# List of SQ rated amps..



## Hipnotic4 (Oct 21, 2005)

Sound Quality, as subjective as it maybe, their is still some stats that an amp must uphold, imo, to be qualified as a SQ amp. To name a few, high SN ratio, high dampening factor, super low THD rates, lots of headroom etc.

We are obviously talking about more than just a high rms rating. 

So lets see what you guys can come up with. Lets make a list of some high end SQ amps.

Zapco
Mcintosh
Old Phoneix Gold
Audison
Jl audio
Old Linear Power
MB Quart
Milbert
Nakamichi
Zed Audio
Sinfoni
Audio Art
Brax
Helix
Arc Audio
Crystal 
Diamond Audio
Kicker SX--i read that the KX line had a high dampening factor too
Eclipse
Genesis
DLS
Tru Amps
US amps
Xtant

Please add to the list. And if you dont like something on the list just say why dont act like a lil bi†ch and complain and whine about it.


----------



## cam2Xrunner (Apr 30, 2005)

I put together my own little list over here http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87095&page=1&pp=15

You may or may not agree, I should probably modify it a little bit.


----------



## JWSewell (Aug 13, 2005)

I have an Eclipse PA5422. 
I have not installed it yet. But it has to be an upgrade to the Hifonics ZX6000 I am replacing.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

I always heard that the older Monitor amps were really nice as far as SQ, because of no interal xovers just straight power.

I think my NEXT VRz 2.400, and 4.400's sound really nice, then again i wouldn't really know what would sound bad......Anyone have any opinions on my amps...They do the job nicely but i wonder if there really a high or mid quality.


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

not shure if adcom is sq. RATED or who is rating them but i would like to rate it a no holds barred kick ass amp,my ms 275,s are up there ,and an old fostex 4 ch i had in the olden days sounded nice to me,wow hip. have you listened to all these!! hope i didnt cry like a .,tch too much for you


----------



## invecs (Jul 30, 2005)

Celestra
PHD
Abola
Steg
old PPI


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

thats a serious list cam2!!


----------



## cam2Xrunner (Apr 30, 2005)

dodgerblue said:


> thats a serious list cam2!!



Why thank you, I like to show that thread to noobs, when they ask ?'s on the forum over at TN.


----------



## bfrance (Oct 6, 2005)

Here's another one:

Soundstream Reference and Class A series


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Comments on recent testing:

Alpine MRV-900, F1 status (A very nice amp, lacks a little resolution to make it my reference, but is slightly warm and quite musical)
Celestra RA275 (big soundstage, varm voicing my favorite amp right now)
Celestra Va210 (My reference. Period.)
PG Xenon X200.2 (Sq just as good as a ZX or Ti IMO)
PG MS1000ta (detailed and crisp, sounds very similar to the Xenons, but has a slight edge in separation)
R/F Punch Power 800 (previous model, lacks resolution compared to Xenon, but a very likeable sound)


----------



## AzGrower (May 30, 2005)

Digital Designs
Treo Engineering
Ground Zero 
Monolithic


----------



## Hipnotic4 (Oct 21, 2005)

cam2Xrunner said:


> I put together my own little list over here http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87095&page=1&pp=15
> 
> You may or may not agree, I should probably modify it a little bit.


  Damn talk about a list. I havnt got to listen to that much equipment as of yet. Well not that much high end stuff. Nice listtt


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

wrong thread sorry...


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

Ya'll know I'm gonna drop Q's 

Ok...

Who can define what Sound Quality of an amp means?
Why would you want an amp to add it's sonic signature to the source?
And who's is a reliable source for this "SQ rating" and how does that person qualify as such?


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Gotta also include how subjective an amp sound is.....as some people don't even beleive that an amp has SQ.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

cam2Xrunner said:


> Why thank you, I like to show that thread to noobs, when they ask ?'s on the forum over at TN.


Should elaborate on tha list as far as Tru...The T/Tv2's dont fall in the high audiophile category IMO...whereas the other lines perhaps do.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> Gotta also include how subjective an amp sound is.....as some people don't even beleive that an amp has SQ.


There in lies the problem... if it is subjective, then who's opinions isn't?

Or do we just ask for opinions & pick the one we like cause,,, quite frankly is what I wanted to hear???

Funny how this all works...


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Exactly.


----------



## squeak9798 (Apr 20, 2005)

Any amp that outputs rated power (or more) with low (inaudible) THD, adequate damping factor and slew rate, and no frequency response anamolies is a sound quality amp.


----------



## Hipnotic4 (Oct 21, 2005)

racerraul said:


> Ya'll know I'm gonna drop Q's
> 
> Ok...
> 
> ...


I kinda answered these in the first post..
When grading a SoundQuality amp, their is really only 2 main ways to look at it..first you have SPECS--like i said in the first post, Low thd, high s/n, high dampening factor etc...Then their is the personal prefrences, Some may praise amp A while others praise amp B, and then you have those that can not really hear any difference at all. 

In the end if your happy with your equipment, thats all that really matters, Your system is what you make it. You be the judge.


----------



## af22 (Sep 22, 2005)

this thread would be alot more useful if we had ANY idea of what these amp cost in relation to each other. Price / Performance, bang for you buck kind of deal.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

You really didn't answer any of my questions in your 1st post (the reason I posted them) or with your last post.

The key word that triggered my post was "Sound Quality". As in it having a sonic tonal characteristic.

Where as what I am understanding from your last post is that you are looking for a comprehensive list of good build quality in amps that meet or exceed their rated specs.

I am wrong?

Cause if you insist on producing a list of SQ amps based on what everyone think, you'll be adding removing from that list till you pass on to the next life, because there are no reliable sources to...
1) implement a standard of SQ & 2) implement a standard for testing SQ.


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

I'd still like to see a direct comparison between a lot of the audiophile lines, but they are so pricey, it's tought to find a person who has heard them and can make a comparison. I thought a quality amp was supposed to add nothing to the music, so why do Genesis always get described as "cold" and Audisons get described as "warm"? Wouldn't it be better to say they sound transparent or clear? 

I'd love to find out how the lower/middle lines from Steg, Audison, Xetec, Zapco, Arc, Tru, Celestra, etc. stack up against most of the quality "street" lines like JL, etc.

I wonder if they are truly better sounding? Because for what's I'd pay for a JL, I could spend a little extra and get a lower line "exotic" lol


----------



## squeak9798 (Apr 20, 2005)

xencloud said:


> I thought a quality amp was supposed to add nothing to the music, so why do Genesis always get described as "cold" and Audisons get described as "warm"? Wouldn't it be better to say they sound transparent or clear?


LOL.....it would be best if you couldn't describe their sound at all, because they shouldn't have one


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

Wow... 1st time I hear that Genesis are described as cold. I had heard from a Genesis retailer described them as Warm. He also sold Brax & those were described as analitical...

You ask enough you are bound to find contradictions as I have...


----------



## Hipnotic4 (Oct 21, 2005)

racerraul said:


> You really didn't answer any of my questions in your 1st post (the reason I posted them) or with your last post.
> 
> The key word that triggered my post was "Sound Quality". As in it having a sonic tonal characteristic.
> 
> ...


Thats the thing, their is NO SET STANDARD that makes an amp a good SQ amp. That is like asking what makes a song a good song, youll get millions of oppinions. When it comes down to it aside from price or specs, the USER is the real judge. The list I made was from stuff i have experienced and/or read reviews on. To each their own. The only real source that will deteremin which is the best SQ amp for you, is your self. No matter how many tests you do, nothing will tell you what sounds better than your ears.


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

Well, if they are all quality amps and I won't know the diffeence, I'll just go by looks, lol

I'll take Helix, Steg's, Esoteric and Diamond D7's for looks :>)

whatever amp I get, I'd love to replace the top with a clear piece of plexi....who makes the prettiest internals?


----------



## Hipnotic4 (Oct 21, 2005)

Most helix amps come with clear plexi...and ofcourse your wallet will help you decide how pretty an amp really is too lol


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

xencloud said:


> Well, if they are all quality amps and I won't know the diffeence, I'll just go by looks, lol
> 
> I'll take Helix, Steg's, Esoteric and Diamond D7's for looks :>)
> 
> whatever amp I get, I'd love to replace the top with a clear piece of plexi....who makes the prettiest internals?


Well there are plenty of other important things to consider, although I wil admit to have refused to use certain brands based on looks.

However, I don't know how many of you do this, but when I set forth to design my system I take into consideration the built in features & size along with how it looks. This in the end helps me decide which amps will fit my application.

Who makes the purtiest internals??? I have a soft spot for the Helix amps... but the HXA400 & HXA500MkII I owned both had turn on noises that cost me points in comps 
Other than that great amps & xOver configurations via HCC cards that only the competition can dream of.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

Hipnotic4 said:


> ... nothing will tell you what sounds better than your ears.


Precisely my point... 

And why I see no point in an SQ Amp list. If anyone thinks they hear something, great! Just don't come on here expecting everyone to take it as fact without extensive data to support your hypothesis.


----------



## Cougar207 (Oct 25, 2005)

squeak9798 said:


> Any amp that outputs rated power (or more) with low (inaudible) THD, adequate damping factor and slew rate, and no frequency response anamolies is a sound quality amp.


I don't think you can come up with a number based on an amp's specs on paper. I have heard tube amps with 1% THD that sound better than SS amps with under .01% THD. An adequate damping factor is going to be differ with people's taste too. As with everything else in audio, only you can decide by listening to them yourself.

Matt


----------



## squeak9798 (Apr 20, 2005)

Cougar207 said:


> I don't think you can come up with a number based on an amp's specs on paper. I have heard tube amps with 1% THD that sound better than SS amps with under .01% THD.


Since there are a very limited number of true car audio tube amps, I was referring to SS amps. I don't know too many people that enjoy distortion out of an SS amp 



> An adequate damping factor is going to be differ with people's taste too.


Again, excluding tubes (due to their rarity in car audio), not too many SS amps that I know of that are going to have audibly different damping factors. If two amps have a DF over ~20 the difference is going to be inaudible.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> I always heard that the older Monitor amps were really nice as far as SQ, because of no interal xovers just straight power.
> 
> I think my NEXT VRz 2.400, and 4.400's sound really nice, then again i wouldn't really know what would sound bad......Anyone have any opinions on my amps...They do the job nicely but i wonder if there really a high or mid quality.


I run a pair of NEXT VR2.400s and I would say that they are quite good. I have been able to do side-by-side comparisons between these and amps from JL (e and slash series), PPI (DEI), Elemental Designs, and RF Power, and I would say that they are a step above all of these in terms of SQ. Not sure how they compare to amps like Audison, Zapco, US Amps, etc., but they are better than any of the good Asian-amps I have heard.

The problem with most of the good Asian amps, IMO, is that they overuse negative feedback in the cause of lowering THD. The result is increased transient intermodulation distortion, which makes the amps sound rather lifeless and unmusical.


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

I've never heard of NEXT....do they have a website? I'd like to check them out....


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

tbreihan said:


> I run a pair of NEXT VR2.400s and I would say that they are quite good. I have been able to do side-by-side comparisons between these and amps from JL (e and slash series), PPI (DEI), Elemental Designs, and RF Power, and I would say that they are a step above all of these in terms of SQ. Not sure how they compare to amps like Audison, Zapco, US Amps, etc., but they are better than any of the good Asian-amps I have heard.
> 
> The problem with most of the good Asian amps, IMO, is that they overuse negative feedback in the cause of lowering THD. The result is increased transient intermodulation distortion, which makes the amps sound rather lifeless and unmusical.



See the problem I have with comments like this is that they don't provide sufficient proof to make it a fact...

