# Kenwood XR-5S Review



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

Kenwood - XR-5S


This amplifier provides 5 channels of solid class-D power, and sounds great doing it. The chassis is extremely compact for an amp in this power range, and it runs cool under load.

I know, I know you've always heard that class-D is no good for highs, or SQ in general but I'm here to tell you that these latest eXcelon amps perform exceptionally well, regardless of the power supply topology. 

Just to be clear - by "sounds good" I mean that the amps makes enough power to run a modest but complete system with minimal distortion at normal listening levels, without overheating or excessive clipping. As long as you have enough headroom, I would go so far as to say that it is practically indistinguishable from a traditional class-A/B amp (with a tightly regulated power supply) of similar power.

I'm sure there are documented test results somewhere from years ago that "prove" that this simply cannot be true, and even if there are, I could care less because I cannot hear a significant difference. Driving down the road, the system sounds fantastic being driven by the XR-5S, and considering the size of the unit and the power you get for the money this product represents an excellent value in the next generation of mobile amplification.

When it comes to efficiency, the current draw is well within the capabilities of a typical stock charging system. I have seen no dimming whatsoever, running full tilt with the headlights and blower motor both on. 




As for the cons, I would have to say that the S/N ratio of the inputs leaves something to be desired if your source units has weaker (<2 volts) RCA outputs. For example, the amp exhibited good headroom being supplied three sets of 4 volt outputs from a Kenwood X595, but the input sensitivity had to be nearly maximized in order to work with the lower-powered signal from a JBL MS-8.

As nice as it sounds, a good under-rated class-A/B amp with a robust power supply does still sound better to me. Versus something like the RF Power series or Zapco Reference amps, the Kenwood is just not as dynamic *at sustained high SPL levels*. At moderate volumes it does fine in comparison, but if you drive it too hard for too long, the limitations of the power supply become very apparent in a hurry.



All in all the XR-5S is a fine solution for many basic SQ oriented applications. Watt for watt, it holds its own. Although it effectively demonstrates how far class-D has come, it does fall short of competing with the sheer power available from much larger A/B amps.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Chaos said:


> As nice as it sounds, a good under-rated class-A/B amp with a robust power supply does still sound better to me. Versus something like the RF Power series or Zapco Reference amps, the Kenwood is just not as dynamic *at sustained high SPL levels*. At moderate volumes it does fine in comparison, but if you drive it too hard for too long, the limitations of the power supply become very apparent in a hurry.


To be clear, what you're saying is essentially that more power is better at high SPL.

IOW, there's no reason to assume that a higher-powered Class D amp (for example, just to use presumably the same Class D archetecture, a bridged Kenwood XR-4S) wouldn't sound better at sustained high SPL than an RF Power series or Zapco Reference amp that in fact puts out less power. But the Class D amp would be smaller and more efficient than the "good under-rated class A/B amp with a robust power supply."


----------



## upperguy (Jul 31, 2009)

I've been considering switching from a 300/4 & 250/1 JL combo to one of these to run my Focal 165KR's and Kenwood shallow when I install the MS8(switching to active, I previously had the 300/4 powering the entire system). When you mentioned that the input sensitivity had to be nearly maximized, would you consider it a bad matchup between the two? 

I'm really glad you posted this because I've been teetering on the wall and my install timeframe is coming up soon so I need to make a decision.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> To be clear, what you're saying is essentially that more power is better at high SPL.
> 
> IOW, there's no reason to assume that a higher-powered Class D amp (for example, just to use presumably the same Class D archetecture, a bridged Kenwood XR-4S) wouldn't sound better at sustained high SPL than an RF Power series or Zapco Reference amp that in fact puts out less power. But the Class D amp would be smaller and more efficient than the "good under-rated class A/B amp with a robust power supply."


Fair point, and of course higher power is always better for SPL, but what I'm saying is that if you were to listen to same system being run by the Kenwood amp vs. one that was powered by A/B amps with the same power ratings *and more dynamic power supplies* then the traditional amps still have the advantage of better headroom.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

upperguy said:


> When you mentioned that the input sensitivity had to be nearly maximized, would you consider it a bad matchup between the two?



