# Alpine PDX 4.150 testing



## dingaling (Apr 14, 2005)

I got my hands on a PDX 4.150 courtesy of Ogredave.
These amps were like brand new and unused according to the original owner.
I ran some basic power tests on them. I used a Sony Xa20es home cd player with variable analog output control as source and a 0db sine wave cd. For simplicity, I only tested at 1khz no xovers. Power supply is a 90amp Cascade audio p/s, 4ohm dale non-inductive resistors cooled by water. Fluke123 and Craftsman meters for current and O-scoping.

Power - With 1 chn driven, I got about 25-26v @4ohm before visible clipping on the Fluke. Thats about 156-170watts with 1 channel driven. With all 4 channels driven, each channel measured roughly bout 24.5v, which comes out to 150watts/channel @4ohm right on the dot. Current draw was roughly 59-60amps. Ran it for bout 2-3minutes full tilt and the fuses did not blow. Amp was a mild warm, resistors were heating up fast though lol. Then ran the amp bridged on both channels. I measured roughly 40-42v on each channel before the fuses gave out. Thats about 400-440 watts x2 at 4ohms. (Don't worry Dave, your amp is fine after fuse replacement  )

Sound - I had a friend who happened to visit so we both a/b'd the amp on my home speakers. They are Magnepan 3.6r's which is roughly a 4ohm load and is considered a hard speaker to drive for some amps. We a/b'd this amp against a cheap pioneer premier (non PRS) 4x55 amp. The PDX was run stereo 150x2, and the Pioneer bridged. The PDX's are pretty good sounding full range digital amps. Topend response is solid and the bass is surprisingly very strong. Vocals are solid and warm. When compared to the Pioneer, it was noticable to both of us that the Pioneer had a bit wider stage and more transparency in the vocals. The voices sounded more 'there' and less hazy. Topend on the Pioneer had slighly better dynamics and better overall ambience. The trade off- the Pioneer hissier and more sibilant compared to the Alpine at louder volumes. But we both agreed that if topend vocals were our priority, we would have picked the Pioneer and if midbass/bass was more of priority, the PDX is a winner.

Overall I am impressed with this little amp. A solid 150x4 at 60 amps (12v) of draw. thats about 83% efficient at full tilt in a compact size. 

Here are some pics from my testing


----------



## alphakenny1 (Dec 21, 2005)

interesting find leon! from what i can tell in my system, midbass isn't a problem and i have no real complaints about the vocals.


----------



## Vestax (Aug 16, 2005)

dingaling, it's been a while since we've seen a review from the good ol' days of ECA. Awesome review. Thanks for doing that...


----------



## dingaling (Apr 14, 2005)

np mango.
I like testing new products  need things that spark my curiosity... like 5watt amps


----------



## AwaySooner (May 30, 2007)

I love my little amp. I have them bridged to run my front 2 way passive components. With the gain turn down of course. 
I do think my previous Zed Gladius sounds better, but I needed something with small footprint. Funny how the car audio review said there are lower bass abnormally, and your test complain about top end. 
PS: I love those Chinese dry pork/chicken jerky too.


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

Thanks for the review  

They fit under seats .. I'm planning to get a small car. They should work out for my needs.


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

Thank you for doing that review dingaling. How did you feel about the fit and finish of the PDX?


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

thanks for testing, that seals it, the pdx bridged will be a great midbass driver.  I noticed the same thing about the soundstage, glad I'm not crazy.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

Did you test at 12V?


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

Want some coffee?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Totally OT... Is that an Iota switcher supply? How do you like it? I've been thinking about getting one.

Chad


----------



## dingaling (Apr 14, 2005)

Boostedrex said:


> Thank you for doing that review dingaling. How did you feel about the fit and finish of the PDX?



Fit and finish were great in my opinion. didn't feel cheap and the brushed alum felt nice. Since the amp wasn't mine, I didn't want to run torture test of running sine waves for hours to see how well it would hold up


----------



## dingaling (Apr 14, 2005)

chadillac3 said:


> Did you test at 12V?


Yeh the power supply is roughly 12v.