In your tests how did you establish a reference? What was it?
Did you make measurements with all built in filtering on & off? And were there any discrepancies there?
Did you make sure all input stages were under clipping?
Did you make sure output voltage to each channel was identical?

And finally the one that I really want an answer to...

In your graph measurements... since you heard differences... how did you separate driver distortion from amplifier distortion...

Other than that...
You did say it is your opinion & as such I have no real problem with that. But I will make the large difference between Opinion & Fact clear until a conclusive test is done. After all such a test would be beneficial to all...


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

As far as the NEXT amps, i run a pair of them as well. a 2.400 and a 4.400, and i'm throughouly pleased. I will have to look back around later when i have more time to pull up some testing that Thoraudio did over on SIN on his 5ch NEXT amp. He rated them quite good as far as output, a tad underrated but overall said they put out nice. There is no graphs that i know of one the link but gives a little bit of concrete info.

He tested the 5.500
http://www.soundillusions.net/Forum/showthread.php?t=50974&highlight=Thoraudio


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

any chance of there being any of these left??? demon


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

I know, I checked out those threads and I'm confused. Who do I need to email to inquire about buying a few of these? They look to be a great deal! Thanks!


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

im being told by everyone there are none left now...


----------



## simon21 (Aug 14, 2005)

Camrunner, why wouldn't you put JL under audiophile?

Audiophile

McIntosh
TRU
Audison VRx, LRx series
Brax
Milbert
Butler
Zapco C2K
Genesis Series 3
Sinfoni
Xetec P5 line ( www.xetec.de )

Audphile but a step down from the above
Genesis Profile Series
U.S. Amps Tube amps
Phass
Linear Power
PPI Art amps
DLS A series
U.S. Amps
Soundstream Reference, Class A
Helix
Xetec Gravity
Zapco Reference
Denon
Adcom
Diamond D7 and D9 amps (D7's can be had cheap right now, good amps)
Esoteric
Arc Audio CXL, XXK
Phoenix Gold Ti, ALso Older MS and Limited Production amps(Anniversary Editions, etc)
ADS 
Phase Linear

Quality

JL Slash amps
PPI Powerclass (Pre DEI)
Elemental Designs (good warranty, underrated power too)
Diamond D5 and D3 (very cheap right now on ebay, good amps, esp. D5's, very flexible crossovers if you need onboard crossovers)
Arc Audio Kar
Phoenix Gold Tantrum
Memphis-Very compact
Alpine
Pioneer PRS (older line)
Orion-Pre DEI
XTant
MB Quart amps
Rockford Fosgate
Avionixx
MTX
Older Mobile ES Sony
Exile Audio, new company founded by former Phoenix Gold employees. 
Xetec Xircuit and Vector Series amps


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

As i know of there are none, there could be a few floating around that have been used.....but i havn't the foggiest where.

I would love to get another 2.400 for dedicated midbasses, but havn't been able to find or locate anyone else that has them, or has them forsale.

IMO best for the money, very small footprint as well.....not sure what they were going for when issued though, i got my pair for $180, and thats the 2.400 and 4.400, 2.400~ 2x160rms, 1x500rms @ 4ohms, 4.400 is 4x82rms @ 4ohms, and bridged outputs as well, IIRC [email protected]


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

you are naturally going to find diff. in opinions ,as my adcoms are not up their either,he didnt mention pg ms series wich i think is af. because its not my list, its his , even though the jl,s measured well in reviews and i have had good results with them, he may have not.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

racerraul said:


> See the problem I have with comments like this is that they don't provide sufficient proof to make it a fact...
> 
> In your tests how did you establish a reference? What was it?
> Did you make measurements with all built in filtering on & off? And were there any discrepancies there?
> ...


Okay, here is what I did...

First off, some background; the forum that I usually frequent is the CA&E forum at http://www.bimmerforums.com. Exmaxima1, on that forum, is the one whom I bought my NEXT VR2.400s from. Shortly after I bought my second amp from him, there was a discussion on THD v. negative feedback v. transient intermodulation distortion in amplifier circuits and the effect these have on the sound of the amplifier. So, I have the idea that I would be interested in doing some side me side listening 'tests' of a number of amps that I either own or have access to.

The amps used were the following:

1) Rockford-Fosgate Power 551s: ca. 2003, bought on closeout in 2004. Made in U.S.A., this was my first subwoofer amp. 140W X 2 @ 4-ohms.

2) JL Audio e4300: Bought brand new in January 2005. Powered my front stage in my E36 until recently. 150W X 2 @ 4-ohms.

3) JL Audio 300/2: Belongs to a friend and powers his subwoofers. 150W X 2 @ 4-ohms, IIRC.

4) Elemental Designs NINe.2: Belongs to aforementioned friend and powers is front stage. 150W X 2 @ 4-ohms.

5) Precision Power DCX 600.4: Belongs to my brother-in-law, bought new in March 2005. 300W X 2 @ 4-ohms.

6) NEXT VR2.400: My current front stage amp (and I have another one powering my subs.) Made in Italy. 150W X 2 @ 4-ohms.


How I conducted the test was as follows; I would hook up the amp in my car, set the output voltage with a 1KHz sinusoidal test tone, set the high-pass filter at 100Hz, test the output voltage between theh two channels, pop in a couple discs, listen, and repeat.

Pretty unscientific, I know, but I never claimed that it was anything more. It was just a subjective listening test using some recordings that I am familiar with to determine if a) there are any audible differences between the amps and b) determine which amp I thought sounded best.

Some generic notes that apply to every amp that I listened to are; they were all run in two-channel stereo, (meaning that the PPI and the JL e4300 were run in bridged-stereo mode, which may put them at a disadvantage), they were all set with an output voltage of 24V (approximately 145W/channel), and the output voltage was checked between channels and was always found to be within 2- to 3-millivolts of one another.

The rest of the setup that remained the same was speakers (CDT EF-51s), reciever (Clarion DXZ745MP), and car (1993 BMW 325is.) Of course, all listening was done with the engine running and I measured 13.98V volts across the power terminals of each amp.

While I listened to a number of tracks, the reference track, so to speak, was 'The Man's Too Strong,' from Dire Straits' _Brothers In Arms_ CD. Incidentally, this particular disc is an original-pressing, non-remastered copy. The reason I chose this track is because, at the song's chorus, there is a passage with a loudly-strummed Dobro resonator guitar, which has a very bright, metallic, and squawky timbre. It is a challenging passage to reproduce accurately; or at least to reproduce in a manner that sounds pleasing.

IIRC (I did this about 6-8 weeks ago), the amps stacked up as follows. The JL e4300 and the PPI were the worst performers. The 300/2, the R-F Power, and the eD were too close to call. The NEXT was _clearly_ the best.

What I used as my primary evaluation was the way in which that strummed Dobro sounds. The NEXT amp renders it how I think it should sound; it makes kind of a 'JIIINNNGGG!' sound. The other amps, so one degree or another, made it sound like a 'CHIIINNNGGG!' sound or, worse, a 'CHHHHHHH!" sound.

Additionally, I noticed some differences in the depth of the soundstage with the different amps. The R-F and the NEXT seemed to have the best staging in terms of depth and separation. The eD was marginally worse, and the PPI and both JL amps were pretty flat sounding.

Incidentally, the R-F and NEXT seemed to be the noisiest in terms of THD and noise floor. The JL amps were the quietest. The R-F and NEXT sounded the most like music, though, with the NEXT clearly edging coming out above the R-F.

Take it for what it's worth. It's not measured, and it's not scientific, so I guess it is really nothing more than my opinion. But, I heard it first-hand, and I don't have an axe to grind with any of the aforementioned companies, so I am sticking with it. However, I conducted this in my brother-in-law's garage, and he has always claimed that there is no sonic difference between amplifiers, so I forced him to listen as well. His observations about the amps matched mine exactly.


----------



## squeak9798 (Apr 20, 2005)

tbreihan said:


> Take it for what it's worth. It's not measured, and it's not scientific, so I guess it is really nothing more than my opinion. But, I heard it first-hand, and I don't have an axe to grind with any of the aforementioned companies, so I am sticking with it. However, I conducted this in my brother-in-law's garage, and he has always claimed that there is no sonic difference between amplifiers, so I forced him to listen as well. His observations about the amps matched mine exactly.



Problem with these types of "tests", is that there is nothing to actually attribute the differences to due to the extremely unscientific nature of the test. 

Yes, you may have heard differences. But there is absolutely zero explaination of _why_ you heard differences. To say amps sound different based on a test such as that (no offense) simply doesn't fly. There are hundreds of reasons why they could have sounded different, and not one of them directly attributable to actual amplifier "sonics". Setup differences which may have existed, psychoacoustics, etc etc etc.

Now, did I say all amps sound the same? No. What I did say is that in order to attribute sonic differences to a specific variable, the test needs to be conducted in such a way that you can draw valid conclusions from the data. Tests like this are not done in such a manor, and really prove nothing.

Not trying to put you down. Just an observation, constructive criticism and a little bit of thinking out loud.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

squeak9798 said:


> Problem with these types of "tests", is that there is nothing to actually attribute the differences to due to the extremely unscientific nature of the test.
> 
> Yes, you may have heard differences. But there is absolutely zero explaination of _why_ you heard differences. To say amps sound different based on a test such as that (no offense) simply doesn't fly. There are hundreds of reasons why they could have sounded different, and not one of them directly attributable to actual amplifier "sonics". Setup differences which may have existed, psychoacoustics, etc etc etc.
> 
> ...


Again, did _I_ ever _claim_ that these 'tests' were scientific? No. In fact, I hesitate to even call them tests; auditions would be a more accurate description.

The problem that I have with your comment is that the ultimate performance of an amp is not it's paper specs of what it benches, but how it sounds (IMO, anyway.) I have listened to a number of JL Audio amplifiers, for instance, and I don't care for the way they sound. To me, they are rather lifeless. Am I saying that they are bad amplifiers, and if you like them, fine. But I don't, and we are both entitled to our own opinions.

Your're 'constructive criticism' is gratuitous because (as I have said a few times now) I am not trying to _prove_ anything with my observation... I simply concurred with another poster's recommendation of NEXT amps, and I stated that I preferred them to the much more expensive JL e4300 that I was previously running. Notice that I said 'take it for what it's worth...' If you think that my audition proves nothing, fine. I am not trying to prove anything in the first place, so please stop attributing qualifications to my statement that I never intended.

The only reason I posted a description a of my test was to... describe what I did; an A/B listening test, in-car, on the same day with the same music. This is what I would like to do before _buying_ equipment, but unfortunately that is rarely possible. Since I had access to half-a-dozen amplifiers that I could hook up in my car I thought, what the hell, let's see which one I like the best.

Incidentally, I have some idea as to _why_ the PPI and JL amps didn't sound as good to me, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them...


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Egh sorry i brought up the NEXT amps, But i do think there nice for the money, and thats what matters to me.

Anyway tbreihan lets hear your reasoning, I'll look for my Amps manuals in a few and post up the specs of them, mabey it'll add a little more concrete info, if they list enough specs on them.

Ok heres the specs on the amps, all seem the same.

S-N = <100db
PS = 11-16V
THD = <.2%
FR = 7hz-42khz (Has built in SSF @ 20hz, Dunno how to turn it off just yet, Would like too)
Input sens = .25V-5V
Input imp. = 10kohms
Slew = >10V/microsec.
Damp = >100 constant
Max Draw is 70A for 4.400, 70A for 2.400, 40A for 2.200, 80A for 5.500.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

tbreihan,

I sure hope you did not think I was picking on you in any way. The one thing I agree with you is that you have learned to trust your ears. And so have I.

Ultimately, that is what I try to encourage others to do.

