ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => SR Forum Archives => LAB Lounge FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: Chris Van Duker on February 18, 2009, 03:56:25 pm

Title: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Chris Van Duker on February 18, 2009, 03:56:25 pm
I got my copy of PSN last night, and they mentioned an MSRP of $799 for the new, 6000 watt Peavey class-D power amp. Not trusting that, I looked around a bit for independent confirmation, and found this: http://namm2009.blogspot.com/.

They're showing these street prices for the series:

Quote:


   * IPR1600 - Street Price: $299.99
   * IPR3000 - Street Price: $399.99
   * IPR4599 - Street Price: $499.99
   * IPR6000 - Street Price: $599.99

In addition, the IPR DSP series features built-in DSP processing

   * IPR DSP 1600 - Street Price: $449.99
   * IPR DSP 3000 - Street Price: $599.99
   * IPR DSP 4500 - Street Price: $649.99
   * IPR DSP 6000 - Street Price: $799.99



Am I the only one who finds the idea of a 6000 watt lightweight amp for $800 (or $600) just a bit insane? And if this is real, do the other amp manufacturers have a strategy to deal with that kind of pricing structure? Interesting times...

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on February 18, 2009, 04:16:37 pm
I am eager to see them and give them a spin.  The lightest model is only 6.2 lbs supposedly, which would be fantastic, and if that pricing is indeed correct then I expect these to sell well.  Maybe these will give the XTi amps some serious competition for cost-conscious applications.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Art Welter on February 18, 2009, 04:25:25 pm
  No 6000 watt amp from Peavey, here's the specs:

 * IPR 1600 530W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms
   * IPR 3000 1000W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms
   * IPR 4400 1500W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms
   * IPR 6000 2000W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms

   * IPR DSP 1600 530W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms
   * IPR DSP 3000 1000W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms
   * IPR DSP 4400 1500W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms
   * IPR DSP 6000 2000W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms

If they are rated like the last Peavey amp I bought, divide by two...

Art Welter
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Don Boomer on February 18, 2009, 05:40:35 pm
Art Welter wrote on Wed, 18 February 2009 13:25

 

If they are rated like the last Peavey amp I bought, divide by two...

Art Welter


What was the last one you bought.  I've measured lots of them ... and they all check out measured into pure resistive loads..

Two things ...

You need a stiff power supply.  I used a 60A service and a Variac.  You must make the measurement with 120vac supplied at max output.  For really big amps that means you need to supply about 140v with no load.

"continuous" now means about 4-8 seconds before the breaker kicks into protection.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Dennis Wiggins on February 18, 2009, 05:48:23 pm
I found this... who really runs at 2 ohms, anyway?

-Dennis Wiggins

IPR 6000

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Bob Leonard on February 18, 2009, 05:48:53 pm
Here are some more realistic specs from MixOnline. It seems the IPR 6000 will be 2000 watts stereo into a 4 ohm load. But for how long????

http://blog.mixonline.com/briefingroom/2009/01/26/peavey-deb uts-revolutionary-new-power-amp-technology-in-ultra-lightwei ght-efficient-ipr%E2%84%A2-series/
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Paul Bell on February 18, 2009, 06:20:10 pm
I don't see it on their website. I'd love to read their cut sheet.

At that cost, it must be made in China?

Don't know if I'd trust them on a professional level show or install.
============================================
I've been more than impressed with QSC. I had a tall rack full of them getting beaten nightly by DJ's in a club for years. They never got shut off. About once a month, their maintenance guy would peal off the skin of dust that accumulated on the fans, they never even blew them out.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on February 18, 2009, 06:44:07 pm
As of today, this is all I see on the website:
http://www.peavey.com/news/article.cfm/action/view/id/347/20 091501.cfm

Looking forward to checking them out...

Grant
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 18, 2009, 07:47:57 pm
Art Welter wrote on Wed, 18 February 2009 15:25

  No 6000 watt amp from Peavey, here's the specs:
---clip----

If they are rated like the last Peavey amp I bought, divide by two...

Art Welter


I shouldn't let this bother me, since I've been gone several years, but a few of my 15 years there were spent as product manager for power amps, and all were in some engineering or management capacity, so to keep this interesting (for me),  I'll repeat Don's question to see if it was one of my models.

Art, which amp model was it that you bought that put out 1/2 rated power?

Under my watch, every amp I am aware of sold by Peavey met rated power by a healthy margin. And I had engineering oversight into the fixed install amps too. We didn't dare cut it close because of all the snarky "professionals" sniping at us. FWIW the guitar amps were rated for power at anywhere from 3 to 5% distortion, but that is not unusual for such  market segments.

I do recall several dealers and/or customers with soft bench power that lacked a major clue about what they were talking about. For a while we put Marty out on the road with a scope and load box to try to help educate the sundry unwashed but with limited success.

I can't speak for before 1985 or any of the new amps but I truly doubt Peavey was ever the liar in the power amp game.. I have heard second hand about several false rumors spread by reps from "premium" amp companies, and some still play a little fast and loose, promoting slew rate and other nonsense differentiations.

With power amps it's all about how loud for how long.

YMMV

JR



Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Al Limberg on February 18, 2009, 08:01:19 pm
Hmmmm....odd that my QSCs and several Crown and Crest models base their model numbers on the combined 2ohm output of an amp (or the 4 ohm bridged output) but evidently Peavey isn't allowed that method.  The Peavey is every bit the 6000 watt amp that my RMX5050 is a 5000 watter.  Obviously, alot of folks are going to wait and see - the proof is in the pudding afterall - but berating the product 6 months before its release is hardly an open minded approach.  
As far as the 4-8 second window for max continuous output before the breaker pops, it seems we had that discussion some months back about LabGruppen.

?;o)
Al
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Chris Van Duker on February 18, 2009, 08:31:23 pm
I think it's reasonable to assume that most of the major amp manufacturer's products meet their specs. My last experience with a Peavey amp was 15 years ago, with a 3RU CS-800. I don't have any Peavey amps in inventory, but that's mainly because until now they haven't had medium-to-high-power, light-weight amps to sell. (Other than the Decca, which I've heard had some reliability problems.)

My first digital system controllers were some CEX-4L units, which I bought used and broken for $150 for 3 of them. I got them all working myself, and two of them still get some use even now. When I started using them, I stopped blowing drivers, and it was probably one of the best and cheapest system upgrades I've ever made. With that experience, I came around to feeling that a lot of the anti-Peavey vitriol I've heard over the years was simple elitism.

I haven't bought a lot of Peavey gear, but I remain open to the possibility that any of their products might be the best tool for a particular job. And if and when I do buy it, I won't cover the logo.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Renard Hurtado on February 18, 2009, 08:43:24 pm
Well, I doubt this pricing, because it will be cannibalism. Who`s gonna buy the heavier CS-4000 & CS-4080?

Or this new amp. must be of a less quality (sound wise and build-wise) compared to the CS- series. The GPS series would be ranked even higher ?

Although I hope that it's nor priced much higher then the CS-series.

On the other hand if it has a street priced as mentioned above, for us living outside the states ( and not heaving great technicians at our disposal), this will be a great disposable amp ( I would be happy if it lasts three years)

Lets see, manufacturers are bringing great new products in difficult times.

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS on February 18, 2009, 11:47:39 pm
I don't know why so many people worry so much about how long an amp can give full rated output for!   When was the last time you has a kick drums attack last for 4 seconds or 8 seconds or what ever?!!!!  Maybe a low frequency sweep in some EDM song at a rave but then you might want to keep more of an eye on the amount of power getting to your drivers anyways so you probably won't want full output from you amp anyways!

Then there are those out there that for some reason don't think Peavey can make a product at an affordable price that will last. Are you guys out of your minds.  I see more 20+ year old peavey stuff being used by real musicians in less than perfect conditions and they keep going.  We're talking about a company that probably has the BEST track record for making long lasting gear.  I don't have my 25 year old Peavey powered mixer anymore because I gave it to a friend who is still using it.

I recently saw an awesome circa 1985ish Peavey TNT 130 bass amp for sale that was in mint condition and sounded perfect.  I should have bought it but I didn't.  Those were always one of my favorite bass amps.

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 19, 2009, 12:19:40 am
RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS wrote on Wed, 18 February 2009 22:47

I don't know why so many people worry so much about how long an amp can give full rated output for!   When was the last time you has a kick drums attack last for 4 seconds or 8 seconds or what ever?!!!!  Maybe a low frequency sweep in some EDM song at a rave but then you might want to keep more of an eye on the amount of power getting to your drivers anyways so you probably won't want full output from you amp anyways!

And that, Mr. Jenkins, is exactly where the rub is.

This discussion is currently in the Lounge:  http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/42505/143/

Power amp designs that come from industrial process gene pools do better in "continuous output" uses because, DOH! that's what they were designed for.  The lightweight amps, switch mode, PFC, etc- do as well as they can be permitted to do by the necessities of mains current limits.  While some folks think of the "short term output" rating as a lie, it's not... it's neither the same design nor the same application.

