# My impression of the pdx 4.150



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

Finally got around to installing them yesterday. I am running two of them currently all active to a set of qsd 210 and mbq qm200. My initial impressions were they pack alot of power. Very clean and uncolored sound, everything u need from an amp! Also, the lowend is not missing at all on the contrary to the CA&E review. The midbass in my car is pretty awesome.  I have read about heat issues, i actually was sitting in my car for like 2 hrs tuning at pretty loud listening levels and they were only warm to the touch. So if anyone is hesitant about these amps i will say u wont be dissappointed, and dont worry bout the heat issues. That is my honest opinon.


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

How's the topend detail? 

Thanks for the review.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

topend is fine... not lacking either. i will be keeping these amps for awhile, and those who knows me know i like to change alot. I have had lots of amps in teh past also, from tru tech to dls to arc audio to mcintosh, etc....


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

it certainly wont make a bad system sound good, but these are very good for the price...


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

Nice to hear that it sounds good. Hope to hear one soon. I like the small footprint plus the power it has.


----------



## johnson (May 1, 2007)

What other amps have you compared it to?


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

I read a comment mentioning top end detail. Have some of you considered that at a certain age top end begins to naturally tapper off as we age? Consider the age of the reviewer when it comes to auditioning equipment involving sound. By age 35 8khz hearing sensitivity degrades by -11db, yikes! Just a thought. 

-Fixtion


----------



## gbraen (Mar 2, 2007)

I have a couple of these and comparing them to Genesis S3 Four channel and Dual Mono.

Much brighter sound in the PDX, all the details come out more clearly, almost too bright, but I can always EQ this. More punch in the midbass area, more power overall compared to the Four Channel, thats for sure.

They have a lot of control in the midbass area, dont have any complaints there either.

Overall very good amplifiers, and easy to install too regarding their footprint. No heatproblems at all.

I have bridge it for a good 2x300 watt and there are lots of power, no doubt about it. Will recommend this amplifier!!

Jerry.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

johnson said:


> What other amps have you compared it to?


well, this is the first amps that have been in this particular system, but i like i said ive had lots of high end amps in the past, and these certainly aint no slouch.


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

gbraen said:


> I have a couple of these and comparing them to Genesis S3 Four channel and Dual Mono.
> 
> Much brighter sound in the PDX, all the details come out more clearly, almost too bright, but I can always EQ this. More punch in the midbass area, more power overall compared to the Four Channel, thats for sure.
> 
> ...


wow that is something. how does it compare to the Genesis Dual Mono?


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

Fixtion said:


> I read a comment mentioning top end detail. Have some of you considered that at a certain age top end begins to naturally tapper off as we age? Consider the age of the reviewer when it comes to auditioning equipment involving sound. By age 35 8khz hearing sensitivity degrades by -11db, yikes! Just a thought.
> 
> -Fixtion


O man i only got a few years to enjoy my top end!  he also said it was really lacking in midbass which puzzles me.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I got mine installed over the weekend as well.

I'll agree... the low-end is not lacking like some reports have said. My mid-bass is more profound than it was. I'm only using 2 channels right now to power left & right midbass, but so far so good. 

The birthsheet I got mine with showed it being rated at 168w x 4 instead of the 150w x 4, so that's nice.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

I also would like to add that the midbass sounds very controlled. It is tight and snappy. I know i have read that they have very low damping factors which affects the sound. If it does i cant hear it.


----------



## crxsir121 (Oct 18, 2006)

SouthSyde said:


> I also would like to add that the midbass sounds very controlled. It is tight and snappy. I know i have read that they have very low damping factors which affects the sound. If it does i cant hear it.



How would you compare the power and sound to Arc Audio xxk serires amps???The 4150xxk is my favorite right now!!! Had the gains to the lowest setting and it was freaking loud and dynamic!!!


----------



## pianist (Mar 10, 2006)

^^^ what he said


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

crxsir121 said:


> How would you compare the power and sound to Arc Audio xxk serires amps???The 4150xxk is my favorite right now!!! Had the gains to the lowest setting and it was freaking loud and dynamic!!!


i havent ABed the two back to back, but from what i remember the arc is a V ERY nice amp. the 4150 is my favorite out of the cxl and xxk series, but i would say the alpine packs a little more punch than the arcs.


----------



## starboy869 (Dec 16, 2006)

I'm really debating about switching from my PPI Arts to the Alpine PDX line.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

starboy869 said:


> I'm really debating about switching from my PPI Arts to the Alpine PDX line.


which ppi art?


----------



## starboy869 (Dec 16, 2006)

My PASS Limited Editions. See picture <------- If you want better pictures PM me


----------



## reker13 (Oct 26, 2007)

SouthSyde, I plan to run one of the Alpine PDX amps to a pair of QSD-216's. Which one do you reccomend? (i see you run QSD-210s) 

Would a half of a pdx4.150 (or pdx-2.150) be enough? The Quarts are rated at 170watts RMS per channel but would like real world comments.