Expect to get hammered with questions & proof when you make a subjective statement. Specially with amps. I am not going to sit here & tell you did not hear a difference, but as you have made clear is that all variables in your audition were not acconted for. So everyone needs to know that your findings are at best a unproven hypothesis. And that you are comfortable with the simplicity of the experiment because it worked for you.

With that said... no one should expect equal results when they conduct their own exercises.

This much is a fact... if there was a sonic advantage to a particular amp, or amplifier design, it would have been exposed as such by now.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

racerraul said:


> tbreihan,
> 
> I sure hope you did not think I was picking on you in any way. The one thing I agree with you is that you have learned to trust your ears. And so have I.
> 
> Ultimately, that is what I try to encourage others to do.


No, I did not think that you were picking on me at all.



> Expect to get hammered with questions & proof when you make a subjective statement. Specially with amps. I am not going to sit here & tell you did not hear a difference, but as you have made clear is that all variables in your audition were not acconted for. So everyone needs to know that your findings are at best a unproven hypothesis. And that you are comfortable with the simplicity of the experiment because it worked for you.


I don't understand this at all. It was indeed a subjective statement, and it was qualiified as such in the initial post; I listened to a number of amps, some of which are considered to be quite good, I found the NEXT to outperform all of them in terms of SQ, and therefore I consider the NEXT to pretty high-end (especially since it only cost me $90!  ) Again, I don't think that you (or anyone else for that matter) is picking on me. But I did state an opinion, not an assertion of fact. As such, take it or leave it, but to criticize the method by which I reached the opinion is a bit gratuitous, don't you think?



> With that said... no one should expect equal results when they conduct their own exercises.


Of course. And I never said, implied, nor do I believe anything of the sort. Again, my audition, my opinion.



> This much is a fact... if there was a sonic advantage to a particular amp, or amplifier design, it would have been exposed as such by now.


Well, I do believe that there are sonic advantages to particular amplifier designs, but as all designs are trade-offs, different designs have different advantaged. Which one is most advantageous to you, well, that is a matter of your own opinion!  

Cheers!
Tim


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> Anyway tbreihan lets hear your reasoning, I'll look for my Amps manuals in a few and post up the specs of them, mabey it'll add a little more concrete info, if they list enough specs on them.


Okay... one way that manufacturers attempt reduce the total harmonic distortion in an amplifier is to employ negative feedback loops, either to selective parts of the circuit or globally. Global feedback is usually used to correct for other noise-inducing deficiencies in the circuit path. In other words, one can assume that a well-designed and well-spec'd circuit will be relatively noise free on it's own and will not require global feedback to bring its THD down to acceptable levels.

With global negative feedback, the signal is travelling from the input of the amp to the output and back again to the input, to be reintroduced into the signal. This accounts for a tiny delay, which can (does) introduce intermodulation distortion into the signal. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the fact that any global feedback is going to reduce the headroom that the input circuits have before clipping. While the intermodulation distortion may be generally inaudible, introduce a large transient into the signal and you will have these intermodulation anomalies (intermodulation distortion) introduced into the signal. Due to the nature of global feedback, these anomalies will be cycled back through the signal, resulting in characteristic of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM).

Now, I have read and heard what I just said from enough sources that I am going to present it as a generally accepted fact. However, if anyone disagrees with me on this (or if I explained it poorly), I will be happy to post some links.

Since TIM is non-harmonic, it manifests itself as 'white noise' in the signal, and it tends to (IMO) lend a hissy, sibilant characteristic to the sound when present. Addtionally, since it effectively raises the noise floor, it tends to 'compress' the dynamic qualitied of a recording, resulting in less dynamic range and less-pronounced seperation of the elements of the stereo image. The sonic results (to my ear, at least) is sound which is rather flat, lifeless, and unmusical.

I tend to be wary of mainstream amplifiers (like mostly all good Asian amplifiers) that sport super-low THD numbers. Such low THD figures on moderately-priced amps tend to be indicative of global feedback circuits. 

As for the NEXT amps, exmaxima1 (who is a speaker engineer and has a lot of familiarity with those amplifiers) indicated that they do not employ a lot of global negative feedback and are therefore less susceptible to the characteristics of TIM as described above. Also, they are made in Italy, in one of Audison factories, and I suspect that some of Audison's build quality and componentry, if not some of there circuit designs, may have found there way over. Not to say that they are $90 Audisons! But they seem to be in another league when it comes to build quality as compared to a JL Audio or eD amp.

Incidentally, I listened to the amps before I started researching global feedback and TIM, and my research tended to underscore what I had already heard with the amplifiers.

Of course, none of this exclusive to the NEXT amps either. Audison, Zapco, DLS, US Amps, TRU, Brax, Helix, Genesis, etc. would also be characterized this way. However, I don't know of another $90 amp that would share some of these characteristics as well.

I'd like to hear what everyone has to say. I feel like I am getting in a bit over my head here, though, so go easy...


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Very nicely done, not that i understand 1/2 of it, but okay.

I havn't used any other amps except a 1/2 decent Profile Claurus amp, and these NEXT amps suit me perfectly, though i couldn't comment on them compaired to other amps.

I do find them extreemly nice for the price that i got them for. I would love to have more impressions from other people about the quality of these amps, to see how they would be categorized compaired to Audison Zapco and the others. Just to see how nice they truely are. But as far as SQ and driving the speakers that i own, they do wonderful, and i really couldn't ask for a better amp. Though i would like more power, and another 2.400 for dedicated midbasses to go 3way eventually.

Glad someone likes them as much as i do. I think they are awesome for the price.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

tbreihan said:


> I tend to be wary of mainstream amplifiers (like mostly all good Asian amplifiers) that sport super-low THD numbers. Such low THD figures on moderately-priced amps tend to be indicative of global feedback circuits.


Speculation??? Or do you have schematics to expose this?



> As for the NEXT amps, exmaxima1 (who is a speaker engineer and has a lot of familiarity with those amplifiers) indicated that they do not employ a lot of global negative feedback and are therefore less susceptible to the characteristics of TIM as described above. Also, they are made in Italy, in one of Audison factories, and I suspect that some of Audison's build quality and componentry, if not some of there circuit designs, may have found there way over. Not to say that they are $90 Audisons! But they seem to be in another league when it comes to build quality as compared to a JL Audio or eD amp.


IIRC Thoraudio on one of the forums explained the relationship the NEXT brand had with Audison... it had something to do with name copyright rather than sharing the same build plant... now I'm confused? Who's got the real scoop?



> Of course, none of this exclusive to the NEXT amps either. Audison, Zapco, DLS, US Amps, TRU, Brax, Helix, Genesis, etc. would also be characterized this way. However, I don't know of another $90 amp that would share some of these characteristics as well.


More speculation? If we have schematics... send them over to werewolf for a free run down of the implementation... 



> I'd like to hear what everyone has to say. I feel like I am getting in a bit over my head here, though, so go easy...


I used to sell Brax & Helix... excellent amps... gorgeous. I also have a friend that owns Tru amps, another US Amps (which I have used as well since the early 90's & one of my favorites). All great amps. Some I have a hard time justifying the asking price, but would love to own nonetheless...

But I can't say that any of them has an advantage over my current choice of amps in my two vehicles.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

racerraul said:


> IIRC Thoraudio on one of the forums explained the relationship the NEXT brand had with Audison... it had something to do with name copyright rather than sharing the same build plant... now I'm confused? Who's got the real scoop?


Would like to know as well. Anyone?

Stated from Thor over on SIN about the NEXT amps.



> The NEXT story. These are being touted in someplaces as Audison amps. They're not. Apparantly, a couple of years ago, there was a trademark/bankruptcy thing with Audison in the EU. Fiamm (an accessory company like Metra), had a line of high quality amps made and branded Audison. Audison got their trademark back, and Fiamm rebranded them as Next amps. Now some guy is selling a bunch of them over here for cheap.


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

they are not next amps nor were they built in the same plant. they were originally branded audison as stated and now are named next they went belly up basically after that. i got the inside scoop now...


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Care to disclose there history sorta indepth, i'm really intrested in finding out what happened with the company and such, Dunno if theres anymore out there though


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

well he said as stated they tried to use a name that had been existant for a while after the trademark was up. once audison found out i geuss he said they went haywire about it and said they would not have them being passed of as audisons they are not the same quality according to audison. they had tons of them made branded this way already so once the name change they had to re-brand tons of amps and the rest is history thats about all i got so far.


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

they also claimed to be designed in germany and hand built in italy which i do not believe looking at the guts in the pics i now have


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

here take a look:


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Not a knowledgeable guy on amp internals.....what can anyone tell me about the guts of them?

What are some other really cheap amps that seem to have a nice sound and good power, like the NEXT amps being discussed?


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

zfactor said:


> here take a look:


That is a NEXT Q-series amp, which is NOT made in Italy. It appears to be a reasonably-nice Asian-made amp. I have no idea where the Q-series are made (Taiwan probably), but they are most definately NOT made in Italy.

The NEXT VR/VRz-series, on the other hand, are made in Italy. I don't know for sure if they were made in one of the Audison factories or not (I have heard both stories, but I believe that exmaxima1 on bimmerforums was told from his supplier in Germany that they were) but they are definately Italian and totally different from the pic you posted.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

racerraul said:


> Speculation??? Or do you have schematics to expose this?


Speculation, but much of it comes from knowlegable folks in the industry, including engineers from PG and whatever Zeff's engineering company is called (Nikala? something like that?)


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> Not a knowledgeable guy on amp internals.....what can anyone tell me about the guts of them?
> 
> What are some other really cheap amps that seem to have a nice sound and good power, like the NEXT amps being discussed?


I've also generally like eD amps, especially for the price.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

So many NEXT audio stories out there....wonder which is right.....Anyway i'm happy with my purchases, hope to find another 2.400 eventually for ded. midbasses too.

Only thing i wonder about the amps is the noise floor, has anyone that used them had issues with the slight hiss or very light humm in the background. It may be my source info, but i tested on a black noise zero bit track and i had virtually no background noise in CD, but switching b/w CD's or b/w songs i find there is a slight background noise, or hiss....Could that be amp related or HU preout related. Other than this my car sounds awesome, using strickly NEXT amps.


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

............................


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

tbreihan said:


> That is a NEXT Q-series amp, which is NOT made in Italy. It appears to be a reasonably-nice Asian-made amp. I have no idea where the Q-series are made (Taiwan probably), but they are most definately NOT made in Italy.
> 
> The NEXT VR/VRz-series, on the other hand, are made in Italy. I don't know for sure if they were made in one of the Audison factories or not (I have heard both stories, but I believe that exmaxima1 on bimmerforums was told from his supplier in Germany that they were) but they are definately Italian and totally different from the pic you posted.


i got the picture from exmaxima1 directly and that IS A VRZ 4.400 MODEL. NOT A Q SERIES.....


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

and the vr series comes in two different heatsinks as well:


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

the internal pic is of the first model heatsink which clearly states vr on the side as confirmed with exmaxima1 himself


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

looks like i missed a crazy 3 hrs of this thread,cool info on the next amps ,i looked a couple of internal pics of newer audisons but the board is completly diff,made pre vrx?the internals look decent.and built well, reg. pwr supply,larger output transistors -polyester caps in preamp section,for 100.00 it looks like a true bargain as as tbr. and demon says sounds good!liked your input tbr. i knew race would be in to bring a level of seriousness that could not be denied  ,if all amp topologies sounded the same you would think all manfs. would fire their designers use the same generic op-amps ,caps ,transitors and boards as everyone else forever,sell them for the same price and just reap in the cash! cant prove it but when I hear a diff. between amps its proof enough for me ! get your bias and dc offset pots recalibrated .


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

Topologies (Class Types) are a total diff can of worms that were not discussed in this thread.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

Those are some nice looking amps... I like the Linear Power like looking ones... although the others looked good as well...

