DISCUSSION TOPIC: Do You Like/Use Old Amps?

[MOSFET]

I've been into car audio for a LONG time (over 20 years) and boy, have I
seen equipment change. I remember in High School friends of mine would
proudly show off their multiple sets of 6x9's (Jensen was the best) powered
by a booster/EQ. Cassette was king.

In all categories, gear has gotten better year by year. Manufactures now
"bundle" functions into a single component (just try and go out and buy an
outboard EQ or crossover). Head-unit displays now resemble computer
monitors and new amplification technology (class D, class T, etc.) is making
amplifiers much more effecient.

But one thing I have been noticing in the last few years are people seem to
be using older amplifiers (eight years or older) a good deal of the time.
I'm wondering if there's something to that. I, for one, use a nine year old
Soundstream Refference 700 to drive my MB Quart 6 1/2 Ref. Premiums (it is
BY FAR the oldest component in my system). I find that this amp is about
the toughest, yet sweetest sounding amp I have ever used. I have heard many
others talking about how good their older amps sound.

So, if all types of gear have been getting better over the years, what could
explain older amps sounding or performing better? Well, first let my
clarify that I'm not saying that older amps are more powerful, just better
sounding and better made. I believe that part of a possible explanation
lies in car audio competition and how that has changed over the years.
Picking up an old (or even newer) copy of a car audio mag. should convince
anybody that car audio competition helped drive the industry. Amplifier
manufacturers loved to tout how many trophies their brand had won at this or
that competition.

IASCA was the king of competitions 10 years ago and this organization placed
the most emphasis on SQ, not SPL. I believe this had a role in amplifier
design. Also, back in the day, SPL competitions were based on wattage
clasifications at 4 ohms, not number of speakers, so amp makers designed
what were called "cheater amps" that could handle very low impedences (so
many speakers could be parelled to one amp). Besides these cheater amps,
however, many amp makers like Soundstream designed ALL of their products to
handle low impedence loads. I don't believe there are any manufacturers
today who design all of their amps to handle low impedence loads (this is
one concrete example of a change in the industry). This emphasis on handling
low impedences found it's way into all parts of the amp industry and made
for generally tougher amps.

Anyway, does anybody agree with me? Disagree?

MOSFET

[Tony F]

The first amp I ever owned that made me jump up and say "Holy crap that
sounds SWEET!!!" was a Soundstream MC245x (I think that was the model name).
I remember in particular listening to some vocal music and it was so
smoooth. Anyway, with all this talk about amps sounding alike it makes me
wonder what it was that I heard - or thought I heard. Did amps in the old
days really differ in SQ?

I can tell you this. Unless another company comes out with something that
grabs my eyes and ears more than Phoenix Gold ZX and/or Titanium series
amplifiers, I'll be using those until I can't hear any more. I'll buy 'em
used off of eBay or any other place I can get them. So in 20 years from now
I'll be this middle-aged man touting my PG amps and people will be like,
"What the hell is this guy talking about?" But there will always be a few
that will remember and think, "Damn...I haven't thought about those old PG
amps in a long time!"


Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

[MZ]

> I've been into car audio for a LONG time (over 20 years) and boy, have I
> seen equipment change. I remember in High School friends of mine would
> proudly show off their multiple sets of 6x9's (Jensen was the best)
powered
> by a booster/EQ. Cassette was king.
>
> In all categories, gear has gotten better year by year. Manufactures now
> "bundle" functions into a single component (just try and go out and buy an
> outboard EQ or crossover). Head-unit displays now resemble computer
> monitors and new amplification technology (class D, class T, etc.) is
making
> amplifiers much more effecient.
>
> But one thing I have been noticing in the last few years are people seem
to
> be using older amplifiers (eight years or older) a good deal of the time.
> I'm wondering if there's something to that. I, for one, use a nine year
old
> Soundstream Refference 700 to drive my MB Quart 6 1/2 Ref. Premiums (it
is
> BY FAR the oldest component in my system). I find that this amp is about
> the toughest, yet sweetest sounding amp I have ever used. I have heard
many
> others talking about how good their older amps sound.
>
> So, if all types of gear have been getting better over the years, what
could
> explain older amps sounding or performing better? Well, first let my
> clarify that I'm not saying that older amps are more powerful, just better
> sounding and better made. I believe that part of a possible explanation
> lies in car audio competition and how that has changed over the years.
> Picking up an old (or even newer) copy of a car audio mag. should convince
> anybody that car audio competition helped drive the industry. Amplifier
> manufacturers loved to tout how many trophies their brand had won at this
or
> that competition.
>
> IASCA was the king of competitions 10 years ago and this organization
placed
> the most emphasis on SQ, not SPL. I believe this had a role in amplifier
> design. Also, back in the day, SPL competitions were based on wattage
> clasifications at 4 ohms, not number of speakers, so amp makers designed
> what were called "cheater amps" that could handle very low impedences (so
> many speakers could be parelled to one amp). Besides these cheater amps,
> however, many amp makers like Soundstream designed ALL of their products
to
> handle low impedence loads. I don't believe there are any manufacturers
> today who design all of their amps to handle low impedence loads (this is
> one concrete example of a change in the industry). This emphasis on
handling
> low impedences found it's way into all parts of the amp industry and made
> for generally tougher amps.
>
> Anyway, does anybody agree with me? Disagree?

There are better amps available today than before. They're more efficient.
They're more powerful. They have better protection circuits. They can
drive lower impedance loads. They're less prone to noise. They're easier
to hook up. But they're also more expensive. That's the reason you see
more people using older gear.

(running 2 amps that are over 5 years old)

[Kirby]

The way I see it, is that for component amps, people seem to be using the
older ones, as the new subwoofer amplifiers are much more efficient these
days. But I too am using an Alpine amplifier that is probably about 7 years
old. Wait a minute, maybe it's because they last so long.