I think with no load its like 12.8 or 13v

with a load of 60amps or so, it drops down to about 12vish

Not sure what Iota is, but the p/s is a cascade audio 90amp one. I like this p/s cuz its quiet.
The fans only turn on as it heats up and is thermally regulated.


----------



## SQ4ME2 (Jul 22, 2007)

i did that amp in a 2006 vette back in january. i used channels 1 and 2 to drive the jl xr653cs 3 way components and channel 3 to drive a jl 8w3 and all off the factory deck. it sounds great. its amazing how much power it has for a small foot print. 








here is the link

http://rivermm.tripod.com/corvette/

i was amazed!!!!


----------



## dual700 (Mar 6, 2005)

Did you do blind a/b testing?
If not, your review is rubbish.











  

Stack my massive and premier prs there too, damn it!! 

Thanks!


PS: Don't eat those dry meat too much. Bad for you..MSG!!!


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

ive used almost everything out there and i have had the pdx's installed probably longer than any other amps i have ever owned.. i dont find the stage to be a problem with them in my application.. guess that depends...and ive had everything from zapco, arc, us amps etc here to compare them with..overall they are not quite sq wise the same as my zapco's and others i have had but they are very close and they are so small for a every day drivier these are just an oveall awesome amplifier.. and bridged at 14v they are monsters...

i sell massive and imo these blow them away overall. the massive amps are great price/performance wise... at a much lower price point they are a great amp but imo the pdx is overall better


----------



## dual700 (Mar 6, 2005)

zfactor, do you think pdx > massive rs series? That's what I got..


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

the massive rs imo will have a brighter tone to them, more of the traditional a/b amp sound sorta... my fave massive amps to date were the original "marathon" ones from before the comp switched names to masive audio, yes marathon bass is massive audio.. still eddie in charge over there, i sold them when they were monster bass..lol... wayyyyyyy back..... imo the best current sounding massive amps are the newest line of "pro series" they are a great amp...

the rs and pdx imo are 2 different animals though... the rs are a power hungry , current sucking hog of a a/b amp....they sound very similar to a lot of the older amps from the likes of orion, rockford etc... (i like them a lot lol just require to much current for my use and they are to large besides being discontinued....), the ca series are a better amp than the rs series are imo but they are ridiculous in the current they draw they were marketed as essentially a cheater amp but they sound awesome imo...


the pdx is new school.... class d... imo low end sounds different more "full" i guess, not as quick or punchy though...i agree with ding on the midbass pdx sound very full imo...the top end is a bit subdued on them not at al bad but i would take a quart set on a pdx before a rs series lol... im not a huge quart tweeter fan....but the lowest end i have found the pdx to give up a bit to the better a/b amps out there just didnt seem to have the oommphh behind it that my zapco did....


----------



## low (Jun 2, 2005)

sheesh that looks so unsafe! lol..good job. wanna test more?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

dingaling said:


> Not sure what Iota is, but the p/s is a cascade audio 90amp one. I like this p/s cuz its quiet.
> The fans only turn on as it heats up and is thermally regulated.


Iota supplies: http://www.iotaengineering.com/12vdc.htm

Way cool, they make hella current for their size and weight. It looked like one so I thought I'd ask, I had a couple specific questions.

Chad


----------



## dingaling (Apr 14, 2005)

chad said:


> Iota supplies: http://www.iotaengineering.com/12vdc.htm
> 
> Way cool, they make hella current for their size and weight. It looked like one so I thought I'd ask, I had a couple specific questions.
> 
> Chad



yep, looks just like the one I have.
I have another 90amp cascade audio one in the garage that looks different from the one in my pics now. PM if you have quesitons


oh and guys, for the staging thing... don't take it as if like the differences were immensly huge. Although they were noticable in my home system, these differences may be minute or even negligable in the car environment.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Aaaah the good old days... yes, someone please send the man a 5watt amp!