Too bad they went under... But then again if they hadn't they prob wouldn't be so cheap. That is assuming the low price was directly related to them going out of business.


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm pretty sure that internal pic is of the Q55, not the VRz 5.500, as the connections are clearly different.










I've done alot of research on the next/audison's, and am confident that they are not legally associated with the real Audison company. I have not been able to establish where, exactly, they are manufactured. Supposedly in Italy, and I'm sure there aren't _that_ many amp build houses in Italy, but I'm not hanging my hat on Audison.


BTW, here's the german page for the "Audison" VRz's

and here's a pic of one with the Audison name plate.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

zfactor said:


> i got the picture from exmaxima1 directly and that IS A VRZ 4.400 MODEL. NOT A Q SERIES.....


Well, I am guessing that Matthew may have mistakenly sent you the wrong photograph... I have two Q.22 amps and two VR/VRz2.400 from him--my VRs are the plain heatsink version, BTW--and the picture you posted is a Q-series.

I have had both amps opened, and the VR has a different transformer, a brown-colored PC board, and the fuses are mounted to the PC board inside the chassis, not on the endplate. Also, the parts density on the board is higher, it has different connectors, different pots, etc.

I can only assume that Matthew sent you the wrong photo by mistake, because that is definately a Q-series of one sort or another, and definately NOT made is Italy.


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm pretty sure this is the internal pic of the 5.500. small, but all I can find. (I don't have a security bit, and I don't want to pull my amp  )


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

Thoraudio said:


> I'm pretty sure this is the internal pic of the 5.500. small, but all I can find. (I don't have a security bit, and I don't want to pull my amp  )


That looks like a VR-series, although I have never seen the inside of a 5.500. it looks very similar to the 2.400s I have.


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

so to those that have these and run them. how are they as far as power. from what you can tell i mean are they overated or underated or pretty much true?? and have any of you been able to get an honest opinion of how they sound compared to some of the higher end amps out there to your ears?? i am interested and trying to get some more opinions on them. thanks

im currently using xtants do you think these are of a higher quality ??? thanks

and i ask him about the pic he sent i am waiting for a reply now ill let you know what he says if that is a vr or not according to him. i figured id ask him and see if he did send the wrong one since he said it was vr in the description of it. ill let you know what he says thanks


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

also for those that have the 4.400 are both front and rear channels brdgable or just one side of the amp???


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

When I bench tested my 5.500, I got 109 watts per channel of the 4 channel side (only 1 channel driven though.... expect this number to drop with all channels driven). And I got 240 exactly out of the 5th channel.

Supply Voltage = 13.45 with a 4 ohm load.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

zfactor... why dont you use the xtants you already have on hand? What is wrong with them that you are looking for a 2nd opinion? If they get the job done, what does it matter what someone else thinks?


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

cause they are HUGE and i dont really want to take up that kind of space. this is the same reason i did not buy the xenons once i got thier measurments. i need to find something more compact and these next amps are MUCH smaller than the xtants. thats really the only reason. i know there are smaller amps out there and the next ones are only 10.6" in length for the 4 channel compared to over 23" for the xtant, i can fit 2 next amps or similar amps in the same space for the 1 xtant amp. i need to save a little trunk space.


----------



## racerraul (Jun 8, 2005)

Gotcha... wouldn't finding Next Amps be difficult? I thought they were out of business & all stock gone...


----------



## cam2Xrunner (Apr 30, 2005)

simon21 said:


> Camrunner, why wouldn't you put JL under audiophile?


 To be honest with you, I don't think they are all that great personally, and I have used the 300/4 and the 500/1 before. Plus they don't even offer a Class AB sub amp. Class D sub amps don't exactly scream Audiophile to me. 

But now that I look back on that list I made a while back, I still think it's a bit too general. Like I would assume a Helix is a bit more higher quality then a Xetec Gravity, or PG Ti, or ADS amp. 

The list needs a little bit of work, but don't take it too seriously  



> Audiophile
> 
> McIntosh
> TRU
> ...


----------



## cam2Xrunner (Apr 30, 2005)

dodgerblue said:


> you are naturally going to find diff. in opinions ,as my adcoms are not up their either,he didnt mention pg ms series wich i think is af. because its not my list, its his , even though the jl,s measured well in reviews and i have had good results with them, he may have not.



Yeah, those are both in my list, and I consider them in the second class of Audiophile amps, but as I said, my list is kind of in general.  Just something I did when I was bored.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

zfactor said:


> so to those that have these and run them. how are they as far as power. from what you can tell i mean are they overated or underated or pretty much true?? and have any of you been able to get an honest opinion of how they sound compared to some of the higher end amps out there to your ears?? i am interested and trying to get some more opinions on them. thanks
> 
> im currently using xtants do you think these are of a higher quality ??? thanks
> 
> and i ask him about the pic he sent i am waiting for a reply now ill let you know what he says if that is a vr or not according to him. i figured id ask him and see if he did send the wrong one since he said it was vr in the description of it. ill let you know what he says thanks


zfactor:

The only complaint that I would have on the NEXT VRs relative to power output is this; the input sections don't seem to be quite as sensitive to input voltage as other amps I have used. Example... I was previously using a Clarion '645MP with 1.8V pre-outs. Even with the gains on the amps turned full up, the output voltage measured with a 1KHz sinusoidal test tone would top out at about 22V (~125W) with the HU volume just below clipping.

I have since upgraded my reciever to a refurbished '745MP (with 4V pre-outs) and now the amps make rated power with their hands tied behind there backs. My front-stage amp outputs 25V (~145W) and the my sub amp outputs 44V bridged (~500W.) So they are certainly capable of producing rated power.

If you have an HU with higher-voltage pre-outs or you're using a line-driver, there's no issue.

Incidentally, here is a pic of a VRz2.400...










This is the 'fancy' heatsink version. My plain heatsink version is _identical_ except for the PC is brown and has 'VR2.400' instead of 'VRz2.400' printed on it. Otherwise, the circuit is identical.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

cam2Xrunner said:


> Audiophile
> 
> McIntosh
> TRU
> ...


What? No Eclipse?


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Nothing like bringing a topic back from the dead.


----------



## koleks (Jan 25, 2007)

I pretty much loved & enjoyed this topic... 

Classic and very informative. A lot of knowledgeable "experts" that boasts both facts and opinions - specially on NEXT amps!

A bump for people looking for alternative options when it comes to SQ amps. 

Cheers!!!


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

Can anybody explain _exactly_ what makes certain amps so called "SQ rated amps" as opposed to "non-SQ rated amps" I guess?


----------



## VaVroom1 (Dec 2, 2005)

let me try it....

anything that is expensive, measures well, internals stuffed to the hilt and of solid build is "SQ rated" audiophile grade cos audiophiles actually spells as "snobs". after that, the actual sound characteristics is subjective.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Anything that "Tristan" has owned


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Mr Marv said:


> Can anybody explain _exactly_ what makes certain amps so called "SQ rated amps" as opposed to "non-SQ rated amps" I guess?



B-squad(AKA FoxPro5)-summed it up right here from ECA.
"people like to read numbers and think that THD at .0000009% must mean it's REAL good. Damping factor over 10 million. Peak power at 35 megawats. And, my favorite, EXTREME sound quality".

If it has any of the above words in it is an SQ amp. 

Mr. Marv you where involved in this thread to on ECA was quit funny.

Just Joking in case some did not catch the online sarcasm.


----------



## Fixtion (Aug 25, 2006)

Is there anyone on this board with the know how and equipment to actually measure amps? Most of those amp could be full of "fluff" for all we know. I know I personally run lunar amps which releases no "specs" as far as s/n, thd%, damping factors, etc. They do however sound to me as more of a raw source of power that's heavily influenced by it's source. *shrugs* I'd like to know for myself if these Lunar amps hold a candle to the "sound quality" claims they are given.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

Genxx said:


> B-squad(AKA FoxPro5)-summed it up right here from ECA.
> "people like to read numbers and think that THD at .0000009% must mean it's REAL good. Damping factor over 10 million. Peak power at 35 megawats. And, my favorite, EXTREME sound quality".
> 
> If it has any of the above words in it is an SQ amp.
> ...


I forgot about "extreme SQ" amps 

I actually had someone once tell me they could hear the difference between .05 and .005 THD _on a sub amp_


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

Fixtion said:


> Is there anyone on this board with the know how and equipment to actually measure amps? Most of those amp could be full of "fluff" for all we know. I know I personally run lunar amps which releases no "specs" as far as s/n, thd%, damping factors, etc. They do however sound to me as more of a raw source of power that's heavily influenced by it's source. *shrugs* I'd like to know for myself if these Lunar amps hold a candle to the "sound quality" claims they are given.


I'm not speaking specifically about these amps since I don't have any experience with them however at one of my mini-meets a while back we did some impromptu testing of amps and headunits using just a speaker in a box, DMM, test tones and an SPL meter. Our "testing" showed that there were frequency response variations in a lot of the amps/headunits as well as differences in output between channels  . By no means was this a "true scientific test" however it did lead us to believe that at the least _some_ of the differences in "amp sound" can be attributed to our findings.  BTW, the current Car Audio and Electronics magazine has an interesting article on the frequency response of one of the new RF amps.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

At amp guts they have pics of the following "Next" models
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_VRz_2.400/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_VRz_4.400/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_VRz_5.500/

http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_Q55/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_Q24/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_Q22/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Next_Q12/


----------



## fearthisskyy (Jun 29, 2007)

what would call consider the PPI PC4800? it has a dampening factor >500, SN ration 110db

http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/PPI_PC4800.2/


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

How about my vintage Kawasaki brand EQ booster I had back in high school? This was the kats ass back then.

Seriously though. Don't forget my beloved a/d/s/ gear. Some of it was average but others were considered elite at the time. 

Also, the ancient Soundstream D series was pretty good too. I believe someone already mentioned the Soundstream reference Class A series.

Ge0


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

The thread is originally from 2005, so I wouldn't hold my breath if you are waiting for someone to repond that was very vocal then


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I'd add

1. Kenford
2. Rockwood
3. DHD Power Cruiser
4. Koiller
5. Visonik
6. Audiobling
7. Mobile Authority
8. Combat
9. Pyramid
10. Legacy


There are many more that I don't have time to name.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I'm pretty sure you will agree, after you talk to the right person , "ummm, how do the amps, speakers, head units, etc.., look to you  , Now that thar is some high quality stuff, the color matches my theme 

Excuse me ? , NO, no I couldn't be persuaded to "listen to the sound", it doesn't look like it will sound good, I can see if it will sound good...Thank You Very Much!!!!


----------



## StevenT (Jan 1, 2009)

Cadence
Sony
JL


----------



## fredridge (Jan 17, 2007)

History repeats itself



89grand said:


> Nothing like bringing a topic back from the dead.


----------



## thesoundandthefury (Oct 14, 2008)

Mr Marv said:


> Can anybody explain _exactly_ what makes certain amps so called "SQ rated amps" as opposed to "non-SQ rated amps" I guess?




Newton's third law of sound: The more aesthetically boring an amplifier looks, the better it sounds.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

thesoundandthefury said:


> Newton's third law of sound: The more aesthetically boring an amplifier looks, the better it sounds.


I forgot about that law!


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

There has to be some tests done on this. My guess is to use test tones or a sweep using a "reference" speaker inside an anechoic chamber and see which amp has the flattest curve. I know this is a novel idea that would raise more questions but I had to throw it out there.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

fcarpio said:


> There has to be some tests done on this. My guess is to use test tones or a sweep using a "reference" speaker inside an anechoic chamber and see which amp has the flattest curve. I know this is a novel idea that would raise more questions but I had to throw it out there.


