# Soundstream Reference - how do they stack up today?



## ARH (May 26, 2009)

I have my hands on a SS Reference 405 and a 200. $400 bucks for both.

How do they perform in regards to today's standards? Reliable? Sound signature? Good match for a 3-way active Seas setup?


----------



## billg1230 (Jul 17, 2009)

Phenominal. Grab them and run them. You will not be dissapoointed, smooth liquid sound. I run 4 Ref's in my truck and two Ref's in the car.


----------



## todd217 (Apr 5, 2009)

you will love the old ref series. also dont worry about the power rating also because they are underrated.


----------



## Huey P. Freeman (Jan 20, 2008)

How did the old Rubicon amps compare? My first 2 systems had Rubicons in them. They were solid (wish I still had them).


----------



## todd217 (Apr 5, 2009)

Huey P. Freeman said:


> How did the old Rubicon amps compare? My first 2 systems had Rubicons in them. They were solid (wish I still had them).


 the ref were a step or 2 above imo.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

todd217 said:


> the ref were a step or 2 above imo.


I thought so too. I still have a reference Class A Picasso and a 10.0 and they sound great. Definitely one of the top Amps made as far as older amps are concerned.


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

and if you ever want to get rid of the Picasso and 10.0, I will gladly trade you my Xtants for them...... 
I just picked up a Reference 644s yesterday. 
I used to sell Soundstream in the 90's in the heyday of the Picasso and original DaVinci and all the great Reference and Class A goodies. I love the stuff. I still have a set of SS511 seperates as well as a set of SPL 50 midranges. Old Soundstream Reference stuff is great. It's too bad the new stuff is Power Acoustik. makes me sad


----------



## bafukie (Nov 23, 2007)

what about ss reference 1000sx? are they good enough for 2 ohms mono on a JL sub?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

todd217 said:


> the ref were a step or 2 above imo.


I'd take a first gen Rubicon over anything from the Reference line.


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> I'd take a first gen Rubicon over anything from the Reference line.


see, i'm the opposite because that is right when Soundstream began the decline in quality in my opinion. i prefer the 500s to a 500sx to a 500Rubicon.
that's just me though
btw, are you the same "quality_sound" that rocked a B5.5 wagen?


----------



## deodkid (Jan 1, 2009)

im still running ref 405S and ref 300 to my other car (clif designs split and 10" SS exact sub) and im just happy with it..


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

slomofo said:


> see, i'm the opposite because that is right when Soundstream began the decline in quality in my opinion. i prefer the 500s to a 500sx to a 500Rubicon.
> that's just me though
> btw, are you the same "quality_sound" that rocked a B5.5 wagen?


It was the 2G Rubis that were post sale. The Rubis were easily the most durable amp from SoundStream. We tried to break them and couldn't. We even used them in customer cars that went through multiple Rockfords. I love those amps. I REALLY regret selling mine. 

Yep, I still miss that car too. I shouldn't have sold that either but it was time to move on to another project or start dumping obscene amounts of money into it.


----------



## dmazyn (Apr 29, 2008)

I'm running 1st gen Rubicon's in my current system a 1002 for sub, a 702 for mids and a 202 for tweets and would not change except maybe replace the 702 with another 1002.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 12, 2007)

I am running a Class A 10.0, a Class A Picasso, and a Reference 1000s in my truck. They sound great. I would recommend running the balanced line transmitters if at all possible.

I have looked into changing amps a couple of times (I bought the two class a's new in 1997), but I can't honestly say that I have found anything that would be noticeably better. I have actually had an honest shop owner tell me that I could get new amps, but he'd be amazed if it made any difference. These are as good as anything out now.


----------



## hoamic11 (May 7, 2007)

Was the Reference line really that good? I know they were good but a step or 2 above the rubicon line?

My brother had the Ref 705s Continuum, which was gorgeous until it got stolen  But I had heard about some of the ref line having some heating issues. I would love to get a 705s


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

slomofo said:


> and if you ever want to get rid of the Picasso and 10.0, I will gladly trade you my Xtants for them......


 Not just yet..lol I think I might be going with Tru Tech on my next redo. So I'm sure I'll have them up here eventually. I have 4 Xtant Mono 121m's that I'll probably part with as well. I just broke them out of the boxes...12 years old and brand new...haha.

I really didn't care for for anything after the reference line myself. Rubicon, Tarantula, DaVinci, etc...


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

gymrat2005 said:


> Not just yet..lol I think I might be going with Tru Tech on my next redo. So I'm sure I'll have them up here eventually. I have 4 Xtant Mono 121m's that I'll probably part with as well. I just broke them out of the boxes...12 years old and brand new...haha.
> 
> I really didn't care for for anything after the reference line myself. Rubicon, Tarantula, DaVinci, etc...


i used to use the 202M's all the time, great amps, same as the 121, just the stereo version. 
yeah, if you're ever in the mood for more Xtant, i'll trade for the Picasso and 10.0


----------



## qikazel (Aug 9, 2009)

I love mine!!


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

qikazel said:


> I love mine!!


I dig the simplicity of that.

I have several old Reference amps and the above mentioned 1st gen Rubs. I currently have a Ref 500 and 2 Ref 300 in the van. Honestly they sound great! I have no noise whatsoever in my set-up. However, being the addict I am I am about to go all Arc SE. If I don't hear a significant difference I will put the SS back in and sell the Arcs. 

I had both the Ref and Rubs in the van. IMHO, the Rubs are a bit laid back more in power. Not by much though. I am really wanting to do an all Rib set-up. I've got (2) 604's (1) 1002 and (2) 502's to work from! 

I am thinking to have some of them power-coated. 

Check out this guys' trunk with power-coated Ref's and Rub's. He is a Team Id member if i am not mistaken.


----------



## Huey P. Freeman (Jan 20, 2008)

todd217 said:


> the ref were a step or 2 above imo.


When I bought them I was told they were Soundstreams top of the line amp.


----------



## qikazel (Aug 9, 2009)

nirschl said:


> I dig the simplicity of that.
> 
> I have several old Reference amps and the above mentioned 1st gen Rubs. I currently have a Ref 500 and 2 Ref 300 in the van. Honestly they sound great! I have no noise whatsoever in my set-up. However, being the addict I am I am about to go all Arc SE. If I don't hear a significant difference I will put the SS back in and sell the Arcs.
> 
> ...


Thanks. My pics are in the build section under Ford 500 install. You wouldnt want to trade the 500 for my 500sx? Just so my amps would match.