"MZ" > wrote in message
...
> > I've been into car audio for a LONG time (over 20 years) and boy, have I
> > seen equipment change. I remember in High School friends of mine would
> > proudly show off their multiple sets of 6x9's (Jensen was the best)
> powered
> > by a booster/EQ. Cassette was king.
> >
> > In all categories, gear has gotten better year by year. Manufactures
now
> > "bundle" functions into a single component (just try and go out and buy
an
> > outboard EQ or crossover). Head-unit displays now resemble computer
> > monitors and new amplification technology (class D, class T, etc.) is
> making
> > amplifiers much more effecient.
> >
> > But one thing I have been noticing in the last few years are people seem
> to
> > be using older amplifiers (eight years or older) a good deal of the
time.
> > I'm wondering if there's something to that. I, for one, use a nine year
> old
> > Soundstream Refference 700 to drive my MB Quart 6 1/2 Ref. Premiums (it
> is
> > BY FAR the oldest component in my system). I find that this amp is
about
> > the toughest, yet sweetest sounding amp I have ever used. I have heard
> many
> > others talking about how good their older amps sound.
> >
> > So, if all types of gear have been getting better over the years, what
> could
> > explain older amps sounding or performing better? Well, first let my
> > clarify that I'm not saying that older amps are more powerful, just
better
> > sounding and better made. I believe that part of a possible explanation
> > lies in car audio competition and how that has changed over the years.
> > Picking up an old (or even newer) copy of a car audio mag. should
convince
> > anybody that car audio competition helped drive the industry. Amplifier
> > manufacturers loved to tout how many trophies their brand had won at
this
> or
> > that competition.
> >
> > IASCA was the king of competitions 10 years ago and this organization
> placed
> > the most emphasis on SQ, not SPL. I believe this had a role in
amplifier
> > design. Also, back in the day, SPL competitions were based on wattage
> > clasifications at 4 ohms, not number of speakers, so amp makers designed
> > what were called "cheater amps" that could handle very low impedences
(so
> > many speakers could be parelled to one amp). Besides these cheater
amps,
> > however, many amp makers like Soundstream designed ALL of their products
> to
> > handle low impedence loads. I don't believe there are any
manufacturers
> > today who design all of their amps to handle low impedence loads (this
is
> > one concrete example of a change in the industry). This emphasis on
> handling
> > low impedences found it's way into all parts of the amp industry and
made
> > for generally tougher amps.
> >
> > Anyway, does anybody agree with me? Disagree?
>
> There are better amps available today than before. They're more
efficient.
> They're more powerful. They have better protection circuits. They can
> drive lower impedance loads. They're less prone to noise. They're easier
> to hook up. But they're also more expensive. That's the reason you see
> more people using older gear.
>
> (running 2 amps that are over 5 years old)
>
>

[MOSFET]

But they're also more expensive. That's the reason you see
> more people using older gear.
>
> (running 2 amps that are over 5 years old)
>
Yes, that's certainly a consideration. Speakers tend to wear out so they
get replaced. Head-units get replaced because although they, too, sometimes
wear out, folks want the newer features today's heads provide (Sirrus/XM
control, MP3, DSP, fancy displays). Amps just sort of linger around...And
for most people, amplifiers represent the largest investment in a system.
I certainly agree that today's amps are more powerful, and yes, I use a
newer (three year old) RF amp for my subs.

But, again, I contend that there has been a change in the industry. Amp
makers don't seem to emphasize SQ today, just power. I believe also that
part of this has to do with the MP3 revolution. You hear audiophiles bitch
about this ALL THE TIME. As a society, we actually seem to be moving away
from quality sound, and of course this finds it's way into our automotive
amplifiers. The other thing I have been noticing is that the general
construction of amps seems to be going down. I have a friend who just
bought a Pioneer amp (I know, it's Pioneer) and this thing is HUGE (too huge
for it's power specs) and built really shabby, IMHO. When I go to Car
Stereo stores I see the same thing from all manufactureres. It's all about
size and power today.

MOSFET

[MZ]

> Yes, that's certainly a consideration. Speakers tend to wear out so they
> get replaced. Head-units get replaced because although they, too,
sometimes
> wear out, folks want the newer features today's heads provide (Sirrus/XM
> control, MP3, DSP, fancy displays). Amps just sort of linger around...And
> for most people, amplifiers represent the largest investment in a system.
> I certainly agree that today's amps are more powerful, and yes, I use a
> newer (three year old) RF amp for my subs.
>
> But, again, I contend that there has been a change in the industry. Amp
> makers don't seem to emphasize SQ today, just power. I believe also that
> part of this has to do with the MP3 revolution. You hear audiophiles
bitch
> about this ALL THE TIME. As a society, we actually seem to be moving away
> from quality sound, and of course this finds it's way into our automotive
> amplifiers. The other thing I have been noticing is that the general
> construction of amps seems to be going down. I have a friend who just
> bought a Pioneer amp (I know, it's Pioneer) and this thing is HUGE (too
huge
> for it's power specs) and built really shabby, IMHO. When I go to Car
> Stereo stores I see the same thing from all manufactureres. It's all
about
> size and power today.

I see the opposite happening. While some of us certainly have a place in
our hearts for some of these oldies but goodies, I think you have to
acknowledge that the selection has become more broad, and that today's "best
of the bunch" is far superior to yesterday's equipment. What's happening is
that a lot of crap has flooded the market to try to provide a cheap
alternative for one faction of the market base, but at the same time,
there's a ton of high quality gear out there that's built with more
precision and better components than the older stuff. But it'll cost ya!

But from a sound quality aspect, even the cheaper stuff today is pretty
good. You can buy a sonically transparent amplifier that will provide gobs
of power for only a couple hundred dollars. It's really brought
installation to the forefront of the quest for perfect audio reproduction,
as it now becomes the major deciding factor in the overall sound quality of
the system.

[MOSFET]

> I see the opposite happening. While some of us certainly have a place in
> our hearts for some of these oldies but goodies, I think you have to
> acknowledge that the selection has become more broad, and that today's
"best
> of the bunch" is far superior to yesterday's equipment. What's happening
is
> that a lot of crap has flooded the market to try to provide a cheap
> alternative for one faction of the market base, but at the same time,
> there's a ton of high quality gear out there that's built with more
> precision and better components than the older stuff. But it'll cost ya!
>
> But from a sound quality aspect, even the cheaper stuff today is pretty
> good. You can buy a sonically transparent amplifier that will provide
gobs
> of power for only a couple hundred dollars. It's really brought
> installation to the forefront of the quest for perfect audio reproduction,
> as it now becomes the major deciding factor in the overall sound quality
of
> the system.
>
Yes, I suppose I do recall that there were a lot of crappy amps built 10
years ago, too. It's just that these amps don't survive and the good ones
do, so it seems like older amps are built better because the ones that
survive ARE built better. Hmmm. I guess I might need to rethink this
theory of mine.....