----------



## dual700 (Mar 6, 2005)

zfactor said:


> the massive rs imo will have a brighter tone to them, more of the traditional a/b amp sound sorta... my fave massive amps to date were the original "marathon" ones from before the comp switched names to masive audio, yes marathon bass is massive audio.. still eddie in charge over there, i sold them when they were monster bass..lol... wayyyyyyy back..... imo the best current sounding massive amps are the newest line of "pro series" they are a great amp...
> 
> the rs and pdx imo are 2 different animals though... the rs are a power hungry , current sucking hog of a a/b amp....they sound very similar to a lot of the older amps from the likes of orion, rockford etc... (i like them a lot lol just require to much current for my use and they are to large besides being discontinued....), the ca series are a better amp than the rs series are imo but they are ridiculous in the current they draw they were marketed as essentially a cheater amp but they sound awesome imo...
> 
> ...



Thank you sir..
Me love my old rs amps...they are simply powerful..


----------



## CBRworm (Sep 1, 2006)

I have an Iota 55 amp supply that I use for testing amps. What kinds of questions?


----------



## redcalimp5 (Sep 10, 2007)

I've been thinking about getting a PDX 4.150...they seem like a really nice amp for what you're getting out of them.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

MidnightCE said:


> thanks for testing, that seals it, the pdx bridged will be a great midbass driver.  I noticed the same thing about the soundstage, glad I'm not crazy.


I just bridged my PDX 4x150 for Midbass duty only it seems this is where this Amplifier shines.


----------



## crxsir121 (Oct 18, 2006)

How does the sound and performance compare to a Arc Audio 4150xxk??? I owned a 4150xxk and with the gains set all the way the their minimum this amp was simply awesome for only be rated at 85watts rms x 4!!! I'm sure it was underated. 150watts x4 rms from the Alpine pdx 4150 sounds yummy as well!!!=P


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

anybody have any idea how much power the PDX 4.150 has at at 8ohm?


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

~75w.


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

OgreDave said:


> ~75w.


thanks, that was my guess too as it wasn't specified in the spec sheet.


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm thinkin bout tryin it bridged @ 8ohms.


----------



## CBRworm (Sep 1, 2006)

i am thinking that it should do 300x2 @ 8 ohms bridged. Seems ideal - it should be more than any sane person needs unless it is driving subs.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

CBRworm said:


> i am thinking that it should do 300x2 @ 8 ohms bridged. Seems ideal - it should be more than any sane person needs unless it is driving subs.


I'm driving two SEAS W18NX001 (8 ohm) with a Bridged PDX 4x150 with the gains set at normal (half way), there is no way (with my limited knowledge) the PDX is putting out 300x2 @ 8 ohms.


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

michaelsil1 said:


> I'm driving two SEAS W18NX001 (8 ohm) with a Bridged PDX 4x150 with the gains set at normal (half way), there is no way (with my limited knowledge) the PDX is putting out 300x2 @ 8 ohms.


Does it put out enough power for the NX's? That's what I was going to do .. either that or some bastard is pushing me towards Lotus 8's .. but there are a lotta issues going that route.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

OgreDave said:


> Does it put out enough power for the NX's? That's what I was going to do .. either that or some bastard is pushing me towards Lotus 8's .. but there are a lotta issues going that route.


Yes with headroom.

The Mid Bass has a lot more depth at both low and high volume after bridging.


----------



## gbraen (Mar 2, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> I'm driving two SEAS W18NX001 (8 ohm) with a Bridged PDX 4x150 with the gains set at normal (half way), there is no way (with my limited knowledge) the PDX is putting out 300x2 @ 8 ohms.


I agree with you. Do the same load myself, maybe 2x150 watt in 8 ohms.


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

cool thanks


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

michaelsil1 said:


> I'm driving two SEAS W18NX001 (8 ohm) with a Bridged PDX 4x150 with the gains set at normal (half way), there is no way (with my limited knowledge) the PDX is putting out 300x2 @ 8 ohms.


Actually, yes it does. I called Alpine tech support to verify awhile ago.


----------



## gbraen (Mar 2, 2007)

chadillac3 said:


> Actually, yes it does. I called Alpine tech support to verify awhile ago.


It does put out 300 watt pr channel bridged in 8 ohm?