There have been _numerous_ "tests" done on this subject as well as "the challenge" however IMO it will be difficult to convince some since _"a strong enough *belief* system will overpower *scientific proof* every time"_


----------



## ninor (Jan 8, 2009)

How does Alpine PDX amp stand in the SQ line? I'm pretty new to Car Audio and I'm thinking of getting Alpine PDX and either Focal 165 K2P or Zapco CK 16.2 comps... what do you guys think?


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

ninor said:


> How does Alpine PDX amp stand in the SQ line? I'm pretty new to Car Audio and I'm thinking of getting Alpine PDX and either Focal 165 K2P or Zapco CK 16.2 comps... what do you guys think?


I am sure I will get berated here for saying this, but I find the Alpine PDX series tends to be extremely flat and cold sounding with a lack of midbass. Granted, I have only heard a couple of setups using them and the environment I heard them in FAR from an ideal scientific lab with precision instruments to measure everything. Regardless, I believe a little EQing could fix that lack of midbass:laugh:


----------



## dubless (Oct 15, 2008)

:laugh:LOL! That Newtons Third Law line couldn't be more true. I'm running a few of the old school Zapco Z100,150,200 amps and they couldn't be anymore plain looking. 

Now if I could just find a Z50 to run active I'd be set!


----------



## falkenbd (Aug 16, 2008)

No one mentioned Zuki???


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

falkenbd said:


> No one mentioned Zuki???


dont think zuki was around when this thread was active


----------



## r4360 (May 16, 2008)

Old Soundstream. MC, D & Class A series. Nelson Pass had a hand in the design of some of those if I recall correctly. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I love these amps. Especially my Class A 100II.


----------



## shadowfactory (Oct 20, 2008)

SQ = noise free amp, as long as it has that, you'd be hard pressed to pick any amp out of a lineup in a double blind test.


----------



## xMplar (Feb 18, 2009)

Steg Masterstroke has to be on the list its one of the few series of amps that ive used to 
a: cost more than my car
b: sound better than my car
c: look better than my car


----------



## farshad (Mar 4, 2007)

shadowfactory said:


> SQ = noise free amp, as long as it has that, you'd be hard pressed to pick any amp out of a lineup in a double blind test.


Word.


----------



## nanomidaz (Feb 9, 2009)

Anyone seen the new Ground zero sq amp?
Looks really nice


----------



## neverman (Feb 27, 2009)

I'm curious why no love for the "PG Zero Point" stuff. Hell they even built their nput stages out of discreet components they cared so much for purity of siganl. I see the Mseries and some of the special edition stuff listed but I'd put the Zero's up against any of those.


----------



## Guy (Feb 16, 2006)

r4360 said:


> Old Soundstream. MC, D & Class A series. Nelson Pass had a hand in the design of some of those if I recall correctly. *Someone correct me if I am wrong.* I love these amps. Especially my Class A 100II.


Ok, I will.  
Nelson Pass designed only the D100- the other first series were similar designs by Wade Stewart and a fellow whose name I have forgotten- all I remember is he was Asian. 
Nelson Pass designed the D100 for what was supposed to be a joint effort between Soundstream and Nakamichi, and there was confusion between the two companies as to who was responsible for the bill. He never get paid- at least that's what he said years later.


----------



## big daddy russ (Jan 25, 2007)

Cougar207 said:


> I don't think you can come up with a number based on an amp's specs on paper. I have heard tube amps with 1% THD that sound better than SS amps with under .01% THD. An adequate damping factor is going to be differ with people's taste too. As with everything else in audio, only you can decide by listening to them yourself.
> 
> Matt


Great post. I'd take Butler with 0.15% THD over a Boss with 0.01% THD any day.

As far as damping factor, it all depends on the setup and your particular taste. Zapco amps have damping factors over 1k and sound amazing. McIntosh amps have damping factors of 100 and sound amazing.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

big daddy russ said:


> Great post. I'd take Butler with 0.15% THD over a Boss with 0.01% THD any day.
> 
> As far as damping factor, it all depends on the setup and your particular taste. Zapco amps have damping factors over 1k and sound amazing. McIntosh amps have damping factors of 100 and sound amazing.


If you can hear the difference between .15%THD and .01%THD, then I would like to know who was the dog in your family, your mother or father, because if you can hear this, there are many,many,many jobs and test labs waiting for you.

Damping factor doesn't mean pooh when it comes to driver control. Enclosure,driver design, and driver-enclosure relationship is more important. That's a " my penis is larger than yours" stat amp companies use. 

Any amp that makes rated power, cleanly, and reliable can be considered an "SQ" amp. Doesn't matter if it cost $90 or $900. Amps do not have magical sq powers. Class a/b switching board designs have not changed in over 30 years.


----------



## pythagoras (May 5, 2008)

thus ppi art series considered as a sq amp?


----------



## big daddy russ (Jan 25, 2007)

Dr.Telepathy SQ said:


> If you can hear the difference between .15%THD and .01%THD, then I would like to know who was the dog in your family, your mother or father, because if you can hear this, there are many,many,many jobs and test labs waiting for you.


Exactly. Numbers are just numbers, nothing more. You can skew a number to make it look like something amazing, when it's really nothing special. That's how Power Acoustik and Boss can sell you a 1k-watt amps with .01% THD for $100.

The only way to truly know is to listen.




pythagoras said:


> thus ppi art series considered as a sq amp?


As an SQ guy, I wouldn't mind having a few. They always sounded good to me.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

I remember in another thread regarding distortion that there was a test that Kippel makes for distortion analysis online. Granted, I was using a set of Altec computer speakers, and an HD audio card running as high as I could, but I could only detect ~-27dB distortion amounts, and only JUST BARELY. That correlates to a ridiculous distortion % of ~20%, I think. I'll hunt down the link...


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Here it is!

Audibility Of Distortion


----------



## ebrahim (Sep 21, 2009)

I just want people to know to stay away from the following:

Schosche
EFX [Entry level amps]
REALM [Upper level amps]
These three amps are made by Schosche.

DEI/Orion except their monoblock class d amps
Polk Audio
Directed Audio
Clarion
Soundstream
PowerAcoustik
Blaupunkt
MMats
Memphis


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Why? Why is Scosche bad? And the rest of your list, are they bad as well, or good? And why on both counts?




ebrahim said:


> I just want people to know to stay away from the following:
> 
> Schosche
> EFX [Entry level amps]
> ...


----------



## pusko (Sep 17, 2009)

I'm very pleased with DLS Ultimate line........very warm and detailed.


----------



## ebrahim (Sep 21, 2009)

I had an EFX amp connected to a pair of 10s and the amp shut off after 30 minutes.
Soundstream amps [09 models] keep heating up and people started to complain about them.
REALM amps are made by Schosche and I was told by one installer that EFX and REALM are entry level stuff.
DEI ORION West Coast Customs amps shut off now and then. First I thought it was my components but it was not. I swapped that amp out with their XTR and it works fine. Now I have also been told that the Alpine amps [09 models] and Kenwood amps[09 models] suck to.

I guess people look at price tags and think the most expensive amp is better than the cheaper amp. I think what people don't understand is that price does not make an amp better than the other or looks. It is performance that makes an amp better than the other.

Well I could go on but to be honest I was told by Speakerworks in Orange, CA that they are amps out there that are good that no one heard about or not known like JL Audio for example.

Good amps
Crossfire
CDT
Arc Audio
JL Audio
Boston Acoustics
Focal
Genesis
Tru Technology
Diamond Audio

You got understand that companies are buying each other out for example Power Acoustic bought out Sound Stream. DEI bought out Orion, Precision Power and Directed.

So you decide which is a good SQ amp and which one is not.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

ebrahim said:


> I just want people to know to stay away from the following:
> 
> 
> Clarion





ebrahim said:


> Good amps
> 
> Arc Audio


You do know these are both made in the same place and several models share the same circuit board right?


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

Hmm, I like my Clarion DPX1851. I've noticed no significant differences in Ess Que between it and the following at 2 ohms:
Soundstream Reference 700s
Rockford Fosgate 25 to Life Power 1000 class D channel
Lunar L2125
and a couple of others I forgot about.

I also noted no difference in SQ comparing the DPX1851 at 2 ohms to a Linear Power 5002 at 8 ohms.


----------



## ALL4SQ (Mar 28, 2009)

It still puzzles me why someone would match the levels of two amps at 1k and expect that to be a decent comparison. Would you tune your car system just at 1k? I sure wouldn't, I look at 20hz to 20k.

Two amps may both be +/- 1db from 20hz to 20k but that doesn't mean they both have the same curve. Human hearing is most sensitive from 2k-5k. If amp (A) is -1db at 2k,3k,4k & 5k and amp (B) is +1db at 2k,3k,4k & 5k then you just created a 2db difference across the most sensitive area of the human hearing. Amp A will Most likely sound warm and amp B will sound Bright. 

The best way I can put it is you need to look at the entire frequency response of the two amps being tested and match them the best as possible. 
When you do this the differences you hear at normal listening levels go away. 

Personally what I look for in an amp is:
1. No turn-on/off noises
2. No external clicks (Internal Relay)
3. Low noise Floor.
4. Size of amp. Can I fit the number of channels of amplification in the car with the space I have. 
5. Does the amp get Hot? 
6. Quality of connectors on the amp. (Will they break easily)
7. Does this manufacturer support autosound Competition?
Power really isn't that big a deal with me for Sound quality. Pretty much all manufactures make big amps for subs, medium amps for midbass drivers and smaller amps for Mids and tweets. Its hard to trust the numbers listed anyways. 

On the other hand, If you already have amps that work fine. I would personally spend the money on something that could possibly make a bigger SQ difference. Like better Speakers, Speaker locations, Processor with more options or maybe just pay someone with some serious tuning skills to tune what you already have. 

Hopefully my opinion doesn't get to many people excited.

Thanks


----------



## JAX (Jun 2, 2006)

ca90ss said:


> You do know these are both made in the same place and several models share the same circuit board right?



haha.......


----------



## cmchenry (Oct 4, 2009)

Hipnotic4 said:


> I kinda answered these in the first post..
> When grading a SoundQuality amp, their is really only 2 main ways to look at it..first you have SPECS--like i said in the first post, Low thd, high s/n, high dampening factor etc...Then their is the personal prefrences, Some may praise amp A while others praise amp B, and then you have those that can not really hear any difference at all.
> 
> In the end if your happy with your equipment, thats all that really matters, Your system is what you make it. You be the judge.


I know the reason for the question. Although the standard answer seems to frequently be "its personal preference, you be the judge" there is nothing wrong with those with first hand experience stating what they like about what they hear with a given product (in a given system). I did a ton of home audio auditioning over the years and really relied on and came to appreciate when others did their best to articulate what and why they liked or disliked a product. It is not practical to try everything out there to decide for ourselves so it helps to get well decribed "reviews" even if they come from peers rather than professional reviewers. I recall comparing my Bryston 4B home amp, which was dead quiet, extremely neutral and could put any hard to drive speaker in a full nelson to a Levinson 332 and then a BAT (forget the model) tube amp. With everything being equal there really was no comparison when it came to "musicality". The Bryston seems dry and clinical and it was easy to get distracted from the music to other things and thoughts. The Levinson had the same grip and speed in the bass but the high frequencies were so much smoother and sweeter and had an airiness that added a lot to the enjoyment of the music. Then I brought the BAT in and it was not as quick in the lows' but they were so very tunefull and the mids, especially voices were just mesmerizing. I remember being so excited about the BAT I spent the whole night pulling out old familiar music just to hear it again in an new and more exciting way.

