Why is the 1000 ASP ICE module not more popular?

[12bass]

Excuse me Mike, but let me correct some factual inaccuracies in your statement. We at GB had zero thermal issues with the 250 module, and we had full engineering approval from IcePower (including full warranty support) regarding our specific implementation over many thousands of amplifiers. It would not surprise me that some implementations have struggled, and some have greatly de-rated or crippled the output in order to be reliable, but there are ways to be successful (probably without infringing on our patent) IF the entire amplifier system mechanism is understood.

Can we please consider that some of us have been very successful using this part AND have a consistent track record doing so (I can think of a couple of different manufacturers that had no issues at all), and that perhaps not everybody designing bass amps has the necessary ENGINEERING skills to be successful in the same ways? Like every part out there, some will be successful using them and others will not, depending on their design understanding and ability.

This post and others in a similar vein leave me wishing that Bass Gear Magazine or someone else had performed (or will perform) controlled tests on the Genz-Benz 900W amplifiers. BGM showed that the MB800 performs very well using the 250ASX2, however I am unaware of any reliable empirical data which show that the Shuttle and Streamliner implementations offer similar or better performance to that achieved by GK. Results from the only BGM Genz-Benz test were disappointing, but also a totally different amplifier topology.

 

[RoadRanger]

On the Crown part that Mike posted, it specifies 50V RMS maximum output (per channel) rated at 2 x 750 watts continuous per channel at 4 & 8 ohms, yet how is this possible? That's only 625 watts at 4 ohms and 312 watts at 8 ohms based on 50 volts RMS.

Perhaps this is peak power or power based on peak voltage on a continuous basis? I would be surprised if this was the case based on my understanding of their commercial DriveCore products.

Also, I see the spec of "peak voltage as high as 50V RMS", this too is puzzling due to the mixing of peak and RMS units unless they mean something else entirely?

Behringer watts

 

[B-string]

Behringer watts

That now includes TCE's "sounds like" watts. Behringer picking up TCE was not a long walk?

 

[silky smoove]

however I am unaware of any reliable empirical data which show that the Shuttle and Streamliner implementations offer similar or better performance to that achieved by GK

This is hardly empirical, but having owned a Streamliner 900 and an MB800 I can say that my experience was that the GK was capable of considerably higher output through the same cab with the same bass than the GB, despite the GB being rated 100 watts higher. The reality was that I greatly preferred the tone of the GB and it provided more than sufficient output for my needs regardless of the peak performance comparison.

 

[BoughtTheFarm]

This post and others in a similar vein leave me wishing that Bass Gear Magazine or someone else had performed (or will perform) controlled tests on the Genz-Benz 900W amplifiers. BGM showed that the MB800 performs very well using the 250ASX2, however I am unaware of any reliable empirical data which show that the Shuttle and Streamliner implementations offer similar or better performance to that achieved by GK. Results from the only BGM Genz-Benz test were disappointing, but also a totally different amplifier topology.

How meaningful would, "tests" performed by some magazine be without recognized standards to work from? AFAIK, there really aren't any recognized standards for musical instrument amps. Or are there some?

If brand A generated 700 W output into a 4 Ohm resistor bank with a 0.5 V 1 KHz input, but brand B only generated 650 W, what would that tell you? Besides not much?

Said magazine could use a simulated speaker load instead of a resistor bank. That might result in brand A shutting down after 5 minutes, while brand B kept on trucking. Again, what would that tell you besides not much?

 

[Brad Johnson]

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.

Money you don't spend is money you can do something else with. That's the cost benefit. Depends on what kind of numbers you're putting up. That's where the benefit really shows up.

The other point is that a "cheapy" part may yield more desirable results than an expensive one. People often make the mistake of equating "costs more" with "better". The only thing costs more guarantees... is that it costs more.

 

[B-string]

Money you don't spend is money you can do something else with. That's the cost benefit. Depends on what kind of numbers you're putting up. That's where the benefit really shows up.

The other point is that a "cheapy" part may yield more desirable results than an expensive one. People often make the mistake of equating "costs more" with "better". The only thing costs more guarantees... is that it costs more.

No disagreement, just needed to be in BOLD type.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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.

Nothing against these choices, when I decided to go preamp/power amp again the choices in two space power were pretty amazing and a bargain compared to the more boutique choices.

 

[Brad Johnson]

No disagreement, just needed to be in BOLD type.

Yeah... I learned a long time ago with MI and home audio gear to let my ears and not the hype/price/status/whatever else guide me. I'm a longtime happy camper because of this.

Yet I mainly play boutique basses. Go figure.

 

[Brad Johnson]

So, is the 1200 the only amp using the 1000 ICE module at the moment? I am unaware of others.

Point being that until we get several implementations of all three modules out there where we, as players, can put them through their paces, I don't think we really know what the actual performance differences vs price are. Glad to see the 700 now in available hardware. Waiting for more 1000 platforms. (drums fingers on table)

While I am amazed and pleased with what some of the available SMPS designs do, I'm also a little disappointed that the bass market is apparently not big enough for designs of the bigger supplies to find their way into the market. I respect Andy's experience, but have to say that we need to use these designs on the gig before we will know what works best and what the cost trade-offs might be. Until we see more designs, I'm sticking with what I've got.