For most of the Classic LAB users, the PV isn't a blip on the radar but I think it's important.  This will advance the market for such gear and the professional grades of these technologies and designs will follow.

It's up to the user to determine what amps do the job needed, and what purchase price, repair frequency, and longevity provide an acceptable ROI for the user.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 19, 2009, 11:31:08 am
Customers basically get exactly as much duty cycle as they are willing to pay for.

Perhaps ironically the old heavy iron (huge) CS800 was 800W until the cows came home, but customers voted with their money to buy cheaper lower duty cycle amps that would put out more power but for less time.  For those not paying attention. The only difference between the 1200W (@ 2x2ohm) CS800x, and 800W (2x4 ohm) CS800 was replacing a fuse with a resettable breaker (to protect the power transformer) and opening up the current limiting. Presto a 1200W amp, but limited to the same long term output as the previous 800W platform.

Any technology platform can be engineered to deliver any duty cycle. The common truism is that more duty cycle, invariably cost more $$. I have seen the customers drive this pursuit of short term power to the limit of acceptable, and to the point where QSC has offered models based on a given platform that trade lower short term peak power for more duty cycle (dropping the rail voltage a few volts, reduces heat dissipation but delivers less peak output.)

It is not the technology.. it's a cognizant design decision based on customer demand. Modern amp technology is remarkable for how much bang we get for a few bux... but we can always complain and second guess the designers. They're just trying to keep the majority of customers happily buying their product.

JR


Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Nick Aghababian on February 19, 2009, 12:05:20 pm
For ~700, I'd try one. If nothing else there is enough power to run a small stick rig with subs off of it, or get some use for that price.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Dennis Wiggins on February 19, 2009, 01:09:51 pm
For the electronically challenged (like me), the choice is between an amp that will not falter with unknown and often times unstable AC mains, or go with new technology that may be a little too dependant on whatever power is available.

For my purposes, I will stay with the CS series.

Not meaning to veer, but what happens to these types of power supplies when the AC varies wildly, as is typical in many small venues.

-Dennis Wiggins
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 19, 2009, 01:43:21 pm
Dennis Wiggins wrote on Thu, 19 February 2009 12:09

For the electronically challenged (like me), the choice is between an amp that will not falter with unknown and often times unstable AC mains, or go with new technology that may be a little too dependant on whatever power is available.

For my purposes, I will stay with the CS series.

Not meaning to veer, but what happens to these types of power supplies when the AC varies wildly, as is typical in many small venues.

-Dennis Wiggins


Avoid sweeping generalizations about technology. While the CS800s were historically designed to keep on trucking with Mexican or African power (very low lines), some modern amps with PFC and regulated rails, could do that and better.

The customer will generally get what they want and are willing to pay for..  This doesn't mean every new amp is a stone winner... that's why we like to hear feedback from users of new offerings.

Until then, it's just speculation.

JR
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Art Welter on February 19, 2009, 03:30:59 pm
JR (and Don),

Sorry to pick on Peavey, they make good products at good values.
I probably should not have made the comment I did, since I can’t even remember the model number of the one Peavey I bought, and it was a long time ago.

I can’t seem to find anything on line now that looks like what I remember the amp I bought back then, but it may have been badged PV.

Back in 1993 I was down to only two old power amps, a Yamaha P 2200 and a Crest 2500. The P2200 was rated at 350 into 4 ohms, the Crest less, and I needed more power for some subs that went low but were not very efficient.

The Peavey  I bought  was rated at around 600 at 4, and 1000 at 2, IIRC, so I figured it should be a noticeable step up in power. I found what appeared to be a MI quality amp with a two ohm rating unusual for that time.

My brother had had a ton of CS 400 and CS 800 in rentals for years, and they worked fine, so I figured hey,  I’m just working with a jump blues band, should be OK.

The “new” Peavey seemed too light for a 1000 watt rating though, weighed less than a CS 800 or the Yammie, though I don’t think it used a switching power supply. It seemed more in the CS 400 or Crest 2500 weight range, and as it turned out, usable power range.

Anyway, the Yamaha P2200 put out significantly more SPL with no indicated or audible clipping than the “new” higher rated Peavey model. Fortunately for me the Peavey blew up on the second gig and I was able to return it and get my money back.

Perhaps it was never putting out what it was supposed to, but I suspect what was happening was more along the lines of what you described with the CS800x taken to a further marketing extreme for a market segment that does not spend much time looking at specs.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Duncan McLennan on February 19, 2009, 04:13:48 pm
Art Welter wrote on Thu, 19 February 2009 15:30

Anyway, the Yamaha P2200 put out significantly more SPL with no indicated or audible clipping than the “new” higher rated Peavey model. Fortunately for me the Peavey blew up on the second gig and I was able to return it and get my money back.


For what it's worth, every time I've used P2200s (great passive monitor amps, IMO... even now, at least for an install) they sounded much louder than just about anything in their power range.

350w/channel at 4Ω?  I always thought they were significantly more than that!
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 19, 2009, 04:52:22 pm
Art Welter wrote on Thu, 19 February 2009 14:30

JR (and Don),

Sorry to pick on Peavey, they make good products at good values.
I probably should not have made the comment I did, since I can’t even remember the model number of the one Peavey I bought, and it was a long time ago.

I can’t seem to find anything on line now that looks like what I remember the amp I bought back then, but it may have been badged PV.

Back in 1993 I was down to only two old power amps, a Yamaha P 2200 and a Crest 2500. The P2200 was rated at 350 into 4 ohms, the Crest less, and I needed more power for some subs that went low but were not very efficient.

The Peavey  I bought  was rated at around 600 at 4, and 1000 at 2, IIRC, so I figured it should be a noticeable step up in power. I found what appeared to be a MI quality amp with a two ohm rating unusual for that time.

My brother had had a ton of CS 400 and CS 800 in rentals for years, and they worked fine, so I figured hey,  I’m just working with a jump blues band, should be OK.

The “new” Peavey seemed too light for a 1000 watt rating though, weighed less than a CS 800 or the Yammie, though I don’t think it used a switching power supply. It seemed more in the CS 400 or Crest 2500 weight range, and as it turned out, usable power range.

Anyway, the Yamaha P2200 put out significantly more SPL with no indicated or audible clipping than the “new” higher rated Peavey model. Fortunately for me the Peavey blew up on the second gig and I was able to return it and get my money back.

Perhaps it was never putting out what it was supposed to, but I suspect what was happening was more along the lines of what you described with the CS800x taken to a further marketing extreme for a market segment that does not spend much time looking at specs.



I was no fan of the first generation PV amps 4C, 8.5C and 1.3K.. (all 4 ohm power model names BTW).  After I got involved in managing the power amp program and became responsible for them, I raised the cost of those units (that was a fight with the guy who's name is on all the buildings) and had engineering revisit that series. I mainly had them add output devices. This was primarily to lower distortion, and didn't have an impact on rated power or duty cycle.  I have no reservations about recommending the later PV amps: PV2000, PV1200, etc (as long as somebody else is lifting them, Cool that PV2000 was a hoss). FWIW, that PV2000 had a sub crossover built in that doesn't suck, but I may be a little biased.

In an unrelated review of reliability vis a vis service activity and warranty claims the only amp I found a problem in was the PV260 (smallest puppy in that series) where the the number of field failures was out of line with the sales volume. When I pinged engineering to explain they found a wrong value in a protection circuit which we easily corrected. It was a low enough volume product that nobody really noticed before we did that study. Statistical analysis is our friend.  

The PV series was an exercise in how cheap can you make a power amp (in response to competition), before widespread use of plastic power devices, and Chinese labor. The PV amps made rated power, but for less duty cycle than the more expensive CSx amps (doh), which had less duty cycle than old legacy CS amps..

The fact that your amp blew up after only 2 gigs makes me suspect that it was a victim of infant failure. If that was my only experience with Peavey I'd probably share your low opinion. After being in the ditches competing with other MI companies I try not to underestimate anybody.

I don't find this power amp stuff very mysterious. Within a given technology more performance costs more money. Technology that delivers more performance for less money will gain market share in an efficient marketplace since cost matters.  

and the beat goes on...

JR
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Elliot Thompson on February 19, 2009, 09:52:07 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 19 February 2009 16:31

Customers basically get exactly as much duty cycle as they are willing to pay for.


The days the majority would invest in products has declined to only a handful of customers. When you hear a few state they are willing to purchase an amplifier that will last them for three years, its obvious they are not the same customers that would rant and rave if their amplifier doesn’t last no less than 10 years before it shows signs of malfunction.

Quote:


Perhaps ironically the old heavy iron (huge) CS800 was 800W until the cows came home, but customers voted with their money to buy cheaper lower duty cycle amps that would put out more power but for less time.  For those not paying attention. The only difference between the 1200W (@ 2x2ohm) CS800x, and 800W (2x4 ohm) CS800 was replacing a fuse with a resettable breaker (to protect the power transformer) and opening up the current limiting. Presto a 1200W amp, but limited to the same long term output as the previous 800W platform.

Any technology platform can be engineered to deliver any duty cycle. The common truism is that more duty cycle, invariably cost more $$. I have seen the customers drive this pursuit of short term power to the limit of acceptable, and to the point where QSC has offered models based on a given platform that trade lower short term peak power for more duty cycle (dropping the rail voltage a few volts, reduces heat dissipation but delivers less peak output.)


This is the part that many need to understand. If customers only want to operate their amplifiers on a 20-amp 120-volt circuit, they will have to accept these short-term, current limited amplifiers when they command wattage that exceeds the amperage versus wattage rating of the circuit.

You’ll find some operating a Crown MA 5000vz (offering a 30-A power cord) from 20-amp receptacle, complaining it is not enough and, want more power. They want more power and, they can’t even feed the MA 5000vz a minimum of 30 amperes from a 120-volt line so, it can nearly meet it’s 4-ohm per channel stereo rating under long-term basis?

What is a manufacture left to do but design amplifiers that deliver the wattage the customer commands in burst?

 
Quote:


It is not the technology.. it's a cognizant design decision based on customer demand. Modern amp technology is remarkable for how much bang we get for a few bux... but we can always complain and second guess the designers. They're just trying to keep the majority of customers happily buying their product.

JR





I agree. As the sales slogan goes, “The Customer is always right” even when they are wrong.

Best Regards,
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on February 20, 2009, 01:21:50 am
I'm enjoying all of this discussion.  Help me out though - I assume "duty cycle" means the length of time an amp will sustain rated output?  Or does it refer to how long an amp's life will be?

On another note - Why do companies (like Peavey in this case) do press releases and display product at trade shows 6 months before their release to the public?  I presume it's to whet our appetites so that we hold off an amp purchases in anticipation?  If that's the case, it's working.  But is the product ready today?  If so, why not start shipping already?

Grant
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 20, 2009, 02:13:30 am
Showing prototypes and mockups is very common.  Author Jerry Pournelle referred to software shown this way as "VaporWare."  I'm sure the intention is to get buyers to delay purchases until the vapor condenses or to play industrial psych games with competitors.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on February 20, 2009, 02:17:56 am
Tim McCulloch wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 01:13

Showing prototypes and mockups is very common.  Author Jerry Pournelle referred to software shown this way as "VaporWare."  I'm sure the intention is to get buyers to delay purchases until the vapor condenses or to play industrial psych games with competitors.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc



Industrial psych games.  Cool!  I wonder if that is working? Laughing
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Elliot Thompson on February 20, 2009, 07:06:22 am
Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 06:21

I'm enjoying all of this discussion.  Help me out though - I assume "duty cycle" means the length of time an amp will sustain rated output?  


Grant


Yes.

I’ll use the Lab Gruppen FP 13000 for an example. On their current consumption chart the amplifier draws 58 amperes from a 116-volt line before current is compromised. So, it’s output is 6728 watts long-term total when both channels are driven in a 2-ohm load.

Its peak (short-term) wattage is 6500 watts per channel  @ 2 ohms, 13000 watts total. If the amplifier offered 13000 watts @ 2 ohms long-term, it would need 112 amperes under a 116-volt line source. Since it is not designed that way, the amplifier will draw 112 amperes short-term on musical bursts to meet its 13000 watt benchmark.

Best Regards,
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 20, 2009, 09:53:56 am
Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 00:21

I'm enjoying all of this discussion.  Help me out though - I assume "duty cycle" means the length of time an amp will sustain rated output?  Or does it refer to how long an amp's life will be?

On another note - Why do companies (like Peavey in this case) do press releases and display product at trade shows 6 months before their release to the public?  I presume it's to whet our appetites so that we hold off an amp purchases in anticipation?  If that's the case, it's working.  But is the product ready today?  If so, why not start shipping already?

Grant


Second question first... Trade shows are for the "TRADE" i.e. dealers, not the consumers.  Dealers need to know what's coming so they can manage their store inventory and plan.  

In my decades of experience it takes time to get a product from concept to full production. Now with so much assembly or full production off shore there are even more lead times involved.

Trade shows are supposed to be for disseminating information to dealers but the industry consumer magazines have turned this into a huge free marketing opportunity so  the information gets out there. I have seen companies in the computer industry literally put themselves out of business by showing next generation products before their time. It has a damping effect on your old product. Larger companies can survive a few bungled releases and dealers learn to add windage to perpetually late companies.

=======

When I say duty cycle in the context of power amps it's mainly a percentage of full power output capability.

A 100% duty cycle means full power 24x7...  This is pretty straightforward, but fractions of this full duty cycle is incredibly difficult to characterize since music does not present a coherent reference stimulus, so any sine wave based test is subject to questionable validity for different genres of music. This is further conflicted by different amp technologies that have different thermal characteristics where they can be engineered to be more efficient for specific types of signals.

I have given this topic a great deal of though, and a definitive standard would be like a stopped clock, is only correct twice a day, a hard standard for musical source reference would be only correct for a narrow or specific type of stimulus.

So in absence of a hard target amp designers use different seat of their pants design approaches. I've know several different amp designers with different approaches. Over time they get feedback from customers and the market, so the better the fit for the most customers shines in the marketplace.

JR

.  
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Caleb Dick on February 20, 2009, 11:37:15 am
I remember reading about Yorkville's 'Burst power' ratings a while back, and thinking it was a cop-out to show higher numbers.  Now that I know a bit more, it makes sense.  Insert Lab.Gruppen or whomever here.  

So, are we moving towards another standard for rating amps?  Example, XYZ amp puts out ____ watts at impedance/distortion continuously 20-20k, and puts out ____ watts 'new peak'.  The new peak or whatever term could be 250msec power with 750msec break, or whatever the standard is.  

Musing - a 'good sub amp' for a subwoofer rated 1000w/8ohm RMS  would probably look like 1000w/8ohm continuous, with a 'new peak' of 4000w/8ohm.  

Caleb
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 20, 2009, 12:19:01 pm
I think music is a too much of a moving target to pin down a definitive standard for burst power or thermal headroom. There was an old dynamic headroom spec for Hifi amps but that fell out of favor and was not useful for all musical genres.

I think we will continue along the current path where amp designers adapt to customer needs and wants, as identified by what they buy. In the long term amp designers only offer options, and the customers decide who wins or loses with their purchases.

Some companies have made short term inroads with marketing investment (Mackie?), but in the long term, the amp business will be shared by true technology innovators, and the most effective commodity merchants. Someday the commodity merchants may crowd out the innovators and we'll be left with only what we were willing to support in our purchases.

JR
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 20, 2009, 12:42:33 pm
Tim McCulloch wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 01:13

Showing prototypes and mockups is very common.  Author Jerry Pournelle referred to software shown this way as "VaporWare."  I'm sure the intention is to get buyers to delay purchases until the vapor condenses or to play industrial psych games with competitors.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc


Back in the '60 or '70s IBM got into trouble with the feds over this anti-competitive practice. They would show non-existent products to thwart competitive new offerings.

I don't think the SR business is quite that devious. My experience with manufacturing, after a design was finished in engineering and kicked to the factory there were still several time consuming steps involved before full production. First a small prototype run to confirm fit of all the sundry assemblies and automated insertion programming, etc. This was followed by a larger but still modest sized pilot production run, to further prove out production tooling, factory routings, and that the factory build was close to the design intent, only after these two steps could a true first production run be started, but even this would rarely be an open all the spigots to full, if mistakes were discovered in earlier runs. On top of these factory lead times, there are component purchasing lead times. Even for products manufactured in the good old USA, the raw parts are often coming from some distant nation. Lead times for semi-custom parts like control potentiometers could be a few months.

I have also seen and had to deal with the downside to fast tracking these systems. The flip side of complaining about product availability are products shipped before their time.. the list of these should be obvious to regular LABees.

JR
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on February 20, 2009, 12:44:54 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 11:19

In the long term amp designers only offer options, and the customers decide who wins or loses with their purchases.

JR


While I have no doubt that this is true, I think the information that the public receives as to why one amp is better than another is lacking.  How many times have we heard people say "Well, it's just a better amp...?"  Why is it a better amp?  The whole manufacturing - rep - sales chain could do a better job in this department.  This thread has been very informative.

Grant
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 20, 2009, 01:57:49 pm
Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 11:44



While I have no doubt that this is true, I think the information that the public receives as to why one amp is better than another is lacking.  How many times have we heard people say "Well, it's just a better amp...?"  Why is it a better amp?  The whole manufacturing - rep - sales chain could do a better job in this department.  This thread has been very informative.

Grant


There a classic Jack Nicholson movie line... something like "You want the truth.... you couldn't handle the truth...".

95% of power amp marketing is fluff, and 5% or more is actually misleading, promoting some spec that pretty much doesn't matter. Sales reps are not motivated to inform when there aren't substantive differences. They are motivated to sell their products.

Amplifiers act differently mostly in the margins... when clipped, when used with inferior mains power, when loaded improperly. In many cases how they deviate from ideal operation has subjective aspects that aren't universally perceived the same.