Due to circumstances I had to sell off all that great home gear but have found myself trying to piece together a mobile system with the same goose bump factor. Not quite there yet but WAY closer than I ever expected to be in a car system. Pioneer 800PRS running active. CDT Euro comps with a better than average install, Xtant 4004 bridged to 2 channel for the mids, Linear Power 452IQ on the tweets and a US Acoustics 2150 bridged for an IDQ 12 sealed sub. 

Just ordered and old school US Amps 150 for the sub (for better damping) but may use it for the mids. Now I am looking for something sweeter with a little less top end brightness for a tweeter amp. Any suggestions AND DESCRIPTIONS are requested and appreiciated!


----------



## Maglite (Dec 28, 2009)

ca90ss said:


> You do know these are both made in the same place and several models share the same circuit board right?


Oops :blush:

Good to know though


----------



## Hipnotic4 (Oct 21, 2005)

cmchenry said:


> I know the reason for the question. Although the standard answer seems to frequently be "its personal preference, you be the judge" there is nothing wrong with those with first hand experience stating what they like about what they hear with a given product (in a given system). I did a ton of home audio auditioning over the years and really relied on and came to appreciate when others did their best to articulate what and why they liked or disliked a product. It is not practical to try everything out there to decide for ourselves so it helps to get well decribed "reviews" even if they come from peers rather than professional reviewers. I recall comparing my Bryston 4B home amp, which was dead quiet, extremely neutral and could put any hard to drive speaker in a full nelson to a Levinson 332 and then a BAT (forget the model) tube amp. With everything being equal there really was no comparison when it came to "musicality". The Bryston seems dry and clinical and it was easy to get distracted from the music to other things and thoughts. The Levinson had the same grip and speed in the bass but the high frequencies were so much smoother and sweeter and had an airiness that added a lot to the enjoyment of the music. Then I brought the BAT in and it was not as quick in the lows' but they were so very tunefull and the mids, especially voices were just mesmerizing. I remember being so excited about the BAT I spent the whole night pulling out old familiar music just to hear it again in an new and more exciting way.
> 
> Due to circumstances I had to sell off all that great home gear but have found myself trying to piece together a mobile system with the same goose bump factor. Not quite there yet but WAY closer than I ever expected to be in a car system. Pioneer 800PRS running active. CDT Euro comps with a better than average install, Xtant 4004 bridged to 2 channel for the mids, Linear Power 452IQ on the tweets and a US Acoustics 2150 bridged for an IDQ 12 sealed sub.
> 
> Just ordered and old school US Amps 150 for the sub (for better damping) but may use it for the mids. Now I am looking for something sweeter with a little less top end brightness for a tweeter amp. Any suggestions AND DESCRIPTIONS are requested and appreiciated!


I cant believe i even started this thread...

Sounds like you had a great HT system..but I think it will be a long time until your car reaches the level of "quality" sound, comparable to that of HT system.

So many factors influence the way we judge sound, from simple expectations (Such as a high-end brand), type of music, even your mood can play a role onto what "sounds good."

I agree with reviews being very useful, Professional or not. Most reviews give enough detail to help a person find what they are looking for in terms of Specs & reliability. But i personally feel that most people find it difficult to accurately describe what they hear, being that we all hear things differently.

Just think about how you sound on a voicemail or on speaker phone..most, if not all people, are shocked at the sound of their own voice.

Its the same with Audio. Thats why I and many will always say, its personal preference.


----------



## SQ Monte (Sep 12, 2009)

What about the CDT Audio SQA-4100, what would that rate as?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Hipnotic4 said:


> Just think about how you sound on a voicemail or on speaker phone..most, if not all people, are shocked at the sound of their own voice.


Haha no, that's for another reason.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

I was reading through these trying to figure out what peoples thoughts are on the amps and how they have changed from the early days of the big 3 (Fosgate, PPI, Orion) to today. I am really happy to hear that what I have been distinguishing as SQ is backed up by many of you here. 

Cam2xrunner has a great list dating back to 2005 and updates in 2007. Its an excellent list and I agree with many on it. 

If there are brands out there that are not on the list check for things like ultra low THD (i.e 0.005 %), Signal to Noise (i.e >100dB/1dB), channel separation if listed (higher dB the better), dampening factor (i.e. >200), rated ouput at given voltages (12V is better compared to 14.4V) or regulated power supplies that give you the same wattage at any voltage. 

If all that is too much look for a CAE-2006 compliant list. Then you will at least not be buying inflated watt advertising.

As was said before you get what you pay for and much of the Audiophile quality stuff costs 1K+.


----------



## Rob J (Jul 18, 2010)

Why is Pyramid and Jensen not on this list????


----------



## EternalGraphics808 (Apr 28, 2009)

If all amps sound the same, then, Pyramid and Rockwood do in fact sound the same as Sinfoni and Brax.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

Who said that all amplifiers sounded the same?


----------



## JAX (Jun 2, 2006)

while you may get what you pay for...today in this crap economy sometimes you get way more than you pay for... you can get more watts for you dollar than ever. 

I got an amp in car right now cost me less than $50 , looks like new and is old school and sounds wonderful. 

but thats all in my head according to some people who say "all amps sound the same" 

I dont believe that but not going to argue it either.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

EternalGraphics808 said:


> If all amps sound the same, then, Pyramid and Rockwood do in fact sound the same as Sinfoni and Brax.


Who's to say they don't? Is there any logical reason to think they do? Do you have measurements showing defects in Pyramid and Rockwood? Or the Brax and Sinfoni? Are they equivalently powerful? If the answers to those questions are, respectively, no and yes, a reasonable person will presume that yes, they will sound the same.

Besides, as this CA&E review of a Genesis amp shows, pretty much all you get when you overpay for a commodity part is a higher probability for poor design.



JAX said:


> I got an amp in car right now cost me less than $50 , looks like new and is old school and sounds wonderful.
> 
> but thats all in my head according to some people who say "all amps sound the same".


Nope, it can still sound "wonderful." It just won't sound _different_ if you take out that commodity part and put in another equivalently powerful commodity part.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

I don't think amps do sound the same personally. If you are trying to get 1000 watts and Pyramid is advertising a 1Kwatt amp for 150 bucks and and Zed is offering a 1Kwatt amp for 429. There is going to be a distinct difference at the rated output. Note I said RATED. 

However I bet those two amps would sound pretty close to the same if you were driving the amps at 500 watts if the inputs are equally driven in the two amps. But they are NOT.

This is where that extra money comes in, the Zeds inputs will play louder cleaner with a given input voltage where as the Pyramids may need to be cranked to get to that same output, then in doing that can distort the signal.

If you want a Zed sound at a Pyramid price, buy the pyramid and run it much lower and the signal will be cleaner but if you want the Zed Power buy two or three Pyramids run them low and you are still going to pay more than you would had you just bought the Zed.

Just my observation.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

fertigaudio said:


> I don't think amps do sound the same personally. If you are trying to get 1000 watts and Pyramid is advertising a 1Kwatt amp for 150 bucks and and Zed is offering a 1Kwatt amp for 429. There is going to be a distinct difference at the rated output. Note I said RATED.
> 
> However I bet those two amps would sound pretty close to the same if you were driving the amps at 500 watts if the inputs are equally driven in the two amps. But they are NOT.
> 
> ...


That doesn't make any sense at all. The gain of an amp is very much independent of the quality of the amp. Maybe I misunderstood your point?


----------



## JAX (Jun 2, 2006)

DS-21 said:


> Who's to say they don't? Is there any logical reason to think they do? Do you have measurements showing defects in Pyramid and Rockwood? Or the Brax and Sinfoni? Are they equivalently powerful? If the answers to those questions are, respectively, no and yes, a reasonable person will presume that yes, they will sound the same.
> 
> Besides, as this CA&E review of a Genesis amp shows, pretty much all you get when you overpay for a commodity part is a higher probability for poor design.
> 
> ...


All I was getting at is that you dont have to pay big money for quality...the "you get what you pay for" idea is not quite true anymore.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> That doesn't make any sense at all. The gain of an amp is very much independent of the quality of the amp. Maybe I misunderstood your point?


LOL sorry. Maybe I didn't make sense. All I was trying to say is if you buy a bigger amp than you need and back off the gain you wont clip or distort as if you were pushing an amp to its limits. This I believe is more-so with a cheaper made amp.

Where I am coming from also is I read a great article about having an ultra high voltage low signal rca reaching an amp turned down to say a tenth of its gain to match. the amps ability to buffer or pre amp that signal can suffer in a cheaper design than in a burr brown or better designed op amp pre-amp.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

fertigaudio said:


> I don't think amps do sound the same personally.


What you, I, or anyone else _thinks_ about the issue just doesn't matter. What matters is what's been _shown._ 



fertigaudio said:


> If you are trying to get 1000 watts and Pyramid is advertising a 1Kwatt amp for 150 bucks and and Zed is offering a 1Kwatt amp for 429. There is going to be a distinct difference at the rated output. Note I said RATED.


You forgot that the Zed amp would be more likely to fry all your speakers, though. 

But you're throwing in a pointless distractor of manufacturer rating. Yes, we know that many amp marketers overrate beyond a reasonable level of tolerance, and many others underrate beyond a reasonable level of tolerance. (I consider both underrating and overrating to be based on the same basic lack of regard for the consumer.)

Mind, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose of of these particular commodities over another. One such reason could be that one prefers product from brands known to generally provide accurate specification.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Only the ignorant think all amps sound the same in the real world. The Eleets 4 sounded almost exactly like my PG Xenon. The big "custom" Zuki in my truck is warm and detailed. Patrick told me why but can't share what he did on the forums. It makes my harsh recordings a lot more listenable and makes my good recordings even better. Can't say enough good things about this amp. If you can't hear a difference between something like an Arc and an Audison you probably have tin ears.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> What you, I, or anyone else _thinks_ about the issue just doesn't matter. What matters is what's been _shown._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Commodities? We call them amps in TEXAS!  j/k
I capitulate my view my reasoning is a bit bias.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Only the ignorant think all amps sound the same in the real world. The Eleets 4 sounded almost exactly like my PG Xenon. The big "custom" Zuki in my truck is warm and detailed. Patrick told me why but can't share what he did on the forums. It makes my harsh recordings a lot more listenable and makes my good recordings even better. Can't say enough good things about this amp. If you can't hear a difference between something like an Arc and an Audison you probably have tin ears.


I think Zuki is well respected and revered here. No doubt good stuff... I wonder if what you speak of is similar to a circuit built to make solid state amps sound similar to tube amps. Its away of tricking the clipping to roll of slower giving the illusion to more headroom. Tubes are beloved for this and solid states can be made to sound similar.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Only the ignorant think all amps sound the same in the real world. The Eleets 4 sounded almost exactly like my PG Xenon. The big "custom" Zuki in my truck is warm and detailed. Patrick told me why but can't share what he did on the forums. It makes my harsh recordings a lot more listenable and makes my good recordings even better. Can't say enough good things about this amp. If you can't hear a difference between something like an Arc and an Audison you probably have tin ears.


Ah, the powers of suggestion...

Unless Patrick did something to futz with the FR of the amp (entirely possible; that's how Butler got the "tube sound" in the old Tube Drivers), or it's simply much much more powerful (Patrick doesn't seem to be competent to rate amplifiers) then unfortunately it's all in your head because you're proud to have a "custom" one.

Being able to pull 100amps or whatever isn't going to do jack in the real world. Beyond that, you _can_ share anything you wish (even if you signed an NDA, you _can_ share; you just subject yourself to liability for doing so). Here I think you don't want to share, because you don't want people to laugh at Patrick for telling tall tales. Fair enough.



Hillbilly SQ said:


> If you can't hear a difference between something like an Arc and an Audison you probably have tin ears.


