Why is the 1000 ASP ICE module not more popular?

[Jazz Ad]

If the 1000 ASP is what's in my Berg IP, I have to agree that it sounds considerably cleaner at loud volume than any other amp I've tried.
None of the 800W or so micro heads I've tried sounded like a valuable opponent against it and I doubt 200W make a difference.
The only one that gets so close I can't tell which is best would be the Hevos 1000S head.

 

[agedhorse]

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

Yes, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is the freedom from issues driving highly reactive loads without worrying about safe operating area limits and phase offset between the voltage and current in the output. Another reason is that the vast majority of customers have spoken, saying they want high performance amps but only in smaller, lighter weight packages.

That doesn't exclude me from designing a really robust linear amp, but if I did, it would be a pretty darn boutique because the majority of the market is well beyond this.

It's kind of ironic though, because I am primarily a linear amp designer with many successful (though obsolete by today's market standards) high powered amps. I have had to change with the times like everyone else, even if I might have a few working big design prototypes gathering dust. Life marches forward, it really does.

 

[cv115505]

Rookie question here but what amps on the market currently use the 1000? I think the Warwick LWA does, but I'm not sure.

 

[andrew]

Subbed.

 

[fast slapper]

Rookie question here but what amps on the market currently use the 1000? I think the Warwick LWA does, but I'm not sure.

The LWA uses a Pascal module. Trickfish uses the same module but with extra capacitors. I believe the TC BH800 might also use Pascal as well but that's just conjecture on my part.

 

[B-string]

I think I see here that folks are applying class A/B thought processes to class D module "spec sheets".

By the way the MarkBass LM II's were class A/B not class D. Even the early LM III's were class A/B before being changed to class D.

 

[ThisBass]

Of course off topic but sound quality quesetion of both modules just reminds me on distinct boutique basses made in USA.
The on board circuit remains steady since early 80s. The Op-Amp is still a "cheapy" LF442.
In the meanwhile there are way more "better" Op-Amps available with same lowish current consumption but improved tonal characteristic, more "airy" respectively more "clean" and detailed and improved dynamical feel.
Never the less the LF442 is still there, after some time I had A/B-ing this "cheapy" Op-Amp with diferent ones of better quality I came to an insight that indeed this cheapy IC is part of a distinct flavour of these very expensive boutique basses.
With a bass guitar that costs around $6000 new there can't be a cost-benefit calculation of 0.60$ versus more "quality" which was around 2-3$ at most.

 

[12bass]

Of course off topic but sound quality quesetion of both modules just reminds me on distinct boutique basses made in USA.
The on board circuit remains steady since early 80s. The Op-Amp is still a "cheapy" LF442.
In the meanwhile there are way more "better" Op-Amps available with same lowish current consumption but improved tonal characteristic, more "airy" respectively more "clean" and detailed and improved dynamical feel.
Never the less the LF442 is still there, after some time I had A/B-ing this "cheapy" Op-Amp with diferent ones of better quality I came to an insight that indeed this cheapy IC is part of a distinct flavour of these very expensive boutique basses.
With a bass guitar that costs around $6000 new there can't be a cost-benefit calculation of 0.60$ versus more "quality" which was around 2-3$ at most.

My Hamer B12L came with the EMG BTS system with an LF442 in the preamp which I swapped out for a pair of OPA1641s. The OPAs draw more current, but sound significantly better, IMO, with a generally more open/natural sound. Generally speaking, I have found that ultra low power op amps like those found in instrument preamps are inferior sounding to their more current-hungry brethren like the ADA4627-1. IME, the OPA164x series strikes a reasonable balance between audio quality and quiescent current (1.8ma per channel). Given the fidelity of ultra low power active on board electronics, I often find that high quality instruments sound better in passive mode.