Hard to say. All I know is that after calibration in my particular application, I had to turn the gains up on the Kenwood just about all the way to achieve enough output, whereas the outputs straight from the deck didn't need nearly as high of a setting to produce the same SPL. However, it could also be that there was so much bias to fix that the MS-8 attenuated everything to the point that I had to compensate accordingly by bumping up the gain as far as I did.


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

I am in a similar quandary as upperguy, though mine has the typical 'way overboard' twist that I bring to the table. I am considering replacing a 450/4, 300/4, 500/1 with a duo of the XR-5S amps. Have you had an opportunity to test the bridged performance of the amp? Also, what does the rest of the system consist of?

At the very least, I'm glad to hear you like the amp thus far, I may end up giving it a go.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Chaos said:


> but what I'm saying is that if you were to listen to same system being run by the Kenwood amp vs. one that was powered by A/B ampswith the same power ratings *and more dynamic power supplies* then the traditional amps still have the advantage of better headroom.


So, what you're really saying is just that more power is better, and some companies lie about the power ratings of their amps to make them "sound better" than other ones with the same ratings.

Fair enough. And true enough.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

alachua said:


> I am in a similar quandary as upperguy, though mine has the typical 'way overboard' twist that I bring to the table. I am considering replacing a 450/4, 300/4, 500/1 with a duo of the XR-5S amps. Have you had an opportunity to test the bridged performance of the amp? Also, what does the rest of the system consist of?
> 
> At the very least, I'm glad to hear you like the amp thus far, I may end up giving it a go.



For what it's worth:

- Kenwood X595 source

- MS-8 processor (Powers tweeters & rear speakers)

- XR-5S (Bridged to mids / subwoofer. Originally, it was running both the tweeters & mids separately, but the tweeters don't need that much power, and the mids are better off with more)

- Tweeter = Seas SEAS Prestige 27TFFNC/G

- Midwoofer = Scanspeak Discovery 18W/4434G-00

- Sub = Kicker 11S8L72 (1 cu.ft. @ 35 Hz) 

- Rear = Rockford Fosgate R1653

- Dampening = Raamat BXTII + Ensolite



So, yes, I do have it bridged right now. Works fine. The one caveat about the sub channel is that the x-over cannot be switched off entirely like the full-range channels, only set to its highest frequency, which made it a little tricky to integrate with the MS-8. 

I once had slash amps (300/4 & 500/1) and the XR-5S does not make quite as much power as they did, but they are very similar sonically. Depending on the configuration of your system, a pair of XR-5S amps may or may not be sufficient to replace the JLs, but they would sure take up less space and draw less current.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> So, what you're really saying is just that more power is better, and some companies lie about the power ratings of their amps to make them "sound better" than other ones with the same ratings.
> 
> Fair enough. And true enough.




I'm not saying anything about accuracy of power ratings.


I am saying that better power supplies = better performance. That is just as true today as it was 20 years ago - *regardless of the topology in the design*. In other words, don't judge an amp until you hear it.


The XR-5S is above average, especially considering the price/power/size of the unit, but the purpose of this review is not to imply: "OMG, this is the best amp EVAH!" just because it's relatively new.


I posted this because I see this amp, as well as similar competing models, mentioned more & more frequently on this board, but few direct reviews. 


I tried one myself almost exclusively because of space limitations, and because I work for a Kenwood dealer. Hence, the choice was obvious (that, and the new Punch 1000X5D isn't out yet).


If I had more room, I may not have even considered it, but I am pleasantly surprised (more like shocked, actually) at just how good this particular full-range class-D amp sounds. If I didn't hear it for myself, I would be skeptical as well. (This is before integrating the processor.) I auditioned the amp for a few weeks running straight off the deck, into bi-amped passive x-overs for the front components. After installing the MS-8 and DIY drivers... well, that's another thread. but suffice it to say the XR-5S fills the role I need it too quite nicely.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Chaos said:


> I'm not saying anything about accuracy of power ratings.
> 
> 
> I am saying that better power supplies = better performance.


That's a tautological argument, because the amps considered to have "better" power supplies were really just the ones for which the makers failed to accurately rate their output. That is to say, they were "underrated."



Chaos said:


> In other words, don't judge an amp until you hear it.


And unless you tap on it or blow into its fans or something, you can't "hear" an amp. Sound-wise, they're interchangeable commodity parts. This one is neat because, compared to peers on the market, it's relatively small and relatively inexpensive, with seemingly good build quality to boot. Otherwise, it's just an amp.