I have a bridged Genesis Four channel 2x300 in 4 ohm, and tried it against PDX 4.150 bridged. Genesis is a class AB design, and i think its 2x150 in 8 ohm.

The PDX has not more power than the Genesis on a pair of 8 ohms speakers, maybe some more midbass punch, but thats all.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

gbraen said:


> It does put out 300 watt pr channel bridged in 8 ohm?
> 
> I have a bridged Genesis Four channel 2x300 in 4 ohm, and tried it against PDX 4.150 bridged. Genesis is a class AB design, and i think its 2x150 in 8 ohm.
> 
> The PDX has not more power than the Genesis on a pair of 8 ohms speakers, maybe some more midbass punch, but thats all.


And you tested this how? Did you but out an o-scope and run some test tones to see which where each begins to clip? Or just by ear?


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

gbraen said:


> It does put out 300 watt pr channel bridged in 8 ohm?
> 
> I have a bridged Genesis Four channel 2x300 in 4 ohm, and tried it against PDX 4.150 bridged. Genesis is a class AB design, and i think its 2x150 in 8 ohm.
> 
> The PDX has not more power than the Genesis on a pair of 8 ohms speakers, maybe some more midbass punch, but thats all.


the Genesis is class G, not AB.

chadillac3: if the PDX does 300x2 @ 8ohm, would that mean it does 150x4 @ 8ohm as well?


----------



## CBRworm (Sep 1, 2006)

I am pretty sure the way the power supply is regulated that it would recognize an 8 ohm load as 4. So it would make 75x4 @ 8 ohms. The reason it does 300x2 bridged at 8 ohms is because it looks like 2 four ohm loads to the amp, so the 4 ohm output is doubled when bridged.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Has anyone measured the amount of Crosstalk with this Amplifier? I read that the Class D four channel Amps has an issue with Crosstalk, but it didn't say how much all it said was to put input into one channel and measure the output of the other three channels. I would really like to know the answer to this.


----------



## gbraen (Mar 2, 2007)

avaxis said:


> the Genesis is class G, not AB.
> 
> I thought the Dual Mono Xtreme was class G, the others class AB, but guess your right. But it is almost the same, isnt it?


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

CBRworm said:


> I am pretty sure the way the power supply is regulated that it would recognize an 8 ohm load as 4. So it would make 75x4 @ 8 ohms. The reason it does 300x2 bridged at 8 ohms is because it looks like 2 four ohm loads to the amp, so the 4 ohm output is doubled when bridged.


Well, since it does 150 x 4 at 4 ohms, it's the same concept as if were seeing 4 2 ohms loads, but instead 4 4 ohm loads. Like I said, folks, I actually called Alpine and asked.

300 x 2 at an 8 ohm nominal load


----------



## CBRworm (Sep 1, 2006)

Right, I am pretty sure you just said exactly what you quoted me as saying.

300x2 at 8 ohms.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

CBRworm said:


> Right, I am pretty sure you just said exactly what you quoted me as saying.
> 
> 300x2 at 8 ohms.


LOLOL, I did...I TOTALLY misread what you said. My bad.


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

gbraen said:


> I thought the Dual Mono Xtreme was class G, the others class AB, but guess your right. But it is almost the same, isnt it?


I believe so, just that class G is more efficient than class AB. and now the PDX is more efficient than the Class G.  



CBRworm said:


> I am pretty sure the way the power supply is regulated that it would recognize an 8 ohm load as 4. So it would make 75x4 @ 8 ohms. The reason it does 300x2 bridged at 8 ohms is because it looks like 2 four ohm loads to the amp, so the 4 ohm output is doubled when bridged.


ahh i see, makes perfect sense now. it was obvious. lol.


----------



## gbraen (Mar 2, 2007)

avaxis said:


> I believe so, just that class G is more efficient than class AB. and now the PDX is more efficient than the Class G.
> 
> 
> 
> ahh i see, makes perfect sense now. it was obvious. lol.


I talked to Gordon Taylor, all Genesis Series3 are Class AB, just Dual Mono Extreme and Dual Mono Class A is class G.