Bob Lee and several others here have been consistent trying to parse out what matters from what doesn't, but like Sisyphus rolling that rock up the slope, old nonsense questions keep getting revisited.

Amp performance is pretty simple but musical sources and applications vary so there are so many variables rarely controlled in typical listener reports. These have to viewed through a statistical filter for a preponderance of everybody hears the exact same thing.

Even then most popular myths disappear under controlled listening. Amp technology is actually pretty mature, and changes to the underlying technology generally become invisible to the larger performance envelope after the infant kinks are worked out.

Of course opinions vary...

JR    




Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Duane Massey on February 20, 2009, 05:42:44 pm
It always amazes me how things I used to "know" are now things I didn't have a clue about. Since most of my tech knowledge is either self-taught or learned from experience, these discussions are always fascinating, and it is a wonderful thing that JR, Bob Lee, Tom D, and others come here to share knowledge and de-bunk all the myths that seem to live forever.

The original CS800 was a remarkable amp. I seem to remember having major issues with 2-ohm loads, but they would run forever into a 4-ohm load. There were lesser amps (M2600?) that were pretty useless, but anybody remember the Powerbase 1's, or the older QSC pre-series 1 amps?

JR, I always thought the biggest black spot on Peavey was the absolute idiots in the music stores that either carried it and lied about it, or the idiots that didn't carry it and lied about it. Honestly, I suspect they have been quite successful without the pro guys offering much support. The company has offered many cool products that just didn't find the right market.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 20, 2009, 06:50:11 pm
Duane Massey wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 16:42

, I always thought the biggest black spot on Peavey was the absolute idiots in the music stores that either carried it and lied about it, or the idiots that didn't carry it and lied about it.  


+1  Laughing  So true... The old school Peavey dealers literally were your mom and pops. And we got surprising respect from the "professional" competition in between the whisper campaigns about prison labor or whatever.

I wasted a few years trying to design products I thought were cool, until I realized the distribution wanted new peavey products that were like the old peavey products just more peavey...

I still think "good for the money" is like saying a blind date is "cute"...  but it worked for them.

JR


Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Duane Massey on February 21, 2009, 12:54:59 am
Actually I use the terms "good for the money" and "cost-effective" with just about all of my clients. There are a lot more people out there on a budget than there are with unlimited funds, and (as I am fond of repeating) one size does not fit all.

If that were not true, little guys like me wouldn't have a chance in hell of competing with the big companies.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on August 25, 2009, 04:23:38 pm
Sorry to bump an old thread, but has anything materialized yet on the IPR's?
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Adam Whetham on August 25, 2009, 05:14:00 pm
Don't worry, I was going to do the same thing. Sweetwater was suppose to get their shipment this week for everything but the IPR6000 aparently thats taking longer... but the one with the built in DSP will be available.

The pricing is the same, as I did check direct with the peavey rep. My bar band is looking at getting two of the 6000's for sub duty. It would make our amp rack alot lighter than it is right now. Most dealer's won't be able to get any it seem's until end of september or so as they are still trying to fill orders. I know my local dealer is back in the line a little ways.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on August 25, 2009, 08:44:47 pm
Adam Whetham wrote on Tue, 25 August 2009 16:14



...Sweetwater was suppose to get their shipment this week for everything but the IPR6000 aparently thats taking longer...

...Most dealer's won't be able to get any it seem's until end of september or so as they are still trying to fill orders. I know my local dealer is back in the line a little ways.


A few months ago my Peavey supplier said that it could be as late as November before product started to move.  Sounds like they're ahead of that schedule...  The reason given for delaying shipment so long was that Peavey didn't want dealers to be jealous of other dealers getting theirs first, so they wanted to build up supply before releasing the product.  

Looking forward to hearing them-

Grant
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Chiara on August 25, 2009, 09:15:41 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 13:57

Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 20 February 2009 11:44



While I have no doubt that this is true, I think the information that the public receives as to why one amp is better than another is lacking.  How many times have we heard people say "Well, it's just a better amp...?"  Why is it a better amp?  The whole manufacturing - rep - sales chain could do a better job in this department.  This thread has been very informative.

Grant


There a classic Jack Nicholson movie line... something like "You want the truth.... you couldn't handle the truth...".

95% of power amp marketing is fluff, and 5% or more is actually misleading, promoting some spec that pretty much doesn't matter. Sales reps are not motivated to inform when there aren't substantive differences. They are motivated to sell their products.

Amplifiers act differently mostly in the margins... when clipped, when used with inferior mains power, when loaded improperly. In many cases how they deviate from ideal operation has subjective aspects that aren't universally perceived the same.

Bob Lee and several others here have been consistent trying to parse out what matters from what doesn't, but like Sisyphus rolling that rock up the slope, old nonsense questions keep getting revisited.

Amp performance is pretty simple but musical sources and applications vary so there are so many variables rarely controlled in typical listener reports. These have to viewed through a statistical filter for a preponderance of everybody hears the exact same thing.

Even then most popular myths disappear under controlled listening. Amp technology is actually pretty mature, and changes to the underlying technology generally become invisible to the larger performance envelope after the infant kinks are worked out.

Of course opinions vary...

JR    







Exactly!!

One difficulty that this breeds is the relative newcomer, mildly informed and massively marketed, who decides with his cash that he wants to be a part of the business and depending on their marketing success, are great sources of perpetuated myths.
This happens without malice but cramps the market with good hype about mediocre service.
A bit frustrating.

John
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on August 25, 2009, 09:36:33 pm
Grant Conklin wrote on Tue, 25 August 2009 19:44



A few months ago my Peavey supplier said that it could be as late as November before product started to move.  Sounds like they're ahead of that schedule...  The reason given for delaying shipment so long was that Peavey didn't want dealers to be jealous of other dealers getting theirs first, so they wanted to build up supply before releasing the product.  

Looking forward to hearing them-

Grant


That's brilliant.. I'll have to remember that...  "We have inventory we could sell, but we're not going to ship it because it would make some dealers jealous"...  Laughing

JR
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on October 05, 2009, 01:34:22 pm
The IPR series is finally on Peavey's website:  http://www.peavey.com/products/ipr/index.cfm

Unfortunately, only the IPR-1600 model is clickable right now, and it doesn't appear to be bridgeable.  In reading the description of the series, it appears that the marketing is directed to people below the lounge level:  "...plus special presets for program music applications (dance, speech, rock, thump, loudness, contemporary worship)."  Let's hope that the technology is at least lounge level.  
At least there are manual settings...

Still haven't seen 8 ohm rating for any of the amps.  

Grant
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on October 05, 2009, 01:42:42 pm
Quote:


and for the first time in any power amplifier, built-in Waves
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: John Chiara on October 05, 2009, 01:54:37 pm
Jeff Babcock wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 13:42

Quote:


and for the first time in any power amplifier, built-in Waves
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Adam Whetham on October 05, 2009, 02:15:56 pm
We're waiting for two of the IPR6000's to try for sub duty for my bar band instead of some old heavey Mackie FR2500's.

They are two ohm stable, which is nice. We'd be running them 4 ohm stereo... They look very promising for entry level band for the buck amps.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 08, 2009, 09:55:52 pm
[quote title=Jeff Babcock wrot:]
Quote:


and for the first time in any power amplifier, built-in Waves
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on October 09, 2009, 09:22:01 am
Ron Kimball wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 21:55

Damn, I finally found a MaxxBass 107 used a couple month ago for $400 and they are now giving them away free with the amps I was thinking about upgrading to anyways Dead!

Ron, how 'bout you sell me that 107 when you are done with it.

On another note, apparently (at least locally for me) Peavey rep is saying it will be pushed back (again) to November for these to start shipping.

I am quite skeptical based on the overwhelming lack of specs, the numerous delays, and what is supposedly new technology.  In particular I want to know how these things perform in less than ideal power scenarios.  I hope I am surprised, as these have the potential to be good entry-level amps.


Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 09, 2009, 09:34:55 am
Jeff Babcock wrote:

Ron, how 'bout you sell me that 107 when you are done with it.
Smile I'll keep your email address. I'm not sure how they are going to properly implement MaxxBass in a DSP amp driving the subs - you have to put it before the crossover as it generates stuff that has to go to the mains to work properly - I can't imagine them building in extra I/O on the amp just to make the MaxxBass work properly? The amp would have to have a left and right (and possibly aux fed sub?) inputs and sum internally to drive the subs and also have a left and right output to drive the mains amp?
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Adam Whetham on October 09, 2009, 09:44:16 am
Jeff Babcock wrote on Fri, 09 October 2009 08:22


I am quite skeptical based on the overwhelming lack of specs, the numerous delays, and what is supposedly new technology.  In particular I want to know how these things perform in less than ideal power scenarios.  I hope I am surprised, as these have the potential to be good entry-level amps.