Chaos said:


> The XR-5S is above average, especially considering the price/power/size of the unit, but the purpose of this review is not to imply: "OMG, this is the best amp EVAH!" just because it's relatively new.


Because that would be stupid. However, it's reasonable to say that it does its job the way an amp should, just like any other amp of similar power with similarly flat FR and low noise. None of them are "better" or "worse" in sound. They may be better or worse in size, form factor, price, reliability, etc.



Chaos said:


> I auditioned the amp for a few weeks running straight off the deck,


Nobody with any sense "auditions" amps...


----------



## bloobb (Apr 14, 2011)

(this will get the hair to stand up on some of the forum warriors backs)

i found that running a capacitor on my class d fullrange amp's really helps the high spl ear fatigue. as in makes it non-existent.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> Nobody with any sense "auditions" amps...


I'm not sure what you mean.

By "audition", I'm saying that every time I install and tune a different piece of equipment, I try all of the various features and settings it is capable of in various configurations, and spend anywhere from several hours to a few days listening to the results before selecting specific settings for the long term.

I guess you could call it "research" or "experimenting", but there is really nothing constructive to be achieved by arguing semantics.

The point is, it is part of my job to familiarize myself with these things and it gives me something to compare to in the process. 




As I explained in the first post: 



> Just to be clear - by "sounds good" I mean that the amps makes enough power to run a modest but complete system with minimal distortion at normal listening levels, without overheating or excessive clipping. As long as you have enough headroom, I would go so far as to say that it is practically indistinguishable from a traditional class-A/B amp (with a tightly regulated power supply) of similar power.



For some reason, you seem to have a problem with either me or the manner in which I phrased my opinion. That's your prerogative,
but I see no reason why this merits insulting comments on your part. Please refrain from posting any further comments in this thread.


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

Chaos said:


> So, yes, I do have it bridged right now. Works fine. The one caveat about the sub channel is that the x-over cannot be switched off entirely like the full-range channels, only set to its highest frequency, which made it a little tricky to integrate with the MS-8.
> 
> I once had slash amps (300/4 & 500/1) and the XR-5S does not make quite as much power as they did, but they are very similar sonically. Depending on the configuration of your system, a pair of XR-5S amps may or may not be sufficient to replace the JLs, but they would sure take up less space and draw less current.


We have fairly similar systems:

Pioneer F90bt
MS8
Seas 27TFFNC/G
Polk SR6500 mid
2x AE IB15
Alpine type s rears

Current plan would be one XR-5S bridged to the mids, one running the tweeters and rear channels with each sub on its own dedicated channel. Eventually, I may add an XR-4S if I add a center or go three way up front (or both).

What frequency do you have your mid/sub crossed at and how do you feel about your midbass output? Also, can you elaborate a bit on integrating the fixed on sub crossover with the MS8?

Thanks a ton for the info thus far.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Chaos said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.


I overwhelming tend to use the plain meaning of words. If you wish to discern how I use and interpret the word "audition," may I suggest a dictionary?

There's no need to "audition" an amp, and the only thing that playing with settings can teach is is whether the various pots (level, frequency, boost) are calibrated correctly. For an end user, who if s/he has any competence at all will be relying on in-situ measurements of small sample sizes of gear, that stuff isn't too relevant. For someone who may install a bunch of them in different cars, it definitely could help to know if you can trust the silk-screened numbers on the endcap. But if you need "several hours to a few days" to do that...man, I'm glad I'm not you.



Chaos said:


> For some reason, you seem to have a problem with either me or the manner in which I phrased my opinion. That's your prerogative,


Please look up the plain meaning of the word "opinion." And remove the "practically," because it serves no, well, practical purpose in your sentence.,



Chaos said:


> Please refrain from posting any further comments in this thread.


Seriously?


----------



## upperguy (Jul 31, 2009)

DS-21, You are absolutely welcome to your opinion on amps, I'm not going to argue with you on whether or not they will affect the sound. For me, it's a small, well built and easy to setup. I just want to know if it will be applicable to my setup, just like I'm sure Alachua does. You've stated your side of things but this isn't the place to argue back and forth cause it's just making it look like you're attacking him, which is not necessary. 