Why? The Audison amp I heard in Ryan's car didn't seem to do anything untoward. No reason to think it's less of a commodity than a Ubuy amp. The Audison may look cool, and be rated fairly accurately if not at all conservatively (rating higher than actual power by a reasonable tolerance), but there's nothing to suggest it has magic beyond anything that Ubuy or Pioneer_ or Kenwood_ or JL_ or anyone else has figured out and put into production.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

fertigaudio said:


> I think Zuki is well respected and revered here. No doubt good stuff... I wonder if what you speak of is similar to a circuit built to make solid state amps sound similar to tube amps. Its away of tricking the clipping to roll of slower giving the illusion to more headroom. Tubes are beloved for this and solid states can be made to sound similar.


Funny you say that. That's the first impression I got about the sound of the "big boy". Again I know what he did but can't share that info. I call it one of his "Frankenstein" amps.


----------



## Rob J (Jul 18, 2010)

IMO, saying all amps sound the same, is like saying all cars drive the same.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Rob J said:


> IMO, saying all amps sound the same, is like saying all cars drive the same.


Good thing you prefaced it with IMO, because it's OK to have an ignorant opinion. But it's not OK to present rank ignorance as fact.

There are plenty of _mechanisms_ in cars to make them drive differently from one another. Controls are weighted differently, there are different approaches to dampers and springs, engines have different torque curves, tires have differently sized-and-shaped contact patches, some have roofs and others don't , and so on. 

But what does an amp do? It just takes an electrical wave and makes it a bigger electrical wave. 

No listening test that has judged nonbroken amps on just their ability to amplify electrical waves (as opposed to using eyes to judge their looks or relative prices, or using ears to distinguish between small level variations) has ever shown a sonic difference between them. 

So anyone who sees equivalence between cars and amps is really just not rocking a full load of dendrites...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Only the ignorant think all amps sound the same in the real world.


...

Only the ignorant boil down arguments to such a simple level.


----------



## Rob J (Jul 18, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Good thing you prefaced it with IMO, because it's OK to have an ignorant opinion. But it's not OK to present rank ignorance as fact.
> 
> There are plenty of _mechanisms_ in cars to make them drive differently from one another. Controls are weighted differently, there are different approaches to dampers and springs, engines have different torque curves, tires have differently sized-and-shaped contact patches, some have roofs and others don't , and so on.
> 
> ...


As a Mechanical Engineer by trade, thank you for pointing out the obvious to me. 

So, all amplifiers then use the same electrical components, same circuitry? Hmm, yes they must all sound the same.

I respectfully disagree that they sound the same. But, you know what they say about opinions....


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Rob J said:


> So, all amplifiers then use the same electrical components, same circuitry? Hmm, yes they must all sound the same.


How is any of that stuff relevant to sound? 

There are probably about as many different types and configurations of computers on here, using different components and different circuitry. So, by your "logic," they must all reproduce the text of this message differently. 

And I don't particularly care that you're an ME. For better or worse, having a degree or a profession does not automatically confer an ability to think. But that notwithstanding, your ME degree, be it an associates or maybe a BS, won't tell you anything more about the "sound" of amps than my BA, MA, MS, and JD tell me. Why? None of our degrees are in the relevant field, which is not even EE but some sort of audiology.



Rob J said:


> I respectfully disagree that they sound the same. But, you know what they say about opinions....


Sorry, but there's no room for "opinion" when there is *direct evidence* that it is false. Do you "respectfully disagree" that the earth is round, as well?


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Amps don't sound the same because we always clip the outputs. So long as they have the same frequency response and aren't driven into clipping, they sound similar. 

Damping factor is a non-issue because the output impedance of amplifiers doesn't provide appreciable damping in the circuit. So long as the output impedance of the amp is an order of magnitude or so lower than the load impedance, even it doesn't matter much.


----------



## Rob J (Jul 18, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> How is any of that stuff relevant to sound?
> 
> There are probably about as many different types and configurations of computers on here, using different components and different circuitry. So, by your "logic," they must all reproduce the text of this message differently.
> 
> ...


My friend, you have issues. So, it is pointless for me to continue to waste my time in this conversation. Feed your ego with someone else. I joined this forum for a hobby I love, not to create conflict. I simply stated my opinion based on my REAL WORLD experience. Yours may have differed, so be it. This will be my last reply on this thread


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

The Earth is shaped like a crazy straw DUH!


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Rob J said:


> My friend, you have issues. So, it is pointless for me to continue to waste my time in this conversation.


People like you often feel that learning something is "wasting time."

In this case, you would be learning that audio electronics are commodity parts.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

DS-21 it would seem that you prey on anyone willing to engage in conversation with you. You offer nothing but arguments. A commodity is too simple a term to describe something that is so vast and interesting as audio and electronics. 

Wiki describes a commodity as a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. That is comparing apples to oranges literally as they are commodities. Have you ever looked at what is traded in commodities? Its all things natural, stuff that comes from the earth. Amps are dynamic, designed by many, built by many more. Your 1 dimensional thinking leaves you looking as you described so many others. Ignorant.

I too will not be replying to this anymore as you have beat this horse to death.

EDIT: LOL, all this talk about commodities takes me back to the Eddie Murphy movie Trading Places (one of my 80's favorites).


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

fertigaudio said:


> DS-21 it would seem that you prey on anyone willing to engage in conversation with you. You offer nothing but arguments. A commodity is too simple a term to describe something that is so vast and interesting as audio and electronics.
> 
> Wiki describes a commodity as a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. That is comparing apples to oranges literally as they are commodities. Have you ever looked at what is traded in commodities? Its all things natural, stuff that comes from the earth. Amps are dynamic, designed by many, built by many more. Your 1 dimensional thinking leaves you looking as you described so many others. Ignorant.
> 
> ...


He also thinks a midsized sedan can pull a really big trailer without even thinking about the wimpy suspention. Interstate speeds, bumps, and wind are a killer combo literally when a suspention isn't up to snuff. My friends grandpa was pulling a 26' camper AND a 19.5' Champion bass boat with his 08 ext cab Sierra 1500 with the 5.3 v8. This is an experienced old man when it comes to loads like this but a rough interstate and gust of wind caused the truck pulling tandams to "snake". It totaled his camper, nearly totaled his brand new truck, but even though the camper landed on the nose of the Champion all it did was put a deep scratch in it but bent the hell out of the trailer. Moral of the story...if the tow vehicle isn't sufficient the trailer will end up causing a really bad accident in a situation outside of a lab.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Anyone ever notice that people who have never built an amplifier of any kind tend to be the most vocal about how amps have a sonic signature? I mean, I'm not gonna comment on towing, or on suspension, or on differences between cars. Just because I've driven cars and towed stuff doesn't make me feel like I know enough about those things. If I knew and understood how cars worked down to their smallest component parts, then I'd probably have something to say about them. How come people don't take the same approach with amplifiers? They think having owned amplifiers for X number of years makes them know how they work? Lots of hot wind, I think. At least that's my perception of these threads.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Anyone ever notice that people who have never built an amplifier of any kind tend to be the most vocal about how amps have a sonic signature? I mean, I'm not gonna comment on towing, or on suspension, or on differences between cars. Just because I've driven cars and towed stuff doesn't make me feel like I know enough about those things. If I knew and understood how cars worked down to their smallest component parts, then I'd probably have something to say about them. How come people don't take the same approach with amplifiers? They think having owned amplifiers for X number of years makes them know how they work? Lots of hot wind, I think. At least that's my perception of these threads.


Mark I agree, I don't come on the forums for anything but reading new things about the subject I love and sharing what I have learned. Both ways can present themselves with believable evidence. Is it audible or not. We have all stated what we feel, but when threads become arguments it just kills the buzz. 

*I am not an engineer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express once. * I don't feel anyone on here has to prove themselves because we all have different levels of experience. I remember building my first amp from Radio-shack parts at 13, in Junior High and HS I studied and read electronic theory. Fun stuff not to make people feel stupid. I have build several amps and even Linear HAM amps. I have tons of pictures just not with me in Iraq at the moment. The different topologies and numbers excite me. They may mean nothing to most and in fact it really matters little. I just love talking theory.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

fertigaudio said:


> You offer nothing but arguments.


You may be too thick to see it, or (given your name, which implies some sort of audio-related industry, too blinded by glaring conflicts of interest) but that is what discussion is: arguments and counterarguments. But a counterarg. is still an arg. So in that sense, you are correct.

Most of my arguments are, however, grounded in science that should be common knowledge to anyone interested in audio, which I'll occasionally cite. Some (none presented in this thread) are based on my own subjective observations over time.



fertigaudio said:


> A commodity is too simple a term to describe something that is so vast and interesting as audio and electronics.


It's vast, but not particularly interesting because it's simple (and cheap) to find audio electronics with sonically transparent performance. 



fertigaudio said:


> Wiki describes a commodity as a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.


Which is, in fact, the proper way to think of digital sources, amps, wires, and so on from a *sonic* standpoint. 

Is there differentiation in audio electronics? Obviously. But *that differentiation is not sonic.* It is based on factors such as price, size (especially in amplifiers), weight, flexibility, (perceived) build/parts quality, brand snobbery, features, warranty, or any number of other factors that are sonically just not relevant. Are they relevant to the end user for other reasons besides sonics? Sure! Any reasonable person may rank real existing factors in any order one chooses. But *sonics* is just not one of those factors, except occasionally in the extreme high end (extreme high end electronics are generally designed by twits) and in other pathological cases.



fertigaudio said:


> That is comparing apples to oranges literally as they are commodities. Have you ever looked at what is traded in commodities? Its all things natural, stuff that comes from the earth. Amps are dynamic, designed by many, built by many more.


Gasoline is dynamic (many formulations), with many formulations designed by many engineers, and refined by many more. Yet it is traded as a commodity, is it not? That kind of destroys your whole argument. (Yes, you just trade in arguments as well.)

And with that, ich habe fertig.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

touche' Ich bin fertig

The name gave it away, huh.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

You obviously didn't get the reference, even though had you googled the phrase as I used it the VERY FIRST hit you would've seen is this Youtube clip.






Here is another use of the phrase, from the 1998 Wahlkampf. (I presume you recognize the rotund fellow pictured on the postcard, given that you consider yourself competent to correct my German diction.)









Hopefully your commentary on audio isn't as sloppy, ill-researched, and ill-considered in the future as your sorry-ass attempt to correct my German was. Though it certainly has been all of those things in this thread thus far.


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

DS's irrational love of fruity computers and girly cars as well as his position on amp sonics firmly demonstrate that people can be right on science and wrong on opinion.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Amps don't sound the same because we always clip the outputs. So long as they have the same frequency response and aren't driven into clipping, they sound similar.
> 
> Damping factor is a non-issue because the output impedance of amplifiers doesn't provide appreciable damping in the circuit. So long as the output impedance of the amp is an order of magnitude or so lower than the load impedance, even it doesn't matter much.


Well put, this article (had to dig through my bookmark stash) Damping Factor: Effects On System Response — Reviews and News from Audioholics hits the proverbial nail on the head.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

I find it amazing that all these years we are still divided firmly between the "can't hear the difference" and "amps sound different" camps. 

I tend to side with Andy on this one, and that is that _unclipped_, they sound pretty much the same. Maybe you can affect .5% - 2% of the sound which is a tiny factor compared with all other variables in a system's design. More available power may = better sound assuming the noise floor is equal, simply because the signal is clipped less or not at all. IMO, more powerful amps might be noisier too, so all things must be equal for us to judge. 


I do know this: My HRU.4 is by far the best amp I've ever owned, and may be the best amp I've ever heard. I say_ may_ because the ear and mind simply can not remember the differences in sound over the long term, unless the difference is quite obvious. Most of us would agree with that I bet. Sure you'll remember the blatantly clipped sound because not only did it sound bad, it probably gave you a headache. Those kinds of memories stay with me the longest. Anyway, I have digressed... The HRU.4 probably sounds the best because it is the most powerful 4ch amp I've used. To me, that makes sense.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

fertigaudio said:


> Well put, this article (had to dig through my bookmark stash) Damping Factor: Effects On System Response — Reviews and News from Audioholics hits the proverbial nail on the head.