 

[kringle77]

This is pretty interesting stuff. Im finding that design is huge, like agedhorse said. It seems like some of these designs are allowed to be way too extended in the lows and highs, which can make them sound both alittle bloated and sterile. I know that is a very broad description but, I just got the vt bass 500 which I presume used the small module everyone uses but, it has a nice controlled bottom end and a warm, natural top. I know that this is probably due to the hp and lp filtering but, it is very pleasing. I'd love to see an adjustable hp/lf filter built into every gig appropriate amp.

 

[MattLplaysBass]

I'm sure I could get it to, but I didn't have a big enough load on hand

Seriously, as other spectators have said, this is a great thread. Very informative, even if it is over my non-engineer head. And I also appreciate that the disagreements haven't turned into the trolling these often do.

Carry on.

 

[AlexanderB]

Question from @12bass:
"Question for agedhorse: If sound quality were the only consideration, would you still be using class D in your new designs?"

Reply:

Yes, for a variety of reasons.
One of the biggest is the freedom from issues driving highly reactive loads without worrying about safe operating area limits and phase offset between the voltage and current in the output. Another reason is that the vast majority of customers have spoken, saying they want high performance amps but only in smaller, lighter weight packages.
>snip<

To me, that is sort of a "non-answer" or just dodging the question. In stead of showing (or even just "stating") that the 250ASX2 is sonically superior, we get the answer from a person working for a company in the MI business. Nothing wrong with getting the professional's POV, but you can not seriously imply that the 1000 model can not be successfully implemented, even if it happens to be done by competing brands?

And how reactive loads are we talking? It is not like we are up to complex crossovers or super massive woofers with high Inductance... The absolute majority of bass guitar cabinets have no crossover components in the LF circuit, as the transducers are run full range. Only the HF sectio sees a small, simple network. Not many speakers in the Pro Audio sector are easier to drive.

Still, the majority of expereinced and skilled users at TB, paying for their gear, still prefer the sound of the module that is is larger, more powerful, more expensive, has better data on paper and is used in more expensive amps. Go figure...

As a "budget friendly" design, the 250 might be better, but that is not AT ALL what @12bass asked.

 

[agedhorse]

Question from @12bass:
"Question for agedhorse: If sound quality were the only consideration, would you still be using class D in your new designs?"

Reply:

To me, that is sort of a "non-answer" or just dodging the question. In stead of showing (or even just "stating") that the 250ASX2 is sonically superior, we get the answer from a person working for a company in the MI business. Nothing wrong with getting the professional's POV, but you can not seriously imply that the 1000 model can not be successfully implemented, even if it happens to be done by competing brands?

And how reactive loads are we talking? It is not like we are up to complex crossovers or super massive woofers with high Inductance... The absolute majority of bass guitar cabinets have no crossover components in the LF circuit, as the transducers are run full range. Only the HF sectio sees a small, simple network. Not many speakers in the Pro Audio sector are easier to drive.

Still, the majority of expereinced and skilled users at TB, paying for their gear, still prefer the sound of the module that is is larger, more powerful, more expensive, has better data on paper and is used in more expensive amps. Go figure...

As a "budget friendly" design, the 250 might be better, but that is not AT ALL what @12bass asked.

My response to 12Bass's question was an accurate answer, it wasn't a simple yes/no answer because that would be neither accurate or complete. There are sonic advantages to the 250 module that are not present in the 1000 module because of the new control algorithms and methods used in the next generation module as well as some better approaches to power supply management. I'm sure some players might prefer one module over the other, if this is so important then those players should select their amps based on what module they think they like best, even if it doesn't matter performance-wise.

I am talking about very reactive loads, not just static reactance but the electro-dynamic reactance from the moving parts. I am not talking about crossovers. You are missing the elephant in the room here, something every designer who has modeled VI limiting circuits is keenly aware of, ESPECIALLY under clipping events where L x dI/dT becomes a very real issue. By eliminating these factors as a practical concern, greater performance cab be realized. Generally, (properly designed) full range pro audio speakers are easier to drive though the same issues appear in subwoofers (for the same reasons).