MOSFET

[[email protected]]

Manufacturers are finding cheaper ways to build amps also. Back in the
day, 50 watt amp weighed say 10 pounds, now with the plastic world we
live in, same amp weighs 4 pounds.

Whats ruined car audio are the walmarts and best buys. You get all
these Pacos buying Sony Xplod crap. Other companies look at them and
see there selling a ton of **** components so they follow suit. I bet
Sony sells 1000X more crapo Xplod amps than any company that makes
quality components. Its all about money, not what sounds good.

[Kirby]

To the real manufacturers, it is about the quality of stuff. Focal, and
Audison for example. Great quality gear, for the price you pay. Of what I've
been told a while ago, correct me if I'm wrong. MB Quart going to Circuit
City. Circuit City didn't like the prices of their stuff, so they had to
lower their standards, along-side the prices. Again, I may be totally
incorrect.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Manufacturers are finding cheaper ways to build amps also. Back in the
> day, 50 watt amp weighed say 10 pounds, now with the plastic world we
> live in, same amp weighs 4 pounds.
>
> Whats ruined car audio are the walmarts and best buys. You get all
> these Pacos buying Sony Xplod crap. Other companies look at them and
> see there selling a ton of **** components so they follow suit. I bet
> Sony sells 1000X more crapo Xplod amps than any company that makes
> quality components. Its all about money, not what sounds good.
>

[Charley]

I use a mix of old and new. My oldest are a set of 4 PPI-2300 amps. 300x2
Class A power. Horrificly inefficient, but damn do they sound nice. I use
them to drive Memphis Power Reference 6.5" separates. Plus I could weld
with them if I needed to. :)

On the newer side, I use a Clarion Power System 3-way crossover. I use a
pair of Lanzar VIBE 231 amps to run my subs (Memphis Power Ref 10" DVC's)

Use what works.

Personally, I like the sound of a Class A amp over that of a class D or T.
And I'm willing to pay the price in terms of power consumption and heat
exchange to get what I want. Lots of people aren't. Also, cars are getting
smaller, lighter and tighter. Frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to
make a 2300 be happy in, say, a new Jetta and you CERTAINLY won't get four
of them to play nice in a jetta without a MAJOR custom install job. I think
that tends to put a damper on things because a lot of people (out here,
anyway) are leasing their cars, rather than buying them. So people tend to
gravitate to the smaller, lighter more efficient amps because they are less
expensivce to buy, easier to install and easier to remove at the end of a
lease.


"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> I've been into car audio for a LONG time (over 20 years) and boy, have I
> seen equipment change. I remember in High School friends of mine would
> proudly show off their multiple sets of 6x9's (Jensen was the best)
powered
> by a booster/EQ. Cassette was king.
>
> In all categories, gear has gotten better year by year. Manufactures now
> "bundle" functions into a single component (just try and go out and buy an
> outboard EQ or crossover). Head-unit displays now resemble computer
> monitors and new amplification technology (class D, class T, etc.) is
making
> amplifiers much more effecient.
>
> But one thing I have been noticing in the last few years are people seem
to
> be using older amplifiers (eight years or older) a good deal of the time.
> I'm wondering if there's something to that. I, for one, use a nine year
old
> Soundstream Refference 700 to drive my MB Quart 6 1/2 Ref. Premiums (it
is
> BY FAR the oldest component in my system). I find that this amp is about
> the toughest, yet sweetest sounding amp I have ever used. I have heard
many
> others talking about how good their older amps sound.
>
> So, if all types of gear have been getting better over the years, what
could
> explain older amps sounding or performing better? Well, first let my
> clarify that I'm not saying that older amps are more powerful, just better
> sounding and better made. I believe that part of a possible explanation
> lies in car audio competition and how that has changed over the years.
> Picking up an old (or even newer) copy of a car audio mag. should convince
> anybody that car audio competition helped drive the industry. Amplifier
> manufacturers loved to tout how many trophies their brand had won at this
or
> that competition.
>
> IASCA was the king of competitions 10 years ago and this organization
placed
> the most emphasis on SQ, not SPL. I believe this had a role in amplifier
> design. Also, back in the day, SPL competitions were based on wattage
> clasifications at 4 ohms, not number of speakers, so amp makers designed
> what were called "cheater amps" that could handle very low impedences (so
> many speakers could be parelled to one amp). Besides these cheater amps,
> however, many amp makers like Soundstream designed ALL of their products
to
> handle low impedence loads. I don't believe there are any manufacturers
> today who design all of their amps to handle low impedence loads (this is
> one concrete example of a change in the industry). This emphasis on
handling
> low impedences found it's way into all parts of the amp industry and made
> for generally tougher amps.
>
> Anyway, does anybody agree with me? Disagree?
>
> MOSFET
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005

[Scott Gardner]

The PPI-2300 wasn't a class A amp - it was class AB just like the rest
of their models. There WERE class A amps available for the car, but
they were nowhere NEAR 600 Watts. The PPIs were nice amps, though.

