Ah yes, infra-bass, lower bass, bass, mid bass, uper bass...
I see what you mean.
What I have in mind is the physical presence of a double bass, electric bass, kick-drum and a few other instruments. So I guess the range 50 or 60-150Hz. Not much lower, not much higher. Certainly not the infras, in any event. I've certainly heard amps going as low as/lower than the Crown SR but that's again not my point.
Earlier was said "current capability" but when you do look at their advertisement about the V/I output capability diagrams into reactive loads, it definitely seems to be geared towards current capability at high voltages by using a "clever" compressor/limiter. Maybe some marketing mumbojumbo, but I read it as speak for "we threw in lotsa rugged outputs, big reservoir caps, a solid SMPS and a little VI limiting magic". This phylosophy I suppose can lead to a better slam experience 😀
hmmm never considered a double bass as having punch, even live, but electric bass is 40 ishHz fundamental for a 4 string up to around 10kHz. doesn't narrow things much. given a kick drum has been stated as having its 'punch' around 3KHz I am still at a loss to find a mechanism in your case beyond that you KNOW you have 800W on tap. I am intrigued...
For what it's worth, I own both a Crown XLS1000, and a Mackie M1400i. I got to experience also a Crown XLS 202 I repaired a few months ago.
The Mackie 1400i and Crown XLS 202 are "old school" design... lots of paralleled output stages, and a big hunking toroid transformer, with lots of caps. The Crown XLS1000 is a Class D amp -- very very light. I was very surprised. You can carry it with one hand!
If we go by the specs sheet, the Crown XLS 1000 (class D) is 350W on 4-ohm.
While the old school Crown XLS 202 is 300W at 4-ohm and the Mackie 1400i is 500W into 4-ohm.
... and yet, the Crown XLS 202 and Mackie 1400i are more similar in it's sound and both seems to have more punch... vs. the Crown XLS 1000 Class D design.
The big difference (both sizewise and in terms of weight), I think is the power supply (old school design, big heavy toroid trafo) vs. the newer Class D designs.
Inside of a Crown XLS 202 (Class AB) - the photo is a XLS402, but it's basically the same as the XLS202, except with more output transistors.
Mackie 1400i
Inside of a Crown XLS1000 (Class D)
This amp can get loud. But seems to be less punchy.
The Mackie 1400i and Crown XLS 202 are "old school" design... lots of paralleled output stages, and a big hunking toroid transformer, with lots of caps. The Crown XLS1000 is a Class D amp -- very very light. I was very surprised. You can carry it with one hand!
If we go by the specs sheet, the Crown XLS 1000 (class D) is 350W on 4-ohm.
While the old school Crown XLS 202 is 300W at 4-ohm and the Mackie 1400i is 500W into 4-ohm.
... and yet, the Crown XLS 202 and Mackie 1400i are more similar in it's sound and both seems to have more punch... vs. the Crown XLS 1000 Class D design.
The big difference (both sizewise and in terms of weight), I think is the power supply (old school design, big heavy toroid trafo) vs. the newer Class D designs.
Inside of a Crown XLS 202 (Class AB) - the photo is a XLS402, but it's basically the same as the XLS202, except with more output transistors.
Mackie 1400i
Inside of a Crown XLS1000 (Class D)
This amp can get loud. But seems to be less punchy.
You think the old XLS has punch? It's a POS compared to the old Macro Tech.
And the new switching XLS has some known issues - the worst being that the SMPS has a current limiter that kicks in and snaps the supply back like a mouse trap the instant you go over the design limit (which is about full signal average current for 8 ohms). Driving 4 ohm loads or subs ends up being pretty disappointing. The XLS 2000, 4000, etc. are supposed to fix that, but they're still probably prett soft compared to the touring versions that cost $5000.
And the new switching XLS has some known issues - the worst being that the SMPS has a current limiter that kicks in and snaps the supply back like a mouse trap the instant you go over the design limit (which is about full signal average current for 8 ohms). Driving 4 ohm loads or subs ends up being pretty disappointing. The XLS 2000, 4000, etc. are supposed to fix that, but they're still probably prett soft compared to the touring versions that cost $5000.
