agedhorse

It depends on the manufacturer, the brand and the product category. Some are misleading (intentionally or otherwise) but not all.

Correct, what I said earlier is that there is no approved component level repairs for the ICEPower modules. Your problem is with the amp manufacturer not offering out of warranty repairs, but almost all manufacturers have approved service centers that handle out of warranty work. This is what I am puzzled about, did you not contact one of the manufacturer's service centers?

Good for Ashdown’s willingness to support their products and do the right thing. Since you made the same post with the same inaccurate information over at TalkBass, let me add my response to you here: Just to set the record straight, ICEPower modules are not to be repaired at the component level (with a very few exceptions), because doing so voids the safety certification on the module. This is their official policy and most manufacturers using these modules follow it closely. Besides, it’s usually less expensive to replace than repair do to the high amount of highly skilled labor required to diagnose these faults in high technology. Also, replacement modules are available for all ICEPower modules that have been used in the bass amp industry going back to the very beginning. There are no unavailable modules in their product line, so that information is incorrect. Additionally, Ashdown has used ICEPower in some of their lightweight amps.

Of course accurate, honest specifications are important, but so is understanding the basic principles of the physics behind speakers (and transducers), which is where this whole thread/discussion has become so confusing. Lots of incorrect assumptions resulting in incorrect conclusions.

4 ohm 410's make a lot of sense because many 410's have a real world power handling of between 600 and 1000 watts RMS, and there's more available volume this was as a single cabinet solution. If you want 2 x 410's, than a 2 ohm capable amp is not that difficult to find. It has nothing to do with valves versus solid state, there are plenty of examples of 2 ohm capable amps in both types. If there is enough current available from the amp, then it doesn't matter as they go hand in hand. No, it's all about voltage x current x cosine of the phase angle between the voltage and current (which is the definition of real power). Actually, speakers are a current controlled device, the movement of the cone is due to the opposing magnetic fields, one static and one modulating. based on the current flowing through the voice coil. The force F=I x L x B x sin θ (where θ is the angle between the current I and the magnetic field B) The voltage is what causes the current to flow. Voltage and current exist together, you can't separate them aside from the inclusion of the phase angle between them. The voltage causes the current to flow, the current flows because of the voltage, and the real power is ultimately what matters. Since real power is more difficult to measure, apparent power (which assumes that the power factor (or phase angle between the voltage and current is 1) is most commonly used and is plenty accurate for like comparisons.

Fender operated SWR for 10 years, it was a struggling brand when they bought it and it was still struggling when they shut it down in 2013. The newest products (AmpLite amp and GoLite speakers) were probably the best products in that last 10 years, better than many of the legacy models in terms of build quality and performance, but it was too little too late to save the company. Before somebody accuses me of not knowing the history and those products, I was there working for another one of their companies that was shut down a few months later (after 6 years of ownership).

Different players, music styles, gigs and venues all have different needs. What works for you may no work for another player and there is nothing wrong with this. It doesn't make you more right or the other player more wrong.

The safety regulatory statement for power consumption is required by the standards (UL/cUL/IEC 60065 or 62368) to be stated at a minimum of 1/8-rated "RMS" power at the lowest rated load, which corresponds to a duty cycle of 12.5% (but the manufacturer may at their option use a higher number). This number originated from the hi-fi world where this was considered the approximate duty cycle of an unclipped full range signal (which IMO is unrealistic for bass guitar). If the normal operation of the amp is intended to be compressed, overdriven or distorted, the stated duty cycle may be increased to reflect the additional power consumed under these conditions at the manufacturer's option. Most test labs will test to verify that the amp can sustain the increased duty cycle without failure or presenting a safety/fire hazard under a test sequence called "abnormal conditions" testing, but not always (depending on the lab and the test routine because other abnormal conditions testing elements may suffice).

I'm always interested in what players have to say and what THEY would like to see.

Wise move I think!

Time out in the open generally helps. Tearing it apart and washing the materials may end poorly...

For as long as I have been designing with class D modules, over 50% of the claims of a bad module have proven to be incorrect diagnostics… sometimes running as high as 80% incorrect diagnostics.