----------



## autofile (Oct 25, 2005)

gbraen said:


> I talked to Gordon Taylor, all Genesis Series3 are Class AB, just Dual Mono Extreme and Dual Mono Class A is class G.


You may have misunderstood what he was trying to explain.
All Genesis amplifiers are Class A/B except the DMA and P15.
All Genesis amplifiers over 50 w/p/c use class G power suppliy designs.
The Class G denotes the power supply design, NOT the output topology.


----------



## autofile (Oct 25, 2005)

avaxis said:


> I believe so, just that class G is more efficient than class AB. and now the PDX is more efficient than the Class G.


Not much. Read the test report in CA&E on the GENESIS Profile 2 Ultra. 79.something % efficient!


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

the pdx's are sweet amps but a little out of my budget unfortunately.


----------



## darkist240sx (Aug 8, 2007)

good review


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

just threw a few of these in the truck, (need one more maybe)

but im VERY impressed so far after three days, best part of them imo, is that for some reason they are set to nominal on the gain , and they seem to respond the best to my alpine optical/h701 setup, far better than any amp ive used so far. 

its almost as if I no longer need a line driver. VERY NICE, anyone else experience this?


----------



## Abaddon (Aug 28, 2007)

newtitan said:


> just threw a few of these in the truck, (need one more maybe)
> 
> but im VERY impressed so far after three days, best part of them imo, is that for some reason they are set to nominal on the gain , and they seem to respond the best to my alpine optical/h701 setup, far better than any amp ive used so far.
> 
> its almost as if I no longer need a line driver. VERY NICE, anyone else experience this?


well... the gain ranges from 0.1V to 8V if I remember correctly...


----------



## lsouljah (Nov 19, 2006)

I was browsing in the Alpine website and my eye are caught with this. 

Same Power Output - 2Ω or 4Ω Configuration
PDX amplifiers have the unique capability to deliver the same power output regardless of 2Ω and 4Ω loads. This provides the ultimate in system flexibility and subwoofer configuration diversity. 


Does this mean that the PDX amps will still make rated power at 8Ω? I want to buy one but the 4.150 is too expensive for me, but that is the most powerful 4-channel that i can get to feed my 8Ω drivers. If what they state is true I'll just get the 4.100.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

I dont think it will produce its rated power at 8 ohms compared to 2/4 ohms....think similar to JL Slash series ratings


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

According to Alpine the PDX 4x150 bridged is rated at 300x2 @ 8 ohms, I personally don't think so.


----------



## champs (Jun 5, 2007)

I got a PDX2.150 here and will test it on 8 ohms to see what's happening.
It's pertty much the same amp, just half of the circuit is missing...


----------



## placenta (Feb 2, 2008)

A jar of water with live wires in it?? Man you are a mad scientist. Thanks for the review on this amp. Is it safe to say that this amp doesnt hold a candle to a TRU T-4.65? The size can't be beat though.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

placenta said:


> A jar of water with live wires in it?? Man you are a mad scientist. Thanks for the review on this amp. Is it safe to say that this amp doesnt hold a candle to a TRU T-4.65? The size can't be beat though.


In terms of power, the 4.150 would kill a T4.65. Not even close. In terms of sound, that would depend on the person. I'll take 2.5x the power myself.


----------



## placenta (Feb 2, 2008)

chadillac3 said:


> In terms of power, the 4.150 would kill a T4.65. Not even close. In terms of sound, that would depend on the person. I'll take 2.5x the power myself.



thanks, my 2005 wrx is a loud car, so more power is always good. I have a lot of amp buying options right now, I have to try and be patient and get what I really want. Bout 3 more days till an auction ends and then I'll figure out what I'm doing.


----------



## SQHEAD (Mar 15, 2005)

chadillac3 said:


> In terms of power, the 4.150 would kill a T4.65. Not even close. In terms of sound, that would depend on the person. I'll take 2.5x the power myself.


It is really not as much as you think. 

The t4.65 is underrated at 65watts rms. In actuality the biggest difference is in 4 channel 4 ohm stereo mode. You will have about a 2db difference between the two. But in bridge mode because the alpine does not increase its power as the impedance drops, the t4.65 makes up some ground and you will only have about a 1.5db difference. While there is a difference between the two, it not that huge, it just depends on the application. 

