# New to me SOUNDSTREAM REFERENCE 405 & Soundstream Rubicon550-5 INFO?



## jgscott

Well I just bought a Soundstrean Reference 405 and a Soundstream Rubicon 550-5. I always wanted a Soundstream amp.

I have looked at the specs for the Soundstream site already. It seems that the Rubicon 550-5 is spec'd out with just a little higher wattage. 4 [email protected] 4 ohms. Sub 1 x 250 @ 2ohms.

405 is 4 x25 @ 4ohms. Sub 1 x 200 @ 2ohms. 

I have been told that the Reference 405 was the better of the 2 amps. but I'm not sure if it is, or if the Rubicon will have more power. 

Anyone know about theses 2 that can share some info. There is very little out there on the Rubicon. I'll try to post some pics later. Thanks


----------



## jgscott

Reference 405


----------



## jgscott

Rubicon 550-5


----------



## Old Skewl

That little 405 is a beast. The original Reference series were underated(at least in 4 Ohm loads). I have both a 405 and a 705. The 705 was benched tested and the sub channelput out 280 watts(rated at 200 watts.) I am running my 405 in the garage on a set of A/D/S 300i and an alpine sub. Amazing sound for 25 watts/ch. The 405 does 40 watts at 14 volts.

I am not as well versed on te Rubicons. But I think they had regulated power supplies where as the original Reference did not.


----------



## jgscott

Old Skewl said:


> That little 405 is a beast. The original Reference series were underated(at least in 4 Ohm loads). I have both a 405 and a 705. The 705 was benched tested and the sub channelput out 280 watts(rated at 200 watts.) I am running my 405 in the garage on a set of A/D/S 300i and an alpine sub. Amazing sound for 25 watts/ch. The 405 does 40 watts at 14 volts.
> 
> I am not as well versed on te Rubicons. But I think they had regulated power supplies where as the original Reference did not.


Will that 405 play 2 sealed Factory Wedge Box JL audio 10's, @ 2ohms total in a Lincoln LS closed trunk with the sub channel ok ? 

Im not so good about this stuff, so is a reg power supply good or not preferred ?

And still trying to find out about that mysterious Rubicon 550-5?


----------



## minbari

not a matter of prefered or not, I guess. they just operate differently.

a non-regulated power supply will make more power with more voltage input. (or less power with less voltage input, depending on how you look at it) when voltage dips below 12volts, they wont even make rated wattage.

A regulated power supply will make the same power no matter what the input is. As an example, my PG T500.2 will make 143watts x 2 from 11-15 volts.

My personal preference is regulated. fluctuations in input voltage have no bearing on output wattage, so bass hits or any other exterior voltage drops dont effect volume.


----------



## Old Skewl

_miniba_r is correct. I think you will find those 2 amps will perform very similarly in output. Many prefer the Reference for its warmer sound. Try them both out and see what you think. I recently installed my system in my '05 M3. I think I have had 6 or 7 different amps or amp configurations. Old class A/old Class AB/new Class D. I'm still deciding. Ha Ha!


----------



## jgscott

Ok but what I am also trying to find out is if the Rub 550-5 will perform better with the subs because it has more claimed watts?

And if anyone knows or has had experience or info with the Rub 550-0?

I am a novice and will have to have someone install the system for me, and don't have the experience you guys have with installing systems.


----------



## Old Skewl

You probably won't be able to notice the difference the extra 50 watts makes. Either should be fine. Make sure your subs will be putting a 2 Ohm load on that channel to get the rated power.


----------



## Troutsqueezer

The 405 is a solid amp, and reliable, unlike some models that followed. It was designed by myself along with a couple of other engineers. The PCB (and all the graphics) in your pics were my creations. The Rubicon series was designed by Steve Cullison, a friend and co-worker and was the result of an effort to restore SoundStream's reputation after a giant mis-step on the part of management. Because of this and also because of Steve's superior engineering prowess, the Rubicon series power supply was designed with a robust safe operating area in mind. 

You can find a little more detail here:
Amps


----------



## jgscott

Wow thanks. So may I ask you a few specific questions please. 

Is the sound quality as good in the Rub 550-5, as the 405?

Is the Continuum (aka 705) much better, sound quality wise?

Will the power supply difference in the Rubicon make it not as robust, even tho the factory rated wattage is higher?


----------



## Troutsqueezer

jgscott said:


> Wow thanks. So may I ask you a few specific questions please.
> 
> Is the sound quality as good in the Rub 550-5, as the 405?


Well, that's a tough question. Here's the short answer: I think the Rubicon will sound better for one reason, Harmonic Time Alignment. 

