they'll sell a few. Personal taste aside you can rarely fault Warwick for trashy sounding products or poor build quality. All y'all should be waiting to hear it before passing the final judgement many of you have.
 
#102
i do kinda hate warwick's "1000 TRUE watts" marketing catchphrase for this amp, and their rather heavy implication that other lightweight amp companies are lying to us about wattage. that being said, i bet the amp sounds good.

as for its looks, let's not forget how silly markbass stuff looked back when it was new. people learned pretty quick that the sound is what matters. so if the warwick amp really sounds great, i doubt the 70's stereo look will matter much in the long run.
 
#109
Don't the earlier Hellborg/Warwick amps have chrome fronts and a retro hi-fi look? I'm not offended by the look, although I question its durability in real-world use. But Hellborg seems to want a hi-fi sensibility, in both sound and visual presentation, and that's cool by me. And even if he is not an EE, he well could have knowledge, experience and sonic goals that make him a credible participant in the design process.

I'm not going to judge the sound off of a video, but have generally found the Class D amps impressive in many ways but lacking a core or impact that I hear with old-school power supplies (which is why I'm still holding onto a Thunderfunk 750 that I hardly use). I use a genzbenz 3.0 all the time for practice/rehearsals/small gigs, but my Aguilar TH500 is the first Class D amp I've used that gets into the ballpark with "real" amps. Notwithstanding all the marketing blather, I'll be curious to try one of these Warwicks out in person at some point - if Warwick has made genuine progress on the power amp, and also come up with a good preamp circuit, this could be a lot of fun...although I, too, don't get the point of 1000 watts and only one speakon output - compares unfavorably with the GB units that can power two 4-ohm speakers through separate power modules.
 
#110
Marlat said:
So first TC Electronics gets caught for misrepresenting their specs and now Warwick is caught misrepresenting about other manufacturers misrepresenting their specs. Wow. The world of amps is confusing! :)
Click to expand...

I think it is a good thing if Warwick wants to expose other designs for not measuring up to published specs, but they better have hard proof. And they better have solid measurements of their own amps. They just can't repeat the specs they get from their amp vendor. They need to measure it, and other amps using the same or similar modules and prove it.

Even for the pre-amp. For Warwick to spout "class-a" pre-amp but then to not provide any measureable benefits over say a traditional op-amp just another form of spew.

IMHO
 
#111
IronLung1986 said:
i do kinda hate warwick's "1000 TRUE watts" marketing catchphrase for this amp, and their rather heavy implication that other lightweight amp companies are lying to us about wattage.
Click to expand...

It caught my attention. Invalid Link Removed that some manufacturers are using a 125w or 250w module and calling them 500w and 800w respectively. I think he is mentioning Ice Power modules (125asx2 and 250asx2), using their stereo power ratings. These are common in the micros. They are far less watts in stereo and will bridge, but the amplifier designer can change things around in the output section to get them to burst power at much higher supply. Typically you will see a higher THD rating at the burst power, over 3% in some cases.

He is mentioning that the design of this amplifier is a true 1000w power rating, and not using some lower wattage circuit that has been modified to produce a larger power rating.

What does this mean? I think they are trying to say that they are using an IcePower 1000A, instead of a 125asx2 or 250asx2. If so, great move and I'm highly interested.

:hiding:
 
#113
joelb79 said:
It caught my attention. Invalid Link Removed that some manufacturers are using a 125w or 250w module and calling them 500w and 800w respectively. I think he is mentioning Ice Power modules (125asx2 and 250asx2), using their stereo power ratings. These are common in the micros. They are far less watts in stereo and will bridge, but the amplifier designer can change things around in the output section to get them to burst power at much higher supply. Typically you will see a higher THD rating at the burst power, over 3% in some cases.

He is mentioning that the design of this amplifier is a true 1000w power rating, and not using some lower wattage circuit that has been modified to produce a larger power rating.

What does this mean? I think they are trying to say that they are using an IcePower 1000A, instead of a 125asx2 or 250asx2. If so, great move and I'm highly interested.

:hiding:
Click to expand...

The marketing guy (similar to what you did in another post) was misquoting the specs from that data sheet. He was quoting the single side spec from the 'x2' modules, which was pretty bad for someone to do when they are doing a company video. Cheesy to slam your competitors. REALLY cheezy to slam them with completely, utterly wrong information.