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> I'd take a first gen Rubicon over anything from the Reference line.


x200,000,000,000,000


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

GregU said:


> x200,000,000,000,000



Really?? Could you guys go into detail as to why? Just curious


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I was told the first gen rub was the last amp before they were sold out, and the named amps after were not as good. However this is likely more of a durability issue than a sound issue. That old stuff was made like a tank, and why they are still here.

I have a couple rub302s and a newer 800rms EGA or something. The new one is certainly Asian-ized compared to the older ones, but it does have these huge output transistors that are interesting. I had to put a new power supply in it too, it was roasted. It is silver or alum in color and fairly big. These days I run class D on subs for power reasons, even if I run a large one I have gained down they like stock alternators. Not sure I will ever use that but not a bad set. I ran one 300 rub on a single 12 and it went loud for that size amp, they have good power.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Back in the day I used to work at the only authorized Soundstream dealer in Vegas (early 90's), and when I installed the Rubicons in my personal vehicle after they first came out, I thought they were meatier, more in your face, but just didn't sound as sweet or detailed to me (class A version). I had the first set of Dyns back then too which I still use today (MD100's 140's and M170's), and after a week of listening, I installed the Rub on our sound board and put my Class A Ref's back in. I had almost every Sheffield Labs, and DMP Jazz CD out at the time, and it really was an easy choice. Funny thing is, although I plan on going Tru Tech on my next build, I might never get rid of these Ref's.

I had heard at one time that the Ref's had a tendency to break, but we (I) never had a problem with them if they were installed correctly. Their failure rate was right on par with our other lines too (PPI, MTX, Eclipse, Orion, etc...) and again, I still use my original 2 amps in my current setup. If I'm not mistaken, you can actually buy the ref amps brand new now that Soundstream has started to re manufacture them. And I believe they are built to spec now, as they were back then. So if they supposedly had a high failure rate like some say, doesn't make sense that Soundstream would subject themselves to a possibility of hassling with mass returns if they supposedly dealt with it once before. 

All in all I think the ref's are great amps. People are going to like what they like, I don't think anyone would deny that Soundstream are not what they used to be, but maybe bringing the ref series back after all this time is a sign they will once again go after a more sound conscious client.


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

gymrat2005 said:


> Back in the day I used to work at the only authorized Soundstream dealer in Vegas (early 90's), and when I installed the Rubicons in my personal vehicle after they first came out, I thought they were meatier, more in your face, but just didn't sound as sweet or detailed to me. I had the first set of Dyns back then too which I still use today (MD100's 140's and M170's), and after a week of listening, I installed the Rub on our sound board and put my Class A Ref's back in. I had almost every Sheffield Labs, and DMP Jazz CD out at the time, and it really was an easy choice. Funny thing is, although I plan on going Tru Tech on my next build, I might never get rid of these Ref's.
> 
> I had heard at one time that the Ref's had a tendency to break, but we (I) never had a problem with them if they were installed correctly. Their failure rate was right on par with our other lines too (PPI, MTX, Eclipse, Orion, etc...) and again, I still use my original 2 amps in my current setup. If I'm not mistaken, you can actually buy the ref amps brand new now that Soundstream has started to re manufacture them. And I believe they are built to spec now, as they were back then. So if they supposedly had a high failure rate like some say, doesn't make sense that Soundstream would subject themselves to a possibility of hassling with mass returns if they supposedly dealt with it once before.
> 
> All in all I think the ref's are great amps. People are going to like what they like, I don't think anyone would deny that Soundstream are not what they used to be, but maybe bringing the ref series back after all this time is a sign they will once again go after a more sound conscience client.


Right! For me it really comes down to a sound factor between the Ref's and Rub's. A matter of taste really but the Ref's do(to my humble ears) sound a bit sweetr than the Rub's. Both are absolutely great amps. But the Rub's a touch scaled down to me. I am strictly speakeing of "1st" generation Reference and Rubicon amps here. I can't speak from experience with the original SS line or the latter and newer stuff.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Honestly, I think the Rubicon's had better bottom end so they sounded like they had less up top. The Refs sounded more open though. But for the durability I'd take the Rubis and give up the slight bit of sonic purity rather than worry about popping power supplies.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

gymrat2005 said:


> Back in the day I used to work at the only authorized Soundstream dealer in Vegas (early 90's), and when I installed the Rubicons in my personal vehicle after they first came out, I thought they were meatier, more in your face, but just didn't sound as sweet or detailed to me (class A version). I had the first set of Dyns back then too which I still use today (MD100's 140's and M170's), and after a week of listening, I installed the Rub on our sound board and put my Class A Ref's back in. I had almost every Sheffield Labs, and DMP Jazz CD out at the time, and it really was an easy choice. Funny thing is, although I plan on going Tru Tech on my next build, I might never get rid of these Ref's.
> 
> I had heard at one time that the Ref's had a tendency to break, but we (I) never had a problem with them if they were installed correctly. Their failure rate was right on par with our other lines too (PPI, MTX, Eclipse, Orion, etc...) and again, I still use my original 2 amps in my current setup. If I'm not mistaken, you can actually buy the ref amps brand new now that Soundstream has started to re manufacture them. And I believe they are built to spec now, as they were back then. So if they supposedly had a high failure rate like some say, doesn't make sense that Soundstream would subject themselves to a possibility of hassling with mass returns if they supposedly dealt with it once before.
> 
> All in all I think the ref's are great amps. People are going to like what they like, I don't think anyone would deny that Soundstream are not what they used to be, but maybe bringing the ref series back after all this time is a sign they will once again go after a more sound conscious client.




My old shop was one of, if not the, first SS dealer (they were about 20 minutes away) but that was before I started there. I came in when they transitioned from the D series to the Refs. I will agree that most of the returns were from our OTC sales but even some of our comp cars had problems, most notably the Ref 500, 700 and Ref 1000. Some of the 604s too but not nearly as many. 

CallsAs on the onther hand sounded better than anything SS has ever made. I think the top end was sweeter on the .0s but the 10.2 had crazy big balls. 

I hope SS didn't just bring back the name but the designs as well. I know they got the designs as part of the sale so they can they'd just have to stop cheaping out on the parts.


----------



## Guy (Feb 16, 2006)

gymrat2005 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, you can actually buy the ref amps brand new now that Soundstream has started to re manufacture them. And I believe they are built to spec now, as they were back then. So if they supposedly had a high failure rate like some say, doesn't make sense that Soundstream would subject themselves to a possibility of hassling with mass returns if they supposedly dealt with it once before.