There have indeed been some documented issues with the brown colored new plugs from Neutrik, being exactly as Eich had experienced. A bigger problem has been some of the cheap knockoff plugs from Asia, their cost is irresistible to some cable manufacturers and they can damage the mating jacks too.

Maybe, but if the SpeakOn jacks are PCB mounted it's going to be more difficult and with a greater chance for a more thoroughly damaged speaker.

Exactly the reason for my path in the industry, it’s much more pleasant working with seasoned pros in general. It also pays MUCH better. it depends very much on the level of sound techs and engineers you are working with.

Clearly you need to play a better class of gig. I worked a lot of festivals where 15 minutes was the standard turnaround time between acts. A festival patch and good communication makes it pretty easy with just a line check and quick monitor mixes setup.

Yet most audience members would prefer shorter than 15 minutes…

To clarify, I mostly handled international acts on the “Americas” side of the pond, both touring but later as the A1 (lead audio) in several “higher end” venues. The only UK tour I did was in the 1980’s with Taj Mahal, and I never encountered any issues. I stopped working dive type venues in the early 1980’s, realized early on that it would be impossible to make a living and raise a family. I mostly worked venues in the 1000-2500 cap range, in part because there’s respect built into that type of venue, but also because they tended to be union or union friendly facilities with clearly defined work (and safety) rules. My crew made it ~40 years without a reportable accident or injury. During this entire time, I designed pro audio and bass/guitar gear for some of the largest names in the industry during my downtime. Now that I’m retired from pro audio events, I design full time for Mesa Boogie and Gibson, It all goes hand in hand, I met others who had design “side hustles” while touring as well. The touring experience helps make good, real world, player friendly solutions for players.

From this post, you must be a whole lot of fun to work with. Most players play a whole lifetime of gigs without getting “screwed” by sound engineers or coming to blows with a sound guy. I was a sound engineer (FOH) for 40 years working the international touring circuit mostly. The first time a player threatened one of the crew, they would get an introduction to the head of security, who quickly defused the situation by either compliance, or the act was cancelled. It almost never happened because this kind of behavior simply wasn’t tolerated at this level. Nothing screams immaturity like an act or its members throwing a “toddler temper tantrum”. Yup, the higher quality venues and the better acts generally end up with better backline. I don’t recall seeing junk more than a couple times a year at most, often it was really good gear.

The intent (at least my intent) was to go beyond the Bass 400+ with changes and feature set that make more sense to today’s players. I asked hundreds of players what they would like to see different on a reimagining, what features are now considered important or essential. The variable HPF was at the absolute top of the list, but so was the pre-post switchable DI, aux input, headphone output, and somewhat surprisingly the USB power port. Size and weight were also a common wishlist item. Some of you here participated in that TalkBass thread and poll, there was a remarkable degree of agreement too.

I don't know how convenient, but Surrey Amps has done excellent work for us for many years. Well qualified IMO. https://surreyamps.co.uk/

Perhaps if copying a proven design, but even then the economies of scale are against you. Now if there is no value assigned to labor, and you already have the tools, the gap is closer, but it's the "proven design" part of the equation that makes a difference IME. There's also the cost of developing the design and building prototypes that's often (conveniently ignored), but by ignoring even the minimal cost of design, labor, quality hardware, testing and wasted materials, then yes it can appear to be less expensive. There are also the DYI designs that, due to inexperience or lack of understanding, become "amp killers" due to not understanding reactive load limits in amps when it comes to crossover design, that bring hidden costs to the table. Yes, I run into this often enough, especially from the OCD crowd that thinks that every crossover needs multiple Zobel networks without any consideration for what ends up being lumped resonant tank circuits. This is just my experience, based on what I have seen over the (many) years.

Yet many of those plans are pretty poor when compared with established quality commercial designs. That’s been my experience overall. Economies of scale regarding quality commercial conditions makes it very difficult to build for less cost, especially if considering the used market.

Indeed it does, if you want it to look nice.

Maybe because they can buy a proven solution without trying to reinvent the wheel? I've heard some dreadful DIY PA gear in my career, yet the "builders" of that gear thought they were the greatest speakers since sliced bread. I designed commercial pro audio gear (including speakers) for a couple of the larger US and Italian manufacturers, and even with my in-house resources, it just didn't make sense unless those manufacturers were paying me to build prototypes or sample units.