Btw I agree that thing is small for how much juice it is putting out. I am curious to get my hands on there new 5 channel that is coming out.

Dave Crigna


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

Welp, if my Tseries don't sell, that's probably my route to replace the 4.150. So, I may be able to comment afterwards


----------



## SQHEAD (Mar 15, 2005)

OgreDave said:


> Welp, if my Tseries don't sell, that's probably my route to replace the 4.150. So, I may be able to comment afterwards


Great please do. I am curious to hear other opinions.
Are you going to the SoCal meet on the 23rd?
If so, maybe we can compare notes.....

Dave Crigna


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm trying but I don't know. Work schedule is getting very screwed up.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

SQHEAD said:


> It is really not as much as you think.
> 
> The t4.65 is underrated at 65watts rms. In actuality the biggest difference is in 4 channel 4 ohm stereo mode. You will have about a 2db difference between the two. But in bridge mode because the alpine does not increase its power as the impedance drops, the t4.65 makes up some ground and you will only have about a 1.5db difference. While there is a difference between the two, it not that huge, it just depends on the application.
> 
> ...



Well, if you look in terms of difference in terms of dB, yeah, you're right...but in terms of raw numbers the 4.150 is about 2x...depends on what you're looking for. Most on here would want the extra powa.


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

I just so happen to be bridging mine 

I did it for space and efficiency, but it turns out the 2 Tseries will fit, and I currently have no dimming w/4.150/1.1000 .. we'll see how it looks 4.65/2.100.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

dingaling said:


> oh and guys, for the staging thing... don't take it as if like the differences were immensly huge. Although they were noticable in my home system, these differences may be minute or even negligable in the car environment.


Match levels next time, and you won't have those differences...

(Especially not on a speaker like a Maggie, that's basically a resistor and probably the most trivial load for any remotely competent amp out there.)


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

I level matched my 4.150 against a pair of LP 952's (47.5wpc @ 12.5v) on the midrange and tweeters and have to agree with what ding said about his amp with respect to the vocals: hazzy. And I'm probably the last amp sonics guy you'll ever meet.  I said it before and will take it to the grave, these amps do their rated power and then some, but do it in a very un-special way. 

Thanks for the review, ding!


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

FoxPro5 said:


> I level matched my 4.150 against a pair of LP 952's (47.5wpc @ 12.5v) on the midrange and tweeters and have to agree with what ding said about his amp with respect to the vocals: hazzy. And I'm probably the last amp sonics guy you'll ever meet.  I said it before and will take it to the grave, these amps do their rated power and then some, but do it in a very un-special way.
> 
> Thanks for the review, ding!


How did you do the level matching?

And I'd like to add when I talked to Leon about this amp, he said it "sounded pretty good." Which coming from Leon is one hell of an endorsement.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

chadillac3 said:


> How did you do the level matching?
> 
> And I'd like to add when I talked to Leon about this amp, he said it "sounded pretty good." Which coming from Leon is one hell of an endorsement.


With my mind!  

With a DMM, silly guy.  Why you always question the Fox when you know I'm always right??


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

FoxPro5 said:


> With my mind!
> 
> With a DMM, silly guy.  Why you always question the Fox when you know I'm always right??


Please, more details about your test. You are killing my affordable ICE dreams!


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

FoxPro5 said:


> And I'm probably the last amp sonics guy you'll ever meet.  I said it before and will take it to the grave, these amps do their rated power and then some, but do it in a very un-special way.


I believe skylar112 had some less flattering words for his PDX experiences than what you are implying, in fact you are being a bit modest. And I cannot dissagree, seeing how his Lanzar Opti's class d full rangers were about on the the same playing field as the PDX, with massive price difference.

