Seven channel car audio amplifiers?

[Jeff Moskovitz]

Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me of any 7 channel car audio amplifiers
on the market (either current or recent)? I'm familiar with the Soundstream
Da Vinci, but it's, um, more than I need/want to spend. Are there any others
out there? The Da Vinci feature set is exactly what I'm looking for:
integrated 4 way crossover, superior SQ, etc., I just don't need 1300 watts,
and don't want to spend $1k+.

As things stand now, I have enough separate amps to put together a very nice
4 way system, but it will absolutely fill my standard cab import pickup, so
the idea of combining chassis and power supplies is very appealing. In
short, if there were a cheaper version of the Da Vinci that offered the same
feature set for half the power/half the price, that would be perfect for my
needs.

Any thoughts? Alternatively, can anyone suggest a quality 6 channel
amplifier, something with built-in electronic crossovers that can handle a
tweeter/midrange/mid-bass 3 way system? I have a good mono subwoofer
amplifier, but I am swimming in tweeter, midrange, and mid-bass amps.

Thanks,

Jeff

[Jeff Moskovitz]

OK, following up on my own question, it looks like a/d/s makes some amps
that may fit my needs. Is anyone familiar with the relative merits of the
PH30.2? Looks like exactly what I'm looking for (although I wish the
crossovers have a slope greater than 12 db/octave).

TIA,

Jeff

On 6/30/04 3:26 PM, in article , "Jeff Moskovitz"
> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me of any 7 channel car audio amplifiers
> on the market (either current or recent)? I'm familiar with the Soundstream
> Da Vinci, but it's, um, more than I need/want to spend. Are there any others
> out there? The Da Vinci feature set is exactly what I'm looking for:
> integrated 4 way crossover, superior SQ, etc., I just don't need 1300 watts,
> and don't want to spend $1k+.
>
> As things stand now, I have enough separate amps to put together a very nice
> 4 way system, but it will absolutely fill my standard cab import pickup, so
> the idea of combining chassis and power supplies is very appealing. In
> short, if there were a cheaper version of the Da Vinci that offered the same
> feature set for half the power/half the price, that would be perfect for my
> needs.
>
> Any thoughts? Alternatively, can anyone suggest a quality 6 channel
> amplifier, something with built-in electronic crossovers that can handle a
> tweeter/midrange/mid-bass 3 way system? I have a good mono subwoofer
> amplifier, but I am swimming in tweeter, midrange, and mid-bass amps.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>

[Bruce Chang]

"Jeff Moskovitz" > wrote in message
...
> OK, following up on my own question, it looks like a/d/s makes some amps
> that may fit my needs. Is anyone familiar with the relative merits of the
> PH30.2? Looks like exactly what I'm looking for (although I wish the
> crossovers have a slope greater than 12 db/octave).
>
> TIA,
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/30/04 3:26 PM, in article , "Jeff
Moskovitz"
> > wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me of any 7 channel car audio
amplifiers
> > on the market (either current or recent)? I'm familiar with the
Soundstream
> > Da Vinci, but it's, um, more than I need/want to spend. Are there any
others
> > out there? The Da Vinci feature set is exactly what I'm looking for:
> > integrated 4 way crossover, superior SQ, etc., I just don't need 1300
watts,
> > and don't want to spend $1k+.
> >
> > As things stand now, I have enough separate amps to put together a very
nice
> > 4 way system, but it will absolutely fill my standard cab import pickup,
so
> > the idea of combining chassis and power supplies is very appealing. In
> > short, if there were a cheaper version of the Da Vinci that offered the
same
> > feature set for half the power/half the price, that would be perfect for
my
> > needs.
> >
> > Any thoughts? Alternatively, can anyone suggest a quality 6 channel
> > amplifier, something with built-in electronic crossovers that can handle
a
> > tweeter/midrange/mid-bass 3 way system? I have a good mono subwoofer
> > amplifier, but I am swimming in tweeter, midrange, and mid-bass amps.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>

Rockford made an amp that ran seven channels. I think it was a 800r7 or
something like that. It was 100W to 6 channels and 200 to one. I think it
was basically an 8 channel amp with the last two channels bridged mono.