The local peavey rep here is saying they aren't releasing much more info until they are readily available and until the manuals and what not are printed/finalized. I was told around december was when the 6k was showing up. With the 1600 showing up sooner. Not sure about the one's with the DSP in them, as I'm not interested
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 09, 2009, 12:32:02 pm
Adam Whetham wrote:

The local peavey rep here is saying they aren't releasing much more info until they are readily available and until the manuals and what not are printed/finalized. I was told around december was when the 6k was showing up. With the 1600 showing up sooner. Not sure about the one's with the DSP in them, as I'm not interested
Northern Sound & Light told me 1Q10 for the 6000 DSP. I won't know if I'm interested in the DSP or not until they tell us what it does Laughing. It doesn't add too much to the price ($110) so if it does reasonable limiting (unlike the Crown XTI amps Sad) or properly implements MaxxBass it would be well worth it to me Cool. They also say it will have presets for the Impulse 1012's I have which their stand alone processors don't Smile.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Adam Whetham on October 09, 2009, 02:12:43 pm
Jeff, when were you told these would come out?? Because back in march or so I was told quarter 3 of this year... so its just about ready to go into Q4... I don't really see that as being pushed back that many times.

Yea, ron I was talking to the actual rep from peavey and he was saying around begining of december for the none DSP 6k. So here's hoping its close. I'd love to lower the weight of the bar band rack.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Grant Conklin on October 09, 2009, 02:17:32 pm
My supplier was told by his rep that the IPR1600 model would ship October or so, and the rest sometime after Jan 1.

Peavey insiders:  Will any of the models be biampable?  

Thanks,
Grant
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 09, 2009, 06:54:39 pm
Grant Conklin wrote:

Peavey insiders:  Will any of the models be biampable?
I'm far from an "insider" Laughing but from what I can see the non-DSP version is going to have a minimal xover internally like the QSC GX amps so I would expect they will at least do the main/sub biamp thing. For mains biamping I wish they would do an asymmetric amp like the PV 1600 Bi Pack but doesn't look like they are Sad. While I cringe at the wastefulness of running a main with the same power to the horn as the LF I'd guess the DSP versions will allow this like an ITech does? OTOH these things are so cheap and efficient who cares if one side of the amp is "loafing" Confused? The simplicity of running a straight-wired 4 pin cable from the amp to the speaker certainly does appeal to me Cool!
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Adam Whetham on October 09, 2009, 08:37:30 pm
Ron Kimball wrote on Fri, 09 October 2009 17:54

The simplicity of running a straight-wired 4 pin cable from the amp to the speaker certainly does appeal to me Cool!


They'll be in a rack already so why not have a patch panel on the back to make it idiot proof? Makes setup and tear down much simpler when you're not digging around in the back of the racks.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 09, 2009, 09:45:58 pm
Adam Whetham wrote:

They'll be in a rack already so why not have a patch panel on the back to make it idiot proof? Makes setup and tear down much simpler when you're not digging around in the back of the racks.
The only amp rack I have presently has 2 RMX850's and 2 RMX2450's in it (= stupid heavy) and nothing else. As the amps are all the same length and are only recessed a couple inches at the rear it is easy to patch them up. I just have an 8 channel patch snake labeled "A" thru "H" running from the stage box returns (labeled the same) to the amps which have their inputs labeled the same top-to-bottom in order. The amp speakons are labeled with their usage and it's a snap to get them right. If I had the xover or any other stuff in the amp rack I definitely would need a patch panel!
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Tamas Tako on October 23, 2009, 01:49:03 pm
Are these IPR amps out there?
Did anybody tested one already?

Thanks,

Tamas

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 23, 2009, 02:17:07 pm
Hey, they now have the manual up INCLUDING the DSP!
 http://www.peavey.com/assets/literature/manuals/03001260_865 9.pdf
DSP has no power limiting Shocked so pretty much useless Sad unless they just haven't documented it yet?
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on October 23, 2009, 02:23:38 pm
DSP details:
120 ms of delay per channel
4 bands of parametric equalization per channel
Security lock
Adjustable fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley Crossover
Adjustable fourth-order high-pass filter each channel
Setup wizard
MAXXBass
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Art Welter on October 23, 2009, 02:41:31 pm
Ron Kimball wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 12:17

Hey, they now have the manual up INCLUDING the DSP!
  http://www.peavey.com/assets/literature/manuals/03001260_865 9.pdf
DSP has no power limiting Shocked so pretty much useless Sad unless they just haven't documented it yet?


The amp  has the DDT (Distortion Detection Technique) circuitry which limits the amp from putting out grossly clipped signal, so assuming you bought the right amount of power for your speakers, “good enough”.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 23, 2009, 02:43:36 pm
Jeff Babcock wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 19:23

120 ms of delay per channel
4 bands of parametric equalization per channel
Security lock
Adjustable fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley Crossover
Adjustable fourth-order high-pass filter each channel
Setup wizard
MAXXBass
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on October 23, 2009, 02:44:26 pm
Adam Whetham wrote on Fri, 09 October 2009 14:12

Jeff, when were you told these would come out?? Because back in march or so I was told quarter 3 of this year... so its just about ready to go into Q4... I don't really see that as being pushed back that many times.




The latest I have heard is end of Nov or early Dec shipping on the 1600 NON DSP model.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 23, 2009, 02:51:09 pm
Art Welter wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 19:41

The amp  has the DDT (Distortion Detection Technique) circuitry which limits the amp from putting out grossly clipped signal, so assuming you bought the right amount of power for your speakers, “good enough”.
In my case I want to buy a couple 6000's because I'm tired of losing money every time I need more power Sad. Just a simple RMS limiter like the 'ringer has would be fine. OTOH the Itech's have awesome limiters and if Peavey put as capable a DSP as that in these amps they'd CRUSH the competition Cool!
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Jeff Babcock on October 23, 2009, 03:08:39 pm
Ron Kimball wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 14:51

OTOH the Itech's have awesome limiters and if Peavey put as capable a DSP as that in these amps they'd CRUSH the competition Cool!


Hold on there Ron.....
It's one thing to see a spec sheet.  It's another thing to see how these amps are going to perform in the real world.  Even if the DSP was amazing rather than entry level, the jury is still out on how well they actually do the job they were intended to do - amplification.

It would be great if they sound fantastic and work amazingly well.  But at the price point they are designed for, I don't expect them to perform in the same league as "varsity level" amps.  Maybe Peavey will surprise everyone, but odds are against that being the case.

I expect them to simply be a good bang for the buck.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on October 23, 2009, 03:30:36 pm
Jeff Babcock wrote:

It would be great if they sound fantastic and work amazingly well.  But at the price point they are designed for, I don't expect them to perform in the same league as "varsity level" amps.  Maybe Peavey will surprise everyone, but odds are against that being the case.
I think they will be about XTI level - I hate the DSP in them too Laughing. Kinda hard to screw up the basics of being an amp although it does happen. I just noticed they have no computer I/F of any sort so they lose there too Sad but not something I need Smile. I was quoted 1Q10 for the 6000 and DSP 6000.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Steve Kelly on October 23, 2009, 03:43:06 pm
That 1600 might make a very nice monitor amp.....a pair of those would give me 4 channels, 2 wedges per channel, 3 if I really needed it, all at 14 lbs total.  They could go in the main amp rack on top of the 5 QSC PLX2's and I know I wouldn't feel the difference.  I could get rid of the 2 Mackie M2600's in their separate case I am using now.

Need to download the manual....
Cheers,
Steve



Title: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Elliot Thompson on October 23, 2009, 04:33:14 pm
If I remember correctly, Peavey’s DDT can manage up to 20 decibels of torture so, it is far better than many limiters found in DSPs. I own around 12 or 15 Peavey CS amplifiers and, nothing compares to their DDT system. It is designed monitors the amplifier’s input & output, which, is the whole reason of using Limiters in the first place. The lack of adjustments is better for those who have no clue how to configure limiters correctly.

From a power standpoint, IPR 1600 is basically a 2010 version of the Peavey CS 800 without the bridging capability. For whatever reason Peavey chose not to offer such a feature, I am sure it is in the best interest of the amplifiers performance on a long-term basis.

Peavey is known historically to have the most reliable amplifiers and, knows these amplifiers will be bought by a lot of Garage Bands in addition to DJs that have very small needs. They are usually not the most technically inclined and are better off having fewer options that they can alter.

Best Regards,

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Scott Shaw on October 23, 2009, 05:15:40 pm
What if there's a software glitch? You send it back to Peavey? How could they leave that out?
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Grant Conklin on October 23, 2009, 05:21:14 pm
Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 15:33



From a power standpoint, IPR 1600 is basically a 2010 version of the Peavey CS 800 without the bridging capability. For whatever reason Peavey chose not to offer such a feature, I am sure it is in the best interest of the amplifiers performance on a long-term basis.




Amplifier longevity may be the reason for no bridge mode, but that seems like a bit of conjecture, considering they rate the amps for 2 ohm stereo operation.  

To those who understand amps better than I:  Is there any harm in inputing the same signal to both channels, and wiring up one's own bridge cable, or panel?  Is as simple as wiring up the 2 hots into one speakon, like you would on banana outputs?  

