New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John Chiara

John Chiara

Senior
Jan 11, 2011
931
0
0
Troy, NY
Am looking to cycle out some old Carver amps in my cheapo club system. Finding many output ratings not in a range useful to me. Peavey IPR 3000 at 430/ch @8 815/ch@ 4 being too small. Behringer Inuke 6000 @3000/ch @4 being too big and not even having an 2 ohm rating. Curious why the large gaps in the models.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John Chiara said:
Am looking to cycle out some old Carver amps in my cheapo club system. Finding many output ratings not in a range useful to me. Peavey IPR 3000 at 430/ch @8 815/ch@ 4 being too small. Behringer Inuke 6000 @3000/ch @4 being too big and not even having an 8 ohm rating. Curious why the large gaps in the models.
Click to expand...

Goldilocks isn't buying amplifiers these days, so there is a shortage of "this one is just right!" models. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

"My, what big subwoofers you have, Grandma!"
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John Chiara said:
Am looking to cycle out some old Carver amps in my cheapo club system. Finding many output ratings not in a range useful to me. Peavey IPR 3000 at 430/ch @8 815/ch@ 4 being too small. Behringer Inuke 6000 @3000/ch @4 being too big and not even having an 2 ohm rating. Curious why the large gaps in the models.
Click to expand...

I am curious about some of the modern lightweight amps as well. I hadn't even seen the inuke series. It looks like the 6000 is really two bridged 3000's. The 3000 is rated at 880 watts at 4 ohms, so I might surmise that they would rate the 6000 at 1760 or round down to 1500 at 8 ohms. A better question, I think, is how long the little amps can really sustain useable voltage levels compared to older/heavier amps and newer/lighter/$$$ amps. It would be fun to compare a 6000 to an itech 4000, pro9200, pl380, 9001, etc. Used those amps are 2 to 3 times the price though I suspect they perform a little better at RMS power ratings. :roll:
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

Marlow Wilson said:
I am curious about some of the modern lightweight amps as well. I hadn't even seen the inuke series. It looks like the 6000 is really two bridged 3000's. The 3000 is rated at 880 watts at 4 ohms, so I might surmise that they would rate the 6000 at 1760 or round down to 1500 at 8 ohms. A better question, I think, is how long the little amps can really sustain useable voltage levels compared to older/heavier amps and newer/lighter/$$$ amps. It would be fun to compare a 6000 to an itech 4000, pro9200, pl380, 9001, etc. Used those amps are 2 to 3 times the price though I suspect they perform a little better at RMS power ratings. :roll:
Click to expand...

This is an old misperception. Fueled by some early marginal design decisions made in early switching amps (inadequate reservoir caps).

The only time size and weight might correlate with anything about amplifier performance is if everything else is exactly the same, because then more weight could mean more heat-sink or more transformer copper and iron. However, when making comparisons between different technologies the size and weight doesn't mean anything useful.

The significant reductions in size and weight have been accomplished using newer technology. That is the good news. The bad news is that these can still vary between models and brands just like the old technology, so engineering execution still matters while the modern technology clearly makes it cheaper to deliver more thump.

Another ugly secret about power amps is that the cost to build high power and low power versions are not linear with power, so price spreads between power points may not be as much as customers would expect or like. Modern amps are getting so cheap I'd just buy the bigger one, and practice a little discipline with the master fader.

JR
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John, I'm curious about your Carver amps. What models are they? Do they still function well. I have a PM 900 and two PM 1201 that are almost 20 years old. I still use them occasionally for monitors and utility work. They must have used some high quality components in those amps for them to work so well for so long. I wonder if the newer, lightweight cheap amps will offer that kind of service.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John Roberts said:
This is an old misperception. Fueled by some early marginal design decisions made in early switching amps (inadequate reservoir caps).

The only time size and weight might correlate with anything about amplifier performance is if everything else is exactly the same, because then more weight could mean more heat-sink or more transformer copper and iron. However, when making comparisons between different technologies the size and weight doesn't mean anything useful.

The significant reductions in size and weight have been accomplished using newer technology. That is the good news. The bad news is that these can still vary between models and brands just like the old technology, so engineering execution still matters while the modern technology clearly makes it cheaper to deliver more thump.

Another ugly secret about power amps is that the cost to build high power and low power versions are not linear with power, so price spreads between power points may not be as much as customers would expect or like. Modern amps are getting so cheap I'd just buy the bigger one, and practice a little discipline with the master fader.

JR
Click to expand...

Hi JR,

I wasn't saying older/heavier is better than newer/lighter. I guess I'm just curious to see how the rated voltage output compares between the more costly options (Powersoft, LG, Itech, etc) and the older heavier amps from a budget standpoint. Last I checked, used professional amplifiers were a pretty good deal. For something in the 2500 watts at 4 ohm range, the cheapest option was to bridge two smaller amps. But two smaller amps might end up costing almost as much as a used Itech 4000, Pro9200, PL380 and so on, and even more than a used 9001. I'd take a stereo 9001 over many smaller bridged amplifiers from my own non-scientific testing and would further spend more money to save my back as long as the compromises are not too significant.

All this to say that I ended up with Itech HD's because the combination of weight, DSP, power, efficiency and perceived brand quality made them a fairly good deal when I got them. But when I made that decision several years ago the current line of lightweights maps from Peavey and others didn't exist , so my reasoning may no longer stand. Crown has also increased their prices in the intervening period.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

A reliable way to characterize amplifier duty-cycle, especially in the context of music and speaker loads is not getting any closer IMO. This is the mirror image of speaker driver power handling, but since amplifier and drivers are not routinely connected one to one, even standardizing to a similar standard leaves room for misunderstanding and misapplication.