Scott Gardner


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:45:33 GMT, "Charley" >
wrote:

>I use a mix of old and new. My oldest are a set of 4 PPI-2300 amps. 300x2
>Class A power. Horrificly inefficient, but damn do they sound nice. I use
>them to drive Memphis Power Reference 6.5" separates. Plus I could weld
>with them if I needed to. :)
>
>On the newer side, I use a Clarion Power System 3-way crossover. I use a
>pair of Lanzar VIBE 231 amps to run my subs (Memphis Power Ref 10" DVC's)
>
>Use what works.
>
>Personally, I like the sound of a Class A amp over that of a class D or T.
>And I'm willing to pay the price in terms of power consumption and heat
>exchange to get what I want. Lots of people aren't. Also, cars are getting
>smaller, lighter and tighter. Frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to
>make a 2300 be happy in, say, a new Jetta and you CERTAINLY won't get four
>of them to play nice in a jetta without a MAJOR custom install job. I think
>that tends to put a damper on things because a lot of people (out here,
>anyway) are leasing their cars, rather than buying them. So people tend to
>gravitate to the smaller, lighter more efficient amps because they are less
>expensivce to buy, easier to install and easier to remove at the end of a
>lease.
>
>
>"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>> I've been into car audio for a LONG time (over 20 years) and boy, have I
>> seen equipment change. I remember in High School friends of mine would
>> proudly show off their multiple sets of 6x9's (Jensen was the best)
>powered
>> by a booster/EQ. Cassette was king.
>>
>> In all categories, gear has gotten better year by year. Manufactures now
>> "bundle" functions into a single component (just try and go out and buy an
>> outboard EQ or crossover). Head-unit displays now resemble computer
>> monitors and new amplification technology (class D, class T, etc.) is
>making
>> amplifiers much more effecient.
>>
>> But one thing I have been noticing in the last few years are people seem
>to
>> be using older amplifiers (eight years or older) a good deal of the time.
>> I'm wondering if there's something to that. I, for one, use a nine year
>old
>> Soundstream Refference 700 to drive my MB Quart 6 1/2 Ref. Premiums (it
>is
>> BY FAR the oldest component in my system). I find that this amp is about
>> the toughest, yet sweetest sounding amp I have ever used. I have heard
>many
>> others talking about how good their older amps sound.
>>
>> So, if all types of gear have been getting better over the years, what
>could
>> explain older amps sounding or performing better? Well, first let my
>> clarify that I'm not saying that older amps are more powerful, just better
>> sounding and better made. I believe that part of a possible explanation
>> lies in car audio competition and how that has changed over the years.
>> Picking up an old (or even newer) copy of a car audio mag. should convince
>> anybody that car audio competition helped drive the industry. Amplifier
>> manufacturers loved to tout how many trophies their brand had won at this
>or
>> that competition.
>>
>> IASCA was the king of competitions 10 years ago and this organization
>placed
>> the most emphasis on SQ, not SPL. I believe this had a role in amplifier
>> design. Also, back in the day, SPL competitions were based on wattage
>> clasifications at 4 ohms, not number of speakers, so amp makers designed
>> what were called "cheater amps" that could handle very low impedences (so
>> many speakers could be parelled to one amp). Besides these cheater amps,
>> however, many amp makers like Soundstream designed ALL of their products
>to
>> handle low impedence loads. I don't believe there are any manufacturers
>> today who design all of their amps to handle low impedence loads (this is
>> one concrete example of a change in the industry). This emphasis on
>handling
>> low impedences found it's way into all parts of the amp industry and made
>> for generally tougher amps.
>>
>> Anyway, does anybody agree with me? Disagree?
>>
>> MOSFET
>>
>>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005
>

[Scott Gardner]

I have three older PPI "Art Series" amps right now, an A300.2, and
A600.2, and an A1200.2. There are several reasons I like them, and
keep in mind these are all PERSONAL preferences:

1) I like the way they look. With the Art Series, most people either
loved them or hated them. I loved them when they were new, and still
do.

2) The PPI Art Series amps have earned a reputation for being
accurately rated (conservatively-rated, actually), and for being
solidly-built and reliable.

3) I like that fact that as amplifiers, all they do is amplify. I've
always preferred outboard signal processors for things like
equalization and crossovers. For one, you have greater flexibility
when you divide the functions among several components, and I believe
the quality of the components used in external crossovers and filters
(like Audiocontrol) is probably higher than those built into
amplifiers.

None of this is a knock on modern amps. I know that I could probably
find a reliable amp that I liked the looks of, and I could bypass all
of the built-in signal processors and continue to use my outboard
components. That's why I said these reasons were my own personal
preferences - I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind.

Lastly, you'll notice I didn't say anything about sound quality. I'm
one of those who believe that any two amps will sound the same when
they're delivering the same amount of power, as long as both amps are
operating within their design parameters.

Scott Gardner

[MOSFET]

> The PPI-2300 wasn't a class A amp - it was class AB just like the rest
> of their models. There WERE class A amps available for the car, but
> they were nowhere NEAR 600 Watts. The PPIs were nice amps, though.
>
Soundstream made a few Class A amps. The most powerful of those was the
Reference Class A 10.0 with a whopping 25 watts per channel into 4 ohms.
Class A amps tend not too be as powerful and use much more current because
unlike class AB amps that use a switching power supply (the amp employs one
stage to "push" the speaker and another stage to "pull" the speaker) where
one half is " switched" off when the other half is "switched" on, Class A
amps are ALWAYS on in both halves. Audiophiles claim that in Class AB amps,
when each half switches on and off, distortion is created, they claim this
is not present in a Class A amp where the power is always on in both stages.
(forgive me if I am not using exactly the right terminology as I am no EE)

Mr. Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor III
(I hate using my full name)

[MZ]

> The PPI-2300 wasn't a class A amp - it was class AB just like the rest
> of their models. There WERE class A amps available for the car, but
> they were nowhere NEAR 600 Watts. The PPIs were nice amps, though.

Now that you've told him it's not class A, it won't sound as good...

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:06:52 -0800, "MOSFET" >
wrote:

>> The PPI-2300 wasn't a class A amp - it was class AB just like the rest
>> of their models. There WERE class A amps available for the car, but
>> they were nowhere NEAR 600 Watts. The PPIs were nice amps, though.
>>
>Soundstream made a few Class A amps. The most powerful of those was the
>Reference Class A 10.0 with a whopping 25 watts per channel into 4 ohms.
>Class A amps tend not too be as powerful and use much more current because
>unlike class AB amps that use a switching power supply (the amp employs one
>stage to "push" the speaker and another stage to "pull" the speaker) where
>one half is " switched" off when the other half is "switched" on, Class A
>amps are ALWAYS on in both halves. Audiophiles claim that in Class AB amps,
>when each half switches on and off, distortion is created, they claim this
>is not present in a Class A amp where the power is always on in both stages.
>(forgive me if I am not using exactly the right terminology as I am no EE)
>
>Mr. Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor III
>(I hate using my full name)
>
Pretty good explanation. With a Class A amplifier, there doesn't
necessarily have to be two halves, since it's possible to make a Class
A amp with a single output device. As you noted, class AB requires a
pair of output devices to perform the "push-pull" function.

