Phoenix Gold Phorum

I think it would be useful to post what people THINK AAMP should do with PG. Notice I did not say what you would like them to do. Yes, I would like them to make super audiophile ultra powerful high tech... but that would not sell.

So the first thing I say they do is drop Ryval. I don't even understand how this became anything in the first place. I thought the first Ryval amps were a cheap Asian knock off of PG amps. If you want to keep it, make it its own brand, don't associate it with PG at all. All it does is drag PG down.

Have a simple three lines of product for PG. The flagship line, the mainstream line and a budget line. Call them what you will, but they better all have a PG logo on them.

Didn't we JUST have this thread?

http://phoenixphorum.com/product-sugges ... 12104.html

No problem though... keep the ideas flowing. Based on the last thread there's a huge difference in the direction people would like to see PG take.

No Tom, in that thread people posted the stuff they want to see, but probably would never sell in the current car audio market.

Ok I just skimmed through a lot of that thread and there are some really good points in there. It just takes forever to find them. So why don't we try something new. We post a few ideas and then we all discuss those ideas. Maybe we vote on them. Once we establish solid goals or directions we would like to see for PG, you (Tom) put them in an un-editable thread as a listing.

We could start by discussing if Ryval needs to stay or go. I would love to know what others think of this topic.

Here are some topics I would love to get a consensus on amongst our members.

1) Life or death of Ryval

2) Number of product lines

3) Direction or goals of those product lines

4) Quantity and basic makeup of those product lines (2 mono amps and a 4-channel, or all two channel amps, that sort of thing)

5) Signal processors (should they even make any, and if so what should they be like)

6) Styling of products (this would probably be just one big argument, but maybe some solid agreements can be made)

All i can tell is that phoenix gold never hit the market with the ryval series in austria. I never saw one. Might be because the guy´s and dealsers that were used to buy phoenix gold in austria asked "What the fu.... just happend to phoenix gold"

We had dealers in austria that refused to sell those ryval and octane amps and went out if business the same year! And those were hard

Like Eric already said above i would even go a step further and not just drop it let´s DUMP it.

And like i said in the old thread! Take the PG logo off and get us a proper PHOENIX GOLD logo again. We had people making fun after the TI series vanished from the austrian market saying that PG only means pyle of glumpert (glumpert is austrian slang for junk) anymore.

i think a 3 tiered amp line approach is necessary.

the ryval has its place. the lower amp line has always been the money maker for PG, which funded their high end projects.

as tom said, currently there is no reason to buy ryval gear because of the price point of rsd. but there could be in the future. the ryval line is more potent then it gets credit for. they are more like a XS or tantrum rebirth in my eyes.

the way i see it, everybody should be able to afford a "piece" of PG. but only a few will own the "mythical" uber PG high end baddass amps. gives you something to strive for

So how about they give the Ryval line a PG logo and a new name? In the past there as has been Sapphire, XS, QX and Octane. Time for a new name to the bottom rung of the PG ladder.

Eric D wrote:Here are some topics I would love to get a consensus on amongst our members.

1) Life or death of Ryval

2) Number of product lines

3) Direction or goals of those product lines

4) Quantity and basic makeup of those product lines (2 mono amps and a 4-channel, or all two channel amps, that sort of thing)

5) Signal processors (should they even make any, and if so what should they be like)

6) Styling of products (this would probably be just one big argument, but maybe some solid agreements can be made)

1. Keep the Ryval, just put it in a better chassis without the iron cross logo.
2. 3 product lines. Entry (Ryval) Mid (RSD) Top (Xenon/Ti/ZX/MS/etc...)
3. See above.
4. Xenon product line had everything that I could ever want. Three monoblocks (400,600, and 1200) two 2-channels (100x2 and 200x2) and two 4-channels (100*4 and 200*4). Maybe a 5 channel (Roadster).
5. Signal processors... BassCube, DD5/10 Distribution Center, Line Drivers (TBAt/TBAr, TLD66, SLD44), Crossovers (MX2i,MX3i) and Equalizer (EQ230/232).
6. See Roadster.

Eric D wrote:Here are some topics I would love to get a consensus on amongst our members.

1) Life or death of Ryval

As I expressed in the other thread, considering how close the RSDs are priced to Ryvals, and how cheap RSDs are (at least in the highly exposed grey market), I do not see the point for the Ryval line myself. I think the RSD is cheap enough to build, that it would make a good meat and potatoes line. There is plenty of room for another fancier line above it that will draw people to the brand.

