# Old school Best amps vs. current and sound/reliability quality



## sodbuster

If you had to compare lets say for example Old School PPI vs. current JL Slash or Audison V series ,how do you think they would compare?


----------



## High Resolution Audio

I recently replaced a JL Slash 300/4 with 2 old school Sound Stream A 100 II for my mids and highs. Even though I went down from 75 watts per channel to 50 Watts per channel, the sound quality dramatically improved. The 50 Watt/ channel class "A" amps made the sound louder and clearer. I had more power, and much more detail. Made my Boston Acoustics Pro series come back to life.......the reason I changed it out was because the sound was not bright sparkling and detailed as I remembered back in the late 1990's. Changing the Amps definitively fixed that.

Also replaced JL Audio Slash 600/1 with an Old School Monster Sized 30" PPI based amp (Pyramid Super Pro PBSP2300) for my 10" Boston Acoustics Pro Mid-Basses. The sound was much warmer and much more detailed. Could hear so many details especially in the track I was listening to which had a guitar being played. The JL sounded "dull" and "dead" when compared.


----------



## vwdave

If you can't afford one of the modern class A/B amps then I'd go with a mid to upper end old school amp. I can hear a difference between today's standard class D and my old school amps.

Now on the other hand, old school class A/B amps are kind of like muscle cars...they require maintenance and repairs sometimes but they are more pleasurable when they are running right. Also, like a muscle car, if you are into them you probably should learn how to work on them, otherwise you'll spend decent money having someone else do your repairs. 

If you don't have the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on them then you are probably better off going with a modern amp.


----------



## ChrisB

As someone who once became all nostalgic and purchased a bunch of old school amps, only to end up running a single JL Audio HD900/5... I'll take modern amplifiers over old. Since I don't drive uber quiet luxury mobiles, the SQ fairy dust gets lost while actually driving the vehicle. Besides, like vwdave stated, most of my old school acquisitions had problems. Some were simple to fix whereas others were well beyond my capabilities. I'll take new with a warranty!

The only reason for me to run old school gear would be if I got nostalgic again, but I believe that ship has sailed. Fortunately for me, Arc Audio SE amplifiers exist and I would probably run them or Audison if I wasn't space limited. Until I drive something other than a compact car, the MMATS HIFI6150D or JL Audio HD900/5 will be my amplifier of choice!


----------



## Old Skewl

Good points made above by both Chris and Dave! I love the nostalgia of the old amps and I swear the older amps sound more dynamic. I have a newer Phoenix Gold SD 1300.5 in one vehicle, and I recently installed 3 Soundstream Reference amps behind the seat of my Silverado. After 3 months the Class A 6.0 randomly decides not turn on the left channel. I have other amps I can swap out, but I really don't have time these days to remove the seat, swap amps, and retune. Plus is flipping cold out side. So I ride around listening to the right channel . Ugghhh! Btw the Pheonix Gold is going strong 2 years without a hitch. Food for thought.


----------



## miniSQ

Old Skewl said:


> Good points made above by both Chris and Dave! I love the nostalgia of the old amps and I swear the older amps sound more dynamic. I have a newer Phoenix Gold SD 1300.5 in one vehicle, and I recently installed 3 Soundstream Reference amps behind the seat of my Silverado. After 3 months the Class A 6.0 randomly decides not turn on the left channel. I have other amps I can swap out, but I really don't have time these days to remove the seat, swap amps, and retune. Plus is flipping cold out side. So I ride around listening to the right channel . Ugghhh! Btw the Pheonix Gold is going strong 2 years without a hitch. Food for thought.


when it finally warms up here in the east, {maybe by july 4th or so}...try spraying some contact cleaner in the switch on the bottom that flips between mono and stereo...and move it back and forth about 50 times...see if that brings your left channel back. It did on my slash amp.

And yes my vulcan Vii did seem more dynamic to me than the slah amp i replaced it with. And i get all nostalgic from time to time and would love to be running some old school in my car again.


----------



## soccerguru607

Been using Sinfoni 50.4x for mid/high for almost a year and could not be happier. Before that I was using Soundstream class A100II for over three years and honestly no complain either, even now. I think a lot of time is a personal judgement of their point of view what sound quality is, also depending on type of music listening to. 

From my experiences SS class A100II sounds brighter and maybe clearer, so certain instruments or music sounds better to me. While the Sinfoni sounded warmer or relaxed and non-fatigue especially on tweeters. 

I chose Sinfoni because I prefer warmer sound.


----------



## kyheng

Numbers mean nothing basically, what matters is still the clean power an amp able to produce. I can have 200W of "dirty" power to my speakers, but it won't sound good. Feeding the same speaker with clean 18W will give better results.


----------



## Old Skewl

miniSQ said:


> when it finally warms up here in the east, {maybe by july 4th or so}...try spraying some contact cleaner in the switch on the bottom that flips between mono and stereo...and move it back and forth about 50 times...see if that brings your left channel back. It did on my slash amp.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes my vulcan Vii did seem more dynamic to me than the slah amp i replaced it with. And i get all nostalgic from time to time and would love to be running some old school in my car again.



Thanks for the recommendation! I know the switches on these amps can be troublesome and it never crossed my mind. I cleaned all the switches before I installed the amps, but more than likely it's the culprit.