Thanks Man!


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

i'd say go with the 4.150, least you have more flexibility in the future if you intend to run active.


----------



## customstevo (Aug 17, 2008)

i really like my pdx 4.150, I dont really have the experience with imaging to judge how much better this would sound than another amp.

It's everything I expected it would be. It can obviously fit just about anywhere.

I also am just learning as i have found the 6 x 9's and components in the rear of my eclipse are a total waste.

Concentrating on the front stage components only now. At least I have flexibility with this amp.

Going to run her on my g2 10" subs now. Power should be perfect.


----------



## deff808 (Sep 13, 2006)

i have a pdx 4.100, i'm happy with it! espescially how small it is, very universal for installation...


----------



## theRESONANCE (Aug 28, 2008)

Hmm which one which one...
a.) Alpine PDX 4.150 accompanied by PDX 1.1000
b.) Arc audio FD4150 accompanied by FD 1200.1
c.) Other ? 
Price comes out about the same. If anything, The Alpines will cost a bit more.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

does size matter to you? that should answer your question right there IMO


----------



## theRESONANCE (Aug 28, 2008)

Well it does but only to a certain extent. I could also go with JL 300/2 & 1000.1 block..
I'm pretty much all in for the best SQ possible, yet haven't heard any of the above amps.
Amp racks always cure sizes


----------



## cobraa (Dec 4, 2009)

I heard a pdx4.150 bridged on a pair of ES-06 and I can tell you it's very impressive, excellent mid-bass. all the above comments are true about the pdx!


----------



## jbowers (May 3, 2009)

cobraa said:


> I heard a pdx4.150 bridged on a pair of ES-06 and I can tell you it's very impressive, excellent mid-bass. all the above comments are true about the pdx!


Way to go resurrecting a two year old thread to get your post count up.


----------



## cobraa (Dec 4, 2009)

jbowers said:


> Way to go resurrecting a two year old thread to get your post count up.


Stupid post from you. what is wrong with old thread?? See, i'm looking for either the PDX or the old sx KICKER. does it means because it's 2 yr old, nobody can post feedback or update on those older amps. I'm also seeking info about the old eclipse cd7100. Just letting you know, before you post the same stupid comment if i bump a thread about the cd7100. Just letting you know in advance Be prepared! LOLLL

Seriously.. stupid. this is the only word I have.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

cobraa said:


> Stupid post from you. what is wrong with old thread?? See, i'm looking for either the PDX or the old sx KICKER. does it means because it's 2 yr old, nobody can post feedback or update on those older amps. I'm also seeking info about the old eclipse cd7100. Just letting you know, before you post the same stupid comment if i bump a thread about the cd7100. Just letting you know in advance Be prepared! LOLLL
> 
> Seriously.. stupid. this is the only word I have.


Heard both and the SX doesn't hold a candle to the PDX - in every domain. 
However, I'd get the new version if you don't want gremlins coming out of your front stage  

Kelvin


----------



## cobraa (Dec 4, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Heard both and the SX doesn't hold a candle to the PDX - in every domain.
> However, I'd get the new version if you don't want gremlins coming out of your front stage
> 
> Kelvin


arrhhgg My mind were set on the SX because of his low price,remote control to adjust setting and more crossover option than pdx. Now, you make me doubt.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

lol, just talking about SQ and Efficiency. 
If you really need good SQ, good Efficiency and a better control than the PDX, then you should get this one: 
Kenwood Excelon KAC-X4R Amp: Multi-Channel - Car Amplifiers at Onlinecarstereo.com 

Kelvin


----------



## jbowers (May 3, 2009)

cobraa said:


> Stupid post from you. what is wrong with old thread?? See, i'm looking for either the PDX or the old sx KICKER. does it means because it's 2 yr old, nobody can post feedback or update on those older amps. I'm also seeking info about the old eclipse cd7100. Just letting you know, before you post the same stupid comment if i bump a thread about the cd7100. Just letting you know in advance Be prepared! LOLLL
> 
> Seriously.. stupid. this is the only word I have.


Chill out, dude. If you're going to lose your **** over a little internet sarcasm you're never going to last around this place. And thanks for calling me stupid - now I can stop paying my Mensa dues.


----------



## NSTar (Feb 24, 2010)

it's an okay amp but for the price of 350 or so...not bad. I like the PRS better, much cleaner and clearer.

my pdx was rated at 186 per channel... what I don't like is when you raise the volume up, you will hear white noise when there is no music playing. It's not bad but it's not clean like the prs.


----------



## NSTar (Feb 24, 2010)

get a super clean amp and buy the ms8. Done!


----------



## NSTar (Feb 24, 2010)

get a super clean amp and buy the ms8. Done!


----------