The new Reference series amps currently being produced are not the same as the old ones at all. Different topologies, and overseas built with different components. 
I can't speak to the build quality of the new ones. 
The old Reference series amps had a lot of time put into them with protocols that would be uncommon to today's standards. Value matched components and individual burn-in and testing of each amp for example.

The early Refs and Class A were tanks. Then corners were cut and designs compromised to squeeze more profits, the cause of which was massive failure rates. This was toward the end of the Reference run and through the Reference S and SX lines. The worst part was that the owners (Wade Stewart and Donna Haas) had a breakup at this time and starting battling with each other, resulting in horrific customer service that sunk the company. 
The first time Soundstream was sold it was considered a viable company, and the new management scrapped the Reference line with newly designed amps designated as the Rubicon series, with design work begun on other lines as well (Tarantula, DaVinci, Human Reign). 
Wade Stewart, who designed the SS amps (with the exception of the D100, designed by Nelson Pass) up to that point was gone and a former engineer from Orion (Greg Loupe(sp?) ) designed the Rubicon series. They share features from the later Reference series but they are different amps. 
The products Soundstream produced during that time were of very good quality and design, but the company couldn't overcome the bad name it had made for itself. 

Sold again, went bankrupt, liquidated and the scraps were picked up by Epsilon (Power Acoustik).


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I can't say if she was still on owner or not, but she was defintely still around when the Rubicons were first introduced. She even stepped into our training to say hi.


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

I remember selling the Reference S line with absolutley no problems. the SX line which came later was a little less in the SQ dept. then the Rubi's came in and they were bulletproof but didn't sound as good to me. Personally the Reference S and Class A lines were the best, with the exception of the 6.0 and 3.0 which had a tendency to light on fire, but that's partly due to the impedance at which people were running them. 
Personally, if it doesn't have a blue circuit board, I don't want it. The Rubicons had red boards


----------



## hoamic11 (May 7, 2007)

Was there much differences in the S or SX line compared to the original Ref line?


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

from what i remember the s line had slight revisions, of which i don't know. they came out the same time that the Ref. SS12R (the velvet hammer) and 10R subs came out. "R" stood for revised as well as the "S" designation meant revisions as well.


----------



## Mahna Mahna (Mar 2, 2008)

I ran SS (Original) Reference in my IASCA car back in the mid 90's. Ref 500, Ref 300 (x2), pair of SS10r's (amazing bass) and SS511 (comps). Won a lot of trophys. 

GREAT product.

Still have a Granite 180.6 in my DD (bought in '94)......going strong


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

hoamic11 said:


> Was there much differences in the S or SX line compared to the original Ref line?


IIRC the SXs had revised power supplies (that broke a lot) and the wildly (read that with MUCH sarcasm) successful AirBASS.


----------



## Gearhead51 (Nov 19, 2008)

I have a Silver Ref. 5.0 (blue board) and a Silver Ref. Picasso (red board-Rubi?) that I haven't installed. I was about to sell them and get a new 6 channel Zed amp, but threads like these make me second guess that decision.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

If it's chrome it's not a Ref or a Rubi, it's a ClassA. It was a whole different ball of wax than the Ref/Rubis. 

The most visible difference between the Refs and Rubis is the shield on the Rubis. I never opened them to look but I think the first gen Rubis had blue boards as well. I could be wrong on thelast point though.


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> If it's chrome it's not a Ref or a Rubi, it's a ClassA. It was a whole different ball of wax than the Ref/Rubis.
> 
> The most visible difference between the Refs and Rubis is the shield on the Rubis. I never opened them to look but I think the first gen Rubis had blue boards as well. I could be wrong on thelast point though.


The first generation Rubis actually had red boards. I've got several. The Ref amps are definetly a bit beafier in their inards. 

I'd probably prefer the Rubis over the later
"S" and "SX" Ref stuff however. Got those too. One thing about the Rubis I like is they don't that High Current/High Power switching routine. Just straight up power. 

I really want to do a powercoat job on a few off these but am going to see how the Arc SE's treat me first. 

Cheers!


----------



## Gearhead51 (Nov 19, 2008)

Right. They are actually polished alu. They are from different "series." The class A 5.0 has a blue board. The class A Picasso has a Red board, and I've read that red boards are "rubis" in multiple places. If I recall, there was a "Rubicon" series later on that was a lower line amp. The heatsinks on mine are slightly different machinings, but they are both the polished alu Class A. I'm still up in the air about selling them. They should do fine on my old school Boston Pros and my RE8s, but the efficiency of the new class D Zeds is tempting.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

My Class A Picasso has a blue board. I'd take a pic and show you but it is currently installed


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

All Class A amps had blue boards until the Rubicon line came out, then they went to Red boards along with the Rubicon line.
quality_sound - My 644S has airbass mounts and labels on the board as well. I actually installed one in the bosses demo car. It sucked. cool idea, just not well executed. 
Mahna Mahna - i still have a set of SS511's in my garage. awesome to say the least


----------



## Gearhead51 (Nov 19, 2008)

I stand corrected. My Picasso doesn't say ClassA, but my 5.0 does. The Picasso has a polished alu heatsink and a red board. When I purchased it, I was told it was a Class A Picasso, but when it arrived, it had a red board. The seller was less than easy to reach or work with.


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

Gearhead51 said:


> I stand corrected. My Picasso doesn't say ClassA, but my 5.0 does. The Picasso has a polished alu heatsink and a red board. When I purchased it, I was told it was a Class A Picasso, but when it arrived, it had a red board. The seller was less than easy to reach or work with.