Thanks,
Grant
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Tamas Tako on October 23, 2009, 05:31:02 pm
Simply:

There could be (technically) reasons for no Bridging.
For exaple (being used class D technology there) Full Bridge topology for each chanels...
In Fact There would be also a solution for this scenario with completly independent PSU-s, which are also indepenent from the ground (ther I mean the center tap), and so even Full Bridge apms could be used but now not in real Bridge, but in serie like a dual adjustable Labor PSU...

Anyhow, if they are using fullbridge, I can belive, bridging isnt possible
(not to mention the phase modulating Bridge Class D topology, with the Transformers on the output: this also don't allow bridging)

Tamas
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on October 23, 2009, 05:33:13 pm
Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 15:33

If I remember correctly, Peavey’s DDT can manage up to 20 decibels of torture so, it is far better than many limiters found in DSPs. I own around 12 or 15 Peavey CS amplifiers and, nothing compares to their DDT system. It is designed monitors the amplifier’s input & output, which, is the whole reason of using Limiters in the first place. The lack of adjustments is better for those who have no clue how to configure limiters correctly.

From a power standpoint, IPR 1600 is basically a 2010 version of the Peavey CS 800 without the bridging capability. For whatever reason Peavey chose not to offer such a feature, I am sure it is in the best interest of the amplifiers performance on a long-term basis.

Peavey is known historically to have the most reliable amplifiers and, knows these amplifiers will be bought by a lot of Garage Bands in addition to DJs that have very small needs. They are usually not the most technically inclined and are better off having fewer options that they can alter.

Best Regards,




Yes, this gets a little conflicting when talking about optimizing gain structure for best advantage.

In the early DDT amps before Peavey started using active balanced inputs (that can be clipped) it was possible to get even more than 20 dB of clip limiting, Later Peavey amps (newer than CS800S) with active inputs can't protect against clipping that input stage, but it's pretty much academic since you will clip the output stage of your console or crossover in the same ballpark. You will get more than 10 dB of DDT limiting but depending on the amp sensitivity probably not 20 dB+, these days.

One obvious conflict is that optimal for DDT limited with tons of R&R headroom, from wide (f'n)  open inputs, is not optimal for best S/N in church sanctuary noise floor installs.

So as with anything, the optimal gain structure depends on the application.

I suspect that series of Peavey digital crossovers (done after I left) may have an internal gain structure happier with church than full R&R gain structure. This is not a big deal as excessive DDT limiting is there to protect operators from their bad driving, not optimal operation.

JR


Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Art Welter on October 23, 2009, 05:51:41 pm
Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 15:21

Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 15:33



From a power standpoint, IPR 1600 is basically a 2010 version of the Peavey CS 800 without the bridging capability. For whatever reason Peavey chose not to offer such a feature, I am sure it is in the best interest of the amplifiers performance on a long-term basis.




Amplifier longevity may be the reason for no bridge mode, but that seems like a bit of conjecture, considering they rate the amps for 2 ohm stereo operation.  

To those who understand amps better than I:  Is there any harm in inputing the same signal to both channels, and wiring up one's own bridge cable, or panel?  Is as simple as wiring up the 2 hots into one speakon, like you would on banana outputs?  

Thanks,
Grant

Peavey may have not featured bridge mono because so many users flip the switch into that mode, then hook up their speakers to the regular outputs, resulting in reversed polarity speakers.

Or since the amp can drive 2 ohms, they hook up two ohms to the mono output, not realizing it's the same as running the amp at 1 ohm..

To run an amp that does not have a bridge mono switch in bridge mono requires the input signalpolarity to be inverted on the second amp channel, channel 1 hot is "+", channel two hot is "-".

Both inputs must be set to the same gain, or the speaker's excursion will not be symmetrical.

Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on October 23, 2009, 05:55:07 pm
Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 16:21



Amplifier longevity may be the reason for no bridge mode, but that seems like a bit of conjecture, considering they rate the amps for 2 ohm stereo operation.  

To those who understand amps better than I:  Is there any harm in inputing the same signal to both channels, and wiring up one's own bridge cable, or panel?  Is as simple as wiring up the 2 hots into one speakon, like you would on banana outputs?  

Thanks,
Grant


Disclaimer.. I know less than you guys about these new amps since i haven't even looked at the published information, but to answer in general.

There could be several reasons for no bridge mode..  One that comes to mind is that it is already bridged to make the power, so both speaker terminals are active. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE,, just giving one possibility.

In response to the question "is there any harm"?  Well yes there could be.. Think about it. Why in the world would Peavey say not to do it??? If there wasn't a good reason?

Again a speculation, but bridging two unrelated amps together that aren't designed to be used that way can cause all kinds of problems. Suppose the current limiting is not exactly the same on both amp outputs.. If one current limits, the other amp can drag it to whatever voltage it can swing to, perhaps exceeding some safe operating area..

Don't assume that you know better than Peavey.. but then again I left almost ten years ago so maybe you do?  (No just kidding, YOU DO NOT know more than them).

If you want to know why Peavey says not to do it, ASK PEAVEY. ignore them at your own risk. Since you apparently have been adequately warned.

JR
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Grant Conklin on October 23, 2009, 06:57:24 pm
Thanks John, and thanks Art.  
Valuable info from both of you.  FWIW, I haven't read far enough to see whether Peavey warns against bridging.  I only noticed that they don't make provision for it on the back panel.  I'm not claiming to know more than anyone,  thus the reason for my question.  I thought perhaps the lack of included connectivity was simply a cost saving measure.  

Marty?

Thanks,

Grant
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Grant Conklin on October 23, 2009, 08:37:13 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 16:55


In response to the question "is there any harm"?  Well yes there could be.. Think about it. Why in the world would Peavey say not to do it??? If there wasn't a good reason?

...

Don't assume that you know better than Peavey.. but then again I left almost ten years ago so maybe you do?  (No just kidding, YOU DO NOT know more than them).

If you want to know why Peavey says not to do it, ASK PEAVEY. ignore them at your own risk. Since you apparently have been adequately warned.

JR


I just read through the manual, and didn't find anywhere where they  warn against bridging.  Also, on page 10 they explain their NL4 connectors:

"CONNECTING OUTPUTS
All models have one combination 4 pole twist lock output connector per channel. While a 1/4” speaker cable
may be connected to this output, the 4 pole twist lock output connection is the preferred method."

If they have even made provision for a single 4 conductor NL4 to carry both channels at once, they have not made that fact clear.  If and when I buy one of these amps, I'll make contact with Peavey and report back, unless someone beats me to it.

Thanks,
Grant

Edited for clarity
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Elliot Thompson on October 23, 2009, 09:06:00 pm
Grant Conklin wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 15:21

Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 15:33



From a power standpoint, IPR 1600 is basically a 2010 version of the Peavey CS 800 without the bridging capability. For whatever reason Peavey chose not to offer such a feature, I am sure it is in the best interest of the amplifiers performance on a long-term basis.




Amplifier longevity may be the reason for no bridge mode, but that seems like a bit of conjecture, considering they rate the amps for 2 ohm stereo operation.  

To those who understand amps better than I:  Is there any harm in inputing the same signal to both channels, and wiring up one's own bridge cable, or panel?  Is as simple as wiring up the 2 hots into one speakon, like you would on banana outputs?  

Thanks,
Grant




Grant,

Possibly you can explain why the importance of bridging an amplifier that you have not purchased as of yet. The only time I’ve found the need to bridge an amplifier is when I am using one of my obsolete (10 years or older) amplifiers. I never purchased any amplifier to be configured in bridge mono but stereo mode. Ten years later, having the bridge mode came in handy.

The whole idea of buying a brand new amplifier, pulling it out of the carton and flipping the Bridge switch seems counter productive in my mind. Amplifiers are beyond inexpensive they are downright cheap especially in the United States when comparing the wattage ratio offered today oppose 10 – 15 years ago.

The Peavey IP 1600 would only offer 1600 watts if it offered a bridging method @ 4 ohms. Considering it is their lowest wattage model in the series, options of buying the right amplifier for the job is not an issue. However, building a device to force the amplifier to perform to your liking will become an issue when it shuts down when you least expect it based on being overloaded.

There is an old saying.  The show must go on and, Peavey felt the amplifier would perform best from a longevity standpoint without having the bridging option. If you read the manual thoroughly you’ll realise Peavey offered a disclaimer @ 2 ohms per channel.

If one does not have enough cash, they need to learn to save more and, buy the right product for their needs. There is another old phrase that says, “Buy once, cry once.” If more would invest properly, having an amplifier that offers a bridging option or not would not determine the sale.

Best Regards,
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Grant Conklin on October 23, 2009, 09:28:53 pm
Elliot -
You make some very valid points - especially at the price point of these amps.  While I currently bridge an RMX2450 for use on 2 Growlers, a properly set up IPR6000 would work well for 2 or 4 Growlers in stereo mode, and cost less.

Really, neither of us can speak authoritatively to the issue of why Peavey did not include a bridge option.  At this point, we do not know.

I found the 2 ohm warning you spoke of:
"2 ohm power is time limited by circuit breaker."

Makes me wonder why they didn't current limit instead.  Again - not that I'm any authority.  Just wondering.  

None of this, however, explains why they didn't make provision for both channels to be connected to 1 NL4.  At least that part can be remedied safely, although inconveniently for some.  

Thanks,
Grant
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Elliot Thompson on October 23, 2009, 10:27:19 pm
Grant Conklin wrote on Sat, 24 October 2009 02:28

Elliot -
You make some very valid points - especially at the price point of these amps.  While I currently bridge an RMX2450 for use on 2 Growlers, a properly set up IPR6000 would work well for 2 or 4 Growlers in stereo mode, and cost less.

Really, neither of us can speak authoritatively to the issue of why Peavey did not include a bridge option.  At this point, we do not know.

I found the 2 ohm warning you spoke of:
"2 ohm power is time limited by circuit breaker."

Makes me wonder why they didn't current limit instead.  Again - not that I'm any authority.  Just wondering.  






But they did current limit the amplifier. That’s why Peavey stated, "2 ohm power is time limited by circuit breaker." in IP 1600 manual.

Most manufactures are very thorough on the limitations of their amplifiers. If one cannot interpret what the specifications mean, it will go unnoticed.

If you are really interested in the Peavey IP 1600 read the manual from beginning to end. You may find the answer you are looking for. If you do not, give Peavey a call (601) 483-5365. That number came from my CS 800X’s manual I purchased 12 years ago so, hopefully the number did not change.

Best Regards,

Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on October 24, 2009, 12:01:52 am
Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 21:27



But they did current limit the amplifier. That’s why Peavey stated, "2 ohm power is time limited by circuit breaker." in IP 1600 manual.

Most manufactures are very thorough on the limitations of their amplifiers. If one cannot interpret what the specifications mean, it will go unnoticed.

Best Regards,




For a little more inside baseball.. back around the time the CS800 became the CS800X with new improved 2 ohm capability, I need to point out that the transformer and heat sink did not get one ounce larger... What changed was the mains fuse was replaced by a resettable thermal breaker and the current limiting was opened up to tolerate 2 ohms loads for a short term draw. Too much current draw for too long would trip the thermal mains breaker.  

Same amp... same long term power, now with more short term power...

There is no free lunch.. but lots of customers are happy with the less than continuous output at 2 ohms. Because it is a better match to speakers and typical music, while opinions vary about what is typical music.

JR
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Tamas Tako on October 24, 2009, 08:34:09 am
Quote:


But they did current limit the amplifier. That’s why Peavey stated, "2 ohm power is time limited by circuit breaker." in IP 1600 manual.

Most manufactures are very thorough on the limitations of their amplifiers. If one cannot interpret what the specifications mean, it will go unnoticed.

If you are really interested in the Peavey IP 1600 read the manual from beginning to end. You may find the answer you are looking for. If you do not, give Peavey a call (601) 483-5365. That number came from my CS 800X’s manual I purchased 12 years ago so, hopefully the number did not change.

Best Regards,




Hi,

When considering 2 ohm load, you need to know 2 things:
- rms to peak ratio in music is 6dB worst case
- heat related power compression at nominal power of the speakers are ca 2.5-3dB (Resistance increases to a value, which makes Z to double)
these means to me, Max undistorted output power from the amp is in the worst case 9dB more, than Prms delivered.
So when you talk about circuit braker limited operation, you need to consider these numbers, and of course the overall efficiency of the whole circuit.
I don't know, what kind of breaker is used there, but if someone knows its current rating, we could estimate, how it limits 2 ohm operation...

(example: 6000W undistorted output - 9dB =750W. calculating with 75% efficiency: 1000W rms input power worst case, (most of the time I would say 3dB less =500W!) this makes at 110V AC ca 9A current... (less than 5A at 500W!))


Tamas




Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Elliot Thompson on October 24, 2009, 05:48:22 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sat, 24 October 2009 05:01

Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 23 October 2009 21:27



But they did current limit the amplifier. That’s why Peavey stated, "2 ohm power is time limited by circuit breaker." in IP 1600 manual.

Most manufactures are very thorough on the limitations of their amplifiers. If one cannot interpret what the specifications mean, it will go unnoticed.

Best Regards,




For a little more inside baseball.. back around the time the CS800 became the CS800X with new improved 2 ohm capability, I need to point out that the transformer and heat sink did not get one ounce larger... What changed was the mains fuse was replaced by a resettable thermal breaker and the current limiting was opened up to tolerate 2 ohms loads for a short term draw. Too much current draw for too long would trip the thermal mains breaker.  

Same amp... same long term power, now with more short term power...

There is no free lunch.. but lots of customers are happy with the less than continuous output at 2 ohms. Because it is a better match to speakers and typical music, while opinions vary about what is typical music.

JR



I discovered that testing some subs in 2002 using a Peavey CS 800 (3 RU version) and 800X amplifier in bridged mode. I was comparing the frequency response of my new proprietary designed mini double eighteen (JBL 2241 loaded) sub to my older proprietary designed double fifteen (RCF L 15 P 540 loaded) sub. This was going to confirm which direction I was planning to go since both cabinets share the same dimensions.

Upon testing I mistakenly connect the JBLs on the CS 800 (3 RU version) and the RCF on the CS 800X. The CS 800 began going into DDT faster than the CS 800X driving the RCFs. I assumed it was due to the CS 800 not designed for 4 ohms bridged mono, which of course would bring forth premature clipping under the given conditions. So I swap the Speakons and, the CS 800X began activating the DDT first driving the JBLs.

That confirmed to me that the difference was minimum amongst the two amplifiers. As for why the JBLs were causing this, the graph speaks for itself.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5379/trashit.png
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/6104/trashit2.png


Needless to say, I never bothered making a matching pair of mini Double Eighteens using JBL 2241’s and made more Double Fifteen subs to cater for smaller events.

Best Regards,


Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Elliot Thompson on October 24, 2009, 05:57:51 pm
Tamas Tako wrote on Sat, 24 October 2009 13:34



Hi,

When considering 2 ohm load, you need to know 2 things:
- rms to peak ratio in music is 6dB worst case
- heat related power compression at nominal power of the speakers are ca 2.5-3dB (Resistance increases to a value, which makes Z to double)
these means to me, Max undistorted output power from the amp is in the worst case 9dB more, than Prms delivered.
So when you talk about circuit braker limited operation, you need to consider these numbers, and of course the overall efficiency of the whole circuit.
I don't know, what kind of breaker is used there, but if someone knows its current rating, we could estimate, how it limits 2 ohm operation...

(example: 6000W undistorted output - 9dB =750W. calculating with 75% efficiency: 1000W rms input power worst case, (most of the time I would say 3dB less =500W!) this makes at 110V AC ca 9A current... (less than 5A at 500W!))


Tamas







You also need to take into consideration impedance dips, which vary with frequency from a loudspeaker-enclosure interaction (see the graphs in my previous post). This will be a determining factor on how long the amplifier will manage 2 ohms per channel under long-term conditions.

Since impedance fluctuations occur in every loudspeaker design, it is another reason for many to understand 8 or 4-ohm loudspeakers do not remain at their nominal load at all times. Cool

Best Regards,
Title: Re: Peavey's DDT
Post by: Tamas Tako on October 24, 2009, 06:02:14 pm
Very true Elliott!

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Tamas Tako on November 30, 2009, 07:37:20 pm
Are they available yet?

Did anyone tested them?

I am curious how they compare to other amps like the Lab Gruppen and Crown or QSC products....

BR,

Tamas
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Ron Kimball on November 30, 2009, 07:47:48 pm
Latest dates I see are 12/10, 12/15, 12/28 for the IPR-1600 shipping. It keeps slipping, wonder why?
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Chris Van Duker on November 30, 2009, 07:55:01 pm
And on a related note, I remember seeing a short blurb on a new Crest amp line in one of the audio magazines about 5 months ago. I believe the name was "E-lite", and in the small picture, they looked a lot like the IPR amps. The writeup mentioned power points up to 6KW/ch, but that could have been a mistake.

I haven't seen or heard anything about them since then -- no mention on the Crest website at all.

Anybody seen, heard, or know anything about these?
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Adam Whetham on November 30, 2009, 08:31:21 pm
Still waiting on a 6000 to test on sub duty.
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: JD Bennett on February 27, 2010, 11:05:07 am
Renard Hurtado wrote on Wed, 18 February 2009 19:43

Well, I doubt this pricing, because it will be cannibalism.

Or this new amp. must be of a less quality (sound wise and build-wise) compared to the CS- series. The GPS series would be ranked even higher ?

On the other hand if it has a street priced as mentioned above, for us living outside the states ( and not heaving great technicians at our disposal), this will be a great disposable amp ( I would be happy if it lasts three years)




Hi Renard

The price is real, the sound quality is better. Operating temperature is very low, so life expectancy is very high.
No worries. Technology advancement is our friend.

You are correct about cannibalism. The market for higher priced amplifiers is in peril. Making them even better is the only option. I do not share the opinion that all amps sound alike and that only power, price, and reliability matter. Fortunately I'm not alone, so there is still room for advancement.

Regards
Title: Re: amplifier sound
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 27, 2010, 01:46:36 pm
JD Bennett wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 10:05



You are correct about cannibalism. The market for higher priced amplifiers is in peril. Making them even better is the only option. I do not share the opinion that all amps sound alike and that only power, price, and reliability matter. Fortunately I'm not alone, so there is still room for advancement.

Regards


Hi JD: I believe we've had this conversation before, but for the benefit of the group would you care to expand upon this theme.

My premise is that when operated in their linear region, i.e. not clipped, current, or slew limited, differences between different amplifiers related to their transfer function (frequency response) and linearity (distortion) will be down a few tens of dB and way below variances in other parts of the signal chain (especially mics and speakers).

In my judgment, these nonlinear differences in how amps respond to overload can be audible and different amp families can have characteristic "sounds" in the real world where users use clip lights like system curb feelers or in some cases "signal present and everything is working OK" lights.

Differences in linear operation are at best subtle, and difficult to hear in controlled listening tests unless pretty severe.

I recall discussing differences between Peavey's DDT, and Crest's version of clip limiting with you in the early definition stage of the GPS amps, while I was still involved in that project. I expected this to be a potential audible difference especially anticipating how many Peavey customers operate their amplifiers.

Are you talking about audible differences from the nonlinear overload related mechanisms I expect, or differences in linear operation that I don't expect to be generally audible?

JR    
Title: Re: amplifier sound
Post by: JD Bennett on February 27, 2010, 05:15:53 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 12:46

JD Bennett wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 10:05



You are correct about cannibalism. The market for higher priced amplifiers is in peril. Making them even better is the only option. I do not share the opinion that all amps sound alike and that only power, price, and reliability matter. Fortunately I'm not alone, so there is still room for advancement.

Regards


Hi JD:

My premise is that when operated in their linear region, i.e. not clipped, current, or slew limited, differences between different amplifiers related to their transfer function (frequency response) and linearity (distortion) will be down a few tens of dB and way below variances in other parts of the signal chain (especially mics and speakers).

Differences in linear operation are at best subtle, and difficult to hear in controlled listening tests unless pretty severe.

Are you talking about audible differences from the nonlinear overload related mechanisms I expect, or differences in linear operation that I don't expect to be generally audible?

JR    


Hi JR

In the case of the Class D IPR, "linear region" of course has a different meaning. Operating at 400kHz changes the rules. That aside, I was referring to sonic quality below clip. During two prior occupations, we lived and sold by the AB test. Both endeavors were successful so there must have been something to selling sound. I believe in it being a significant factor and will continue to try to reflect that in product design. Reports from the field comment enthusiastically about the IPR weight and sound quality equally.  Consider one a sign of the new times and the other a sign of the old times.

Hope I didn't stir up another big debate. I should have stuck with something non-controversial like politics.

jd
Title: Re: amplifier sound
Post by: Martin Queckenstedt on February 27, 2010, 05:52:32 pm
I don't ever recall anyone being able to successfully identify an amplifier in an ABX test.  Does anyone know if this has ever been accomplished?  I have only heard about studies that proved otherwise.
Title: Re: amplifier sound
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 27, 2010, 06:03:53 pm
JD Bennett wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 16:15




Hi JR

In the case of the Class D IPR, "linear region" of course has a different meaning. Operating at 400kHz changes the rules. That aside, I was referring to sonic quality below clip. During two prior occupations, we lived and sold by the AB test. Both endeavors were successful so there must have been something to selling sound. I believe in it being a significant factor and will continue to try to reflect that in product design. Reports from the field comment enthusiastically about the IPR weight and sound quality equally.  Consider one a sign of the new times and the other a sign of the old times.

Hope I didn't stir up another big debate. I should have stuck with something non-controversial like politics.

jd



No worries, the results of your design efforts speak for themselves, while I like to understand and correlate the science to the sound.

I won't pick your brain about IPR design specifics but in general I find class D amplifiers subject to the same rules, while their overload characteristics can differ dramatically from their non switching peers.

JR
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Loren Aguey on February 27, 2010, 06:16:14 pm
Hi JD,

Sorry if you've answered this somewhere else but is there an ETA on when the rest of the IPR line will be available? And I've read conflicting reports on whether or not they can be bridged.

Are you able to confirm a yay or nay on bridging?
Title: Re: amplifier sound
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on February 27, 2010, 06:50:36 pm
Martin Queckenstedt wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 16:52

I don't ever recall anyone being able to successfully identify an amplifier in an ABX test.  Does anyone know if this has ever been accomplished?  I have only heard about studies that proved otherwise.



Sorry I didn't mean to reopen this old debate.
========

It depends on how you define the trial. If the amps are different enough, even I will hear a difference.  Laughing

JR

 
Title: Re: amplifier sound
Post by: JD Bennett on February 27, 2010, 07:01:09 pm
Martin Queckenstedt wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 16:52

I don't ever recall anyone being able to successfully identify an amplifier in an ABX test.  Does anyone know if this has ever been accomplished?  I have only heard about studies that proved otherwise.



Hi Martin
The most elaborate one I've experienced was conducted in the Peavey auditorium by one of our audiofile transducer engineers.  I believe JR was present for that one. A UK based engineer was trying to sell us a magic design that could be built for half the price of a Crest CA12 and supposedly sounded better. Included in the test was a popular well reputed comparable powered brand X model. The auditorium was filled with Peavey employees that were handed score cards and a pencil. The Crest was compared to brand X. The "magic" amp was also compared to brand X. The Crest and magic amp were then compared to each other. Based on typical ABX test results, you would expect all three amps to have had comparable scores. They did not. During my retail years in Austin I observed that the musicians (drummers typically excluded) and studio (& better live engineers) could immediately pick things out that those not making a living with their ears could not. Peavey is a company full of musicians, so I expect that explains the score results. I'd be interested in hearing the results of any ABX test conducted by people that listen for a living. The ability to hear details is an acquired skill.  

Regards
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: JD Bennett on February 27, 2010, 07:24:01 pm
Loren Aguey wrote on Sat, 27 February 2010 17:16

Hi JD,

Sorry if you've answered this somewhere else but is there an ETA on when the rest of the IPR line will be available? And I've read conflicting reports on whether or not they can be bridged.

Are you able to confirm a yay or nay on bridging?


Hi Loren

The top two models can not be bridged, so we elected to not make it a feature on the lower units. There is a simple workaround that requires patching the two inputs and connecting to 1+ of chA and 1- of chB. Phone me and I'll elaborate. The 3000 & 6000 designs are finished, but component delivery times are hitting six months on some semiconductors. It's a daily guessing game as to when we get a break.

Regards
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Loren Aguey on February 28, 2010, 04:59:56 pm
Thanks for the update JD.

The component delivery woes remind me of when I was trying to get an SP12m monitor rig in one of my clubs. The dealer kept telling me that Peavey was waiting on parts, after a few months I had to cancel the order and go with something else.

Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on February 28, 2010, 09:37:54 pm
Loren Aguey wrote on Sun, 28 February 2010 15:59

Thanks for the update JD.

The component delivery woes remind me of when I was trying to get an SP12m monitor rig in one of my clubs. The dealer kept telling me that Peavey was waiting on parts, after a few months I had to cancel the order and go with something else.




I can't speak to your previous situation, but I can say with pretty good certainty that the component sourcing problems Peavey is having aren't limited to Peavey.  We live in an era of thin channels where having inventory sitting around in warehouses equates to lost money, so when demand goes down, supplies stack up, and new production stops.  When the demand recovers, The remaining inventories empty faster than the manufacturers can scale up production again.

I'm waiting for a non-audio product from another vendor who is experiencing the same problems.  He can get a couple dozen parts no problem, but getting the ten thousand he needs is turning out to be pretty tough right now.

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: Peavey IPR pricing: can this possibly be right?
Post by: Loren Aguey on March 02, 2010, 01:06:34 am
TJ (Tom) Cornish wrote on Sun, 28 February 2010 18:37

Loren Aguey wrote on Sun, 28 February 2010 15:59

Thanks for the update JD.

The component delivery woes remind me of when I was trying to get an SP12m monitor rig in one of my clubs. The dealer kept telling me that Peavey was waiting on parts, after a few months I had to cancel the order and go with something else.




I can't speak to your previous situation, but I can say with pretty good certainty that the component sourcing problems Peavey is having aren't limited to Peavey.  We live in an era of thin channels where having inventory sitting around in warehouses equates to lost money, so when demand goes down, supplies stack up, and new production stops.  When the demand recovers, The remaining inventories empty faster than the manufacturers can scale up production again.

I'm waiting for a non-audio product from another vendor who is experiencing the same problems.  He can get a couple dozen parts no problem, but getting the ten thousand he needs is turning out to be pretty tough right now.

Edit: spelling


Yeah that makes sense. It probably didn't help that I was in Canada at the time. It still struck me as very odd that a small order of 3 sp12m's and 1 sp15m took months and months to acquire.