Why is the 1000 ASP ICE module not more popular?

[Mike Arnopol]

Many of the numbers presented are more for marketing purposes than as an accurate representation of performance that one could expect. In speakers everyone wants low and loud. So some find ways of dubious honesty to present their products in a way that gives them an unfair advantage over another cab with essentially the same (or superior ) performance. The same with amps. Power,power,power .Two new amps that I know of that use a new class d module rate their power at more than 10% higher than the module manufacturer. Gee, how do they do that? They rate it based on 10% and 12% distortion.

Andy---I hear and appreciate what you're saying. When you look at the evolution of the Ice modules, it's obvious that with the evolution of the modules that there have been substantial improvements. I got a sample of the 700 and was stoked. The newer modules are lighter and less expensive. And their on-paper performance looks great. I want to believe! But I tried the 700 with various preamps (that I knew mated well with the 1000). While it sounded great, it didn't function as well as the 1000. Or the 250 for that matter. I was kindof freaked. The new 1200 watt amp module based on the same architecture (should have a sample soon)was the module I had hoped to use in our new amp. (with Sonic Farm--still in development) I have high hopes that it sounds like the 700 and performs like the 1000. But I have my doubts given that I'm not sold on the 700.

It reminds me of my ancient IVP preamp. I still love that thing. I brought it to a buddy to get pots cleaned, etc. He did me a big favor by replacing the old op amps with the newest, much better spec'd op amps. Better in every measurable way. It sounded terrible. Dry, analytical, lifeless. And these were designed as a step up replacement. Brought it to Les Plopa (Kern) and he found the old op amps and replaced them. Whew! Back to normal.

My point is that there can be many improvements to the specs and performance but does it function better in the most important ways?

I've now tried two amps based on the 700 module. They sound really nice. But when I compared them to various preamps coupled with the 1000 and my little EA hotrodded with the 250-----they lacked the impact and sounded a bit veiled. This is just my take and the comments of guys present at the trials. Definitely not scientific.

So---as we've learned from vintage tube and ss mixing boards---new and superior specs don't necessarily mean better sound and function. I've recorded 10 cd's with Jim Anderson, a top Grammy winning engineer (one that I'm on!) who insisted that we use a studio with a certain vintage mixing board.On paper--not vaguely in the league of the best, newest analog boards. And our cd's have won various awards for sound quality from numerous audiophile publications. I assume that these people that issue the awards have reasonably good ears.

My point is that sound and function don't necessarily evolve with newer technology with better specs.

 

[chadds]

Great thread.

Finicky implementation in Berg IPs:

They play well with dedicated bass preamps. They were designed for that.

First line of instruction sheet was turn down bass eq and add as necessary.

They don't play well if there is too much bass eq because the DSP was tailored as such. Why pay for this design then ignore the designers request?

So if you used a device without eq. the IPs could sound horrible. Way too much bass eq into the already functional DSP.

Folks tried computer interfaces, DIs, and the worst offender the preamp out of their integrated head. The gain, the voltages and the impedances were wrong. In an integrated head the designer, GK, Ag, EA, Markbass etc. only had to have the internal pre match with it's internal amp. Anything else you try you're on your own. Not any external power amp's fault. There were voltage mismatches as well. The IP wanted to see .775. PA amps can vary between manufacturers in what they want to see. I mentioned Markbass because back in those days besides their studio pre only one of all of their heads put out the required voltage from the DI or line out. (That may have been with all controls cranked.)

Personal experience with Berg IPs. Never get warm. Kickin @$$ out doors, summer in sun, pulling loud fundamental from Guild Ashborys. What is amazing is they sound the same in quiet settings as in loud. Same all night long. All my playing life I would expect an amp to have very little going on until it got reasonably loud then have a sweet spot then have an over driven thing up loud. This made them difficult to play in quiet settings and meant you could lose clarity when you got real loud. Call me impressed. Could be the DSP. But hey I bought the whole package.

 

[Passinwind]

I tried the 700 with various preamps (that I knew mated well with the 1000). While it sounded great, it didn't function as well as the 1000. Or the 250 for that matter. I was kind of freaked. The new 1200 watt amp module based on the same architecture (should have a sample soon)was the module I had hoped to use in our new amp. (with Sonic Farm--still in development) I have high hopes that it sounds like the 700 and performs like the 1000. But I have my doubts given that I'm not sold on the 700.

With all due respect, I'd simply suggest that instead of shotgunning pairings with preamps (or cabs, for that matter) that work well with some other module, you could try building several amp prototypes with the necessary tweaks to optimize for the 700ASC and for your specific vision of amp goodness. Worked for me, at least. Link Removed

 

[agedhorse]

Mike, I do agree that specs aren't everything, it's what you do with them that matters. Just like a craftsman and his tools, the craftsman that knows how to use them well will end up with a higher quality product. I am a wholehearted believer in this myself.

My disagreement was with the claim of thermal problems with the 250 module, which are simply unfounded with some manufacturers. I can say that I can easily create unacceptable thermal performance just as easily with any of the ASP modules, it's all based on making good engineering choices regardless of which part is being used.

Whenever designing a new product, it's basic engineering common sense to do rigerous analytical testing and followup analysis of a good number of samples to be sure there are no thermal problems BEFORE releasing the product into the marketplace. This is after all thermal modeling, and design on the drawing board. This is why we never experienced these issues at GB. I'm sure other companies with a similar track record do the same, it's pretty standard engineering fare.

 

[RoadRanger]

I find it rather interesting that most who can actually make real, scientific measurements of this stuff are all hogtied by NDA's or just consider that info proprietary. The rest of youse guys are happy with trusting your ears and/or too lazy/uninspired to do the "work" (like me LOL).

 

[agedhorse]

MarkA, the ShuttleMax 12.0 used the 125 module, significantly lower powered than the other parts we are discussing. There are no thermal problems with this module either, assuming good engineering implementation of course.

 

[Passinwind]

I find it rather interesting that most who can actually make real, scientific measurements of this stuff are all hogtied by NDA's or just consider that info proprietary. The rest of youse guys are happy with trusting your ears and/or too lazy/uninspired to do the "work" (like me LOL).

Same as it ever was, pretty much. When my homework comes back out of one end or the other of the dog that ate it I always seem to have a hard time reading it. Link Removed

 

[Brad Johnson]

I find it rather interesting that most who can actually make real, scientific measurements of this stuff are all hogtied by NDA's or just consider that info proprietary. The rest of youse guys are happy with trusting your ears and/or too lazy/uninspired to do the "work" (like me LOL).

Definitely happy with trusting my ears. After all that's what I hear with.


In the event that I join a fantasy bass league I'll be fine with relying on whatever specs are available. But until I start doing my gigs on paper...

 

[Passinwind]

Definitely happy with trusting my ears. After all that's what I hear with.

Of course. Observation is the first tenet of the scientific method. If you don't need to know why you're done right there.

 

[seamonkey]

It's pure bull that the "module" would get blamed for thermal issues from the implementation. B&O has plenty of information on thermal requirements. I hope B&O gets yanks the modules away from any maker who doesn't meet the requirements, and who doesn't test their designs. It makes a bad impressions on the modules, and the makers that really do create reliable designs.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Of course. Observation is the first tenet of the scientific method. If you don't need to know why you're done right there.

Which is why it used to amaze me when people held strong aural beliefs despite zero physical experience with what they were judging. Now I just chalk it up to people having no shame when defending the indefensible.

I still appreciate getting my hands on as much data as possible (though it's often flimsy at best) but I keep in mind that I am the final judge of what works for me. "TB says I should love this" is not something I struggle with.

 

[MarkA]

MarkA, the ShuttleMax 12.0 used the 125 module, significantly lower powered than the other parts we are discussing. There are no thermal problems with this module either, assuming good engineering implementation of course.

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

[Mike Arnopol]

Mike, I do agree that specs aren't everything, it's what you do with them that matters. Just like a craftsman and his tools, the craftsman that knows how to use them well will end up with a higher quality product. I am a wholehearted believer in this myself.

My disagreement was with the claim of thermal problems with the 250 module, which are simply unfounded with some manufacturers. I can say that I can easily create unacceptable thermal performance just as easily with any of the ASP modules, it's all based on making good engineering choices regardless of which part is being used.

Whenever designing a new product, it's basic engineering common sense to do rigerous analytical testing and followup analysis of a good number of samples to be sure there are no thermal problems BEFORE releasing the product into the marketplace. This is after all thermal modeling, and design on the drawing board. This is why we never experienced these issues at GB. I'm sure other companies with a similar track record do the same, it's pretty standard engineering fare.