[MZ]

> OK, following up on my own question, it looks like a/d/s makes some amps
> that may fit my needs. Is anyone familiar with the relative merits of the
> PH30.2? Looks like exactly what I'm looking for (although I wish the
> crossovers have a slope greater than 12 db/octave).

One of my amps is an older a/d/s/ P840, which runs for about $225-$250 on
ebay. It's 8channels, 40 wpc. Crossovers are as extensive as you'll ever
find. Slim height too, so you can squeeze it in tighter than normal spaces
(assuming adequate air flow of course). If I'm not mistaken, they also made
a P850 at some point too.

[Jeff Moskovitz]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:59:03 -0700, MZ wrote
(in message >):

>> OK, following up on my own question, it looks like a/d/s makes some amps
>> that may fit my needs. Is anyone familiar with the relative merits of the
>> PH30.2? Looks like exactly what I'm looking for (although I wish the
>> crossovers have a slope greater than 12 db/octave).
>
> One of my amps is an older a/d/s/ P840, which runs for about $225-$250 on
> ebay. It's 8channels, 40 wpc. Crossovers are as extensive as you'll ever
> find. Slim height too, so you can squeeze it in tighter than normal spaces
> (assuming adequate air flow of course). If I'm not mistaken, they also made
> a P850 at some point too.

Thanks. I'm thinking the P650.2 might be the right one for me -- 6 channels,
50w/channel, and I can use my ESX 275w mono sub amp for the sub. My only
other question is, are the a/d/s amps rated somewhat conservatively? Is this
50w/channel enough for tweets, mids, and mid-bass in a small interior? How
the SQ with your a/d/s P840?

Thanks,

-Jeff

[Jeff Moskovitz]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:25:24 -0700, Bruce Chang wrote
(in message >):

> Rockford made an amp that ran seven channels. I think it was a 800r7 or
> something like that. It was 100W to 6 channels and 200 to one. I think it
> was basically an 8 channel amp with the last two channels bridged mono.
>
>

Thanks. I looked but can't find any info on a RF amp with that model number
or features. A Google search for "7 channel Rockford amp" doesn't come return
anything useful. But I'll keep looking.

-Jeff

[JeffM.]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:25:24 -0700, Bruce Chang wrote
(in message >):

> Rockford made an amp that ran seven channels. I think it was a 800r7 or
> something like that. It was 100W to 6 channels and 200 to one. I think it
> was basically an 8 channel amp with the last two channels bridged mono.
>
>

Thanks. I looked but can't find any info on a RF amp with that model number
or features. A Google search for "7 channel Rockford amp" doesn't come return
anything useful. But I'll keep looking.

-Jeff

[JeffM.]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:25:24 -0700, Bruce Chang wrote
(in message >):

> Rockford made an amp that ran seven channels. I think it was a 800r7 or
> something like that. It was 100W to 6 channels and 200 to one. I think it
> was basically an 8 channel amp with the last two channels bridged mono.
>
>

Thanks. I looked but can't find any info on a RF amp with that model number
or features. A Google search for "7 channel Rockford amp" doesn't come return
anything useful. But I'll keep looking.

-Jeff

[MZ]

> Thanks. I'm thinking the P650.2 might be the right one for me -- 6
channels,
> 50w/channel, and I can use my ESX 275w mono sub amp for the sub. My only
> other question is, are the a/d/s amps rated somewhat conservatively? Is
this
> 50w/channel enough for tweets, mids, and mid-bass in a small interior? How
> the SQ with your a/d/s P840?