Scott Gardner

[MZ]

> Soundstream made a few Class A amps. The most powerful of those was the
> Reference Class A 10.0 with a whopping 25 watts per channel into 4 ohms.
> Class A amps tend not too be as powerful and use much more current because
> unlike class AB amps that use a switching power supply (the amp employs
> one
> stage to "push" the speaker and another stage to "pull" the speaker) where
> one half is " switched" off when the other half is "switched" on, Class A
> amps are ALWAYS on in both halves. Audiophiles claim that in Class AB
> amps,
> when each half switches on and off, distortion is created, they claim this
> is not present in a Class A amp where the power is always on in both
> stages.
> (forgive me if I am not using exactly the right terminology as I am no EE)

That's a pretty accurate description. The short standard version is class
A - always conducting, class B half conducting, class AB biased just enough
to account for the diode drop (some folks say it behaves like class A at low
levels and class B at high levels, but I don't really like that
description).

The distortion that you're referring to is called crossover distortion, and
there have been a lot of papers about it. The general conclusion, and I do
mean general, is that crossover distortion below about 1% is not detectable
by the ear. There are actually two studies that come to mind, but the more
straightforward of the two based simply on introducing crossover distortion
into various types of music - not sine waves - came up with the 1% number.
And today's class AB amplifiers tend to exhibit far less than 1%. So, I'd
say to the audiophiles that it's a moot point.


> Mr. Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor III
> (I hate using my full name)

And nowadays there ain't even any oxide! :)

[MOSFET]

The general conclusion, and I do
> mean general, is that crossover distortion below about 1% is not
detectable
> by the ear. There are actually two studies that come to mind, but the
more
> straightforward of the two based simply on introducing crossover
distortion
> into various types of music - not sine waves - came up with the 1% number.
> And today's class AB amplifiers tend to exhibit far less than 1%. So, I'd
> say to the audiophiles that it's a moot point.

Well yes, and what's interesting (to go off on another tangent) is the fact
that very expensive tube amplifiers (single ended triode, whatever the hell
that means) usually have much higher distortion percentages than your
typical solid state Class AB amplifier. Yet audiophiles claim that these
amps sound better than solid state.

Of course, I understand that tube distortion is different from solid state
distortion. I know this from first-hand experience: in high school I was
in a band and owned an Ampeg Bass Guitar Amp (two part affair with tube amp
on top and two 15"s on the bottom). When not being used by the band I had
it attached to my stereo a la subwoofer style. I LOVED bass even back then
(especially back then) and I would crank Kraftwerk's "The Robots" as it had
some wicked bass. Years later I would listen to "The Robots" and think that
the bass sounded different (not as good) and it dawned on me one day that I
was hearing tons of distortion when I cranked that tube amp and it was this
distortion that I missed. The distortion sounded good! That's tubes for
you.

MOSFET

[MZ]

> Well yes, and what's interesting (to go off on another tangent) is the
> fact
> that very expensive tube amplifiers (single ended triode, whatever the
> hell
> that means) usually have much higher distortion percentages than your
> typical solid state Class AB amplifier. Yet audiophiles claim that these
> amps sound better than solid state.

Exactly. Tube amps have traditionally been high in second order harmonic
distortion, which can give them their "warm" sound. Today they're being
built "cleaner", and there are hybrids out there that write "tube amp" all
over the box, when in fact just the preamp section uses tubes.

Personally, I'd take the solid state amp any day, and leave the little
artifacts to the signal processing stage if I want them. The real question,
though, comes when discussing which one clips more "gracefully".

>
> Of course, I understand that tube distortion is different from solid state
> distortion. I know this from first-hand experience: in high school I was
> in a band and owned an Ampeg Bass Guitar Amp (two part affair with tube
> amp
> on top and two 15"s on the bottom). When not being used by the band I had
> it attached to my stereo a la subwoofer style. I LOVED bass even back
> then
> (especially back then) and I would crank Kraftwerk's "The Robots" as it
> had
> some wicked bass. Years later I would listen to "The Robots" and think
> that
> the bass sounded different (not as good) and it dawned on me one day that
> I
> was hearing tons of distortion when I cranked that tube amp and it was
> this
> distortion that I missed. The distortion sounded good! That's tubes for
> you.

Ah, apples and oranges! Guitar/bass amplifiers exhibit a ton of distortion,
whereas audio amplifiers are supposed to introduce none (and they do a
pretty good job of it, too!). I've owned several guitar amps, and my
favorite was probably the one that distorted the easiest (also an Ampeg).
It was hard to find a distortion pedal that sounded good through it, but
man, I didn't need one. On the flipside, I owned a vintage Hiwatt head and
matching 4x12 cab that was probably the cleanest tube amp I've ever used.
It was pretty good in some ways, and it was incredibly loud, but no match
for my Ampeg (which, if I remember correctly, in the manual quoted its power
rating at 40% THD)...

[Brandonb]

Tony, I know what you're talking about. I myself have a PG ZX450 laying
around. That's the older white 4x75 one for anyone not too familiar.
Actually, I may consider selling it if you want to offer :)

Brandonb


Tony F wrote:

> The first amp I ever owned that made me jump up and say "Holy crap that
> sounds SWEET!!!" was a Soundstream MC245x (I think that was the model name).
> I remember in particular listening to some vocal music and it was so
> smoooth. Anyway, with all this talk about amps sounding alike it makes me
> wonder what it was that I heard - or thought I heard. Did amps in the old
> days really differ in SQ?
>
> I can tell you this. Unless another company comes out with something that
> grabs my eyes and ears more than Phoenix Gold ZX and/or Titanium series
> amplifiers, I'll be using those until I can't hear any more. I'll buy 'em
> used off of eBay or any other place I can get them. So in 20 years from now
> I'll be this middle-aged man touting my PG amps and people will be like,
> "What the hell is this guy talking about?" But there will always be a few
> that will remember and think, "Damn...I haven't thought about those old PG
> amps in a long time!"
>
>
> Tony
>
>

[Tony F]

"Tony, I know what you're talking about. I myself have a PG ZX450 laying
around. That's the older white 4x75 one for anyone not too familiar.
Actually, I may consider selling it if you want to offer :)"

If you would have said something a few weeks ago, I might have taken you up
on it. I actually just purchased a Ti500.4. Almost identical to the ZX450,
but the newer Titanium version. It'll be going in my S10 when I get off my
lazy butt.