There are plenty of threads comparing amps you can debate on, this is simply a review of a Kenwood though.


----------



## JJAZ (Feb 17, 2006)

DS-21 said:


> Nobody with any sense "auditions" amps...


The above comment just earned you the title "negative deaf ignorant of the year". Yes, that is a provocative comment, and yes I might have had a few more Mojito's this evening than what is good for my common sense, but..

If you can not hear a difference between power amplifiers, then I would suggest one of two options:

1. Stay out of threads related to SQ
2. Get another hobby that fits better to your skills

It should be obvious to anyone that power amplifiers to not sound the same, no matter if they have the same THD rating and the same power capabilities or not.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

JJAZ said:


> The above comment just earned you the title "negative deaf ignorant of the year". Yes, that is a provocative comment, and yes I might have had a few more Mojito's this evening than what is good for my common sense, but..
> 
> If you can not hear a difference between power amplifiers, then I would suggest one of two options:
> 
> ...





t3sn4f2 said:


> View attachment 20062


On with the show...........


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

If we were to do a double blind, level matched, controlled listening between this amp and another amp where neither are run into clipping, I'm 100% sure I couldn't tell the difference. The fact of the matter is, I won't be using the amp like that. I will be using it in my moving car, at various volume levels, sometimes even running up into clipping possibly. It will see 100 degree temp swings between summer and winter and would be compared to amps that have a completely different design. Bottom line, the two may 'sound' the same, but they may 'behave' totally different in my car. 

Plus, it is somewhat easy to miss subtle things like the fixed sub x-over when pouring over specs and manuals without actually having the amp here.


----------



## roger_2 (May 20, 2011)

great review and it's really look to be a nice amp... 

I'm going to install my first amp to push a 2 way component pair 50Wrms and a sub around 250Wrms... as space is a issue to me the XR-5S could be an interesting option. 

thks!!
roger_2


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

alachua said:


> We have fairly similar systems:
> 
> Pioneer F90bt
> MS8
> ...



I've tired several different filter slopes & frequencies, but I think I've settled on 90hz @ 24 db/octave. Sub HP filter is 25 hz @ 12, but of course this is all very subjective.

At first, I was convinced that the lowpass on the sub should be set lower, but I *think* this is where the built in x-over on the Kenwood comes into play - since it is already cutting off the passband on the sub channel at 200hz, I ended up having to set the MS-8 a little higher than planned so that the transition into the midbass wouldn't have a big dip in the response.

The overall result is favorable in my application, but much of that is probably because my sub is literally right next to me in the center console. That being the case, I can actually get some usable midbass out of it that blends nicely with midwoofers. Ideally, it would have been preferable to overlap the filters a bit so that I could have the mids crossed lower, but since the MS-8 won't let you do that I just adjusted it until I found the best sounding compromise. 

If the sub were in the back of a sedan or SUV, I'd be much more concerned about this situation. As it is, everything has worked out for me, but I would hesitate to recommend this arrangement unless you have similar circumstances.


----------



## Chaos (Oct 27, 2005)

upperguy said:


> There are plenty of threads comparing amps you can debate on, this is simply a review of a Kenwood though.



Fortunately, most of us are aware of this.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...amplification-can-sound-just-good-true-b.html


*edit = What I get out of that is the same point that I have tried to make in this review: If amps are not clipping, it will be very difficult to hear the difference between them. If they do, the audible limitations of each power supply design will become much more obvious, regardless of topology.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

JJAZ said:


> The above comment just earned you the title "negative deaf ignorant of the year". Yes, that is a provocative comment, and yes I might have had a few more Mojito's this evening than what is good for my common sense, but..
> 
> If you can not hear a difference between power amplifiers***


I'm perfectly happy to be in the same category of people as David Clark, Dr. Toole, Dr. Geddes, Dr. Olive, and the rest of the serious audio community.

And I can hear the difference between _one_ power amp, thank you very much. It "sounds different" at different volume levels and with different EQ settings. However, a reasonable person knows that just because they can be made to sound different, that does not mean that they are innately different.


----------



## Geordie68 (Apr 8, 2010)

Thanks for the review Chaos. I've been considering the XR-5S for a new system I'm planning. Space is limited and there aren't many small footprint 5-channel amps with similar power. The hd900/5 is $300 more expensive at least, and the JL XD700/5 and alpine pdx5 have less power.