Well, if you want to off it in trade for my Xtant X604, you let me know. I'm all in on that deal, hell i'd trade the 1001xd for the 5.0 too
either way, you have a picasso and i'm sure it sounds great and yes, it's a real Picasso. the Picasso stopped saying Class A on it when the rubicon line came out. It went from being a Ref. Class A Picasso to just Picasso


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Shoot, if I had the extra cash on me, I'd scoop up that Class A Picasso that's here in the classifieds.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

Great posts everyone but 'gymrat2005' has it exactly correct about the differences in sound between the original REF and the RUBI and also about the alleged failure rates of the old REF. First thing you should know is that I have real intimate knowledge of the subject...so here's the 'skinny':

The old REF are phenomenol amplifiers both in SQ and longevity; and yes, they are under-rated. I have 2 in my car (REF 500 and REF 1000) and I wouldn't trade them for anything!
Here's some bad (but true) news; the RUBI was SS first attempt to go to an overseas source after they stopped making amps in Folsom CA. The company they were working with is called CHUN GLAM but they are now out of business. The reason the RUBI sounded more 'meaty' is because they are class AB while the REF was class A. As for the new REF, it is not feasible to recreate the old circuitry because there were several necessary redundancies built into the design back then, which either isn't necessary today or not feasible because of cost cutting. So don't let anyone fool you; the new REF is a different animal; but that doesn't mean it is NG. I suggest you have it tested thoroughly by an "A" rated Electrical Engineer so that you'd know what your'e working with.
As for REF failure patterns & reasons? the main cause was cold solder, usually caused as a result of overheating again & again; eventually, the solder (60/40) would begin to give way and because of the high density of components, it is easy for a CSJ to develop. Other issues of the older REF (644, 404 etc) are bad VRs, and dried out electrolytic caps in the input and coupling stages...all due to ageing and not premature failure as with the stuff available today from most wholesalers of audio gear.


----------



## ARH (May 26, 2009)

Very good feedback!

Feel free to carry on the discussion..


----------



## slomofo (Mar 30, 2009)

Thanks for all the insight vincywiz, it's appreciated. Soundstream Reference amplifiers are a benchmark as good today as they were 15 years ago


----------



## bkjay (Jul 7, 2009)

This is great! I have rub.1002, 702.502 and 202 and I love them all! 
The 702 was my first SS amp. and its a beast! Back in the day I ran it at1.5 ohms on two 12w6's . They still all work today. Thanks for the history,keep it coming.


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

vincywiz said:


> Great posts everyone but 'gymrat2005' has it exactly correct about the differences in sound between the original REF and the RUBI and also about the alleged failure rates of the old REF. First thing you should know is that I have real intimate knowledge of the subject...so here's the 'skinny':
> 
> The old REF are phenomenol amplifiers both in SQ and longevity; and yes, they are under-rated. I have 2 in my car (REF 500 and REF 1000) and I wouldn't trade them for anything!
> Here's some bad (but true) news; the RUBI was SS first attempt to go to an overseas source after they stopped making amps in Folsom CA. The company they were working with is called CHUN GLAM but they are now out of business. The reason the RUBI sounded more 'meaty' is because they are class AB while the REF was class A. As for the new REF, it is not feasible to recreate the old circuitry because there were several necessary redundancies built into the design back then, which either isn't necessary today or not feasible because of cost cutting. So don't let anyone fool you; the new REF is a different animal; but that doesn't mean it is NG. I suggest you have it tested thoroughly by an "A" rated Electrical Engineer so that you'd know what your'e working with.
> As for REF failure patterns & reasons? the main cause was cold solder, usually caused as a result of overheating again & again; eventually, the solder (60/40) would begin to give way and because of the high density of components, it is easy for a CSJ to develop. Other issues of the older REF (644, 404 etc) are bad VRs, and dried out electrolytic caps in the input and coupling stages...all due to ageing and not premature failure as with the stuff available today from most wholesalers of audio gear.


Wow! Very interesting if it's true. 
So you are saying that "all" the original Reference series(160,200,300,500.....etc) were " Class "A?" Not just the ones labeled Class "A?" I cannot see how this would be possible but please enlighten me! Willing to learn

So the original Rubis were made overseas? 

Well nonetheless I think I will be holding onto my SS amps for a long time. I really dig the way they sound. 

If my new Arc SE's do not hold up in comparison expect to see them up for sale! 

Cheers!


----------



## 1sashenka (Nov 26, 2008)

I have some experience with those very amps. Lets put this in perspective. Do you know the history of these amps? The amps are old and the history list could be long. What kind and how much use have they seen? Have they ever been repaired, or have they been repaired with proper replacement parts or were inferior parts used just to make it work. I have heard these amps sounding like total garbage, so hopefully you know what to listen for, and have an idea what a good amp supposed to sound like. Even when amps sit on a shelf for 20 yrs as look as new, internals like caps could be dried out, and the performance will not be as advertized. There is sooo much old school reference gear floating around exchanging hands, but I have seen so much of it in total crap condition mechanically, yet they are owned with pride by those who just dont know any better. I have seen those amps in stellar cosmetic shape, but mechanically they were so bad, that when they worked, all they did is hog the current without converting it efficiently, and the lights dimmed like mad, only the system sounded like it was underwater. Swap out for brand spanking refab amps like Kicker KX from Ebay, and the system came to life. I have seen this time and time again. Food for thought.


----------



## deodkid (Jan 1, 2009)

very nice info... 'keep them coming..
btw, how about the usa series? arent they good as the ref and rubis?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Not even close. The USAs were their entry line for those years. Kinda like the Granite line but I think the Granite line was better across the board than the USA.


----------



## deodkid (Jan 1, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> Not even close. The USAs were their entry line for those years. Kinda like the Granite line but I think the Granite line was better across the board than the USA.


i see. i thought there was something special about it and for some reason that the USA flag printed on the board..


----------



## Guy (Feb 16, 2006)

vincywiz said:


> Here's some bad (but true) news; the RUBI was SS first attempt to go to an overseas source after they stopped making amps in Folsom CA. The company they were working with is called CHUN GLAM but they are now out of business. The reason the RUBI sounded more 'meaty' is because they are class AB while the REF was class A.


The first gen Rubicon boards were built in North America. Most of them in the USA, but many were sourced from Canada and some from Mexico. 
The overseas production began with the second gen Rubis (300-2, 600-4, 1000-2, etc.). This info is from the SS engineer who oversaw the setup of the assembly line in the Korean buildhouse.
All Reference and Rubicon amps are A/B amps, even those marketed as Class A.


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

Guy said:


> The first gen Rubicon boards were built in North America. Most of them in the USA, but many were sourced from Canada and some from Mexico.
> The overseas production began with the second gen Rubis (300-2, 600-4, 1000-2, etc.). This info is from the SS engineer who oversaw the setup of the assembly line in the Korean buildhouse.
> All Reference and Rubicon amps are A/B amps, even those marketed as Class A.


Now this all sounds much more realistic to me. Mainly the fact that all the Ref and Rubs were A/B and not class A. I believe it has been said that the marketed Class A were only that they were dropped once in ohm load than immediately you are in A/B.


----------



## Cdub (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey guys I have a Reference 705s. After reading this thread I'm thinking about putting it back in action. Does anyone recall the specs?

I believe its 50x4, 200x1.

I want to run active 2ways up front, nothing in the rear. 