Do you want the long answer? When Steve Cullison first came to work at SoundStream/Stewart Electronics, his job was to design Stewart amps, not SoundStream amps. It was later, when Rubicon was planned that he was conscripted to do circuit design for those. We were good friends and had many discussions on sound quality. During one such discussion, he stated that he always wondered why recorded music never sounded as good as live music. One day an epiphany occurred and he reasoned that it had to do with how the harmonics in music were aligned. We all know that phase shift occurs in several places in the audio chain so Steve set about designing a simple circuit that would re-align the harmonics in the amplifier stage and he called it harmonic time alignment. Every audio engineer in the business tries to come up with some hook that people will buy into and supposedly makes for better sound quality. Most of them are bogus and sound good in theory but when applied to what you can hear, they're nonsense. I kissed Steve's circuit off as nonsense when he told me about it. A few years went by and one day I was finishing up a large amplifier stand which allowed visitors to the SoundStream booth at CES to switch between one amplifier and another to judge their performance. In the mix of amps was a new amp in which Steve had incorporated his harmonic time alignment circuit, unbeknownst to me. As I was testing the assembly I switched between two of the amps and I immediately noticed a remarkable change in the quality of the sound. I've AB'd many amps in my career but never heard a difference of this magnitude. Some investigation revealed the better sounding amp was Stev-o's design. I had to give him credit after so many years of thinking he was just another wannabe audio guru. I suspect that even though the literature says the harmonic time alignment is applied to lower frequencies, that it actually is applied to all frequencies, knowing Steve and seeing how he did some of the first designs. Not that the 405 sounds bad at all, in fact the THD is quite low for that one as are other parameters.

That was a long response, I think I'm going to add it to my web page since it was a bit of typing and I should probably enter it into the record...as I saw it, anyway. 




jgscott said:


> Is the Continuum (aka 705) much better, sound quality wise?


Better than which model? The circuits in the Continuum are nearly the same as most other amps manufactured in the same time frame. The same front end PCB (the little standup job) was designed to fit in all the amps. The output transistors are the same, etc. The chassis looks better though. 



jgscott said:


> Will the power supply difference in the Rubicon make it not as robust, even tho the factory rated wattage is higher?


If robust means more stable, the Rubicon has it. Any difference in power delivery in either the secondary or primary circuitry of the transformer (assuming the rail voltages are the same) probably won't be noticeable by you. The FETS in the primary side of the power supply are the most vulnerable to blowing up because they swing huge amounts of current on and off around a hundred thousand times a second, depending on the model. This is where the supply can act like a radio transmitter, stopping and starting large amounts of current through the PCB traces and wiring of the primary side. You don't have the voltage in a car to produce high power but you've got the current and it's the FET's job to convert that over to voltage (leaving enough current for power, of course). Make one tiny mistake in the design of that switching circuit and you can drive a company out of business, hence the reason SoundStream failed. The Rubicon was meant to save it, but it was too late in spite of Steve's excellent design.


----------



## jgscott

Troutsqueezer said:


> Well, that's a tough question. Here's the short answer: I think the Rubicon will sound better for one reason, Harmonic Time Alignment.
> 
> Do you want the long answer? When Steve Cullison first came to work at SoundStream/Stewart Electronics, his job was to design Stewart amps, not SoundStream amps. It was later, when Rubicon was planned that he was conscripted to do circuit design for those. We were good friends and had many discussions on sound quality. During one such discussion, he stated that he always wondered why recorded music never sounded as good as live music. One day an epiphany occurred and he reasoned that it had to do with how the harmonics in music were aligned. We all know that phase shift occurs in several places in the audio chain so Steve set about designing a simple circuit that would re-align the harmonics in the amplifier stage and he called it harmonic time alignment. Every audio engineer in the business tries to come up with some hook that people will buy into and supposedly makes for better sound quality. Most of them are bogus and sound good in theory but when applied to what you can hear, they're nonsense. I kissed Steve's circuit off as nonsense when he told me about it. A few years went by and one day I was finishing up a large amplifier stand which allowed visitors to the SoundStream booth at CES to switch between one amplifier and another to judge their performance. In the mix of amps was a new amp in which Steve had incorporated his harmonic time alignment circuit, unbeknownst to me. As I was testing the assembly I switched between two of the amps and I immediately noticed a remarkable change in the quality of the sound. I've AB'd many amps in my career but never heard a difference of this magnitude. Some investigation revealed the better sounding amp was Stev-o's design. I had to give him credit after so many years of thinking he was just another wannabe audio guru. I suspect that even though the literature says the harmonic time alignment is applied to lower frequencies, that it actually is applied to all frequencies, knowing Steve and seeing how he did some of the first designs. Not that the 405 sounds bad at all, in fact the THD is quite low for that one as are other parameters.
> 
> That was a long response, I think I'm going to add it to my web page since it was a bit of typing and I should probably enter it into the record...as I saw it, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than which model? The circuits in the Continuum are nearly the same as most other amps manufactured in the same time frame. The same front end PCB (the little standup job) was designed to fit in all the amps. The output transistors are the same, etc. The chassis looks better though.
> 
> 
> 
> If robust means more stable, the Rubicon has it. Any difference in power delivery in either the secondary or primary circuitry of the transformer (assuming the rail voltages are the same) probably won't be noticeable by you. The FETS in the primary side of the power supply are the most vulnerable to blowing up because they swing huge amounts of current on and off around a hundred thousand times a second, depending on the model. This is where the supply can act like a radio transmitter, stopping and starting large amounts of current through the PCB traces and wiring of the primary side. You don't have the voltage in a car to produce high power but you've got the current and it's the FET's job to convert that over to voltage (leaving enough current for power, of course). Make one tiny mistake in the design of that switching circuit and you can drive a company out of business, hence the reason SoundStream failed. The Rubicon was meant to save it, but it was too late in spite of Steve's excellent design.