In practice, this gets sorted out by the marketplace, with more demanding applications getting solutions from premium amp models, and mass market amps aiming for the lower common denominator, often with lighter duty design.

I remain an advocate for powered speakers, where the details of amp design to match a speaker and application can be performed by someone with access to more complete information.

or not...

JR
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

Chuck Simon said:
John, I'm curious about your Carver amps. What models are they? Do they still function well. I have a PM 900 and two PM 1201 that are almost 20 years old. I still use them occasionally for monitors and utility work. They must have used some high quality components in those amps for them to work so well for so long. I wonder if the newer, lightweight cheap amps will offer that kind of service.
Click to expand...


PM 2.0t's. I bought 12 from Clair. I have 4 mono amps running a 2x18 sub each with a stereo each on a pair of 15" mid cabs and another on a pair of Community SLS 960's. I have run this system flat out, a 4 mix monitor rig with Yami passive wedges on a Carver channel each, and a full band at a wedding show in a sports arena...all on 1 barely 20 amp circuit. I want to replace the 4 mono amps with one stereo amp do I can condense some racks and make an easy 1 man load/lift.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

My recollection was that Clair modified Carver amps from stock for use themselves. I don't know if they sold unmodified units, but Carver sold a bunch of stock ones from the ads hyping Clair Bros using them.

JR
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John Roberts said:
My recollection was that Clair modified Carver amps from stock for use themselves. I don't know if they sold unmodified units, but Carver sold a bunch of stock ones from the ads hyping Clair Bros using them.

JR
Click to expand...

Yep, mine came in a clam shell rack that was used for 12AM biamp setups.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John, with the I-nuke, Behringer started with the 'phoney' number game in amplifiers. Look real hard... it's peak watts therefore a comparison with an amplifier listing 'real' RMS power is flawed.

edit typo
 
Last edited:
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

Has anyone seen an honest comparison of these type of amplifiers? I'm considering swapping out my QSC RMX 850's for the new smaller offerings. Either QSC PLX1104, Peavey IPR 1600, Behringer NU100 or Crown XLS1000.

Thanks, Dave
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

Tim Perry said:
John, with the I-nuke, Behringer strated with the 'phoney' number game in amplifiers. Look real hard... it's peak watts therefore a comparison with an amplifier listing 'real' RMS power is flawed.
Click to expand...

But "real" music doesn't care about "real" RMS ratings...peak is actually more useful from a musical standpoint, and even Crown is starting to provide these ratings with the new Itech 4x3500HD amp.

Easiest way to determine how it's actually going to perform is to hook it up to a real-world load and A/B compare which gets louder.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

As long as they're still working, I would definitely keep the Clair Carvers. They are great sounding amps and I think anything else in the "budget" price range would be a side step or downgrade. Plus they're only like 9 pounds and 12" deep? I'm still rocking a monoblock and stereo Clair carver on my drumfill rig and it kicks ass.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

There's the continuous RMS rating, which is what an amp could put out for a sustained period of time. Think sinewave, or pink noise. This requires the power supply to be able to continuously be able to put out enough power for the output to stay happy. Of course, this means a more expensive power supply. Since music is rarely going to be a continuous output at full tilt, manufacturers found that they could scrimp on the power supply, but still get the peak RMS rating that is needed for musical performance. Now, some go way too far in this category and can only produce peak power for such a short time that it's not usable, but it still can be counted as 'peak' because it can do it. You can guess which amps are more likely to suffer from this because they are going to cost far less than the units than can produce full continuous RMS at the peak rating.

Oh, and then, of course, there is the balls out stupid peak rating that you see on car amplifiers. This is the maximum possible current that can come out of the amp with no consideration of distortion levels or sanity. It's a big number to compensate for smaller things, and should pretty much be ignored.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

I've explained this a number of times before, but once more for the cheap seats.

Once upon a time "big" amps only made 250W @ 8 ohms 24x7 and 2 ohm connections were clearly an accident. Consumers figured out they could get more power (more or less) by loading down amps to 2 ohms, and amp makers figured they could get away with less than 24x7 duty cycle to sell cheaper amps that play music (more or less). Consumers vigorously rewarded less than 24x7 duty cycle amps, so they got more of them (more or less, mostly more).

The consumers have been driving this train for a long time by what they buy, at least decades so don't blame the manufacturers. New technology amps get sorted out by the marketplace to find their true place in the pecking order. New amps, are new so TBD. A new amp that sucks doesn't succeed long enough to become an old amp.

JR
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

John, as someone who frequently speaks from the "cheap seats" I think your ideas about the psychology of the buying public are interesting, but I think most here are more interested in the actual performance of these amps rather than the marketing strategy behind them.
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

Chuck Simon said:
John, as someone who frequently speaks from the "cheap seats" I think your ideas about the psychology of the buying public are interesting, but I think most here are more interested in the actual performance of these amps rather than the marketing strategy behind them.
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that the performance will be as expected given the price, because that's what we (the buying population) keep driving them to produce.

Jason
 
Re: New Lightweight Power Amp Ratings

Jason Lavoie said:
I think what he's saying is that the performance will be as expected given the price, because that's what we (the buying population) keep driving them to produce.

Jason
Click to expand...

That's exactly what JR is saying. And that the desires and needs of many of our forum users do not necessarily reflect the behavior of the majority of purchasers.
 
Top Bottom