What is the best way to run the amp to get max power to the mids? Or, am I stuck with 50 watts going to the mids?

Thanks in advance for any input!


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Guy said:


> The first gen Rubicon boards were built in North America. Most of them in the USA, but many were sourced from Canada and some from Mexico.
> The overseas production began with the second gen Rubis (300-2, 600-4, 1000-2, etc.). This info is from the SS engineer who oversaw the setup of the assembly line in the Korean buildhouse.
> All Reference and Rubicon amps are A/B amps, even those marketed as Class A.


Yes.

They are called class AB because all of them are class A at low output, class A labeled amps are rarely that unless they are like 2x10w and run really hot. I was told the first rub was the last USA amp from SS.

Some 'class A' amps do run higher bias so they are class A at more low output and do run hotter. This is fine, if it is a good amp any human should not be able to detect any class B distortion....though they should not from any good class AB.

Caps can go bad, but 99% of the time that is the only thing that will affect quality. Most odd parts would work or not work in an amp, but it is possible I suppose. You run the risk of blowing it up and often you don't save any money for most amps, so I doubt many people with the know-how to repair amps do that anyway. But I have seen a couple amps with alternate parts in them. Note sometimes the alternate is better than the original and why it is in there.

I never messed with ref amps, I know the early rub and the D series are good amps and only SS I ever used. I heard some refs had issues but they say they blew and were fixed or trashed long ago by now.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

I am very positive that Soundstream had some early early models such as the "D" series like the 100 II's (not to be confused with "Class D" topology) which were without a doubt Class "A" amplifiers.These amps were designed by a man named Nelson Pass who's focus was on class "A" amps and was very well known for being a proponent that all amps do not sound alike, and electrical testing means very little to how an amp will actually sound. Nelson was a legend in amplifier design and founded Threshold Labs (old school, very badass) and Pass Labs. and I believe it was his work under contract with Nakamichi that encouraged Soundstream to commission the design for the pure class "A" amplifiers in the early 90's.

With that said I'm not an expert, but fast forward to the mid/late 90's and my Class A Picasso exhibits some of the traits associated with a true class "A" amplifier mainly the fact that they do actually sound better than the normal ref line (lots of listening hours), and at either high or low levels the amp will get smoking hot because of the non switching transistor construction. That and the fact that this $800 amp was only rated at 25W X 4.

Like a few have eluded to, the propensity for a Pure Class "A" (even A/B) amplifier to go bad after some time are very real because of that high heat, and if not treated or cared for properly (cooling fans, etc..), things can and will go bad over time in that situation.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

nirschl said:


> Wow! Very interesting if it's true.
> So you are saying that "all" the original Reference series(160,200,300,500.....etc) were " Class "A?" Not just the ones labeled Class "A?" I cannot see how this would be possible but please enlighten me! Willing to learn
> 
> So the original Rubis were made overseas?
> ...


Yeah, the biasing type of the REF amplifiers would all be categorized as "class A". Check-out the various classes of audio amplifiers and see how each differ in their respective electric topologies then test any old REF and decide for yourself.
Truthfully, it doesn't matter anymore what's written about any product or even what name is on it because as I have indicated in the previous post, 'it is not feasible to make amplifiers with that much redundancy today'...companies won't make much money. So just read the published specs and if you like what it says; buy one and have it tested by someone whod' be unbiased and go from there. That's they way to do it IF you cared about truth & performance...and if not, just go with yourt 'gut feeling'...LMAO


----------



## Guy (Feb 16, 2006)

There is no such thing as a biased Class A amp. *[EDIT] I should have said there is no such thing as a switched Class A amp, and the Soundstream amps use switching.*

The second D series amps were designed by Wade Stewart.

Nelson Pass designed one car audio amp, the D100, for Soundstream or Nakamichi- both denied being the one who hired him when it came time to pay (he never did get paid). This is from a usenet from Nelson Pass some years ago.


----------



## bkjay (Jul 7, 2009)

Great info! more more more!!!!!


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Guy said:


> The second D series amps were designed by Wade Stewart.


 Yes, but didn't the 100 and 100II use the same topology/design with just a different power supply?

I also read somewhere that he did some work for adcom too in the automotive arena many moons ago.


----------



## bafukie (Nov 23, 2007)

just picked up a SS1000s for my sub duty... pounds hard.. loving it


----------



## Guy (Feb 16, 2006)

The first and second D series amps are totally different- a quick glance at the boards show this. Wade Stewart patterned the rest of the first series after the D100 Nelson Pass designed, but the second were all his. 
For example, here is a first series D200-










And here is a second series D200II-










The first pic is my amp, the second I copied off the web, as I'm traveling and unable to crack one of mine open. Sorry for the poor image quality, but you get the idea.
Yes, Nelson Pass designed the ADCOM car audio amps.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

slomofo said:


> Well, if you want to off it in trade for my Xtant X604, you let me know. I'm all in on that deal, hell i'd trade the 1001xd for the 5.0 too
> either way, you have a picasso and i'm sure it sounds great and yes, it's a real Picasso. the Picasso stopped saying Class A on it when the rubicon line came out. It went from being a Ref. Class A Picasso to just Picasso


Ha, ha...the REF stays but thanks for the offer. I've gotten accustomed to the nuances they produce and I don't realistically think I can get any more phonics or sonic detail than I'm getting now.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

bkjay said:


> Great info! more more more!!!!!


Yeah; this is a great forum and if we use it correctly, it can only make US (those who are truly passionate about car audio) stronger and maybe, they'd step up the quality across the board. BTW, this is not about SS, it's about most of the so called manufacturers out there today. No one; not even one, wants to invest any money in new concepts, they just wanna use & reuse the same old Pony until it dies and then copy from the big boys!


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

gymrat2005 said:


> I am very positive that Soundstream had some early early models such as the "D" series like the 100 II's (not to be confused with "Class D" topology) which were without a doubt Class "A" amplifiers.These amps were designed by a man named Nelson Pass who's focus was on class "A" amps and was very well known for being a proponent that all amps do not sound alike, and electrical testing means very little to how an amp will actually sound. Nelson was a legend in amplifier design and founded Threshold Labs (old school, very badass) and Pass Labs. and I believe it was his work under contract with Nakamichi that encouraged Soundstream to commission the design for the pure class "A" amplifiers in the early 90's.
> 
> With that said I'm not an expert, but fast forward to the mid/late 90's and my Class A Picasso exhibits some of the traits associated with a true class "A" amplifier mainly the fact that they do actually sound better than the normal ref line (lots of listening hours), and at either high or low levels the amp will get smoking hot because of the non switching transistor construction. That and the fact that this $800 amp was only rated at 25W X 4.
> 
> Like a few have eluded to, the propensity for a Pure Class "A" (even A/B) amplifier to go bad after some time are very real because of that high heat, and if not treated or cared for properly (cooling fans, etc..), things can and will go bad over time in that situation.


