Peavey IPR class D amps - Page 4 - AVS Forum
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last
DIY Speakers and Subs > Peavey IPR class D amps
findbuddha's Avatar findbuddha 04:39 PM 12-06-2009
Do you have any info on the pricing here in Aus?

Any idea what the idle power draw is?

Ta

lucazzstorm's Avatar lucazzstorm 07:12 PM 12-06-2009
I really hope this thread pans out. I currently have 4 dual 18" peavey sp218's which i am super happy for the amount of money i have invested. I power all 8 subs with one RMX 5050 it gets the job done but I need more power. If it was a perfect world I would sport the $1200-1400 for another QSC, which I don't have. Hopes are sell the 5050 and buy two IPRs... I got my fingers crossed! If these amps produce what they say, suppose i could run them 70-75% gain for 8 hours strong? If so there is a god. PS love my RMX but when all is said and done Im hopping to have 2 thats almost a 140 pound rack not including everthing else.
cinema mad's Avatar cinema mad 07:47 PM 12-06-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by findbuddha View Post

Do you have any info on the pricing here in Aus?

Any idea what the idle power draw is?

Ta

As these Power amps have'nt been released yet (UK first)
I will try and fined out when they will be made Available in Aust "apparently Feb" & the AU RRP of the IPR 1600. 2000. 6000..
Each model is available with or without DSP..

As for what the idle power draw, I would'nt have A clue..

Cheers..
cinema mad's Avatar cinema mad 08:07 PM 12-06-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucazzstorm View Post

I really hope this thread pans out. I currently have 4 dual 18" peavey sp218's which i am super happy for the amount of money i have invested. I power all 8 subs with one RMX 5050 it gets the job done but I need more power. If it was a perfect world I would sport the $1200-1400 for another QSC, which I don't have. Hopes are sell the 5050 and buy two IPRs... I got my fingers crossed! If these amps produce what they say, suppose i could run them 70-75% gain for 8 hours strong? If so there is a god. PS love my RMX but when all is said and done Im hopping to have 2 thats almost a 140 pound rack not including everthing else.

If you did buy 2 of these IPR's your 2x Peavey poweramps would weigh 5KG

Cheers..
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 10:31 PM 02-03-2010
Servicetech said:

"No way the IRP4400 can be a continuous rating with a 15A line as a power source. 15A x 120V = 1800W input power. 2000W x 2 = 4000W "output power", You can't put out more watts than you take in."

"Then again the 2400w rating on the 5200 is also impossible on a 15A outlet. Peak power perhaps, but not continuous. Are people really naive enough to think they can get more power OUT of an amp than it takes in?"

This shows a major lack of understanding. Amplifier input amperage or input wattage ratings are as per safety agency requirements. Music is considered to be a 1/8 duty cycle. The rating is based on how much current is drawn during 1/8 of the rated power. If you put a sine wave into the amplifier, it will draw considerably more power for as long as the breaker or fuse allow. Breakers and fuses are sized to allow a bit more than normal operation requires. They are not sized for sine wave. This allows reasonably sized mains cords to be used. The Crest 5200 would probably draw 60 amps with a sine wave if it were allowed to. I can tell you for a fact, the Peavey IPR amplifiers easily meet their rated output power. It is a continuous rating, not peak. Continuous is defined for as long as the breaker allows. A competent service tech can bypass the breaker and measure the full power sinewave draw for whatever duration the heat sinks allow, or simply measure one channel at a time. That will verify what the channels are capable of.

Hope the midnight rambling helps.
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 10:50 PM 02-03-2010
"Meh, i'd just mail Peavey and ask them the true RMS power"

Excellent idea. Beats endless speculation.

The IPR6000 does not exist yet. The pictures floating around are of a IPR1600 with a 6000 face plate done for a trade show. The IPR1600 is now readily available. It easily meets the rated sine wave RMS power. As with most amplifiers, the duration of full power is limited by the circuit breaker (fuse for some brands). Amplifiers are designed to reproduce music, not sine waves. To allow long term sine wave reproduction is something we did during the 70s. By mid 80's amplifiers like Crest were fully capable of long term sine wave, but limited this to a few seconds via the breaker as an extra safety precaution. By the mid 90's we all learned that this was still overbuilding for the market. Money got tight and manufacturers scaled back on long term power capability.