Guess I feel a bit frustrated and aware once again that electric bass players do not constitute an important market. How is it that cats are now playing $5k level basses at gigs; but, the advanced amp market isn't apparently sufficiently attractive for amp heads that might be half that or less?

It's a quandry, one I've pondered often myself. Not sure exactly how the logic works but the market seems to bear out my theory. My guess is that a $5k bass is often about conspicuous consumption that, if executed for esthetic effect can give you a huge bang for the buck. Even if it sounds pedestrian. BTDT. OTOH spending $3k on a box that sits on top of your cab and doesn't draw as much attention, even if it sounds great, is a harder sell. What good is it for a CC player to have an inconspicuous item with a lot of money tied up in it?

That's my theory. And I am not say that EVERYONE who buys higher dollar items is into CC. I know I'm not... I'd have a decidedly different set of gear if that was my goal.


Then on the other side of the fence is my search for 1/2 rack high power. I've been told it's not offered because of lack of demand... but how do you measure demand on something that's rarely been offered? I have a discontinued SWR Amplite that I only use at home with a rare 1/2 rack preamp I like. If I could find more power in that format for a reasonable price...

 

[Brad Johnson]

Hopefully someday the government will finally release the alien amplifier technology they've kept under wraps at Area 51....

It's all guitar-oriented and won't port over to bass. As the Elders decided long ago.

 

[Brad Johnson]

The plate amp in the Berg accounted for all of 7 pounds of the total system weight. In my own implementation of that plate amp (i.e. using my own DSP programming for input gain structure) I have never encountered any trouble driving it with any of several preamps I've tried using it with. That includes some very modest DIY builds from over a decade ago.



I've been gigging with mine since 2007. I also built an amp using the 500ASP a couple of years ago, which I actually slightly prefer to my 1000ASP rigs. And then I built two implementations of the 700ASC, which sound substantially different from each other. The 700ASC suits my building and playing needs pretty much perfectly, as I simply never need all the extra power the 1000ASP makes. I'm pretty much all about the caress and cork sniffing detail, not slam. Vive la difference.

I can get what I want out of any of those rigs though, so the 1000ASP rig will get the least love going forward just based on form factor, I think. I have no direct experience with the 250ASX2, but the 125ASX2 power section in a GK MB Fusion 500 worked just fine as a sub for the 700ASC in my head to head testing. I never push the power sections hard in my amps though, and I actually used the 1000ASP with various single 12 cabs (one cab at a time, not multiples) on hundreds of gigs very happily. I understand why guys like Andy and Roger recommend against that approach, but it has always worked much better for me than being rational...Link Removed

You have no idea how jealous I am.

 

[Brad Johnson]

This is more than likely the case, but if it were prohibitively true, there would no successful high end boutique manufacturers out there. Obviously there is a market, albeit pretty small.

And that tiny market is why you don't see more. A handful fighting for boutique dollars means you really have to carve a niche and separate from the pack somehow.

 

[tombowlus]

This post and others in a similar vein leave me wishing that Bass Gear Magazine or someone else had performed (or will perform) controlled tests on the Genz-Benz 900W amplifiers. BGM showed that the MB800 performs very well using the 250ASX2, however I am unaware of any reliable empirical data which show that the Shuttle and Streamliner implementations offer similar or better performance to that achieved by GK. Results from the only BGM Genz-Benz test were disappointing, but also a totally different amplifier topology.

Well, at this point in time, that is not going to happen. But, we will have a full review of Jeff's latest amp (which, of course, uses the ICEpower 700 module) in our next issue!

 

[bucephylus]

It's a quandry, one I've pondered often myself. Not sure exactly how the logic works but the market seems to bear out my theory. My guess is that a $5k bass is often about conspicuous consumption that, if executed for esthetic effect can give you a huge bang for the buck. Even if it sounds pedestrian. BTDT. OTOH spending $3k on a box that sits on top of your cab and doesn't draw as much attention, even if it sounds great, is a harder sell. What good is it for a CC player to have an inconspicuous item with a lot of money tied up in it?

That's my theory. And I am not say that EVERYONE who buys higher dollar items is into CC. I know I'm not... I'd have a decidedly different set of gear if that was my goal.


Then on the other side of the fence is my search for 1/2 rack high power. I've been told it's not offered because of lack of demand... but how do you measure demand on something that's rarely been offered? I have a discontinued SWR Amplite that I only use at home with a rare 1/2 rack preamp I like. If I could find more power in that format for a reasonable price...

I agree with that, Brad. OTOH, I find that the cats who REALLY care about their sound tend to hang out in the amps forums and be willing to put a little more into that inconspicuous box. But, it is certainly a small market; ergo, the dynamics we see. Frustrating; but, at least you can understand it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I agree with that, Brad. OTOH, I find that the cats who REALLY care about their sound tend to hang out in the amps forums and be willing to put a little more into that inconspicuous box. But, it is certainly a small market; ergo, the dynamics we see. Frustrating; but, at least you can understand it.

I really care about my sound, always have and it often amazes me how often my choices seem to piss others off. After all, I'm the only one who actually has to use the crap I like. Then again, maybe it's not my gear...

 

[B-string]

I just smile quietly when the high dollar boutique amp heads are preceded by a floor full of pedals .

 

[agedhorse]

My point is not to diss the 250 module, but your point seems to be dissing the 1000 and pointing out how and why the 250 is a better amplifier.

Mike, you were complaining (or stating) that the 250 module has reports of thermal problems, and I was correcting this factual mis-statement because there are several well selling models by different manufacturers who have not had these problems at all.

Also, I never dissed the 1000 module, and as I have said before, I have several successful commercial applications of this module in touring pro audio powered speakers, when they were the very best approach at that time, and at least one of these speaker models is still currently available. What has happened is that newer generations, and newer control algorithms have become available, which have increased efficiency, decreased distortion, improved (greatly) power bandwidth (by almost an octave on the high frequency side), decreased size, decreased weight and improved reliability. My understanding is that slowly the ASP line is being phased out in favor of the more advanced products. The new ASC line incorporates an even more advanced control & protection system, which is IMO even better than the ASX2 generation.

This stuff changes, it evolves, it's part of life.

 

[12bass]

How meaningful would, "tests" performed by some magazine be without recognized standards to work from? AFAIK, there really aren't any recognized standards for musical instrument amps. Or are there some?

If brand A generated 700 W output into a 4 Ohm resistor bank with a 0.5 V 1 KHz input, but brand B only generated 650 W, what would that tell you? Besides not much?

Said magazine could use a simulated speaker load instead of a resistor bank. That might result in brand A shutting down after 5 minutes, while brand B kept on trucking. Again, what would that tell you besides not much?

Testing like that performed by Bass Gear Magazine cannot give God's perspective, without any bias or possibility of error, however, it still gives at the very least a fairly realistic and somewhat standardized basis for comparison of bass amplifier under known conditions, which is certainly better than having no empirical data at all and just relying upon anecdotal reports. While I have some criticisms of BGM's methodology, I am thankful for the test results they have given us thus far. To me, and I suspect many others here, such lab tests give bassists more information from which to make an informed buying decision. When we can see that the MB800 meets or exceeds its specifications, should we not be somewhat concerned when competitor's amps fail do so under very similar testing?

(Note: I do not own or endorse any GK products. The above is just an example)

And what if brand B claimed to output 800W but only put out 550W under test, while brand A puts out its rated power under the same conditions? Is the discrepancy more likely the fault of the testing methodology or should brand B's claims be placed under greater scrutiny? Personally, I greatly prefer to have what might be considered to be incomplete or imperfect empirical data to having no empirical data whatsoever....

 

[MarkA]

Mike, you were complaining (or stating) that the 250 module has reports of thermal problems, and I was correcting this factual mis-statement because there are several well selling models by different manufacturers who have not had these problems at all.

At least a few users of the Demeter amps using that module reported, here on TB, overheating/shutdown problems when pushing a nominal 4 Ohm load. I was not aware of similar problems with the Puma, but I never followed that amp that closely (whereas I was very interested in the Demeter lunchbox for awhile). That several manufacturers made popular amps that used these modules (or their proprietary implementations of them) without issue does not negate that there were some amps that used the modules that had thermal issues.

To what degree these modules are plug-and-play (or marketed to builders as being so) and to what degree it's expected that some massaging take place to ensure that they run optimally and reliably in a given context, I don't know. Perhaps that's application-dependent – unique to each amp. That your specific implementation of the module worked reliably, on a large scale, in the Genz Benz amps is a testament to your engineering chops, but, again, does not necessarily negate Mike's statement that there were (or were reported) thermal issues, at least with some amps using the module. Where to attach the blame for this seems something of a gray area, and how prone the 250 is, relative to its ICEy cousins, to thermal problems, I don't know.

Do B&O really not recommend the 250 ASX2, at least in its stock form, for 4 Ohm operation? That would be interesting to know. It would be interesting to know, too, if the proprietary implementations of the modules that people discuss ever involve any modifications to the module itself (I realize that the circuitry surrounding the module plays an important part, too). I did catch that your specific implementation of it in the Genz heads was approved by B&O and had full warranty support, etc., and I'm not aware of any thermal issues with the class D Genz amps.

Setting thermal issues (or their lack) aside for a moment, I owned a Shuttlemax 12.0 for awhile. Did that amp use the 250 ASX2 (times two – one in each mono side of the amp) or some other module? I liked several things about that amp, but ultimately found it lacking in clean headroom and speaker control (caveat -- I was often running a single, 4 Ohm cab off one side of the 12.0, rendering it effectively a 6.0, but I state my opinion taking that into account), which is why I sold it and kept its larger and heavier predecessor, the GBE 1200.