Right on bud. An amplifier class is mainly (if not entirely) determined by how it's biasing network is setup. Also, because of the advanced (as in always on) biasing system, the class "A amplifier has much better slew rates and hence less THD+n; but they sacrifice overall efficiency, therefore they tend to run hot. But since the quality of the aluminum used back then was much better, the pleniums radiated the heat away very well; but overheating is what eventually did 'em in.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

sqshoestring said:


> Yes.
> 
> They are called class AB because all of them are class A at low output, class A labeled amps are rarely that unless they are like 2x10w and run really hot. I was told the first rub was the last USA amp from SS.
> 
> ...


I can assure you that caps going bad are not '99% responsible for amp. failures'...ever heard of MOSFETS being "starved"? because the Installer thought he was using 2AWG but it turned out to be more like 3 AWG? or installing a "20 FARAD cap" but what he really installed is a 5F cap? these industry hiccups can kill amplifiers faster than you can imagine...because what's printed on the stuff is not true. Then who get's blamed? the Installer.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

I am glad you caught your own "err" regarding the difference between biasing and switching but no sweat, we are not here to judge each other (I hope) but rather to engage & share at a more cerebral level...


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

vincywiz said:


> engage & share at a more cerebral level...


 Not to get off of the OP's question, but I wanted to share something to those unaware. THD, as was brought up in your earlier post, is one of the least audible forms of distortion there is, but it it also one of the most sought after specs by the uneducated. Unfortunately amplifier manufacturers know that the masses will ask the question "how much power do I get, and how much THD does it have"? So they design their amplifiers to essentially "look good" on paper by touting these specs. Problem is the easiest way to cool the harmonic distortion in a poorly made amplifier is to use to much global negative feedback in the VC section of the amplifier. This brings in other forms of distortion like Transient Intermodulation Distortion or "TIM". TIM rears it's ugly head more often than harmonic distortion. 

Without getting too technical, when your sound suffers from TIM, frequencies which were not present in the original music are very noticeable and it almost sounds like the amplifier is "shouting at you" as the volume knob goes up. Moral of the story is as long as THD is below roughly 1% (not .1%, or .01%, but 1%), you will never hear it. Does that mean all amps with low THD are bad..no just the cheap ones. Because an amp with a low THD that is designed properly is usually very high end. I remember my favorite amps back in the day were my Harmon Kardon CA260's (I had 8 of them...lol) and they were rated at about .2 % and most who know the amp will attest to it's amazing sound quality.


----------



## couchflambeau (Apr 18, 2006)

What I'd find interesting is if someone knew what the approximate 4 ohm two channel output for the Ref 200, 300, 500, 700 and 1k models... 
I have a Ref 200, two 300's and 500 that I intend to use in an active system for tweets, mids, midbasses, and subs... IIR CAE Magazine rated the 300 as ~110 watts into a 2 channel 4 ohm load. Anyone know the real world output for the other models for sake of comparison?


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

couchflambeau said:


> What I'd find interesting is if someone knew what the approximate 4 ohm two channel output for the Ref 200, 300, 500, 700 and 1k models...
> I have a Ref 200, two 300's and 500 that I intend to use in an active system for tweets, mids, midbasses, and subs... IIR CAE Magazine rated the 300 as ~110 watts into a 2 channel 4 ohm load. Anyone know the real world output for the other models for sake of comparison?


I'm assuming you are speaking in terms of High Power mode and not High Current. Right? 

I've got 2 of them currently running my front stage and it really as plenty when running my PRS components but now I got the HAT L6's in there I could use some more. They aren't underpowered but feel like they could use more down low. They do sound super clean and mild. FWIW

Cheers!

Btw, look for a short review here soon of the L6 compared to the PRS.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

couchflambeau said:


> What I'd find interesting is if someone knew what the approximate 4 ohm two channel output for the Ref 200, 300, 500, 700 and 1k models...
> I have a Ref 200, two 300's and 500 that I intend to use in an active system for tweets, mids, midbasses, and subs... IIR CAE Magazine rated the 300 as ~110 watts into a 2 channel 4 ohm load. Anyone know the real world output for the other models for sake of comparison?


Not sure, but the 300 was rated at only 75 X 2 @4 ohms in high power mode, and a meager 37.5 X 2 @4 ohms in high current mode. That whole series actually had the switch to turn it from a High current amp which would handle relatively low impedance levels to a high power amp which produced more output to higher loads. I'm sure it produced at least what it was intended to do, they were certainly some of the more robust amps for their time.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

This makes for good reading...keep it coming. Just so you know, mine was not to include all of the various forms of distortion; audible or inaudible but rather to keep the discussioin at a level; discussing the specs that most would be familiar with, which is THD or THD+n in this case. But if you wanna PM me, we can do more of the indepth type of discussion. Yeah manufacturers do feed the User what they think they want but can't fully understand...isn't that the same with every industry? try going to a flat screen store to buy a TV and see what happens...LMAO.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

couchflambeau said:


> What I'd find interesting is if someone knew what the approximate 4 ohm two channel output for the Ref 200, 300, 500, 700 and 1k models...
> I have a Ref 200, two 300's and 500 that I intend to use in an active system for tweets, mids, midbasses, and subs... IIR CAE Magazine rated the 300 as ~110 watts into a 2 channel 4 ohm load. Anyone know the real world output for the other models for sake of comparison?


SS ratings were easy. Take the model number and that's the 4 ohm bridged rating. Divide the model number by four and that's the 4 ohm stereo rating per channel in high power mode. Cut that number in half and that's the 4 ohm stereo rating in high current mode.


----------



## nirschl (Apr 30, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> SS ratings were easy. Take the model number and that's the 4 ohm bridged rating. Divide the model number by four and that's the 4 ohm stereo rating per channel in high power mode. Cut that number in half and that's the 4 ohm stereo rating in high current mode.


Even better guys here are the manuals for all discontinued models. 