You will find the IPR1600 to be conservatively rated and to be a very good sounding amplifier. Technology has it's merits. Peavey has been doing class D amplification for over 25 years. Non believers should try one.
thylantyr's Avatar thylantyr 11:01 PM 02-03-2010
I would never buy an amplifier unless it was independently tested by a reputable source, then compared to it's competitors to determine it's
real value
cinema mad's Avatar cinema mad 05:24 AM 02-04-2010
When I took home the 2kg Peavey 240vac Demo IPR 2000 it sounded pretty good and handled everything we threw at it without breaking a swet for A couple hours, but I didnt try it with any decent 18" subs for A true workout.. My CS 4080Hz also sounded pretty good when I demo'd it on A pair of Pro audio Peaveys, which even Peavey make A point that it's not regarded for its sonic quality's rather brute power my conclusion & experience has always been that most power amps are hard to tell apart unless using ultra highend speakers especialy when using pro audio speakers ...

Cheers...
LHD21's Avatar LHD21 07:06 AM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thylantyr View Post

I would never buy an amplifier unless it was independently tested by a reputable source, then compared to it's competitors to determine it's
real value

Ole'
Ricci's Avatar Ricci 11:39 AM 02-04-2010
I'd put money on these IPR's not being able to meet their rated output specs down in the bass range for even a half of a second. Probably not even 70% of rated. Maybe at 1khz for a couple of milliseconds.

Until someone 3rd party tests one who knows.
kouack's Avatar kouack 01:52 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

I'd put money on these IPR's not being able to meet their rated output specs down in the bass range for even a half of a second. Probably not even 70% of rated. Maybe at 1khz for a couple of milliseconds.

Until someone 3rd party tests one who knows.

From an other forum the guts of IPR1600
more pics here http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8535689


michael hurd's Avatar michael hurd 03:06 PM 02-04-2010
Uh... where's the beef? No heatsink! PASS!
Th3_uN1Qu3's Avatar Th3_uN1Qu3 04:27 PM 02-04-2010
Now that's either INCREDIBLE efficiency, or incredible marketing. I know that class D can get close to 90% efficiency, but regardless of that, at 1600W out with 90% efficiency you still have 160W to dissipate. And that requires a whole lotta heatsink.

Someone brought up the notice that amplifier power ratings are given at 1/8 output power, and most music has an average of 1/8 peak and even lower. Mkay, let's split 160W/8. That gives 20 watts. You STILL need a heatsink to dissipate those 20 watts, and i don't see any in there.

It's true that class D is small and efficient - i just finished designing and building a class A headphone amplifier, it's 100% of my own design and execution, i studied, did the math, simulated, and the end result? Worked first time and packs quite a punch (i think i'm gonna need new headphones soon ).

Now, this class A audio amp of mine, in a basic configuration, 3 transistors per channel (one preamp, one buffer stage and one output stage), outputs 0.15W per channel while drawing... erm... wait for it... 12 watts. The heatsinks for the output transistors came from a 300W switching power supply. They used to be fan-aided in the power supply but still it's a good comparison, class A is a big energy waster. Oh and i didn't even mention the amount of filtering required so i don't get mains hum in my 'phones.

A good class AB amp can go up to 70% efficiency, while class D reaches 90%. But it still isn't enough to get 1.6kW out of an empty box. If you look at car audio amps with their outrageous power ratings, at least they have an all-metal body which also serves as a large heatsink. While here... erm... no.
cinema mad's Avatar cinema mad 06:54 PM 02-04-2010
the IPR 2000 I had hear did appear to run very cool, does this mean its very efficient ..

Cheers..
cinema mad's Avatar cinema mad 06:59 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sickneedhelp View Post

"Meh, i'd just mail Peavey and ask them the true RMS power"

Excellent idea. Beats endless speculation.