Sent from my iphone using Tap


----------



## soccerguru607

I have plenty of Soundstream switches and other parts stocked if you ever need it.


----------



## mobileaudiofreak

IMO, and thats all it is, even the high end new digital stuff while being EXTREMELY reliable, detailed, and having a wonderful small footprint, lacks the warmth and "fleshyness" if you will of an old school analog amp! i run a digital amp on my subs, and even would on my midbass if i had too. but on mids and highs i run old school soundstreams [rubicon 604 and 805]


----------



## High Resolution Audio

soccerguru607 said:


> Been using Sinfoni 50.4x for mid/high for almost a year and could not be happier. Before that I was using Soundstream class A100II for over three years and honestly no complain either, even now. I think a lot of time is a personal judgement of their point of view what sound quality is, also depending on type of music listening to.
> 
> From my experiences SS class A100II sounds brighter and maybe clearer, so certain instruments or music sounds better to me. While the Sinfoni sounded warmer or relaxed and non-fatigue especially on tweeters.
> 
> I chose Sinfoni because I prefer warmer sound.


Speaking of fatiguing on the high end, I replaced a Pioneer P99 RS because it was too harsh, too digital, and very fatiguing after 5-10 minutes of listening. With the Alpine 7995 that replaced it, I can listen at high volumes for extended periods without getting irritated. IMO, the source unit has more of an impact in regards to fatiguing or non-fatguing sound as opposed to amplifier selection. 

I do have to admit that the Pioneer unit does a much better job on the low end than the Alpine does. The bass was lower, crisper, cleaner, punchier, and more detailed. If only there was a way to use the Pioneer for bass and the Alpine for mids and tweets that would be ideal.


----------



## sqnut

High Resolution Audio said:


> Speaking of fatiguing on the high end, I replaced a Pioneer P99 RS because it was too harsh, too digital, and very fatiguing after 5-10 minutes of listening. With the Alpine 7995 that replaced it, I can listen at high volumes for extended periods without getting irritated. IMO, the source unit has more of an impact in regards to fatiguing or non-fatguing sound as opposed to amplifier selection.
> 
> I do have to admit that the Pioneer unit does a much better job on the low end than the Alpine does. The bass was lower, crisper, cleaner, punchier, and more detailed. If only there was a way to use the Pioneer for bass and the Alpine for mids and tweets that would be ideal.


Seriously?


----------



## soccerguru607

High Resolution Audio said:


> Speaking of fatiguing on the high end, I replaced a Pioneer P99 RS because it was too harsh, too digital, and very fatiguing after 5-10 minutes of listening. With the Alpine 7995 that replaced it, I can listen at high volumes for extended periods without getting irritated. IMO, the source unit has more of an impact in regards to fatiguing or non-fatguing sound as opposed to amplifier selection.
> 
> I do have to admit that the Pioneer unit does a much better job on the low end than the Alpine does. The bass was lower, crisper, cleaner, punchier, and more detailed. If only there was a way to use the Pioneer for bass and the Alpine for mids and tweets that would be ideal.


mmm...maybe tuning? 

I really like the sound coming out from 7998 and 9835 receivers. The 9835 sounds warmer compared to my RF denford 8250.


----------



## Victor_inox

main reason people upgrading their 99s.


----------



## soccerguru607

mobileaudiofreak said:


> IMO, and thats all it is, even the high end new digital stuff while being EXTREMELY reliable, detailed, and having a wonderful small footprint, lacks the warmth and "fleshyness" if you will of an old school analog amp! i run a digital amp on my subs, and even would on my midbass if i had too. but on mids and highs i run old school soundstreams [rubicon 604 and 805]


Do you mean full range class D?

From my experiences I feel they sound 'dull' and 'lifeless', just bright detail clear sound


----------



## RYNOMOTO

my plan is to use an old school, high quality amp paired with a tube pre amp from Vic and some quality old school components. It will be the best of both worlds.

I will be using it with some old school, high quality tweets and mids that have very high efficiency.

The new crap that everyone is selling is more about cheap build quality and a lot of watts in the amps. The newer speakers can handle more watts, but their efficiencies are so much lower than the older, quality speakers, that these newer ones require 5 times the power to get to the same volume as the older quality components did. 

Also, I have noticed the muddy sound that others complain about in the newer amps and components as well......


Old school for life here


----------



## 1996blackmax

I just went to inexpensive all class d amps. Before these, I used Boston GT amps, & Arc XXK's before that. This is the first time I've used a class d full range amp. I'm content with their performance.

I too have been thinking about Victor's tube pre- amps.


----------



## CK1991

I've had good luck with my old amps (well, except the PG zx (leaky caps) and linear power amps I had, but since they were all second hand...). old head units is another story, especially when it comes to tape deck issues. Pioneers have horribly crappy screws that strip out, making a simple belt change nearly impossible. Also had a few that still didn't work right after rebelting and cleaning(BTW, anyone here know how to work on Harman kardon decks. I got one that needs work)?


----------



## vwdave

Do you know if maybe e pioneer screw strip out because they use metric screws? Not sure if they do but many thugs made in japan have those special screws with a different pitch than standard Philips screws and might need special screw drivers.

Sorry for the side note.


----------