Again, based on your recent history with this stuff, I would HIGHLY recommend you listening with your ears and not your eyes for a while:p

Like other classes of amps, there are many class D designs, and many manufacturers use other brands' products. Also, as posted by quite a few EE's there are many ways to make these modules produce very different output levels, different distortion levels (higher distortion is not a bad thing in bass amplification if it is sculpted to sound good), etc.
 
#114
WarwickOfficial said:
joelb79 - Actually, we aren't using an IcePower module. Its a completely different and new 1000w module. I will provide more details soon, provided by our engineer. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Even more exciting.

:hyper:

KJung said:
The marketing guy (similar to what you did in another post) was misquoting the specs from that data sheet. He was quoting the single side spec from the 'x2' modules, which was pretty bad for someone to do when they are doing a company video. Cheesy to slam your competitors. REALLY cheezy to slam them with completely, utterly wrong information.


Again, based on your recent history with this stuff, I would HIGHLY recommend you listening with your ears and not your eyes for a while:p

Like other classes of amps, there are many class D designs, and many manufacturers use other brands' products. Also, as posted by quite a few EE's there are many ways to make these modules produce very different output levels, different distortion levels (higher distortion is not a bad thing in bass amplification if it is sculpted to sound good), etc.
Click to expand...

Oh gosh.. I think your misunderstanding how I think. You've stated your opinion, I've read the threads and come around in thinking a bit. Just relax please. Your the one who has me seriously looking at a Shuttlemax 9.2. I think that's a change in position for myself.

Blue_Whistle88 said:
Class D amps will never have such consistent performance in the low-end category as all-valve heads
Click to expand...

I disagree as well. They have come a long way. Construction and engineering quality says everything these days.
 
#115
joelb79 said:
Oh gosh.. I think your misunderstanding how I think. You've stated your opinion, I've read the threads and come around in thinking a bit. Just relax please. Your the one who has me seriously looking at a Shuttlemax 9.2. I think that's a change in position for myself.
Click to expand...

Just screwing with you a bit, hence the:p Pretty complicated stuff here, regarding the actual performance of these various modules once they are integrated into a full amplification system. Same thing with class A/B and all the other types. It is very rare throughout the history of amps that two 500 or 300 or 600 watts heads of any topology have every sounded the same or performed at the same level. Some designers specifically go for a punchy, warm, sort of tone with various tweakes to hi pass filtering, preamp voicing, and amp power managment (Aguilar, Genz, etc.), etc. Others go for full, open, massive low end and clean top end (TecAmp, Glockenklang, etc.).

Interesting stuff, and surely not as simple as looking at OEM 'in a vacuum' tech sheets on the general class D modules (it seems).
 
#117
Hmm. I have to agree that having two channels and not being able to switch a single instrument between them seems kind of lame. However, there are plenty of other amps built that way, so I guess some people must have a use for it. And I guess you could have a tech install the A/B switch (at the risk of voiding any warranty). Otherwsie I think this looks like an interesting product.

I'll be interested to find out more about the power module, and I'll be very interested to read a full review and test *cough Tom Bowlus cough*.
 
#118
Jim Nazium said:
Hmm. I have to agree that having two channels and not being able to switch a single instrument between them seems kind of lame. However, there are plenty of other amps built that way, so I guess some people must have a use for it. And I guess you could have a tech install the A/B switch (at the risk of voiding any warranty).
Click to expand...

That part doesn't really bother me. Great design for doubling, and the separate mute switches for each channel are a great idea when used this way.

For a product like this (and the Walter Woods, for example) that seems targeted more to those who want relatively transparent, relatively neutral tone, functionality (ease of doubling, full EQ to control the quirks of different instruments, and the ability to keep both instruments plugged in and ready to go on the gig) is more improtant than exotic tonal capabilities like summing/mixing the two channels etc.

Why they needed three rack spaces to do that is a different question, but I like the concept.
 
#120
The comment I made about class D amps having less low-end than Valve heads was based on empiricism. As much as I like class D heads (and use one in fact), valve heads do generally put out more low-end with their tone controls set flat than class D heads do. Valve heads have always had that sort of inherent tonal character (again, generalising here), and didn't need to be "developed" to get it.

Class D heads are getting fatter in their tone but just don't have that softer attack that characterises valve heads. Their quick attack mayn't necessarily affect the sustain timbre, but it gives them a harder-hitting tonal quality, which tends to accentuate higher frequencies such as the ones involved with string noise. I accept that this whole issue is subjective, but those are my feelings based on my observations. I've always preferred solid state attack qualities over valve, cause my technique naturally produces a harder attack.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back