The XLS is entry level, vs. the other more expensive models. Still, by your comments, you admit the PSU has a big contribution to the "punch" (or lack of it) by these different models. -- that was the point of this thread right? (Not which Crown amp was the punchiest of them all.)
EDIT: No, not which Crown amp was punchiest of them all.
My experience is limited to the Studio Reference 1 which is said to be just an aesthetical evolution of the Macro Reference which was said to be the top model of the then family of macro series amps. Can't speak for the whole Crown production range obvioulsy, but it doesn't mean anything of course.
Back to the circuit operation of the Macro-Techs.
I have never gotten around to it, but one day I will try building a Chip-Tech using chip amps.
Standard single secondary transformer and one bank of caps per channel....by definition, twin mono block construction.
Balanced signal directly in, and there you have it.
Dan.
I have never gotten around to it, but one day I will try building a Chip-Tech using chip amps.
Standard single secondary transformer and one bank of caps per channel....by definition, twin mono block construction.
Balanced signal directly in, and there you have it.
Dan.
Some of these are Craig's list, some are EBay -- take the transistors out measure and sell those that work on EBay. All of the failed units had a blown transistor or two, but all the transformers were fine.
So you are saying these have a superior current slew rate to all the 'audiophile' stuff out there?
I'd say it kinda depends.
An audiophile amp rated by the manufacturer at 300W tends to a different beast than a pro amp rated 300W.
With audiophile offerings that seems to be the absolute max output and is measured at 1%THD at 1kHz while high-quality pro amps give rated output at 0.03% with a certain crest factor at 20-20k.
In its intended use an audiophile amp is nearly never called upon to actually deliver that power while a pro amp is supposed to provide its rated output almost every time it is switched on.
An audiophile amp rated by the manufacturer at 300W tends to a different beast than a pro amp rated 300W.
With audiophile offerings that seems to be the absolute max output and is measured at 1%THD at 1kHz while high-quality pro amps give rated output at 0.03% with a certain crest factor at 20-20k.
In its intended use an audiophile amp is nearly never called upon to actually deliver that power while a pro amp is supposed to provide its rated output almost every time it is switched on.
There have been some that 'deliver' to specs Krell Full Power Balanced 600 power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com . But a bit pricey even 2nd hand compared to the crown. And hot.
We have a super human here, who is unaffected by biases.
I do not intend to be harsh, but sometimes its necessary.
Obviously I was generalising and as such you will always find some audiophile amps being given realistic numbers and some (at the cheap end certainly) pro amps using the in practice almost useless 1% at 1kHz numbers.
The difference is that quality pro amps cost around £2k while equally capable audiophile jobs are closer to £20k. I for one quite happily pocket the difference and put up with cooling fans and a utilitarian exterior.
The difference is that quality pro amps cost around £2k while equally capable audiophile jobs are closer to £20k. I for one quite happily pocket the difference and put up with cooling fans and a utilitarian exterior.
No-one has come up with an equally entertaining "explanation" of why the Stereophile reviewer thought that the amp had terrible sound. "No music...gobs of bass—but it was bass without pitch definition, clarity, or harmonic texture." 😀
Performance Talks, BS Walks....
Replay equipment is exactly that to me....a tool for reproducing sound.
Gear is disposable to me...I form no attachments, visual or otherwise.
If a particular item sounds good it stays, if not it walks.
Dan.
What biases ?...I listen with my ears, not my eyes.
Replay equipment is exactly that to me....a tool for reproducing sound.
Gear is disposable to me...I form no attachments, visual or otherwise.
If a particular item sounds good it stays, if not it walks.
Dan.
I think by 'harmonic texture' Stereophile means 'added 2nd order harmonics'.
After all they loved the WAVAC and that 'amp' is atrocious.
After all they loved the WAVAC and that 'amp' is atrocious.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.