You have your opinion on which module is "best". If you are so convinced that you are absolutely and undeniably right, may I suggest that you go into the amp business and use your unwavering talent to design and market the next new killer bass amp? Put your money where your mouth is my friend, results say a lot more than postulating.

Now, perhaps there is a language/translation issue here (giving you the benefit of the doubt), but I NEVER said that the 1000 model could not be successfully implemented, and in fact I have used that module on some pro audio products (having a very different form factor more suitable to the 1000 module) quite successfully. I choose the best parts for the specific application AS I SEE IT. That's my job as a development engineer. I do not choose the best part based on how YOU see it.

Alexander, your comments to me have become fairly disrespectful. I am going to ask you nicely to tone down the demeanor of your statements/comments to me (and others) because they do not add anything to the conversation of this thread.

 

[irbass]

I'll try to answer the question.
I sold my amp head ( I'm going amp less) and I'm looking for a power amp standalone. I'm between minnie 800D and monique M700. I don't know if they use ICE power or not. Last year i did know about the ICE power. I did google it to find a builder to put it in a box for me and i didn't find it.
So to casual player like me, there's no marketing to get me there.
We are missing marketing on the ICE power.
Probably I'll get the M700 because i can use the preamp ( or a amp simulator ) from my pedalboard to fire it up. The monique website says we can plug the bass directly ( Not my plan ) so it's a power amp to use with a simple pedal and make your tone from your bass plus pedalboard, the amp head is not necessary anymore to most of bass players around. The M700 is on the right marketing, because is easy to find them. My opinion is to get the ICE power popular they need to make it easier to casual players like me find it.

 

[Passinwind]

My opinion is to get the ICE power popular they need to make it easier to casual players like me find it.

Their market is original equipment manufacturers, not end users or DIY'ers. And IME and IMHO a substantial majority of end users don't obsess over what's in the black box, they just play through the product(s) and vote with their wallets. The modules that are more popular simply reflect that voting. YMMV...Link Removed

 

[J.Wolf]

I'll try to answer the question.
I sold my amp head ( I'm going amp less) and I'm looking for a power amp standalone. I'm between minnie 800D and monique M700..

Minnie= 250ASX2 (ICE)
M700= Hypex

 

[J.Wolf]

Since I'm not worried about manufacturing costs and considerations of implementation on a larger scale, I am fortunate that my only criteria has been: "whats going to be the best sounding, small power amp for my needs?". The answer to that question has been the 1000ASP built by RADbass, without question.


As I'm not an electrical engineer, or amp company employee, I don't pretend to understand the myriad factors that go in to choosing components for production amps. In my personal/subjective/anecdotal experience with 5-6 amps that use the 250ASX2, they all lack the dimension and "slam" that I really go for, and exalt the CA series amp for delivering (for example). They sound "grainy" (YMMV) and lack dynamics and an appealing note envelope, WHEN COMPARED to an amp like the 1000, or a CA9. Not saying the unit is inherently lacking, I've just never heard an amp with a 250 that kept up with my expectations in comparison to other units.

You know what they say though: comparison is the thief of joy so these things are only apparent when comparing, or when you perceive the bar being raised by some other product. Most people are perfectly happy with the variety of amps that use these modules, I just havent found one that satisfies me, coming from lead-sled town.

 

[ThisBass]

My Hamer B12L came with the EMG BTS system with an LF442 in the preamp which I swapped out for a pair of OPA1641s. The OPAs draw more current, but sound significantly better, IMO, with a generally more open/natural sound. Generally speaking, I have found that ultra low power op amps like those found in instrument preamps are inferior sounding to their more current-hungry brethren like the ADA4627-1. IME, the OPA164x series strikes a reasonable balance between audio quality and quiescent current (1.8ma per channel). Given the fidelity of ultra low power active on board electronics, I often find that high quality instruments sound better in passive mode.