However, since PG is AAMP's only amp lineup that I know of, I am not sure they want to cut out the entry level amps or rebrand them. They are the main sellers at the big box stores, so they are probably not keen on cutting them. As it stands, the Ryval line has their lowest failure rate to date, and they probably cost next to nothing to develop. If selling them gets enough money into the brand, so that they can put more quality into the less sellable extreme quality amplifiers, then I am all for it. I would consider it a necessary evil like the Porsche Cayenne for example... it's a car that I feel doesn't deserves the Porsche name, although it undeniably saved Porsche from bankruptcy, and enabled them to release some of the best cars to date.

Eric D wrote:2) Number of product lines

I myself would like to think two lines is best. Three lines is always an awkward fit in my experience. For example, Octane Tantrum and Titanium. Tantrum seemed to be the black sheep, because people considering them had only a slight price jump up to the significantly better Titanium gear. Octane-R sold well to the power/dollar consumers.

I think RSD would be a solid representation for "entry level" PG. It has a lot of the technology that we have come to demand from PG like triple darlington outputs, etc. Then there should be a very clean and professional audiophile line on top of it, that draws people to the brand. This would be like PG in its heyday with M and MS amplifiers. The M's themselves had all the good technology, and are robust, fantastic amplifiers. But the MS series has the even beefier power supplies, beautiful

Eric D wrote:3) Direction or goals of those product lines

Robust is the key. Don't lie about power ratings, and make the rated power and then some. Good amplifier design techniques, good parts, and a good warranty. As long as PG keeps making solid, robust amps, they will continue to have a following.

Eric D wrote:4) Quantity and basic makeup of those product lines (2 mono amps and a 4-channel, or all two channel amps, that sort of thing)

For the RSD/Ash lineup, what we have right now is pretty good. Solid A/B amps and class D sub amps with reasonable power. For the new top of the line amps, I want to see both normal and monster 2 and 4 channel amps. If any class D at all, they had better be enormously powerful. At least if we're going to break the audiophile brand image for some class-D sub amps, we should make them very, very big, so they continue to draw people to the brand.

Eric D wrote:5) Signal processors (should they even make any, and if so what should they be like)

PG made great signal processors, but their wiring hasn't been anything special for years. I say keep the wiring to the Stinger brand, if anything bring ONLY Stinger's top of the line cables as rebranded PG.

Eric D wrote:6) Styling of products (this would probably be just one big argument, but maybe some solid agreements can be made)

Drop the whole tuner image... that has been a dying trend for ages now:
http://trends.google.com/trends?q=tuning
http://trends.google.com/trends?q=car+audio
http://trends.google.com/trends?q=phoenix+gold
http://trends.google.com/trends?q=subwoofer

That's quite a telling correlation, isn't it?

Car audio on the whole is suffering big time right now. This means you are either forced into "me too" cookie cutter asian amps, or small niche brands.

As for the logo, I don't like the new PG logo all that much, nor do I like the old one. The only logo I have ever liked was the original blue gradiented Phoenix Gold with the RCA behind it. I think PG would do well to have a logo other than just the PG letters, or at least if they stick with PG letters, they should be highly stylized (e.g. JL audio, their logo is JL lettering, but it is also a good brand logo at the same time).

Eric has requested that I make a new forum section to discuss these topics in separate threads. What do you guys think? Would you prefer another open brainstorming session, or would you rather tackle individual topics on their own?

If we do create a new section for this, I would like to get some direction from the AAMP guys on what topics they think are important as well.

stipud wrote:If we do create a new section for this, I would like to get some direction from the AAMP guys on what topics they think are important as well.

This would be the most important part.

Eric D wrote:Here are some topics I would love to get a consensus on amongst our members.

1) Life or death of Ryval

2) Number of product lines

3) Direction or goals of those product lines

4) Quantity and basic makeup of those product lines (2 mono amps and a 4-channel, or all two channel amps, that sort of thing)

5) Signal processors (should they even make any, and if so what should they be like)

6) Styling of products (this would probably be just one big argument, but maybe some solid agreements can be made)

1. Ryval in one for or another should live on as the budget line with a new name, new cosmetics and small footprints (don't know if that would require board redesigns which would pretty much make them a new line anyways).