Soundstream | Owner Manuals


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

vincywiz said:


> Yeah; this is a great forum and if we use it correctly, it can only make US (those who are truly passionate about car audio) stronger and maybe, they'd step up the quality across the board. BTW, this is not about SS, it's about most of the so called manufacturers out there today. *No one; not even one, wants to invest any money in new concepts, they just wanna use & reuse the same old Pony until it dies and then copy from the big boys!*


There is not much to do with an amp, those old SS amps and many others made 'perfect' sound...so you make it cheaper eventually. Technology has progressed so far we are making class D amps now that switch so fast the outputs are turned on or off to make sound. That is the new technology and likely will take over at some point. Class AB is nice because it is a mature technology, you can take a design off the shelf and use it, its like using a small block chevy in your hotrod...its been done so many times every bug has been worked out and it is common now....there is nothing difficult about it. In some places high school kids build their own class D amps, that is how insignificant design has become. Now they are not going to be what you buy usually, just saying that like the $7 toaster there is no need to design something better...unless you want it to last longer or look prettier, or toast more slices at once, etc.

I don't know if SS ever made a class A amplifier, but none of the models I read listed here were. A high bias class AB is essentially the same thing in operation. What gives them (real class A) their signature sound is the tubes mostly. Most all amps are class AB because they work just fine, have great numbers.

A lot of amps do sound really bad when they clip, better amps tend not to be as bad. But that is really your fault for running the amp beyond what it is capable of. Still certainly an important factor for the way I run my amps.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

vincywiz said:


> I can assure you that caps going bad are not '99% responsible for amp. failures'...ever heard of MOSFETS being "starved"? because the Installer thought he was using 2AWG but it turned out to be more like 3 AWG? or installing a "20 FARAD cap" but what he really installed is a 5F cap? these industry hiccups can kill amplifiers faster than you can imagine...because what's printed on the stuff is not true. Then who get's blamed? the Installer.


I never said anything about amp failures being from caps.

Caps on the supply input have little to do with the amp. Running low voltage could be hard on the amp, but if it is a good amp it should not have a problem with it. I have no idea what 'starved mosfets' are. A mosfet is the electronic equivalent of a relay, it does not care what power goes through it long as it is within specs. If the amp designer does not design the amp to endure any possible reasonable condition of temperatures and input voltage, then it is not a very good amp. Now if you are abusing it with a low load or restricted cooling, that is your fault.


----------



## vincywiz (Oct 21, 2009)

sqshoestring said:


> I never said anything about amp failures being from caps.
> 
> Caps on the supply input have little to do with the amp. Running low voltage could be hard on the amp, but if it is a good amp it should not have a problem with it. I have no idea what 'starved mosfets' are. A mosfet is the electronic equivalent of a relay, it does not care what power goes through it long as it is within specs. If the amp designer does not design the amp to endure any possible reasonable condition of temperatures and input voltage, then it is not a very good amp. Now if you are abusing it with a low load or restricted cooling, that is your fault.


I think we've pretty much beat this "puppy" to death but I thought one last mention would be in order. Note that I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the part about MOSFETS being like a relay and DOESN'T care about what voltage it sees 'within specs'...
A MSOSET is not like a relay in any stretch of the imagination; at least not from a Technical person's perspective. Before I go any further, maybe the meaning of the abbreviation woud help? MOSFET means *M*etal *O*xide *S*ubstrate *F*ield *E*ffect *T*ransistor. So, a MOSFET is much more like a transistor than a relay. A relay is an electromechanical device with no ability whatsoever to increase any elecrical property on it's own accord.
A "startved" MOSFET is one this is not receiving sufficient DC current in order to provide the required (increased) DRAIN current. When the current is inadequate, the voltage drops and the MOSFETS' switching times can change ...this is what Engineers & Technicians commonly refer to as a 'starved' MOSFET.


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

I wouldn't hesitate for one second to use the old school SS Ref's in an install. Or recommend them to anyone for that matter. Great amps IMHO.


----------



## zacisme (Jun 25, 2010)

is it worth to spend usd1k for a brand new ss1000sx?
there is a old stock for sell...
hows the sound like compare to genesis dmx which im using now?
both 2x200rms...


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Nope. It's a great amp but it's not woth even half of that.


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

ARH said:


> I have my hands on a SS Reference 405 and a 200. $400 bucks for both.
> 
> How do they perform in regards to today's standards? Reliable? Sound signature? Good match for a 3-way active Seas setup?


ARH,
I believe that you would be hard pressed to find amplifiers today that would out perform the old Reference amps. Of course i'm kind of prjudiced because I designed them. They were dsigned to crank and crank hard.

thanks, wade-ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

Huey P. Freeman said:


> How did the old Rubicon amps compare? My first 2 systems had Rubicons in them. They were solid (wish I still had them).


Huey P. Freeman,
the Rubicon amps were copies of my Reference designs but they made the power supply regulated, so they basically sound the same but they don't produce additional power when run at voltages higher than 12 volts. the old reference i designed would produce up to 30% more power at 14.4 volts than at 12 volts.

ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

bafukie said:


> what about ss reference 1000sx? are they good enough for 2 ohms mono on a JL sub?


bafukie,
The RBeference 1000sx puts out 1000 watts when run at 2 ohms bridged or for that matter they will also put out 1000 watts into 1 ohm bridged.

thanks, ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

slomofo said:


> and if you ever want to get rid of the Picasso and 10.0, I will gladly trade you my Xtants for them......
> I just picked up a Reference 644s yesterday.
> I used to sell Soundstream in the 90's in the heyday of the Picasso and original DaVinci and all the great Reference and Class A goodies. I love the stuff. I still have a set of SS511 seperates as well as a set of SPL 50 midranges. Old Soundstream Reference stuff is great. It's too bad the new stuff is Power Acoustik. makes me sad


slomofo,
I am always glad to read anything from people that like my old designs of sounstream amps from 1982 to 1997, thank you.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

slomofo,
I am always glad to read anything from people that like my old designs of soundstream amps from 1982 to 1997, thank you.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

billg1230
I am always glad to read anything from people that like my old designs of sounstream amps from 1982 to 1997, thank you.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

todd217 said:


> you will love the old ref series. also dont worry about the power rating also because they are underrated.


todd217
I am always glad to read anything from people that like my old designs of sounstream amps from 1982 to 1997, thank you.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

monkeyboy said:


> I am running a Class A 10.0, a Class A Picasso, and a Reference 1000s in my truck. They sound great. I would recommend running the balanced line transmitters if at all possible.
> 
> I have looked into changing amps a couple of times (I bought the two class a's new in 1997), but I can't honestly say that I have found anything that would be noticeably better. I have actually had an honest shop owner tell me that I could get new amps, but he'd be amazed if it made any difference. These are as good as anything out now.