To stay well in the mix sometimes a rather LoFi device is the better option to get.
Although I'm more at HiFi side with MI equipment it souldn't be done in excessive way like done (understandably) with HiFi Audio equipment.
It's always a hard way to find the perfect balance of Lo- vers. Hi-Fi.
If everything was designed under perspective of best HiFi tone than every MI gear would sound very similar.

The mentioned LF442 within BTS circuit sounds totally different to the onboard circuit of the mentioned boutique bass which is also a LF442 on board chip.

Just by now I didn't even know that BTS electronic inside my Euro-Spector is equipped with SMD LF442. Never checked what's inside the BTS but soundwise I would not have expected LF442 with the BTS.

Thank's a lot for info with BTS but, I feel no need to swap the LF442 within the BTS.
I think currently there are way better low current, low noise, high slew rate OP-amps available than oldish LF442 design but, as long as it works soundwise and stays well in the mix then it's good.

any current sucking vampire can't be a winner with battery powered on board electronics.

 

[ThisBass]

If I'd do an MI bass guitar amp design on my own I would probably go with the 250ASX2 over 1000ASP.

The main reason is the better average versus max power ratio that predicts more space to yield a distinct voicing at overload range. I think the average could be somewhat improved if the housing is part of the heat sink.
It should be possible to yield around 100-150 watt average with proper heatsink thus max versus averge would be around 1/4 (at a rough guess).
Even the the famous svt knocks a lot of dirt with around 1/3 relation of max versus average.

Another advantage is the rather small dimension of the module.
Drawback is the sound quality versus 1000ASP but, on stage and in the mix a distinct slight overload of the power amp may be the trick to be a winner. Just the range where generic players think there is still Headroom but it's already gone long before.

edit, disclaimer
the consideration is adressed to MI bass guitar exclusively.
HiFi and pro audio is a totally different animal of course

 

[12bass]

Since I'm not worried about manufacturing costs and considerations of implementation on a larger scale, I am fortunate that my only criteria has been: "whats going to be the best sounding, small power amp for my needs?". The answer to that question has been the 1000ASP built by RADbass, without question.

This tends to be my perspective as well as a bassist and end user. I seek the best available sound quality without much concern for the logistics or economics of mass manufacturing.

As I'm not an electrical engineer, or amp company employee, I don't pretend to understand the myriad factors that go in to choosing components for production amps. In my personal/subjective/anecdotal experience with 5-6 amps that use the 250ASX2, they all lack the dimension and "slam" that I really go for, and exalt the CA series amp for delivering (for example). They sound "grainy" (YMMV) and lack dynamics and an appealing note envelope, WHEN COMPARED to an amp like the 1000, or a CA9. Not saying the unit is inherently lacking, I've just never heard an amp with a 250 that kept up with my expectations in comparison to other units.

Curious... is the GK MB800 or MBF800 included in this group? Bass Gear Magazine showed that the MB800 performed well under test.

 

[12bass]

To stay well in the mix sometimes a rather LoFi device is the better option to get.
Although I'm more at HiFi side with MI equipment it souldn't be done in excessive way like done (understandably) with HiFi Audio equipment.
It's always a hard way to find the perfect balance of Lo- vers. Hi-Fi.
If everything was designed under perspective of best HiFi tone than every MI gear would sound very similar.

Can't say I agree on the last point. My basses have Lane Poor and Q-tuner pickups because I seek faithful reproduction of the sound of the instruments. I want a wide bandwidth sound, at least to start with. I do not appreciate it when low fidelity on board active electronics loses the nuance and clarity of the instrument. While I agree that frequency slotting can be important within a mix, I do not agree that using low fidelity electronics (with various forms of added distortion) is the best way to achieve it. I would rather use a high fidelity signal path and use high quality EQ as necessary to achieve a good sound.

any current sucking vampire can't be a winner with battery powered on board electronics.

Quoted because it makes an awesome quote.