----------



## bearfan (Jun 3, 2011)

Isn't the sub channel really kind of underpowered though? you can't really power a mid-level subwoofer adequately unless your close to 500 watts RMS. I know the other 5 Channels on the market, Kicker IX, JL Audio 900/5 and the new Rockford Fosgate P1000X5D all have at least 500 watts rated in their sub channel. Probally powerful enough to power your mom's car though.


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

bearfan said:


> Isn't the sub channel really kind of underpowered though? you can't really power a mid-level subwoofer adequately unless your close to 500 watts RMS. I know the other 5 Channels on the market, Kicker IX, JL Audio 900/5 and the new Rockford Fosgate P1000X5D all have at least 500 watts rated in their sub channel. Probally powerful enough to power your mom's car though.


The 900/5 costs about double the Kenwood. 

Compared to the Fosgate it puts out almost double the power on the sub channel at 4ohm, looks smaller and is actually available.

Compared to the Kicker, it has 30% more power on the main channels and has 100w more on the sub channel at 4 ohm. The amp isn't made for bass heads or driving a pair of inefficient subs. If your setup calls for more power, this probably isn't the amp for you. Plenty of mid level and high level subs would be fine at 350 watts..


----------



## Geordie68 (Apr 8, 2010)

alachua said:


> The 900/5 costs about double the Kenwood.
> 
> Compared to the Fosgate it puts out almost double the power on the sub channel at 4ohm, looks smaller and is actually available.
> 
> Compared to the Kicker, it has 30% more power on the main channels and has 100w more on the sub channel at 4 ohm. The amp isn't made for bass heads or driving a pair of inefficient subs. If your setup calls for more power, this probably isn't the amp for you. Plenty of mid level and high level subs would be fine at 350 watts..


Did you end up getting a pair of XR-5S to run your system yet? I went a different route when I found a great deal on another amp, but the 5S certainly looks like a great product for the money.


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

Geordie68 said:


> Did you end up getting a pair of XR-5S to run your system yet? I went a different route when I found a great deal on another amp, but the 5S certainly looks like a great product for the money.


I haven't. I am still working on getting all the speakers in and running on my trio of JL slash amps. Once the system is running I can do a fair comparison.


----------



## samwise801 (Aug 2, 2011)

FWIW, here's a +1 for the Kenwood XR-5S. I just finished installing one a couple of weeks ago -- it's bridged, pushing some MB Quart QSC-216 components -- and the setup sounds fantastic. 

I took a stab in the dark on this one -- haven't been involved in the car audio world for a while, so I didn't do a lot of comparison listening and haven't really heard any other modern amps in action. But I must say that, despite my desperate, hacked-together installation job on the Quarts, the system sounds better than I thought it would. (Oh, man, these 2009 Beatles remasters in lossless format sound simply amazing!) 

So far it's a solid performer, providing sound quality that rivals my last system (built around Phoenix Gold Titanium amps) in a footprint that makes installation a piece of cake. 

I am disappointed in the frequency range of the crossovers -- can't use this amp by itself to run a component set active, as the HP crossovers only go up to 200Hz. I considered the XR-4S for this reason -- its crossovers will allow for bi-amping a component set -- but having a subwoofer channel built-in so I don't need to install a second amp is a huge boon for the 5S. 

I also agree that the frequency response / gain on this amp seems a bit lacking. Maybe it's the Class D design, but I've had to set the gains higher than I thought I would need to in order to get adequate volume out of this unit. Part of this is the amp's lack of an input selector switch -- running it in bridged mode for only front or rear speakers effectively requires the use of Y-splitters for the RCAs, and this cuts the input voltage in half. The XR-4S has such a switch, so either Kenwood physically ran out of room inside the 5S or this was an engineering oversight on their part. Bummer either way.

I'm also not making full use of the subwoofer channel yet, so I can't speak to how well it performs when used properly. But even wired up to my tiny, pathetic stock subwoofer, it sounds pretty good, all things considered. 

But, all things considered, I'm just loving the absolutely stellar sound quality that my new system is producing. This amp is clearly a high-quality performer that I highly recommend.


----------



## aarijk (Nov 10, 2011)

Hello.
How's the heat on this, I hear it heats up pretty good.
Thx


----------