2. Three: High End/Limited Edition, Mid, Budget but the Budget line can't be crap and the mid range line can't be selling for budget line prices through online "dealers".

3. High End line is for enthusiasts so you just don't make that many of them. The high end lines have to be something that pique the interest of guys like jbondox so that they start recommending and installing these amps in their high profile customer vehicles. Use the engineering money that goes into the high end products to trickle down features/ideas/build methods into the mid range, and where it makes $$ sense, the budget range. Mid range has to be solid performers that do what the normal level of enthusiasts on the phorum want out of an amp. Think Ti series in terms of features. Budget line has to appeal to people who want an audio upgrade from stock but aren't enthusiasts and won't have complex setups requiring highly flexible xovers and control and what not. Small footprints for stealth installs is important.

4. No comment yet.

5. I love analog PG signal processors but I think the market has already left these in the past. Every is digital. Make one high end super DSP to match the high end amps that don't many have onboard features in the signal path (think MS + a modern DEQ). An OEM integration unit would be nice. A cheaper DSP to match the mid range lines.

6. CLEAN LINES, CLEAN "Phoenix Gold" LOGO!!!!! Make the amps "boxy" with clean straight lines.

3) and 5) I have always been a big fan of the MS simplicity as others have. I like how there is no onboard crossover. However, there are times when it is real handy and space may be limited. I would like to see the high end amps have a fully defeatable crossover (including no power to the crossover section), or something which has been tried years ago but lots of companies, the crossover plug in module. An amp with a port for signal processors is handy, but I do not know how to overcome the issues with dealers having to stock useless parts. I also do like issues with missing parts, like the jumper on a ZPA amp. If you loose the part your amp is junk, that is no good.

If the high end amps have no processors in them, they could maybe be sold for less money, and the plug in modules could have premium price tags. But, for me it is a tough call, this type of stuff would probably not sell in this market.

dump ryval, it was just foregn bs and the name and stupid looks of it did help to drive pg down, and will continue to.

I like the 3 line idea but I really think they need a 4th, the limited edition line. I liked how in the octane you not only combined 2 amps but included the basscube and stiffening caps. There will always be the nuts like us that want the limited edition monsters that you use to. I also think the old personal service should be returned. Want that amp silkscreened differently? No big deal, I am sure we are willing to pay for the difference.

I do totally agree to everything above.

But I have a wish...

Please do not forget to make some Limited Editions.... That ARE limited... Not for making money, but to make a diffeence...

one other idea, bring back the cyclone? Certianly the technology to tool it has come down a bit now......... That thing really made waves and helped make a name for pg. I can remember people comming in and just drooling over it in the shop.........

I think that pg should ask us what the next le item should be called as we have almost all the item. im sure if i can name i would own it????
make the specs copy or think of new ideas this would be the best
line driver bass cube ect
let get some le idea on the table
RF did 25 to life lets make people want pg again!!!!!!!!!!!!

Popcorn? Anyone got some...?

need more salt?

Here's a question.....
Does ANYONE make an EQ (either analog or digital) that can take up to 4 channels of input and the have 4 channels of output all isolated but running off the one set EQ curve??

What I mean is this.......... Lets say you have a HU capable of running 3-4 ch active with TA but you want to use a seperate 1/3 octave EQ rather than the 4-6-7 band EQ which is built into the HU.

It would mean you could still utilise the TA features of the HU, but use an outboard EQ.

Anyone else think this would be a cool piece with market appeal????

<edit> arr crap, just realised I should have put this in the product suggestions section <edit>

andy600rr wrote:Anyone else think this would be a cool piece with market appeal????

This is something i've always wished they had... bonus points if it has time alignment, and extra bonus if it has a crossover.

Of course PG tried that... the X-station... and they must have decided it wouldn't sell already, since the working prototype was cut.

I have to say Focal has a great amp look Fp/Le style amps clean and nothing but great reviews
why doesn't Pg get back to clean very good made product.
Focal was made in china or korea so I can't see why they can't?

In this market, maybe a PG digital EQ would sell. I prefer the analog EQs, but no one wants to take up that much space.

A 4-channel EQ would be cool, but somewhat self defeating. The majority of people who run EQs only use two channels from their headunit. They then break up the signal with crossovers etc to the amps they use.

If PG made a two channel EQ with a LPL44 type master volume control on it, and threw in other processing (time alignment, crossover, etc), then they would have something to do all. And it would cost so much no one would buy it.