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

[wideglide340]

i think that the one of the biggest differences between amps of today
and those made 10 to 15 years ago was that there wasn't a fine line
between the quality. by this i mean you had good brands and you had the
bad brands. it was not hard to tell the difference between them. i
myself remember competing in the eighties in the car audio nationals
and there was basically 4 or five brands in every winning car. alpine,
ads, rockford, nakamichi. for the rich folk and some sony source units.
even into the mid nineties there was the good stuff like ppi,
phoenix,jl was by far the only sub winning anything, soundstream,
orion, to only name a few ,and then you had a few mid level amp and
speaker companys and then you had all the rest of the junk. i do
think however that the industry was geared in that era towards sound
quality. the person coming to me in the early and mid nineties that was
spending the big bucks wanted powerful but simple sq systems where the
installation more often than not cost more than the equiptment. i can
remember actually auditioning rca cables for people. and believe me
there is a difference between average cables and really really good
cables. the emphasis has been taken off the sq. and now it's all about
the most dramatic bass for the buck. not that there is anything wrong
with that. and yes there are good amps out there now but i think the
demand for sq is down so the price of those amps will continue to rise
or the quality will have to suffer. the people who have never heard a
pioneer m88 cd player running an ads ph15 amp with 320i components and
jl subs i think would be really shocked. oh well as long as we are all
happy with our own systems that's what it's all about anyway. oh by
the way i run all diamond and eclipse in my car but am planning to swap
to some ppi art series amps or phoenix gold ms series that i have
laying around. have fun building.


--
wideglide340
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wideglide340's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=32811
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=211471
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[Ian]

I'm surprised to see no mention of any Zed audio stuff.

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
<snip snip>
> Anyway, does anybody agree with me? Disagree?
>
> MOSFET
>
>

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Manufacturers are finding cheaper ways to build amps also. Back in
the
> day, 50 watt amp weighed say 10 pounds, now with the plastic world we
> live in, same amp weighs 4 pounds.
>
> Whats ruined car audio are the walmarts and best buys. You get all
> these Pacos buying Sony Xplod crap. Other companies look at them and
> see there selling a ton of **** components so they follow suit. I bet
> Sony sells 1000X more crapo Xplod amps than any company that makes
> quality components. Its all about money, not what sounds good.

I don't think Walmark or Best buy ruin the car audio. They just
sell cheap stuff as it's worth as it cost. who wants to spend over
$1,000
amp? You get what you buy. Want best car audio spend as much as
possible? Go spend as much as possible. I don't have to spend over
$300 over system because I don't need it. My system is around $100.
It is not **** system you think. I don't need a $300 subwoofer for
my music or get into sound competition in street. Since I don't listen
Hip-Hop I don't have to carry this mega ton of subwoofer...

[Tony F]

I apologize for the irrelavance, but I have a question for you wideglide. I
see that you're a member of caraudioforum. I've been wanting to join this
site for quite some time but when I try to sign up I get a message saying
they'll be sending me an email with a link to follow so I can finish
registration and start posting. Anyway, I never got the link and they've
completely ignored a dozen or so of my emails to their support dept asking
about the problem. Is there any way you could email the administrator and
ask them to at least acknowledge me by sending me an email. I REALLY want
to join the site. Email me at if you can help.

Thanks,

Tony

--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

[Jim]

I agree. New technology has made amplifiers cheaper to produce, with
a higher profit margin. I like the old school amps better. I have 2
a/d/s/ PQ20's in my system, one of them I bought new, and the second
one I bought used, about 10 years ago. Both amps have worked
absolutely flawlessly every single time I have used them without so
much as a single problem in the past 10 or 15 years.

Lots of people hear my system and can't believe how loud I can play it
without the slightest hint of distortion. Sounds as good as the day I
bought the amps.

I wish I could say that for any of the speakers I have owned.

Also have a friend that has 4 Rockford Fosgate Punch 150 amps running
his system. Great stuff too, he worked for RF and bought them back in
1985, and they are still working today. He also has a couple Power
650's that he bought back in 1986, never even been powered on since
they came off the assembly line.

[MOSFET]

He also has a couple Power
> 650's that he bought back in 1986, never even been powered on since
> they came off the assembly line.
>
Wow! Now that was a GREAT amp! I would Kill (starting with
) to get my hands on that amp!

MOSFET

[MZ]

> and believe me
> there is a difference between average cables and really really good
> cables.
<snip>

No thanks.

[MZ]

Tony, there are much better forums out there than CAF. If you want car
audio, you could check out the carsound site (don't tell Eddie Runner I said
that). For audio in general, the best on the net by far is rec.audio.tech,
which is a much busier group than this one.


"Tony F" > wrote in message
...
> I apologize for the irrelavance, but I have a question for you wideglide.
I
> see that you're a member of caraudioforum. I've been wanting to join this
> site for quite some time but when I try to sign up I get a message saying
> they'll be sending me an email with a link to follow so I can finish
> registration and start posting. Anyway, I never got the link and they've
> completely ignored a dozen or so of my emails to their support dept asking
> about the problem. Is there any way you could email the administrator and
> ask them to at least acknowledge me by sending me an email. I REALLY want
> to join the site. Email me at if you can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony
>
> --
> 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
> Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500
Amplifiers,
> Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
> Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure
>
> 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
> Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)
>
>

[Charley]

"MZ" > wrote in message
...
> > The PPI-2300 wasn't a class A amp - it was class AB just like the rest
> > of their models. There WERE class A amps available for the car, but
> > they were nowhere NEAR 600 Watts. The PPIs were nice amps, though.
>
> Now that you've told him it's not class A, it won't sound as good...
Not true at all.

There simple IS no amp built for the car that sounds a clean as my PPI's.
Besides...they are what I have. I like them, I know how they will respond
to given loads and signal inputs. I guess the short version is, that I like
the way they sound better than any amp currently on the market (Yes, I've
listened to LOTS of them), and I know how to get the most out of them.