Troutsqueezer I cant thank you enough. What valuable info you provided. Just reading made me want to live in the past again. Funny you mention this because back in the day, every Rub I heard just seemed to produce a separation in good speaker like no other.

I knew a little about the theory of Time alignment in speaker, and phase, but had no idea anyone had time aligned amps. Its just mind blowing to me of how a amp could do this? Is it about separation? I have Thiel time aligned home speakers and with the right placement they seem to image music a about a foot or two in front of the speakers.

How can a amp do this ? And yes I like the long answers!


----------



## Troutsqueezer

The reason I was skeptical about harmonic time alignment for so long is that it goes against everything I knew about high end audio in terms of messing with the signal. The saying is the perfect amplifier is a straight wire with gain, meaning that the more crap you put into the signal path, the more contamination you have. Amplifiers that have the best specs usually have the fewest parts, but they need to be quality parts.

Time aligning speakers is an interesting undertaking I've always thought because the amount of phase shift varies with frequency. If you move a driver forward or backward you are aligning them to a particular frequency, or range of frequencies. There will always be X amount of frequencies that won't be aligned. That's why I've always been partial to planar speakers such as Magnaplanar or electrostatics. But I agree, harmonic aligning inside an amp is different and the recipe is Steve's secret sauce. He has always hoped to make a bundle with his patented circuitry but the industry never caught on to it. I can tell you that it consists of a capacitor and a resistor inserted in just the right place in each channel.  But then, isn't that true of any circuit that uses frequency filtration? There, I've just told you nothing, haven't I?


----------



## jgscott

Troutsqueezer said:


> The reason I was skeptical about harmonic time alignment for so long is that it goes against everything I knew about high end audio in terms of messing with the signal. The saying is the perfect amplifier is a straight wire with gain, meaning that the more crap you put into the signal path, the more contamination you have. Amplifiers that have the best specs usually have the fewest parts, but they need to be quality parts.
> 
> Time aligning speakers is an interesting undertaking I've always thought because the amount of phase shift varies with frequency. If you move a driver forward or backward you are aligning them to a particular frequency, or range of frequencies. There will always be X amount of frequencies that won't be aligned. That's why I've always been partial to planar speakers such as Magnaplanar or electrostatics. But I agree, harmonic aligning inside an amp is different and the recipe is Steve's secret sauce. He has always hoped to make a bundle with his patented circuitry but the industry never caught on to it. I can tell you that it consists of a capacitor and a resistor inserted in just the right place in each channel.  But then, isn't that true of any circuit that uses frequency filtration? There, I've just told you nothing, haven't I?


I kinda pondered my brain before you posted this that the answer had to be in that the TM had to be thru variation caps and resistors, varying the different frequencies and/or phases. As if I know what I'm talking about. Text wise it sounds just like you said " nothing different ". But I understand what you are saying it's the variation of the ingredients of the "sauce that makes it just right. Thinking about it too much just bring you back to where you start in circles.

I'll just leave that one alone, but it just super intrigues me of his thoughts to craft such a thing in a amp. Great thought but.....to make it work, is simply ingenuous. Almost seems like something you would need a computer to do inside or with the amp. What bit me so much about this is that I too have always had a thing for time aligned speakers like the DMC Time Frames and Time Windows. If definitely can sound good, different. and image. 