The IPR6000 does not exist yet. The pictures floating around are of a IPR1600 with a 6000 face plate done for a trade show. The IPR1600 is now readily available. It easily meets the rated sine wave RMS power. As with most amplifiers, the duration of full power is limited by the circuit breaker (fuse for some brands). Amplifiers are designed to reproduce music, not sine waves. To allow long term sine wave reproduction is something we did during the 70s. By mid 80's amplifiers like Crest were fully capable of long term sine wave, but limited this to a few seconds via the breaker as an extra safety precaution. By the mid 90's we all learned that this was still overbuilding for the market. Money got tight and manufacturers scaled back on long term power capability.

You will find the IPR1600 to be conservatively rated and to be a very good sounding amplifier. Technology has it's merits. Peavey has been doing class D amplification for over 25 years. Non believers should try one.

It appears thus I believe you are associated with Peavey, no?...

Cheers..
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 07:34 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

I'd put money on these IPR's not being able to meet their rated output specs down in the bass range for even a half of a second. Probably not even 70% of rated. Maybe at 1khz for a couple of milliseconds.

Hey Ricci, how much money are you willing to wager? Best calculate the supply storage joules first. I see four capacitors that look rather large for the rated power.

Reply to Th3_uN1Qu3: Please factor in that there are two power devices per channel at a minimum. That's 20 watts (as you calculated) divided by at least four. A fan cooled circuit board can dissipate 5 watts per device with considerable ease. Driven hard into clipping with a four ohm load, doubtful that the devices will even reach 60C. At two ohms, doubtful they will exceed 80C even at 10% high mains.

Safety agencies will allow manufactures can get by with some loose claims in the owners manual, but they do require that the markings on the product are accurate (prototype markings don't apply here). A company like Peavey will not release a product without multiple approvals. You can bet the ratings are accurate. Check the back panel ratings of Crown, QSC or other REPUTABLE amplifier companies that have agency approvals. You will see what I mean.

Cheers
NEO Dan's Avatar NEO Dan 08:23 PM 02-04-2010
@Sickneedhelp

Welcome
If it were not for your comment about being on a US time schedule I would think you were with the OEM that made the amp. It would clear things up if you would let us know if you are involved professionally with this product or brand. You should also probably use a name in your signature, referring to you as Sick seems a little strange, even if true . No need to embroil yourself in an argument about the amps until they have been tested by some of our members. I find them to be novel and I would think as long as they put out clean power and behave well in use they should be popular, provided the delivered power per $ ratio is favorable.
MBentz's Avatar MBentz 08:26 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th3_uN1Qu3 View Post

A good class AB amp can go up to 70% efficiency, while class D reaches 90%. But it still isn't enough to get 1.6kW out of an empty box. If you look at car audio amps with their outrageous power ratings, at least they have an all-metal body which also serves as a large heatsink. While here... erm... no.

Keep in mind that the 10% of loss in a class D isn't dissipated solely in the output transistors. There's a lot of overhead to do all the level shifting and providing the DC rails, etc...and the output filter eats up some of the power too. The output transistors still dissipate the majority of the power, but it's often times spread out which makes it a lot easier to cool.

Proper heat sinking is something that experienced amplifier engineers are very familiar with and it doesn't cost that much extra to make sure the heat sinking is sufficient.

All that to say, rating the quality of an amplifier by the size of its heat sink is a bit short sighted in my opinion. I've never been a hardcore fan of Peavey gear for super high end applications, but this amp doesn't look bad at all. I'd be curious to know what kind of feedback network and class D scheme Peavey implemented...that's really where the secret sauce for class D comes into play. The efficient output stage is the easy part in my mind.
Ricci's Avatar Ricci 09:20 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sickneedhelp View Post

Hey Ricci, how much money are you willing to wager? Best calculate the supply storage joules first. I see four capacitors that look rather large for the rated power.

Reply to Th3_uN1Qu3: Please factor in that there are two power devices per channel at a minimum. That's 20 watts (as you calculated) divided by at least four. A fan cooled circuit board can dissipate 5 watts per device with considerable ease. Driven hard into clipping with a four ohm load, doubtful that the devices will even reach 60C. At two ohms, doubtful they will exceed 80C even at 10% high mains.

Safety agencies will allow manufactures can get by with some loose claims in the owners manual, but they do require that the markings on the product are accurate (prototype markings don't apply here). A company like Peavey will not release a product without multiple approvals. You can bet the ratings are accurate. Check the back panel ratings of Crown, QSC or other REPUTABLE amplifier companies that have agency approvals. You will see what I mean.

Cheers

How about $100.

But first we need to define exactly what the specs are that it has to meet and which 3rd party is to test it and how the test is to be carried out.

BTW I have nothing against Peavey, but this would be nothing short of revolutionary if they can produce a reliable, true 6000w amplifier for a street price of $600 and a weight of 7 lbs. They'd be miles ahead of everyone. Why has no other cutting edge amplifier designer been able to pull off something like that before? My guess is that the wheel hasn't been reinvented and that there is something that has been sacrificed to hit this flyweight and incredible economic design.
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 09:57 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEO Dan View Post

@Sickneedhelp

Welcome
If it were not for your comment about being on a US time schedule I would think you were with the OEM that made the amp. It would clear things up if you would let us know if you are involved professionally with this product or brand. You should also probably use a name in your signature, referring to you as Sick seems a little strange, even if true . No need to embroil yourself in an argument about the amps until they have been tested by some of our members. I find them to be novel and I would think as long as they put out clean power and behave well in use they should be popular, provided the delivered power per $ ratio is favorable.

Hi Dan

Thanks for your polite note. I would like to know why cinema mad can be mad but I can't be sick. All that aside, I'm trying to walk a fine line between being too commerical pitching Peavey versus defending the design. It's that human nature and engineer's ego thing. I jumped in only because I read a lot of doubter's words understandably fueled by the delay getting this thing to market. Who would understand that designing it was the easy part. Getting it to the market for the price was the hard part that caused the delay. Just sitting back and waiting until word gets out that this amp indeed works as advertised and sounds very good is difficult. My attempt was to just nudge things along and curb some of the negative speculation. I wanted to stay low profile otherwise.

It is late night here in the US and I have to get ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzs before I go back to my day job at Peavey.

Regards
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 10:09 PM 02-04-2010
Hi Ricci

How about we just go with what you said "I'd put money on these IPR's not being able to meet their rated output specs down in the bass range for even a half of a second. Probably not even 70% of rated. Maybe at 1khz for a couple of milliseconds."

We can wait until some magazine reviews come out, or perhaps someone in the forum can suggest a neutral test lab. Looser pays the lab. More importantly, who holds the escrow?

Cheers
michael hurd's Avatar michael hurd 10:15 PM 02-04-2010
120V supply with a variac or sagging 'real world' wall socket test?

Also... what frequency should we test it at... ? Crown XTI 1000 took a real dump at 20hz, and that was on a stiff variac assisted supply.
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 10:21 PM 02-04-2010
i thought the same thing as mr. hurd on that internal pic.

hopefully, it won't turn out like this:


LL
michael hurd's Avatar michael hurd 10:30 PM 02-04-2010
XTI 1000 measurements... note beefy heatsinks, and 4 caps of approximately the same diameter as the IPR as suspect.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post13869426

Check out the power measurements at 20hz.... and then check out the comments.

I quote " As a side note, while testing at 2 ohms, it took less than 90 seconds for the amplifiers thermal lights come on but the amp did not shut down nor was the case very warm to the touch. "
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 10:33 PM 02-04-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael hurd View Post

120V supply with a variac or sagging 'real world' wall socket test?

Also... what frequency should we test it at... ? Crown XTI 1000 took a real dump at 20hz, and that was on a stiff variac assisted supply.

For $299 street price, you don't get an amp with a PFC. The IPR1600 spec sheet is based on 120VAC and that is what is needed to make rated power. I stand by the advertised power and the published spec sheet. Sagging real world wall socket affects this amp much like any other amp without a PFC. It does have the advantage of not drawing as much as most amps, hence not causing as much sag. Remember too, there is that other option, just buy or borrow one and try it. Endless speculation gets put to rest.

Speaking of, back to the ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzs
Sickneedhelp's Avatar Sickneedhelp 10:50 PM 02-04-2010
[quote=michael hurd;18073662]XTI 1000 measurements... note beefy heatsinks, and 4 caps of approximately the same diameter as the IPR as suspect.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post13869426

Sigh ..... no ZZZZzzzzs yet.

Per the picture in your link, there are only TWO caps on the primary side of the XTi1000 supply. Both are 2200uF. The other two caps are on the secondary @ 3800uF. The IPR has FOUR 2200uF caps on the primary and a couple of 4000uF caps on the secondary.

I believe the Crown is class AB+B. If so, that explains the "massive" heat sinks. Lots of power goes to the heat sinks instead of the voice coils. That aside, the P.O.S sign in the pic is a bit harsh. I have considerable respect for Crown. It's a tough market out there trying to compete in a race to the bottom.
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 11:19 PM 02-04-2010
"The IPR has FOUR 2200uF caps on the primary and a couple of 4000uF caps on the secondary."

voltage?
cinema mad's Avatar cinema mad 03:19 AM 02-05-2010
Quote"I would like to know why cinema mad can be mad but I can't be sick."

My user name was ment to reflect the fact that I am "mad about AV"

Cheers...
Th3_uN1Qu3's Avatar Th3_uN1Qu3 07:24 AM 02-05-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

voltage?

Look at the pics on the other forum (in the link above) - the 2200s are rated at 200v while the 4000s at exactly 87v. That's a bit tight if you ask me, probably due to cost cutting so they can achieve the price tag.

Also, the guy who bought it is a bass player, and you don't even need 100W to make a bass guitar sound loud. And if it's distorting lots, it's even better for the tone of the guitar. So we can't put any trust in his observations. Oh and i sure wish he'd scraped that thermal paste off the output transistors.
Ricci's Avatar Ricci 09:16 AM 02-05-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sickneedhelp View Post

Hi Ricci

How about we just go with what you said "I'd put money on these IPR's not being able to meet their rated output specs down in the bass range for even a half of a second. Probably not even 70% of rated. Maybe at 1khz for a couple of milliseconds."

We can wait until some magazine reviews come out, or perhaps someone in the forum can suggest a neutral test lab. Looser pays the lab. More importantly, who holds the escrow?

Cheers

Hell I'm half tempted to buy one of these amps when the 6000 comes out to try it out in the real world so ...I'm not scared.

BTW it's obvious that you are affiliated with Peavey in some way...Perhaps you are a seller that carries Peavey products, or work for them, or once did?

If you want to go by what I said then that'd be perfectly fine with me. Dont you think that's a little open ended though? Especially since I can't seem to find any technical specs on Peavey's site at all. Maybe I'm missing them somewhere. I did find this at Prosoundweb, but I can't find it at Peavey. Seriously do they have it up for the others in the IPR family?



IPR™ 1600 Specification Sheet (NON-DSP MODEL)
Rated Power (2 x 2 ohms) - 800 watts per channel @ 1 kHz at <0.1% T.H.D. both channels driven.
Rated Power (2 x 4 ohms) - 530 watts per channel @ 1 kHz at <0.1% T.H.D. both channels driven.
Rated Power (2 x 8 ohms) - 300 watts per channel @ 1 kHz at <0.1% T.H.D. both channels driven.
Rated Power (1 x 2 ohms) - 1000 watts @ 1 kHz at <0.1% T.H.D.
Rated Power (1 x 4 ohms) - 600 watts @ 1 kHz at <0.1% T.H.D.
Rated Power (1 x 8 ohms) - 320 watts @ 1 kHz at <0.1% T.H.D.
Minimum Load Impedance - 2 ohms
Maximum RMS Voltage Swing - 55 volts
Frequency Response - 10 Hz - 50 kHz; +0, -3 dB at 1 watt
T.H.D. (2 x 2 ohms) - <0.1% @ 600 watts per channel from 20 Hz to 1.5 kHz, decreasing to 500 watts at 20 kHz at <0.25%
T.H.D. (2 x 4 ohms) - <0.1% @ 470 watts per channel from 20 Hz to 20 kHz
T.H.D. (2 x 8 ohms) - <0.1% @ 250 watts per channel from 20 Hz to 20 kHz
Input CMRR - > - 60 dB @ 1 kHz
Voltage Gain - x 60 (+35 dB)
Crossover - 100 Hz switchable 2nd order High pass and 3rd order Low Pass per channel
Crosstalk - > -70 dB @ 1 kHz at 100 watts power @ 4 ohms
Hum and Noise - > -105 dB, "A" weighted referenced to rated power @ 4 ohms
Damping Factor (8 ohms) - > 170:1 @ 20 Hz - 1 kHz at 8 ohms
Phase Response - +9 to - 86 degrees from 20 Hz to 20kHz
Slew Rate: - > 12V/us
Input Sensitivity - .775 volts +/- 3% for 1 kHz 4 ohm rated power, .68 volts +/- 3% for 1 kHz. 2 ohm rated power
Input Impedance - 15k ohms, balanced and 7.5k ohms unbalanced.
Current Draw @ 1/8 power - 550 watts @ 2 ohms, 390 watts @ 4 ohms, 250 watts @ 8 ohms
Current Draw @ 1/3 power -1,160 watts @ 2 ohms, 810 watts @ 4 ohms, 460 watts @ 8 ohms
Cooling - Temperature dependent variable speed 80 mm DC fan
Controls - 2 front panel attenuators, crossover select switch for H.P.F, Normal and L.P.F.
Indicator LEDs - 2 DDT (clip limiting), 2 Signal presence, 2 Active status, 2 Temp and 2 DC protect
Protection - Thermal, DC, subsonic, incorrect loads, under and over voltage
Connectors - Inputs: Dual Combi 1/4” XLR, Outputs: Dual 1/4” signal patch, dual Speakon connectors
Construction - 0.062” thick aluminum
Dimensions - 3.5”x19” x 10.5” behind front panel + 0.6” for handle
Dimensions Packed - 4.72” x20.8” x 12.44” (120mm x 530mm x 316mm)
Net Weight* - 3.23 kg (7.125 lbs.)
Gross Weight - 4.31 kg (9.5 lbs.)
Warranty - 5 years











I give them the benefit of the doubt on the 1khz rating for a burst. I'm sure it'll do it there, but for what duration? Perhaps you are right and it will put out 600w per channel or more at 20hz for half a second with both channels driven and that's assuming that those specs are even what's currently accurate from Peavey. I assume it is. I'm still very doubtful that it will do the above. What about a full sec, or 3 seconds?

These days it seems like you can claim almost any output # you want if you can get it out of the amp for even a very tiny fraction of a second with who knows what ideal test conditions (Note not just Peavey, seems like everyone is going this way otherwise you get crushed in marketing). There's so much debate on how long you need to be able to maintain that power that it's impossible to pin anything down. That debate will go on forever. ("Kick drums don't last long, music is very short duration, etc". Countered with "Have you heard modern hip hop, D&B electronica and movie soundtracks? They have plenty of bass lines lasting over a full second".)

I personally do not believe that an amp should be able to claim some extravagent burst output as continuous, or present it as such unless it can be maintained for at least a few full seconds. Obviously my personal views don't matter at all, but I prefer to consider things as being presented with a worst case scenario not a best case. A lot of the old amps could've been rated somewhat higher if you allowed them to just put out a quick burst test and they would've maintained their output as rated for a few seconds at least. As usual the consumer and marketing seems to win here.
Tags: Crown Audio Xti 2002 475w Stereo Power Amplifier 20hz To 20khz Frequency Response 1 4vrms Input Sens
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop