Why is the 1000 ASP ICE module not more popular?

[Mike Arnopol]

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.

It's not that the module is being blamed. The 250 module was not designed to do 4 ohms bridged. Which is why you don't see 4 ohm bridged power specs in their literature. But--- some smart designers found that they could get stable 4 ohm performance with additional heat management. And maybe some other tricks. The Tecamp Puma 900 initially didn't use a fan. They found out that the amp wasn't stable enough so they added a fan. GB and GK tackled the problem from the get go. What the Ice engineers told me was that while the 250 was not designed for 4 ohm bridged operation, stable operation could be obtained with additional heart management.
A lot of pro power amps do not have 4 ohm bridged operation.

 

[BassikLee]

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.

 

[BassikLee]

Not so strange when you consider that Peavey owns Crest, and by the time the IPR stuff came out, the crest pro 200 series was well established. The 9200 is a really ballzy amp.

 

[seamonkey]

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.

Modules themselves have "chip sets" that make them work. But IcePower uses their own chip set. Crown only uses their own chipsets. ...

Many other amp makers are using chip sets that yet other makers also use. Each amp may have it's own special enhancements made by the maker so they're not all the same even if they use the same chip sets. Just like with these IcePower modules - each may be implements different.

 

[ThisBass]

Do B&O really not recommend the 250 ASX2, at least in its stock form, for 4 Ohm operation?

Good question.
Personally I'd not try the 4 Ohm operation with pro audio mid/high array components or any cabs that may provide a delicate impdance valley.
MI cabinets are somewhat different. Although rated as 4 Ohm nearly every MI cabinet provides a large impedance peak where power density of bass guitar generated Harmonic spectrum is focused a very lot.
The second Harmonic of B0 or E1 is the most powerfull Harmonic within the spectrum, just meeting the large impedance peak of the cabinet, which makes current consumption rather small at this point.

 

[ThisBass]

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.

Technical improvement sometimes should be taken with some care. The perfect balance of MI coloring flavour and best technical performance available is like ridge walk.
IMO it's delicate to evaluate MI gear with generic consideratiions of pro audio or HiFi. The science is just the same but force of expression is not. I think it's an ill turn to translate pro audio requirements into MI world. Unfortunatelly it's done way to often to evaluate MI gear this way.

 

[ThisBass]

BTW I think it was TC electronic who admits 2.7 Ohm for class-D amplifier but restricts 2.7 Ohm capability to the use of their in-house made cabinets. They were blamed a lot due to (default) marketiing profit purposes but, more conbrehensible, may be they dread delicate impedance curve with third party manufacurers to much.

edit,
of course it belongs rather to HiFi world but since infention of Infinity's "Killer"-Kappa it's clear case that Impedance is a very tensile term.

 

[BoughtTheFarm]

That makes a lot of sense to me. Nominal (labeled) impedance of a combination of cabinets is one thing. What kind of a load that combination actually presents to an amplifier could be a whole 'nother story. Phase angle could be a big deal.

 

[bucephylus]

Just interjecting...

One aspect that makes this thread a little loosey goosey is that most of the players don't really know which module is in the amps they have been playing.

I have considered the progress and improvements in amplifier technology to be the single greatest improvement in the bass gear realm for the past 16 years. I am stunned by the accomplishments; and, if anything, the understanding that there is more coming is fantastic. Amazing. Bring it on.

I currently have the Demeter amplifier rendition retrofitted into one of his early preamps, and find the sound I get from that to be lacking nothing compared to any big rig I have ever played (and which I also like - SVT, TE Hexavalve, etc). I also have a Crest ProLite 3.0, which is just an incredible combination of total slam and (relatively) absurdly low cost - no idea what modules are in that one. And going further back product-wise, I actually did my sports bar gig last night with a GB Shuttle 9.0 not even beginning to break a sweat into my 4 ohm Berg 212; and the audience feedback was that it sounded glorious, if a little too loud. In the back of the room.

Of course all that said, I remain fascinated by what more is possible. The clips of JR's Studio 1200 blow me away. I read in this thread about some issues with the 1000 module implementation; but, we also read about how designs can get around various issues to produce further improvements. And, still further modules and designs are forthcoming. On the one hand I am impatient to see more and better. On the other I am immensely satisfied and grateful for the amazing and great products that have become available.

Great thread.

 

[J.Wolf]

I read in this thread about some issues with the 1000 module implementation; but, we also read about how designs can get around various issues to produce further improvements.

I know its purely anecdotal, but if I ever encounter even the smallest hiccup in terms of performance or stability with my 1000 modue RAD amp, I'll post it here. Been using it with EA, Berg, MAS, and DNA cabs (minimum 4ohms) and so far its been a total champ, in every perceivable way.

I'm not saying that the claims about this module's stability in bass amps are incorrect, just that in my 'real world testing' (probably having done 30+ gigs with it), it has surpassed my expectations with regard to power, tone and stability. Hence the title of this thread

 

[JGR]

One other obvious point worth mentioning is the actual power - I had been playing pre/power rigs for a long time - first a CA9, and then a PLX3602. I like to play loud with big cabs (well, I did before I had kids, but I digress). And often times I'd bridge them - not because I wanted to destroy my speakers, but because off the feel - the effortless slam with things just coasting along. Like with a big block V8. When you get used to that, a lot of stuff just feels like a toy in comparison, and it's hard to go back. With bass, power definitely corrupts.

So while a couple hundred watts at eight ohms, or another 400 or so at four ohms (with low THD) doesn't translate into a big dB increase on paper, it makes a huge difference in the final presentation and in the hands of the player, especially when things get loud.

If you have two cars, one with a big torquey V8, and another with a turbo four (and maybe a big obnoxious exhaust pipe ), and they both have the same 0-60 performance, which one feels better to drive? As a bass player, I want the big block (even if it has pushrods and a carburetor).

 

[J.Wolf]

Very well articulated Jonathan.

My versions of that analogy is: if you have one car with a top speed of 160mph and another with a top speed of 115mph, which one is bound to feel "Better" (i.e. More comfortable and stable) at 90mph?

 

[fast slapper]

One other obvious point worth mentioning is the actual power - I had been playing pre/power rigs for a long time - first a CA9, and then a PLX3602. I like to play loud with big cabs (well, I did before I had kids, but I digress). And often times I'd bridge them - not because I wanted to destroy my speakers, but because off the feel - the effortless slam with things just coasting along. Like with a big block V8. When you get used to that, a lot of stuff just feels like a toy in comparison, and it's hard to go back. With bass, power definitely corrupts.

So while a couple hundred watts at eight ohms, or another 400 or so at four ohms (with low THD) doesn't translate into a big dB increase on paper, it makes a huge difference in the final presentation and in the hands of the player, especially when things get loud.

If you have two cars, one with a big torquey V8, and another with a turbo four (and maybe a big obnoxious exhaust pipe ), and they both have the same 0-60 performance, which one feels better to drive? As a bass player, I want the big block (even if it has pushrods and a carburetor).

I think a lot of people would be surprised what a small low power cab can accomplish with 1000+ watt amp and a proper high pass filter.

 

[agedhorse]

Very well articulated Jonathan.

My versions of that analogy is: if you have one car with a top speed of 160mph and another with a top speed of 115mph, which one is bound to feel "Better" (i.e. More comfortable and stable) at 90mph?

Perhaps it might depend on the road you are traveling and the load you are carrying?

Nothing is this simplistic...

And, the good ol days of carbs are recalled with rise colored glasses. Fuel injection is a far superior technology for the vast majority of vehicles.

 

[J.Wolf]

Perhaps it might depend on the road you are traveling and the load you are carrying?

Nothing is this simplistic...

And, the good ol days of carbs are recalled with rise colored glasses. Fuel injection is a far superior technology for the vast majority of vehicles.

Doesnt this speak to expectations? I would only feel comfortable going 90 on a well paved, flat interstate with no traffic. Likewise, I would only expect to get so much performance out of a (say) single 112 cab, regardless of how much power I put into it. Accident happen when people speed on unsafe roadways, and blown cabs happen when people have unrealistic expectations from their gear.

 

[RoadRanger]

TB needs a filter to let me block all threads that misuse certain words like "headroom", "fast", and "butter" .

 

[J.Wolf]

That was neither here nor t

Perhaps it might depend on the road you are traveling and the load you are carrying?

Nothing is this simplistic...

And, the good ol days of carbs are recalled with rise colored glasses. Fuel injection is a far superior technology for the vast majority of vehicles.

Doesnt this also speak to Jonathans point about "difference in the final presentation and in the hands of the player, especially when things get loud". If you have a heavy load, you want more torque and power reserve to manage it most safely and correctly.

 

[JGR]

Perhaps it might depend on the road you are traveling and the load you are carrying?

Nothing is this simplistic...

And, the good ol days of carbs are recalled with rise colored glasses. Fuel injection is a far superior technology for the vast majority of vehicles.

Of course it isn't this simplistic, but its a good analogy for the interaction between the player and his rig that many who play the instrument understand, and it summarizes what a lot of folks feel were some of the shortcomings of the earlier Class D/250 based amps. So it goes back to producing a product that is pleasing to the end user in its intended environment.

And no, I don't want a carburetor (well, maybe a 65 tri-power GTO), but I also don't want a 4 banger with big exhaust either! My Highlander is faster and smoother than my previous V8 4 Runner, but the 4Runner was a lot more fun to drive.

 

[ThisBass]

Very well articulated Jonathan.

My versions of that analogy is: if you have one car with a top speed of 160mph and another with a top speed of 115mph, which one is bound to feel "Better" (i.e. More comfortable and stable) at 90mph?

I like those best with wide "average" bandwith of torque and engine speed.
Diesel engines is my favorite engine in this regard.

 

[agedhorse]

Reasonable expectations is a pretty variable thing, along with common sense and good judgement. Some folks have it, and some folks really don't have it no matter how much they think they have it!

I have to design products that are the best possible product for the widest range of player possible, AND, it must be reliable enough that it can support a 5 year transferrable warranty. There have been a lot of players that have found the products I have designed to be a good fit for them, not because of any single variable, but the entire set of variables. It has to tick a wide range of boxes in order to be an acceptable product, especially globally, where different music styles, player technique, form factor and economies come into play.

For example, there are folks in a variety of locations that must rely almost exclusively on public transportation, or operate in a region where there is a need to switch between 115 and 230 volt regularly. For these folks, form factor and weight play an enormous role in whittling down their choices in heads, as does an auto-selecting power supply that does not need a fuse change when automatically switching between supply voltages. I have to be open to everybody's needs, not just a single segment. Your needs might be very different, justifying a different product than this particular one. I just ask that you be as open to other player's needs as you might be to your own.