My apologies---you're right. It's obvious that you and the GK guys have been able to implement the 250 in a way that gives stable 4 ohm performance. I'm not saying that it's a flaw in design---it's just that the 250 was not designed to do 4 ohms bridged. (as per the Ice engineers). But smart guys like you and GK found ways to insure stable operation at 4 ohms. An effective enough means that Ice acknowledged that it was stable and effective enough to be warranty-approved at 4 ohms. It's cool that you (and a few others) were able to expand the parameters of what the amp could do in an effective way.

 

[agedhorse]

It's pure bull that the "module" would get blamed for thermal issues from the implementation. B&O has plenty of information on thermal requirements. I hope B&O gets yanks the modules away from any maker who doesn't meet the requirements, and who doesn't test their designs. It makes a bad impressions on the modules, and the makers that really do create reliable designs.

This is a good and salient point actually. There are countless examples of poor implementations of otherwise good technology that cause the market to shun the technology rather than just the poor implementation. This holds true for a wide variety of industries IME.

 

[agedhorse]

Just to clarify, I do believe that it's very important to LISTEN to how all of the various design approaches work in the intended application, and how they feel too. I don't just design on paper, using just the published specs. I spend an inordinate amount of time coming up with circuits that achieve the actual real world needs of the players in ways that maximize the benefits while minimizing any possible negative artifacts. I have been doing it this way for decades, with many different products.

I'm sorry if my focus on the engineering side has distracted from the creative side. I use the engineering side to help me get to the creative side more effectively, and then to analyze what I have created to be sure that it does what it needs to do, and that it doesn't do anything bad, or increase any risk of failure. In fact, I very much enjoy the creative side of things... probably more than most of the engineering types do.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Just to clarify, I do believe that it's very important to LISTEN to how all of the various design approaches work in the intended application, and how they feel too. I don't just design on paper, using just the published specs. I spend an inordinate amount of time coming up with circuits that achieve the actual real world needs of the players in ways that maximize the benefits while minimizing any possible negative artifacts. I have been doing it this way for decades, with many different products.

I'm sorry if my focus on the engineering side has distracted from the creative side. I use the engineering side to help me get to the creative side more effectively, and then to analyze what I have created to be sure that it does what it needs to do, and that it doesn't do anything bad, or increase any risk of failure. In fact, I very much enjoy the creative side of things... probably more than most of the engineering types do.

IMO both sides are important. Where I have a problem is when people pretend they can correctly extrapolate results from scant details. And scant is a kind way to describe the specs we often get.

 

[Kirk Bryant]

I really appreciate all you guys giving us mere mortals reasonably comprehensible explanations of this stuff, I for one find it fascinating. As I'm sure others do. Also thanks for not turning it into a sparing match as so many threads become. I was throughly enjoying the whole thread until I got to the part about my SM 12.0 only having the lowly 125 module. Now I have a serious case of MPMME, also known as " More Powerful Modern Module Envy. .......sigh....
......as he slowly slinks off to the storage unit in search of more vintage treasures to sell off. ........

 

[Brad Johnson]

I really appreciate all you guys giving us mere mortals reasonably comprehensible explanations of this stuff, I for one find it fascinating. As I'm sure others do. Also thanks for not turning it into a sparing match as so many threads become. I was throughly enjoying the whole thread until I got to the part about my SM 12.0 only having the lowly 125 module. Now I have a serious case of MPMME, also known as " More Powerful Modern Module Envy. .......sigh....
......as he slowly slinks off to the storage unit in search of more vintage treasures to sell off. ........

I get funny looks from friends of mine with 12.0's when I explain that my Shuttle 9.0 is more powerful. Because 12 is 3 more than 9.

 

[tbirdsp]

Just curious - what modules are used in power amps such as Crown XLS 1500/2000 and the version 1 Peavey IPR1600? Like ones about 2 years old - which I happen to own for PA use but rarely use.

 

[RoadRanger]

Just curious - what modules are used in power amps such as Crown XLS 1500/2000 and the version 1 Peavey IPR1600? Like ones about 2 years old - which I happen to own for PA use but rarely use.

They don't use "modules" - they are in-house designs. Strangely enough the IPR is a joint design by Peavey (the power supply) and Crest (the amp) - Crest has their own version of it. That one is based on a third party control chip, dunno about the Crown.