Thanks for the lesson, sharing, and valuable info that only a few like you would ever know. 

I sent you PM if you get a min can you please look. Also when developing the Rub amps, do you remember what speakers were matched to test with on listening test that those amps shine with ?

BTW have you ever seen this? He talks about the speaker frequencies that are out of alignment and how he dealt with them I think on about page 4 and on. http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/221/index.html


----------



## Troutsqueezer

Replied to PM.

I hate to burst any bubbles here but there never were any listening tests conducted on any SS amps for purposes of quality, in a manner of speaking. That kind of scrutiny would be more appropriate for high end home audio. If the amps measured as expected on the test bench, then it was assumed they would shine sonically. Of course there were lots of installs and competitions that evaluated sound but only for certain aspects of it. Automobile interiors are usually a less than optimal listening environment when it comes to judging nuanced audio behavior, IMO.

I was a high end audio guy once upon a time. I got into car audio for the paycheck, Maybe you can tell.

I've certainly heard of Thiel and his theories look good to me.


----------



## jgscott

Troutsqueezer said:


> Replied to PM.
> 
> I hate to burst any bubbles here but there never were any listening tests conducted on any SS amps for purposes of quality, in a manner of speaking. That kind of scrutiny would be more appropriate for high end home audio. If the amps measured as expected on the test bench, then it was assumed they would shine sonically. Of course there were lots of installs and competitions that evaluated sound but only for certain aspects of it. Automobile interiors are usually a less than optimal listening environment when it comes to judging nuanced audio behavior, IMO.
> 
> I was a high end audio guy once upon a time. I got into car audio for the paycheck, Maybe you can tell.
> 
> I've certainly heard of Thiel and his theories look good to me.


No bubble busted, just goes to show you why I'm posting here for help and how much (correction."little") I know. Maybe you can tell. LOL!

Guess I was more wondering what speaker amp combo was know to be a good sounding match for the SS amps? I know there is that old adage that. it dependents on the individuals ears.

I forget to post this each time, but it's a true credit to you to say that the Rub series impressed you when you also designed a different series of amps. My Hat's off to you, and BTW, a few that I have talked to felt your Reference Series, was the best sounding of the bunch. And I have a feeling that talking to you here, based on my ears, which are not the best in the world anymore might be I like the Reference the best to.

I really commend you for your opinion, of the Rub series quality of sound, the explanation and impression you had of the TA design on the Rubs. It will be a min, but I'm eventually going to listen to both and see and post what my impression is, and post it here.

Now for decision on a speakers, that won't create a total reinvention of the front doors and panel? :worried:


----------



## Troutsqueezer

It occurs to me that since you mentioned Thiel that we may be talking about two slightly different phenomena. I noticed he concentrates on positioning speaker drivers to align fundamental frequencies, a trumpet note or a cymbal with lower frequency instruments for example. Harmonic Time Alignment only deals with the harmonics generated by the instruments, leaving the fundamental alone (as much as possible since instruments don't really generate pure tones). 

Thanks again for the compliments. As for your speaker install, you're only limited by your imagination. Only thing I would suggest is that the tweeters have line of sight straight to your ears without too much of an angle. 

Troutsqueezer....crawling back to where he came from, good luck.


----------



## jgscott

Troutsqueezer said:


> It occurs to me that since you mentioned Thiel that we may be talking about two slightly different phenomena. I noticed he concentrates on positioning speaker drivers to align fundamental frequencies, a trumpet note or a cymbal with lower frequency instruments for example. Harmonic Time Alignment only deals with the harmonics generated by the instruments, leaving the fundamental alone (as much as possible since instruments don't really generate pure tones).
> 
> Thanks again for the compliments. As for your speaker install, you're only limited by your imagination. Only thing I would suggest is that the tweeters have line of sight straight to your ears without too much of an angle.
> 
> Troutsqueezer....crawling back to where he came from, good luck.


Peace be with you, and from where you came from. Thanks a million!


----------



## sarals

That was a great series of posts in this thread! I really enjoyed following them. Thanks, guys!


----------



## bkjay

Just read the amp link,and it was amazing.Thank you Troutsgueezer for taking the time to post in this thread.


----------



## jgscott

bkjay said:


> Just read the amp link,and it was amazing.Thank you Troutsgueezer for taking the time to post in this thread.


So I see in your sig you have more than a few SS Rubs your running. 

Whats your opinion of the Sound quality ?


----------



## bkjay

I love them. They sound great to me,I never had any noise problems or anything like that. They do the rated power,sound clean and are reliable.


----------



## graceparker

They hardly give an noise problems.


----------