As far as their being a class A or AB amp, well I'm not an electrical
engineer. I'm an audiophile. When I bought my first 2300, I was led to
believe it was a pure class A amp. Whether it is or not, I still think they
sound better than anythign I could replace them with.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005

[Scott Gardner]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:14:35 GMT, "Charley" >
wrote:

>
>"MZ" > wrote in message
...
>> > The PPI-2300 wasn't a class A amp - it was class AB just like the rest
>> > of their models. There WERE class A amps available for the car, but
>> > they were nowhere NEAR 600 Watts. The PPIs were nice amps, though.
>>
>> Now that you've told him it's not class A, it won't sound as good...
>Not true at all.
>
>There simple IS no amp built for the car that sounds a clean as my PPI's.
>Besides...they are what I have. I like them, I know how they will respond
>to given loads and signal inputs. I guess the short version is, that I like
>the way they sound better than any amp currently on the market (Yes, I've
>listened to LOTS of them), and I know how to get the most out of them.
>
>As far as their being a class A or AB amp, well I'm not an electrical
>engineer. I'm an audiophile. When I bought my first 2300, I was led to
>believe it was a pure class A amp. Whether it is or not, I still think they
>sound better than anythign I could replace them with.
>
>

Well, if you really believe that's true, Richard Clark has a $10,000
check with your name on it. Let us know what you buy with it.

Seriously, I like PPI too, for reasons I've already mentioned. That's
why I have four of them right now.

Scott Gardner

[MZ]

> As far as their being a class A or AB amp, well I'm not an electrical
> engineer. I'm an audiophile.

I could have guessed that. :)

[Charley]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:14:35 GMT, "Charley" >
> wrote:
> >As far as their being a class A or AB amp, well I'm not an electrical
> >engineer. I'm an audiophile. When I bought my first 2300, I was led to
> >believe it was a pure class A amp. Whether it is or not, I still think
they
> >sound better than anythign I could replace them with.
> >
> >
>
> Well, if you really believe that's true, Richard Clark has a $10,000
> check with your name on it. Let us know what you buy with it.

I've heard Diamond D7's, Several flavors of Macintosh, EVERYTHING from
Alpine... the list is long but distinguished. Almost everything built today
has a certain harshness to it that I don't really care for. Obviously,
plenty of people out there either don't mind that sound or like it better
than what the older rigs make. That's fine. Doesn't hurt my feelings in
the least. Buy/use what works for you.

I'm not going to argue and say that my amps are somehow inherently better
than something new. There are obviously plenty of people who feel like the
lastest stuff is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm certain that
there are plenty of amps that meter out with better values in some, maybe
even all, areas. One thing I DO know is that a perfect score on the RTA
usually sounds pretty flat. I don't know about you, but I don't listen to
test signals. I listen to MUSIC. My test signal is a high-def recording of
BB King and Eric Clapton playing "Riding with the king".

My system works GREAT for me. It sounds (almost) as good as my home theater
for SOME things. Plus, there's enough power in there that I can drown out
the punk kid in the civic playing the Bass CD with Johnny Cash (yes, I've
done that, too).

>
> Seriously, I like PPI too, for reasons I've already mentioned. That's
> why I have four of them right now.
>
> Scott Gardner
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005

[Charley]

"MZ" > wrote in message
...
> > As far as their being a class A or AB amp, well I'm not an electrical
> > engineer. I'm an audiophile.
>
> I could have guessed that. :)

Yeah. :)
I had an electrical engineer design the power system that runs my home
theater. Well, ok, he's a good friend of mine, but he IS an EE!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.852 / Virus Database: 580 - Release Date: 1/31/2005

[Scott Gardner]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:32:23 GMT, "Charley" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:14:35 GMT, "Charley" >
>> wrote:
>> >As far as their being a class A or AB amp, well I'm not an electrical
>> >engineer. I'm an audiophile. When I bought my first 2300, I was led to
>> >believe it was a pure class A amp. Whether it is or not, I still think
>they
>> >sound better than anythign I could replace them with.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well, if you really believe that's true, Richard Clark has a $10,000
>> check with your name on it. Let us know what you buy with it.
>
>I've heard Diamond D7's, Several flavors of Macintosh, EVERYTHING from
>Alpine... the list is long but distinguished. Almost everything built today
>has a certain harshness to it that I don't really care for. Obviously,
>plenty of people out there either don't mind that sound or like it better
>than what the older rigs make. That's fine. Doesn't hurt my feelings in
>the least. Buy/use what works for you.
>
>I'm not going to argue and say that my amps are somehow inherently better
>than something new. There are obviously plenty of people who feel like the
>lastest stuff is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm certain that
>there are plenty of amps that meter out with better values in some, maybe
>even all, areas. One thing I DO know is that a perfect score on the RTA
>usually sounds pretty flat. I don't know about you, but I don't listen to
>test signals. I listen to MUSIC. My test signal is a high-def recording of
>BB King and Eric Clapton playing "Riding with the king".
>
>My system works GREAT for me. It sounds (almost) as good as my home theater
>for SOME things. Plus, there's enough power in there that I can drown out
>the punk kid in the civic playing the Bass CD with Johnny Cash (yes, I've
>done that, too).


I don't really care about meter values or RTA scores either. I have
enough of an engineering background to understand that 96 dB
signal-to-noise ratio is indistinguishable from 90 dB, or that a
damping factor of 500 isn't really any better than a damping factor of
200.

My reference to Richard Clark was talking about his long-running
"amplifier challenge". Take any two stereo amplifiers, level-match
them to within 0.1 dB so that they're both playing at the same volume,
and then listen to the same music (not test tones) through both amps.
If you can tell which amp is which ten times out of ten, he'll give
you $10,000. As far as I know, no one's been able to do it yet.
There are some other rules - (no signal processing or filters, both
amps must be operating within their design parameters, etcetera), but
no conditions that would put an ureasonable burden on the tester.

There's another audio journalist (or it might have been Clark as well)
that offered a ludicrous amount of money if anyone could tell the
sonic difference between a $1000/foot RCA interconnect and a rusty
nail. I don't think anyone successfully completed that challenge
either.

