Why is the 1000 ASP ICE module not more popular?

[silky smoove]

I believe @JGR uses the 1000 in his Studio 1200. I happen to own one of said Studio 1200s. I've also owned many amps that use the 250x2 setup. The 1000 equipped Studio 1200 absolutely blows away everything I've ever owned, but that's likely more to do with the overall amp design than the power module used.

 

[J.Wolf]

I believe @JGR uses the 1000 in his Studio 1200. I happen to own one of said Studio 1200s. I've also owned many amps that use the 250x2 setup. The 1000 equipped Studio 1200 absolutely blows away everything I've ever owned, but that's likely more to do with the overall amp design than the power module used.

Based on my experience having individual power amps to compare with different preamps, I'd say its both. I've been really wanting to check out the Studio 1200. I bet its great

 

[silky smoove]

I've been really wanting to check out the Studio 1200.

Just hop on a plane from NC and head out to Seattle and you're more than welcome to give it a spin

 

[JGR]

Just hop on a plane from NC and head out to Seattle and you're more than welcome to give it a spin

Party!

 

[J.Wolf]

Just hop on a plane from NC and head out to Seattle and you're more than welcome to give it a spin

dont tempt me! I used to live in Olympia and Port Townsend and have really been missing the PNW lately. especially the olympic peninsula.

Now I have one more reason to visit!

 

[BogeyBass]

The ICEpower1000ASP is designed for music reproduction, which means that the output power of the amplifier
will never be continuous. If the average power exceeds 85W @ 4O (typical) for a long time at 25°C ambient
temperature, the module will reach its maximum allowable temperature and the temperature protection will be
activated. At 50°C ambient temperature more than 40W @ 4O (typical) average power will activate the
temperature protection.


The ICEpower250ASX2 module is designed for music reproduction, which means that the output power of the amplifier will never be continuous. Research has shown that the RMS level of any music signal does not normally exceed 1/8th of the peak value and the power supply is therefore designed for large short-term power handling and lower continuous power handling. If the average output power of the ICEpower250ASX2 exceeds 60W @ 4Ω (SE-mode with both channels driven) or 180W @ 8Ω (BTL-mode) for a long time at 25°C ambient temperature, the module will reach its maximum allowable temperature and the temperature protection will be activated.

I wonder if markbass uses this things cause I've used them all but 3 times and shut them down every time in less than a 1/2 hour. And likewise is built in compression normal to keep these things usable cause the shutdown and horrible baked in feel I got from it was annoying. I don't know the model but it was a 4ohm load for sure

 

[Mike Arnopol]

I've slammed the 1000 module at 2.67 ohms for an entire set. Barely got warm. I've slammed the 250 at 4 and had it shut down.The 700 was also stable at lower impedances.

 

[J.Wolf]

I sheepishly admit that I've flogged the 1000w amp just to see what it was capable of and where the 'ceiling' is, and not only did it not fail, or even get warm, sonically it didn't even flinch. Not refuting anyone else's personal experience with it, but in my experience its been 100% rock solid.

 

[JGR]

I believe @JGR uses the 1000 in his Studio 1200. I happen to own one of said Studio 1200s. I've also owned many amps that use the 250x2 setup. The 1000 equipped Studio 1200 absolutely blows away everything I've ever owned, but that's likely more to do with the overall amp design than the power module used.

You don't see the 1000 much because the module costs significantly more than the 250 - the only other MI applications to use it (caveat - from what I've been told/am aware of) were the Berg IP cabs and the TC Blacksmith. Though it's light/compact for what it is, it's bigger and heavier than the 250, so you can't stuff it into an Altoid sized, budget-priced amp which has been the rage for a while now. For as small/affordable as the 250 is, its pretty cool, but it doesn't even come close to the 1000 in actual use; the 250 pretty much spawned the whole Class D debate. The new 700 module should put a lot of that to rest.

There are a lot of other variables of course, but I've found the 1000 to compare very well to my rack power amps (running the integrated amp versus the preamp out into a rack amp) - I currently have a PLX3602 and had a CA9 prior to that. I've slammed it full throttle with a fiver into big cabs and it punches back hard, and doesn't break a sweat. I've fed it continuous sine waves at high volume and it hasn't shut down (I'm sure I could get it to, but I didn't have a big enough load on hand, and it's not pleasant to listen to through big speakers!). I like the fact that it has been around a long time and has a proven track record, but I'm generally a mid to late adopter of any technology. The 1000 isn't as easy to drive as the Hypex modules which probably accounts for some of the perceived differences, but I recommended it to Mike when we were talking about doing powered speakers a while back because it's a lot more compact/integrated solution.

Regarding the new 700 module, I'm still prototyping the VHF700 so the jury is still out, but it seems solid - the top end might be a bit more open than the 1000, but I don't find the 1000 lacking in detail, and when designed as a system, I'd say it's a who cares - I can make it sound like I want. It seems like it's solid in it's power ratings and safe to call it 700 watts based on the spec sheet (800 is marketing), but I don't expect it to have the same slam as the 1000 which has another ~500 watts on tap (at four ohms). The low end presentation/feel may be a bit different between the two (not sure yet), but I'm not concerned as the amp will be designed/voiced as a system, and I can tailor it as I see (hear) fit.

In the end, design is still king and not all will perform equally just because they are using the same modules - we've seen that with the previous crop of 250 based amps, and it will continue with the next generation.

 

[JGR]

I wonder if markbass uses this things cause I've used them all but 3 times and shut them down every time in less than a 1/2 hour. And likewise is built in compression normal to keep these things usable cause the shutdown and horrible baked in feel I got from it was annoying. I don't know the model but it was a 4ohm load for sure

They don't. The 1000 is a rock.

 

[J.Wolf]

You don't see the 1000 much because the module costs significantly more than the 250 - the only other MI applications to use it (caveat - from what I've been told/am aware of) were the Berg IP cabs and the TC Blacksmith. Though it's light/compact for what it is, it's bigger and heavier than the 250, so you can't stuff it into an Altoid sized, budget-priced amp which has been the rage for a while now. For as small/affordable as the 250 is, its pretty cool, but it doesn't even come close to the 1000 in actual use; the 250 pretty much spawned the whole Class D debate. The new 700 module should put a lot of that to rest.

There are a lot of other variables of course, but I've found the 1000 to compare very well to my rack power amps (running the integrated amp versus the preamp out into a rack amp) - I currently have a PLX3602 and had a CA9 prior to that. I've slammed it full throttle with a fiver into big cabs and it punches back hard, and doesn't break a sweat. I've fed it continuous sine waves at high volume and it hasn't shut down (I'm sure I could get it to, but I didn't have a big enough load on hand, and it's not pleasant to listen to through big speakers!). I like the fact that it has been around a long time and has a proven track record, but I'm generally a mid to late adopter of any technology. The 1000 isn't as easy to drive as the Hypex modules which probably accounts for some of the perceived differences, but I recommended it to Mike when we were talking about doing powered speakers a while back because it's a lot more compact/integrated solution.

Regarding the new 700 module, I'm still prototyping the VHF700 so the jury is still out, but it seems solid - the top end might be a bit more open than the 1000, but I don't find the 1000 lacking in detail, and when designed as a system, I'd say it's a who cares - I can make it sound like I want. It seems like it's solid in it's power ratings and safe to call it 700 watts based on the spec sheet (800 is marketing), but I don't expect it to have the same slam as the 1000 which has another ~500 watts on tap (at four ohms). The low end presentation/feel may be a bit different between the two (not sure yet), but I'm not concerned as the amp will be designed/voiced as a system, and I can tailor it as I see (hear) fit.

In the end, design is still king and not all will perform equally just because they are using the same modules - we've seen that with the previous crop of 250 based amps, and it will continue with the next generation.

Great post Jonathan, thank you!

 

[ThisBass]

I wonder if markbass uses this things cause I've used them all but 3 times and shut them down every time in less than a 1/2 hour. And likewise is built in compression normal to keep these things usable cause the shutdown and horrible baked in feel I got from it was annoying. I don't know the model but it was a 4ohm load for sure

Within less than 1/2 hour needs a lot of "compression" to the signal to overheat the power amp device.
I just remember the older markbass amps suffered on difficulties with complex loads caused by passive crossover networks of third party cabinet manufacturers. In succession the amps shut down randomly in combination with "distinct" cabinets.

 

[agedhorse]

Thats really interesting. thank you for that insight.

Its not like I'm out there every night diming these things, but I will say I've had more issues with the 250 than with the 1000, so I'm a bit surprised to hear that. Although it does explain some of my headscratching about why these aren't more popular with bass amps manufacturers.

My experience with the 250 module is in the "many thousands of units", and I have experienced very, very few issues. There's are a lot of technical processes going on under the hood, so it helps greatly to have solid engineering design experience with SMPS and class D technology BEFORE attempting to design any product using any of these parts. The 1000 modules are quite robust as well (again, if you understand some of their particular limitations), but by the time a knowledgeable designer trades off the differences between the various limitations, IMO the 250 becomes the clear winner. There is just so much more available (and is available only to those who understand the data that is between the lines on the published data sheets, the 4 ohms BTL operation is just the tip of the "ICEberg" so to speak ) that it's worth the effort to perform a thorough engineering analysis to learn what's really going on (and why). I am so deep into the technology that we (Jeff, Scott and I) were awarded a patent based on thermal/power/energy management controls I developed that apply to this topic in general and to this module in particular. There are multiple control loops operating simultaneously, and it's possible to lead/lag parameters of some of these loops to greatly improve their real world performance.

BTW, can you disclose which products you've worked on that utilize the 1000? Just curious, as I can only think of 2-3 amps that use them, and I think theyre all very small batch/boutique.

I can not, the products were for a couple of the large corporate pro audio manufacturers, used in both powered point source and line array products. I have spent decades in the pro audio world, overlapping with MI audio for the last 20 or so. They would frown upon this, as would their lawyers I'm sure.

My experience is the opposite. And my experience is going back and forth between only the power amps sections being changed on MANY gigs. The 1000 blows away the 250 on every level. Except size and price.

Your experience clearly differs greatly from mine, and since I have control over the product's entire execution I am not just mixing and matching parts, but designing and integrating as an entire system, including the manipulation of various performance curves to match limitation envelopes. Yes, I understand that this is beyond the capabilities (and/or abilities) of many of the folks in the MI design industry, but that's what it takes to take average to the next level and just as importantly, to do so at a cost that's reasonable to players. Could I do the same thing with the 1000 module and make it perform better than a stock 250 module, probably so, but the amount of effort and cost would make the improvements of questionable value at best to the customer/player.

I can not and will not discuss any of the specific limitations of any of the modules, but I think it should be obvious that some designers are more successful than others with regard to their successes in this particular field, specifically reliability and real world performance.

 

[agedhorse]

I think it's a good idea to take into account that modern class-D audio amplifiers are designed for reinforcement of audio program material rather than "steady" sine waves, or for use as a driving device for electrical engines.

"Overdriven" audio signals (and dirty bass guitar signals as well) are suitable to get way more average out of an power amplifier than intended thus there is potential to overheat the power device over time.

Very true, in the real world you can't control the dynamics and duty cycle oft he incoming signal, so (much) additional effort must go into the design to insure that the robustness of the product is adequate to support the worst case (within some reason) application that it might encounter. This is much more difficult than it might seem, and many of the parameters are inter-related, so manipulating one parameter is likely to have a (positive OR negative) effect on another.

 

[StayLow]

I wonder if markbass uses this things cause I've used them all but 3 times and shut them down every time in less than a 1/2 hour. And likewise is built in compression normal to keep these things usable cause the shutdown and horrible baked in feel I got from it was annoying. I don't know the model but it was a 4ohm load for sure

Just my 2c for balance in re: Markbass. I've run my LMII nearly flat-out so often (gain so the blue clipping LED is often on, Master near max, EQ around "flat") and never an issue over years of doing so. On occasion into 2.67 Ohms with gain & master about halfway up. That amp's been physically knocked around a lot too. Super solid.

My TTE500 has run for long nights into 4 Ohms maxed the same way (LED on fire, Master full-on, EQ "flat") and never an issue. No experience with their other amps.

 

[Chef]

cool thread.

 

[Mike Arnopol]

My experience with the 250 is both from a stand alone amp and integrated into at least 6 amps that I know of. Including yours. While I think that most of them sound great---my comments stand. I've gone out of the preamp outs on some of them into the 1000 module. In every occaision it sounded---but more importantly---felt better. Two high end tube preamp makers integrated the 250 into their designs. I've gone head to head with those amps and then just the preamps into the 1000. Better on all counts. The main reason that I think the 250 was chosen---less than half the price and a lot smaller.

 

[blowinblue]

cool thread.

We see what you did there. nICEly done.

M. M.

 

[agedhorse]

Fortunately, everybody has their own personal preference of "better". That's what makes the world go around.

 

[12bass]

Fortunately, everybody has their own personal preference of "better". That's what makes the world go around.

Question for agedhorse: If sound quality were the only consideration, would you still be using class D in your new designs?