I like the direction the topology has taken for big watts/small chasis in 12v. But it seems Sq takes the back seat to the efficiency/footprint. I mean heck, full range class D's in the home than can rival a class a/b in sound quality cost MEGA bucks. I'm not saying the amps dont sound good enough to some, but certainly we are still at the stages where along with the goodies may still come some compromises.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

3.5max6spd said:


> I mean heck, full range class D's in the home than can rival a class a/b in sound quality cost MEGA bucks.


Utter nonsense.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> Utter nonsense.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

FoxPro5 said:


> I level matched my 4.150 against a pair of LP 952's (47.5wpc @ 12.5v) on the midrange and tweeters and have to agree with what ding said about his amp with respect to the vocals: hazzy. And I'm probably the last amp sonics guy you'll ever meet.  I said it before and will take it to the grave, these amps do their rated power and then some, but do it in a very un-special way.
> 
> Thanks for the review, ding!


I unfortunately was also left underwhelmed with the pdx amps. They sounded ok, nothing major to complain about besides making my entire truck glow blue at night attracting ufos. I did notice a change when switching out the mobile es amps for the pdx, it wasnt very favorable in my experience. No complaints about the pdx mono amp. Thats actually a great amp, small efficient and powerful.

I installed the kenwood x4r (their full range digital) a couple days ago and while I believe the digital crossovers have something to do with it, the music sounds much more alive than it did with the pdx series. Maybe a placebo effect but I definitely prefer them. I'll write a review on them after a lil time.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> Utter nonsense.


Ok, so I was thinking say the Rotel's and such of the world for example, but whos to say class d wont evolve in the 12v? 

Based on what i've read Jello's new line is supposed to improve on whats out there now.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

3.5max6spd said:


> Ok, so I was thinking say the Rotel's and such of the world for example, but whos to say class d wont evolve in the 12v?
> 
> Based on what i've read Jello's new line is supposed to improve on whats out there now.



Yup. And Halcro and PS audio.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think anyone is claiming the PDX are the world's greatest amplifier, more of what they do in such a compact package.

If anyone knows of two amps that in real world conditions do 150 x 4 and 1000 x 1 and will EASILY fit under damn near any front seat, I'd like to hear about it.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

chadillac3 said:


> If anyone knows of two amps that in real world conditions do 150 x 4 and 1000 x 1 and will EASILY fit under damn near any front seat, I'd like to hear about it.


Kenwood x4r and x1r 

Maybe a lil less power (stated 100x4) but more umph than my 4.100 (128 watts/ch). Ok thats enough of my pushing these amps in this thread.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Please, more details about your test. You are killing my affordable ICE dreams!


Just a simple amp swap gain match. Play familiar track. Put in 1khz 0 db tone track and test voltage out on the PDX (in this case IIRC it was like 4.2v on the tweeter channels.) Switch amp. Play tone track and match voltage on the LP's. Put in familiar track and listen again. 

Chad - how about Xtant or Alto Mobile?? Small PWM amps, right?? Can't think of anything else at the moment. 

I never said the PDX are crap. IME they are overhyped and don't deserve the online stiffy they've been getting. You can find better performance for your dollar. Now, maybe not power, but amps _are _more then wattifiers. /story

I will say that the 1.600 is quite the beast, though.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

FoxPro5 said:


> Just a simple amp swap gain match. Play familiar track. Put in 1khz 0 db tone track and test voltage out on the PDX (in this case IIRC it was like 4.2v on the tweeter channels.) Switch amp. Play tone track and match voltage on the LP's. Put in familiar track and listen again.
> 
> Chad - how about Xtant or Alto Mobile?? Small PWM amps, right?? Can't think of anything else at the moment.
> 
> ...


And I'd disagree since they make mounting multiple amps SOOOOOOOOOO much easier.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

3.5max6spd said:


> Ok, so I was thinking say the Rotel's and such of the world for example,


What would possibly make you think that a Rotel, or a TacT, or a Spectron, or whatever, would sound any _different_ (let alone better) from the cheap little Panasonic receiver? Or a Classe, Krell, Rowland, McIntosh, Halcro, etc.?

(I'm using the Panasonic only because it's the cheapest Class-D amp with flat FR - the Sonic Impact Tripath stuff has a low-end rolloff - and reasonable power that I know of.)


----------