Scott Gardner

[NOBASS]

I have three older PPI "Art Series" amps right now, an A300.2, and
A600.2, and an A1200.2. There are several reasons I like them, and
keep in mind these are all PERSONAL preferences:

1) I like the way they look. With the Art Series, most people either
loved them or hated them. I loved them when they were new, and still
do.

2) The PPI Art Series amps have earned a reputation for being
accurately rated (conservatively-rated, actually), and for being
solidly-built and reliable.

3) I like that fact that as amplifiers, all they do is amplify. I've
always preferred outboard signal processors for things like
equalization and crossovers. For one, you have greater flexibility
when you divide the functions among several components, and I believe
the quality of the components used in external crossovers and filters
(like Audiocontrol) is probably higher than those built into
amplifiers.

None of this is a knock on modern amps. I know that I could probably
find a reliable amp that I liked the looks of, and I could bypass all
of the built-in signal processors and continue to use my outboard
components. That's why I said these reasons were my own personal
preferences - I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind.

Lastly, you'll notice I didn't say anything about sound quality. I'm
one of those who believe that any two amps will sound the same when
they're delivering the same amount of power, as long as both amps are
operating within their design parameters.

Scott Gardner

Agreed with everything you said here Scott. In my case it is the AM series (one before the Art Series), and I'm going back to them (originally I competed with the first gen Orion HCCAs). Someone else mention the horrible efficiency of these amps - do amps these days flash the headlights like the old amps do? :-)

One thing I've noticed (and someone touched on this) is the enormous power ratings amps have these days. I remember when the PPI 2150AM (2 x 150) was one of the most powerful amps you could get without going into the dual mono 2200, 2300 or the monster 2350. But now it seems like most of the new amps out there "should" leave this beauty in the dust, with ratings in the 500 to 1000 watt range! Do amps these days actually put out all this power they claim to?

Mark

[Scott Gardner]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:59:01 +0000, NOBASS
> wrote:

>
>Scott Gardner Wrote:
>> I have three older PPI "Art Series" amps right now, an A300.2, and
>> A600.2, and an A1200.2. There are several reasons I like them, and
>> keep in mind these are all PERSONAL preferences:
>>
>> 1) I like the way they look. With the Art Series, most people either
>> loved them or hated them. I loved them when they were new, and still
>> do.
>>
>> 2) The PPI Art Series amps have earned a reputation for being
>> accurately rated (conservatively-rated, actually), and for being
>> solidly-built and reliable.
>>
>> 3) I like that fact that as amplifiers, all they do is amplify. I've
>> always preferred outboard signal processors for things like
>> equalization and crossovers. For one, you have greater flexibility
>> when you divide the functions among several components, and I believe
>> the quality of the components used in external crossovers and filters
>> (like Audiocontrol) is probably higher than those built into
>> amplifiers.
>>
>> None of this is a knock on modern amps. I know that I could probably
>> find a reliable amp that I liked the looks of, and I could bypass all
>> of the built-in signal processors and continue to use my outboard
>> components. That's why I said these reasons were my own personal
>> preferences - I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind.
>>
>> Lastly, you'll notice I didn't say anything about sound quality. I'm
>> one of those who believe that any two amps will sound the same when
>> they're delivering the same amount of power, as long as both amps are
>> operating within their design parameters.
>>
>> Scott Gardner
>
>Agreed with everything you said here Scott. In my case it is the AM
>series (one before the Art Series), and I'm going back to them
>(originally I competed with the first gen Orion HCCAs). Someone else
>mention the horrible efficiency of these amps - do amps these days
>flash the headlights like the old amps do? :-)
>
>One thing I've noticed (and someone touched on this) is the enormous
>power ratings amps have these days. I remember when the PPI 2150AM (2
>x 150) was one of the most powerful amps you could get without going
>into the dual mono 2200, 2300 or the monster 2350. But now it seems
>like most of the new amps out there "should" leave this beauty in the
>dust, with ratings in the 500 to 1000 watt range! Do amps these days
>actually put out all this power they claim to?
>
>Mark

I had one of the AM Art Series amps too - the 4100AM 25 Watt X 4.
Great amp. It was on one side of my trunk, and a Linear Power 2202IQ
with red-anodized fins was on the other side.

As for the power ratings on modern amps, there are some
digital-switching amps (often called "Class D" or "Class T") that have
REALLY impressive efficiency numbers, like 80-90%, compared to the 50%
that you're likely to get out of a Class AB amp. I'm sure there are
some out there that claim to put out 1,000 Watts that wouldn't come
close to that unless they were on fire, but there are others that are
honestly putting out a kilowatt-plus, and only drawing about as much
current as an older 600-Watt amp.

Scott Gardner

[Brian_In_CO]

You will pry the Linear Power 2202 I bought at an auction five years ago
for $30 from my cold, dead fingers. Made in 1991 and still going
strong. Still kick myself for selling off the companion Soundstream
D200 a few years ago when I needed the cash. Price new TO-3 amps these
days, I'll take a working used Linear Power every time.

Brian


--
Brian_In_CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian_In_CO's Profile: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/member.php?userid=37384
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=211471
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!

[Scott Gardner]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:17:15 +0000, Brian_In_CO
> wrote:

>
>You will pry the Linear Power 2202 I bought at an auction five years ago
>for $30 from my cold, dead fingers. Made in 1991 and still going
>strong. Still kick myself for selling off the companion Soundstream
>D200 a few years ago when I needed the cash. Price new TO-3 amps these
>days, I'll take a working used Linear Power every time.
>
>Brian

I had a Linear Power 2202IQ also - great amp, very solidly-built, and
I never had a moment's trouble with it.

Right now, I have three of the older PPI "Art Series" amps - an
A300.2, an A600.2, and an A1200.2. I like them because they're very
well-built and I like the way they look.

I also like older amps for a philosophical reason. I want my
amplifiers to do ONE thing - amplify. I don't give a crap if they
have built-in crossovers, "bass-boost" circuitry, or if they can flash
blue lights in time with the music and display my battery voltage.

For equalization and signal processing, I've always preferred separate
processors (usually from AudioControl), so I don't need those features
in my amplifiers. The crossovers and filters in stand-alone
processors are usually of a higher quality and are more flexible than
what you see built-in to amplifiers anyway.


--
Scott Gardner

"After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself."