agedhorse

Correct, there are multiple disadvantages to the 1/4” (6.35mm) jack. Aside from the above issues, as the power rating grows on a bridged amp, the sleeve/shell terminal which is a driven terminal and NOT grounded/earthed, the voltage grows as well and the voltage on the sleeve can be 70V above ground and 140V above the tip. Some safety agencies in some regions do not automatically accept the safe voltages of audio signals (specific class of output port) being different from a general supply port, which places the threshold somewhere in the 200-400 watt range depending on impedance.

Defective tubes do sometimes occur.

Replacing parts it the “hope” that it will fix the problem is akin to hosing down the amp with “miracle cure-all spray” and “hoping” it to be fixed. Without correctly identifying the actual fault, faith in a proper, effective repair is essentially “blind faith”. Follow up with them to get your amp properly fixed.

Next time, leave the nail varnish off, it's not needed with the split lockwashers and can cause huge problems when you can't get the nuts off and snap the stud of the standoff or strip the screw on the standoff trying. Profusion parts are genuine, yes they are more expensive than what you see from China and Hong Kong on eBay/Amazon but they aren't counterfeit either.

Note that wiring non-identical cabinets in series will often result is unexpected performance issues because each cabinet's non-identical electrical parameters will interact when wired in series. I do not recommend this.

Only if you are sure that's the cause of the problem. You are 50% likely to be right, but also 50% likely to be wrong.

Yes, should be no problem as long as your expectations are reasonable. I'm sure your neighbors will see to that as well...

The 200ASC module is capable of significantly greater power, the data sheet rating is conservative and does not consider some off sheet applications (specifically duty cycle management). In fact, the same module type is available in a larger version as well, the 200ASC shares very similar performance but without the off sheet enhancements. The power rating that was used by the test lab for CB scheme testing is 290 watts RMS into 4 ohms, there is another off sheet enhancement that brings this value to 310 watts RMS into 4 ohms as well. The larger model contains this last enhancement plus some additional thermal management allowing for 2.7 ohm operation in addition to 4 ohms. Either module will work properly in the Shuttle 3.0. Kiwi's module also has some off-sheet enhancements available, rated at 550 watts RMS into 4 ohms before the enhancements are applied. We actually worked with IcePower on the development of enhancements that were included in their more recent products and we hold a US patent specifically addressing some of these applications. One such enhancement involves the alteration of the current limit curves to better drive sub-nominal impedance loads without impacting operation. Another allowed Genz Benz to be the first company to develop ways for the larger module (used in our 900 watt amp models) to safely drive 4 ohm BTL loads even though the data sheet indicates this is impossible. This too was covered under our patent, and verified as safe by IcePower. Ironically, our competitors jumped on the bandwagon claiming that it was impossible, and that all of our amps would "blow up", when in fact it was entirely possible and the amps were incredibly reliable over many years. Handling factory service and support for all of North America, I typically see only 2 or 3 failed modules a year. In other parts of the world, the most common cause of module failure is the amp set on 115V and being plugged into 230V which is not the fault of the module. I have been designing with IcePower products for about 20 years, starting in the touring pro audio (expensive powered speakers) sector and later with bass and acoustic amp products. Designing with IcePower products when IcePower was young certainly has advantages (including a close working relationship with their engineering team).

I can guarantee 100% that IcePower modules have NEVER been made in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan. This is absolutely fact, I have worked with the company and it’s products for close to 20 years and I have the legal country of origin documents for those models. Counterfeits look the same, they test different and do not meet the same performance, safety and EMC standards. You were lucky your module worked, it’s really just that simple.

Definitely not a cap, not from that fault. Also not fuses. These modules are not designed to be repaired, specifically in the EU where repairs to the power supply would require additional safety testing including hi-pot and residual (leakage) current certification. Most IcePower modules sold out of China are counterfeit. The failure rates are unbelievably high. Sometimes you get lucky, but usually not. The quality of the ones I have seen are abysmal, do net meet many specs and most fail within a couple of days if they power up at all. The Fender sourced modules are guaranteed to be genuine, and are reasonably priced when they are in stock at the Fender-Europe depot.

That is a bad error to make, it damaged the power module because the chassis ground is not the same as any other "ground" in the amp when it comes to current routing. It's ground only for fault currents in order to protect against shock, and that particular accident forced about 30 amps into the protective earth circuit. A Fender authorized service center should have this part in stock or be able to get it from the Fender Europe depot, but I don't recall their part number for it. I have plenty of them in stock in the states as well, but shipping is a bit stiff, and it still needs to be installed by somebody who can fully test the amp for among other things that there's no damage to the safety ground/protective earth.

I would not have been surprised if under a control test (same unit to same unit) players "discovered" a 25% difference from where pure guessing would result. Without control testing, you don't know if your original listening test is valid. Failing a control test is not uncommon, just shows that there is a flaw somewhere in the methodology.

What were the numbers when comparing tube to tube and solid state to solid state... ie. controls? Were they statistically 50-50 or were they skewed as well?

It serves as a control, because if statistically greater than 50-50 is the result, something else is going on. Yes, double-blind testing (including control testing) is an important part of moving technology and designs forward. This is how we rule in or out a particular aspect of a design being the cause/effect of what’s being investigated.

What if there is no difference between A and B?