Yes, and the reason that this is true is because the "component" of the speaker that contributes motion is the inductive property of the voice coil. When current passes through a conductor, a magnetic field is generated. that magnetic field interacts with the static field in the gap and moves the cone forward and backward according to the direction of current flow. The DCR of the woofer is chosen by it's designer to determine the current flow through the coil. The amplifier's output impedance is in series with the speaker's DCR in the circuit, and so long as the DCR is greater than the amplifier's output impedance, IT contributes most of the "damping" since current is constant in a series circuit. 

When the coil moves in the gap, it also generates a voltage (this is what inductors do). This voltage causes current to flow opposite the direction of current flow from the amplifier. We express this as resistance and it IS the impedance peak at resonance (where the woofer's mass and the compliance of the suspension keep it moving after the current from the amplifier stops). The idea behind damping factor is that if the output impedance of the amp is super low, more curent would flow from the speaker through the amplifier's output impedance which would dissipate the current that flows as a result of the stored voltage created by the moving inductor. Dissipating the fow of current that helps the speaker continue moving would cause it to come to rest faster--that's damping. It doesn't work that way because the DCR of the speaker is in series with the inductor in the speaker's circuit and it controls the flow of current.

This fallacy was dreamed up by amplifier designers who wanted to sell the benefits of transistors over tubes. Unfortunately, those amp designers apparently had no idea how a speaker works. You can't have a resistance that regulates the flow of current in one circumstance and ignore that same resistance in another. Oops. Chalk up 30 years of marketing to some half-assed BS.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Yes, and the reason that this is true is because the "component" of the speaker that contributes motion is the inductive property of the voice coil. When current passes through a conductor, a magnetic field is generated. that magnetic field interacts with the static field in the gap and moves the cone forward and backward according to the direction of current flow. The DCR of the woofer is chosen by it's designer to determine the current flow through the coil. The amplifier's output impedance is in series with the speaker's DCR in the circuit, and so long as the DCR is greater than the amplifier's output impedance, IT contributes most of the "damping" since current is constant in a series circuit.
> 
> When the coil moves in the gap, it also generates a voltage (this is what inductors do). This voltage causes current to flow opposite the direction of current flow from the amplifier. We express this as resistance and it IS the impedance peak at resonance (where the woofer's mass and the compliance of the suspension keep it moving after the current from the amplifier stops). The idea behind damping factor is that if the output impedance of the amp is super low, more curent would flow from the speaker through the amplifier's output impedance which would dissipate the current that flows as a result of the stored voltage created by the moving inductor. Dissipating the fow of current that helps the speaker continue moving would cause it to come to rest faster--that's damping. It doesn't work that way because the DCR of the speaker is in series with the inductor in the speaker's circuit and it controls the flow of current.
> 
> This fallacy was dreamed up by amplifier designers who wanted to sell the benefits of transistors over tubes. Unfortunately, those amp designers apparently had no idea how a speaker works. You can't have a resistance that regulates the flow of current in one circumstance and ignore that same resistance in another. Oops. Chalk up 30 years of marketing to some half-assed BS.


Not a correction, but perhaps an elaboration ...

Way back when, in the long-forgotten days when the _science_ of amplifier design was well respected ... long before fashion & idiocy ruled the amplifier market ... the relative non-importance of damping factor was well known :

"_Damping factors greater than 10 are not thought to be of particular advantage, since the speaker system dc resistance and feed-line resistance limit the effectiveness of the amplifier damping._"

from *A New 30-Watt Power Amplifier*, Sidney A. Corderman and Frank H. McIntosh, _Journal of the Audio Engineering Society_, October *1953*.

Yes ... NINETEEN FIFTY THREE. And yes ... THAT McIntosh 

How much we've lost  I'd be real surprised if anyone "designing" amplifiers nowadays (yes, i use that term loosely, since "design" now means copy & market) ... not to mention the "expert audiophile" users ... even understands what a series circuit is


----------



## EternalGraphics808 (Apr 28, 2009)

fourthmeal said:


> I find it amazing that all these years we are still divided firmly between the "can't hear the difference" and "amps sound different" camps.
> 
> I tend to side with Andy on this one, and that is that _unclipped_, they sound pretty much the same. Maybe you can affect .5% - 2% of the sound which is a tiny factor compared with all other variables in a system's design. More available power may = better sound assuming the noise floor is equal, simply because the signal is clipped less or not at all. IMO, more powerful amps might be noisier too, so all things must be equal for us to judge.
> 
> ...


And I think its great that since you have a child coming, you no longer have a need for a powerful amp, and as such, will be giving me said HRU.


----------



## EternalGraphics808 (Apr 28, 2009)

DS-21, I've read all of your recent posting in this thread.

I'm lost. Please forgive me.

Do you believe that all commodities sound the same? 
For example, 

Audison Thesis. 
100watt RMS per channel 14.4v

Rockwood. (I only use this brand for comparison)
*in theory a signal input coming from the same source.*
100watt RMS per channel 14.4v

That they both produce the same "sound" or rather the ability to make the wave bigger, equally?

I can't tell if you say yes or no.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

EternalGraphics808 said:


> DS-21, I've read all of your recent posting in this thread.
> 
> I'm lost. Please forgive me.
> 
> ...



View attachment 20062


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> View attachment 20062


388 correct identifications out of 772 trials.

If what everyone said about amplifiers sounding drastically different was correct, I would expect a minimum of 695 correct identifications. Based on the amplifier test in the article, one could almost infer that the correct identifications were guesses.

Edit: Now I know why NO ONE has managed to win Richard Clark's challenge. Add processing to the mix that allows the amplifiers to measure the same, and one doesn't have a prayer in distinguishing the difference between two different amplifiers at the same power level below clipping.


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

EternalGraphics808 said:


> DS-21, I've read all of your recent posting in this thread.
> 
> I'm lost. Please forgive me.
> 
> ...


Unless one is designed to modify the incoming signal and they have the same output then yes, they should sound the same and that is what DS is saying. 

Everyone who says amps makes a difference should take up Clark's challenge as you would all make some scratch pretty quickly


----------



## NRA4ever (Jul 19, 2010)

I have 2 old Phoenix Gold ZX475 ti amps. I bought them in 2000 & 2001. They still sound good & work great. They are big & heavy but they run a front stage well. I have run a system with one. I have the gains turned all the way down on the PG I have in my Ranger. It is plenty loud this way. My sub amp isn't at more than 25%. on its gain.


----------



## JAX (Jun 2, 2006)

NRA4ever said:


> I have 2 old Phoenix Gold ZX475 ti amps. I bought them in 2000 & 2001. They still sound good & work great. They are big & heavy but they run a front stage well. I have run a system with one. I have the gains turned all the way down on the PG I have in my Ranger. It is plenty loud this way. My sub amp isn't at more than 25%. on its gain.



welcome. not far from me either. I am a long time PG fan myself. you should consider checking those capacitors in those amps and they are due to be replaced. 

if I can help let me know. 

Mike


----------



## NRA4ever (Jul 19, 2010)

The amp I'm running was rebuilt by PG 2 yrs ago. I plan to send the other one in before I use it in my F 250. They will completely go through this amp for $140. 
What part of Louisiana are you in? I just moved back from Memphis. I bought my car audio from a shop there called Autoradio.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

EternalGraphics808 said:


> DS-21, I've read all of your recent posting in this thread.
> 
> I'm lost. Please forgive me.
> 
> ...


Assuming that they're both accurately rated, and neither one has a built-in EQ curve, yes. 

However, the Audison is probably a little overrated (judging by reviews of their other amps) and the Rockwood might be a lot overrated. So it's not just a matter of looking on paper. You have to know something about whether you can trust what's on paper, too.


----------



## fertigaudio (Jul 18, 2010)

Daishi said:


> Unless one is designed to modify the incoming signal and they have the same output then yes, they should sound the same and that is what DS is saying.
> 
> Everyone who says amps makes a difference should take up Clark's challenge as you would all make some scratch pretty quickly


I have looked this up and read, and read, and read some more. Its all in our heads. The audio is the same through and through. Half correct would yield you the same results if you flipped a quarter.

But this thread is a list of sound quality rated amps. Check the features for yourself and find the following to find your own personal "SQ rated amp."

Input drivers, signal buffers, eq's, quality of components, will it last more than 5 minutes before going into protection at rated power, headroom(underrated), clipping or soft clipping. These are what makes amps sound different.


----------



## Persistent1 (Sep 24, 2010)

OK, if an Amp is an Amp is an Amp, then it doesn't matter at all what quality the (resistors, capacitors, mosfets, transformers, etc...) are? I mean each one of these components have variables that affect their precision. Can't a capacitor be faster at charging and discharging? That in itself could affect the sound, couldn't it? I'd love to take an amp with really low quality components and replace some with high quality just to see if there would be any sound difference. 
IMO (DS-21  ) I have replaced amps without any EQ change (ex. pull out a 4X75 Kenwood put in a 4X75 Sony) and the sound was incredibly different. PERIOD! I could easily point out the difference in sound to anyone. I'll keep purchasing upper quality amps because I love great music reproduction. And if Richard Clark would pay someone to tell the difference in a system that already exists by removing one amp and installing another without (none-zero-nada) other changes I'll be there. And so would any other SQ judge.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Persistent1 said:


> OK, if an Amp is an Amp is an Amp, then it doesn't matter at all what quality the (resistors, capacitors, mosfets, transformers, etc...) are? I mean each one of these components have variables that affect their precision. Can't a capacitor be faster at charging and discharging? That in itself could affect the sound, couldn't it? I'd love to take an amp with really low quality components and replace some with high quality just to see if there would be any sound difference.


A capacitor that charges faster than another capacitor either has a higher capacitance, or a lower series resistance and/or inductance.

Can it affect the sound? Depends on where it is in the circuit. Input coupling capacitors -- these parameters will affect its filter properties (ie. its crossover point). What about caps in the power supply? That will affect their ability to stabilize voltage. What about output zobel capacitor? That, too, will affect its filter properties. What about feedback limiting capacitor? That will also adjust the filter properties of the feedback gain.

So the question is: how much of a change in capacitance do you need to produce an audible effect? 

Well, in the power supply, the filter caps, rail decoupling caps, and reservoir caps are almost arbitrarily chosen, so obviously precision isn't needed there. 

What about the input coupling capacitor? Its job is to highpass filter the input signal to block DC. You want its crossover frequency to be somewhere between 0Hz and 20Hz so that it doesn't roll off low frequencies. That's a big range, so obviously precision isn't needed there. 

What about the zobel capacitor? This is there for stability, and its effectiveness depends on the impedance of the speaker. Since amps are designed to work with a multitude of load impedances, obviously precision isn't needed there either. 

That leaves us with the feedback limiting capacitor. Its job is to roll off high frequencies from entry into the feedback network as to reduce the probability of oscillations. Generally, harmonic distortion goes up with frequency because of reduced feedback at high frequencies. This capacitor determines at which frequency it starts to go up. If the frequency is too high, you could run into stabilization issues. If it's too low, then harmonic distortion increases before it needs to. The frequency chosen attempts to create a balance of these two factors -- there's no perfect spot, it's just an estimate of a good place to compromise. So, precision doesn't matter. This should be obvious, considering that some manufacturers don't even bother with this capacitor. 

Long story short... _capacitor precision doesn't matter_.

*Don't necessarily assume that parts tolerance matters until you understand the circuits in which these parts appear!*


----------