monkeyboy,
I am always glad to read anything from people that like my old designs of sounstream amps from 1982 to 1997, thank you.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

qikazel said:


> I love mine!!


qikazel
I am always glad to read anything from people that like my old designs of soundstream amps from 1982 to 1997, thank you.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

qikazel said:


> I love mine!!


qikazel
I forgot to mention that your install looks very meticulous.
ace956


----------



## ace956 (Aug 28, 2009)

gymrat2005 said:


> Back in the day I used to work at the only authorized Soundstream dealer in Vegas (early 90's), and when I installed the Rubicons in my personal vehicle after they first came out, I thought they were meatier, more in your face, but just didn't sound as sweet or detailed to me (class A version). I had the first set of Dyns back then too which I still use today (MD100's 140's and M170's), and after a week of listening, I installed the Rub on our sound board and put my Class A Ref's back in. I had almost every Sheffield Labs, and DMP Jazz CD out at the time, and it really was an easy choice. Funny thing is, although I plan on going Tru Tech on my next build, I might never get rid of these Ref's.
> 
> I had heard at one time that the Ref's had a tendency to break, but we (I) never had a problem with them if they were installed correctly. Their failure rate was right on par with our other lines too (PPI, MTX, Eclipse, Orion, etc...) and again, I still use my original 2 amps in my current setup. If I'm not mistaken, you can actually buy the ref amps brand new now that Soundstream has started to re manufacture them. And I believe they are built to spec now, as they were back then. So if they supposedly had a high failure rate like some say, doesn't make sense that Soundstream would subject themselves to a possibility of hassling with mass returns if they supposedly dealt with it once before.
> 
> All in all I think the ref's are great amps. People are going to like what they like, I don't think anyone would deny that Soundstream are not what they used to be, but maybe bringing the ref series back after all this time is a sign they will once again go after a more sound conscious client.


gymrat2005
I am always happy to read statements from people that they like the older soundstream amps that i designed from 1982 to 1997. My factory, stewart electronics, manufactured all amps and crossovers during that period. after that soundstream set up there own lab and manufacturing. that's when they introduced the rubicon series which were basically copies of the amps i designed but with regulated power supplies. this meant that there power was the same regardless of the battery voltage. Where my designs would put out 25%to30% more power when run at 14.4 volts, even more when run at 16 volts.
as far as the reference amps introduced by the new soundstream company, i have not tested them myself, but i have spoken with soundstream dealers who now sell the new products and they have told me that they are nothing like the older amps that i designed or the rubicon amps. like i said this is second hand, so take it for what it's worth. i do know that i met with the people from soundstream about designing new amps for them but after the meeting they contacted me and told me they would let me know when they would need me. that was a year or two ago. i have kind of stopped waiting for them to call. LOL.

ace956


----------



## Wil de woofer (Oct 8, 2008)

What about the Reference 245 MC 5-channel.
I still have it as a spare amp for my Symfoni's
Must I keep it or sell it.
Will


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

The MC245 wasn't a Reference series amp. The MC- and D-series amps came before the Refs.


----------



## Blazemore (Dec 1, 2006)

ace956 said:


> Huey P. Freeman,
> the Rubicon amps were copies of my Reference designs but they made the power supply regulated, so they basically sound the same but they don't produce additional power when run at voltages higher than 12 volts. the old reference i designed would produce up to 30% more power at 14.4 volts than at 12 volts.
> 
> ace956


I thought the first series of Rubicons had unregulated power supplies and the second series move over to regulated.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Nope, the Rubis were regulated. It was actually one of the things I really liked about them.


----------



## slickone (Mar 6, 2005)

Wade (ace)

I want to be the first, I think, to design and make, what I feel, to be the best amplifiers on the planet..The pic on the first page with the powder coated amps and the IDMax subs would be mine...

What part, if any, did Jamie have in the design or was he the designer of the Rubicon line?

I have had literally hundreds of amplifiers over the 20+ years I have been tinkering with car audio, but prefer the signature of the reference line..I have had every model of the reference line(literally) and most of the rubi..there isn't really a comparison really..just say they sound the same but the rubi's have 1 less nut

I have even tinkered with your pro audio amps years ago...I used to do stage tech work and a couple people used some of your amps for mains....some sweet amps you had there too

If you were to ever come out with an amp line yourself, I would "try" to be the first in line

Thanks again

edit...i got tongue tied at the beginning...meant to say be the first, i think, to thank you for making them


----------



## Blazemore (Dec 1, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> Nope, the Rubis were regulated. It was actually one of the things I really liked about them.


Odd, Guy and Jamie have stated unregulated till v2. I'll ask again.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

If they were unregulated they fibbed a bit when we went to Folsom for training that year. I'm only going by what we were told. :shrug:


----------



## Blazemore (Dec 1, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> If they were unregulated they fibbed a bit when we went to Folsom for training that year. I'm only going by what we were told. :shrug:


Spoke with Jamie, yes they are regulated. My bad


----------



## FartinInTheTub (May 25, 2010)

I'm running 3 Reference 300 amplifiers active to my frontstage and the sound is just magical. I have used Arc Audio CXLR, PPI and a few others on this same frontstage and they couldn't give me what i'm hearing now. To give you the rundown on what I'm running:

Clarion DRZ9255
3 Reference 300 amplfiers
Hybrid Audio Legatia L6 midbass
Hybrid Audio Legatia L4 mids
Hybrid audio L1Pro tweeters
Genesis Dual Mono Extreme
Image Dynamics IDQ10D4v3 x2

Love these amplifiers! I will be changing out one of the Reference 300 amplfiers on my midbass only to replace it with a Reference 500. 

I WILL USE NO OTHER LINE OF AMPS ON MY FRONTSTAGE. THE ORIGINAL REFERENCE LINE ARE FANFRIGGINTASTIC!


----------



## dapert (Feb 22, 2006)

I've got a small aresenal of the Reference line myself and I use them everytime I switch vehicles. Have a 705, (4) 500's, (3) 300's, (2) 200s'S, and a 160s. Love 'em. Always have always will. Although I should probably sell a few of these since I don't need all of them.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Blazemore said:


> Spoke with Jamie, yes they are regulated. My bad


No worries. It was only what, 15 years ago?? lol


----------



## Blazemore (Dec 1, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> No worries. It was only what, 15 years ago?? lol


Yep time flys and so does the memory


----------