No, they're pretty much within spec. Some here have claimed that they'll do
an extra 20% or so of their rated power, but that's not a very significant
increase. I like the P840. I have two channels running tweeters, two
running rear dome mids, and 4 channels bridged to run a pair of 4" drivers
(excessive, I know). So I don't really demand much from it to be able to
evaluate what it does when really pushed. But a while back, I had it
running front and rear midbass drivers. It was suitable, but I upgraded it
to something a little more powerful for the midbass drivers, and kept the
P840 for these little speakers. However, my midbass drivers are a little on
the inefficient side and I was really after tons of headroom anyway, so it
may work great for your midbass application.

[Jeff Moskovitz]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 7:40:08 -0700, MZ wrote
(in message >):

>
>> Thanks. I'm thinking the P650.2 might be the right one for me -- 6
> channels,
>> 50w/channel, and I can use my ESX 275w mono sub amp for the sub. My only
>> other question is, are the a/d/s amps rated somewhat conservatively? Is
> this
>> 50w/channel enough for tweets, mids, and mid-bass in a small interior? How
>> the SQ with your a/d/s P840?
>
> No, they're pretty much within spec. Some here have claimed that they'll do
> an extra 20% or so of their rated power, but that's not a very significant
> increase. I like the P840. I have two channels running tweeters, two
> running rear dome mids, and 4 channels bridged to run a pair of 4" drivers
> (excessive, I know). So I don't really demand much from it to be able to
> evaluate what it does when really pushed. But a while back, I had it
> running front and rear midbass drivers. It was suitable, but I upgraded it
> to something a little more powerful for the midbass drivers, and kept the
> P840 for these little speakers. However, my midbass drivers are a little on
> the inefficient side and I was really after tons of headroom anyway, so it
> may work great for your midbass application.
>

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Hmmm...I'm running Dynaudio separates, using the Dynaudio MW170 as my
mid-bass drivers. From what you said, I think I should look at the P840 or
P850, and run the lower four channels bridged, as you did. That would
probably work well, giving me 40 or 50 wpc for the mids and tweets, and 80 or
100 wpc for the mid-bass.

Are you happy with the SQ of the a/d/s amp?

-Jeff

[MZ]

> Are you happy with the SQ of the a/d/s amp?

Yes.

[Jeff Moskovitz]

On 7/1/04 8:21 AM, in article , "MZ"
> wrote:

>> Are you happy with the SQ of the a/d/s amp?
>
> Yes.
>
>

Sorry, one last question about the a/d/s P840: do you know the range of the
crossovers? For some reason, I can't seem to find any real specs on either
the P840 or P850 amps. The a/d/s website is pretty sparse, and there is no
online manual available for either the P840 or P850 amps.

Thanks again for your help,

Jeff

[MZ]

> Sorry, one last question about the a/d/s P840: do you know the range of
the
> crossovers? For some reason, I can't seem to find any real specs on either
> the P840 or P850 amps. The a/d/s website is pretty sparse, and there is no
> online manual available for either the P840 or P850 amps.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the crossovers are all full bandwidth (ie.
~40Hz to 5kHz, or something like that). One set is high pass, one set is
low pass, and two sets bandpass (or HP or LP). If you bridge two channels,
you can get a third bandpass pair I think. Let me put it this way: at one
point I had a midbass, midrange, and tweeter all running off the amp with
the midbass and midrange bandpassed and the tweeter high passed, completely
eliminating the need for passive crossovers. I have the manual in pdf
format somewhere, so if you want it email me.

[John Durbin]

and a P850.2, which would be a better choice than the P850... far more
stable.

JD

MZ wrote:

>>OK, following up on my own question, it looks like a/d/s makes some amps
>>that may fit my needs. Is anyone familiar with the relative merits of the
>>PH30.2? Looks like exactly what I'm looking for (although I wish the
>>crossovers have a slope greater than 12 db/octave).
>>
>>
>
>One of my amps is an older a/d/s/ P840, which runs for about $225-$250 on
>ebay. It's 8channels, 40 wpc. Crossovers are as extensive as you'll ever
>find. Slim height too, so you can squeeze it in tighter than normal spaces
>(assuming adequate air flow of course). If I'm not mistaken, they also made
>a P850 at some point too.
>
>
>
>