Top SQ USA legacy PG amps vs. Xenon

[epcenter5hz]

I’m posting this because I want other’s (experts or peers that know what their talking about) opinion on this…

I’m going to be as bold to say that I think any of the Class A/B phoenix Gold Xenon amps offer the best sound quality of anything phoenix gold has ever made. & or equal to legacy Models “M” ,M, MS, ZPA, ZX, TI, MPS,

Only talking about sound quality (& not durability) for pushing hi or full range frequencies

Do u agree or disagree ? I really like to know…

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

or equal to legacy Models “M” ,M, MS, ZPA, ZX, TI, MPS,

Well, that's pretty broad then. You're saying the Xenon is perhaps the best SQ line PG made OR at least as good as pretty much all the high-end PG amp lines and most of the mid-end ones...

I don't know enough about engineering or how any of these amps are built to compare them, nor have I ever heard a Xenon so what do I know?

[stipud]

They are definitely some pretty slick amps. Overbuilt, and I love the idea of Xe.load.

http://www.soundbuggy.com/Eric/Car%20Au ... index.html
http://www.soundbuggy.com/Eric/Car%20Au ... index.html

So what differences do you think you can hear between the amplifiers?

[bdubs767]

they all sound the same...all in our heads IMO

[Bfowler]

the ne2w components definitely don't hurt the xenon line. and they have the same basic output circuitry. i doubt they sound much different then the MS/ZPA lines. (sans crossover)

i love my xenon amps, i have no plans to get rid of them anytime soon!

[epcenter5hz]

They are definitely some pretty slick amps. Overbuilt, and I love the idea of Xe.load.

http://www.soundbuggy.com/Eric/Car%20Au ... index.html
http://www.soundbuggy.com/Eric/Car%20Au ... index.html

So what differences do you think you can hear between the amplifiers?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the input.

& thanks for that link…

I’ve read that review a while ago, & respect his opinion a lot. More than I do the reviews on Car Audio & electronics…

A little about me, even tho I have a rookie sign-on here on this site…

But I’ve been introduced into car audio since 1990 & seriously involved since 1993.

Some of my post may sound rhetorical, because all of my knowledge of car audio prior to the millennium is now expired info because that was when the majority of car audio was USA made. Now I’m relearning car audio because it’s now made over seas.

Some Brand names are still a quality product from over seas production. Others are not… example Hifonics used to be a Top brand back when they was USA made…
I guy had 2 hifonics colossuses in a mini van (back in the era when they were popular chevy astro) with 4 18” “Harte” USA made subs…
& it was 1 of the most ridiculous sounding systems I’ve ever herd (that wasn’t sponsored)
Now that maxxsonics got the brand. I bought a 4 channel Zeus from them. It sounded like crap. So I junked it and that’s when I realized that some of this over seas stuff just ain’t the same quality. & I judge a company off their Class A/B amps… if u can’t make a hi quality/sounding amp off of ancient Class A/B technology. Then your products are inferior. Who can’t make a mega-watt class d amp over in china, anybody.

Just everything is now changed. Subs have different characteristics now, they have unusual low sensitivity from the old school USA made subs. & they now play lower with smaller enclosure air spaces. & some may not have the distance that old school USA models had (to me). All I see now in a new school hi powered system. Is u get close to it… and it will just rattle everything around it… but as far as hearing him from blocks away… it’s not really their.

I’m just from the era when all of the Top Brand companies were way under rating their amps… as opposed to now… a typical amp today that claimed 1000 RMS would have been just a 300-500 watt amp back in the day when they were underrating their amps by as much as 50%... & rating them at only 12.5 volts. & I don’t know where they getting this 1% THD crap, the only companies that would rate their amps with that much distortion was companies like “Rock Wood” . old school amps spec out like this 100watts x2 @ 4 ohms THD 0.05 source voltage 12.5 volts. THD of 0.05 was average back then…

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

From what the people on this forum report, PG amps have remained very good in terms of SQ, even into the modern age. I can't speak for Octane or Ryval series but both should be still decent amp, despite their looks, marketing and low costs.

The RSD amps are, apparently (I haven't tested myself) very good performers that put out what they say and sound great doing it. Of course, to compete with the other "house" brands, PG has done things differently than in the 90s. They aren't making an über-line like they did with the MS/MPS anymore. Their lower end lines come at a price point that you just couldn't get PG at from a retailer in the 90s.

Anyways, I'd be happy with pretty much any PG amp. I have serious preferences (the old stuff!) but I don't think of any of them as shit.

[PGsta14me]

The 1% THD "crap" that you refer to are CEA ratings. I hear what you're saying, but you should respect that. It regulates all that BS power rating you speak about that, yes, seems to be more prevalent in this modern age of car stereo.

That is a max RMS rating for a given amount of power that the amp will put out before a 1% level of THD, and if you can hear distortion below 1% while pumping out 500+ watts RMS then I want your ears!!!!!

[AAAAAAA]

blah blah…

Yeah I have to "agree" an old school amp that was rated at 500 watts, costed 1000 but really made 1000 watts because it wasnt rated accurately is much better then current amps that are rated at 1000 and make 1000 but cost 300.

Amps that are not rated correctly are definietly better then correctly rated ones.

no wait....

Their are still plenty of amps that are underated, so if thats what you want to beleive makes them better then buy those. Keep in mind that under rated amps are usually more expensive then similarly rated amps.

What was wrong with your maxxonic amp? What sounded so bad about it?

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

Wasn't some of the reasons behind the CEA2006 rating stuff at least partly to have manufacturers standardize on a rating method that was comparable between models, lines and manufacturers?

Either way, ratings are just that, ratings. If that's all you go by, you're probably going to be missing the bigger picture anyways. Some amps are underrated, some are exactly rated, some are overrated.... and I'm not just talking about Watts anymore

[epcenter5hz]

blah blah…

Yeah I have to "agree" an old school amp that was rated at 500 watts, costed 1000 but really made 1000 watts because it wasnt rated accurately is much better then current amps that are rated at 1000 and make 1000 but cost 300.

Amps that are not rated correctly are definietly better then correctly rated ones.

no wait....

Their are still plenty of amps that are underated, so if thats what you want to beleive makes them better then buy those. Keep in mind that under rated amps are usually more expensive then similarly rated amps.

What was wrong with your maxxonic amp? What sounded so bad about it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U wrote my quote as blah blah…

& then turn around and asked what’s wrong with my maxxonic amp… anybody that really knows this stuff knows that maxxsonic can never touch Zed Audio’s products.
(Zed Audio is the original company that made Hifonics)


But to answer your question just try to match a masssonics class AB zeus amp against a Xenon & you’ll answer your own question

(Zed Audio is the original company that made Hifonics)

[epcenter5hz]

Wasn't some of the reasons behind the CEA2006 rating stuff at least partly to have manufacturers standardize on a rating method that was comparable between models, lines and manufacturers?

Either way, ratings are just that, ratings. If that's all you go by, you're probably going to be missing the bigger picture anyways. Some amps are underrated, some are exactly rated, some are overrated.... and I'm not just talking about Watts anymore

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I referred ratings @ 1% Crap… I was only using that as an example of the era i’m from. To show how all of this new stuff is new to me… & how I have to re-learn products all over again…

Not trying to diss on CEA… I know why CEA chose to use 1%. They needed to use an acceptable & universal point to rate amps at… many companies can make an amp rated at 1% to qualify for the rating & still sound good… but if CEA used a value much lower, the standard would have been found that the standards/requirements were too hi & many companies wouldn’t use it or would be able to qualify… & for marketing reasons and amp sounds better to the consumer rated at 1000watts rms @ 1%THD CEA vs. 700 rms @ 0.02 THD non CEA for the same amount of money… but put out the same power if they were rated both @ CEA 2006 but the average customer wouldn’t know that…

[AAAAAAA]

Who originally made hifonics? I didn't get it the first few times there haha.

I think that a lot of overseas build houses are just as good as what is or was made in the US. I suppose back in the day there were more original amp designs as compared to the more cookie cutter approach of today. However I think older amps didn't sound any better then amps do now. I think back in the day there was a lot more mysterie behind how things worked and a lot of of what wasn't understood was like magic, no one knew what made an amp sound different\better.

But now studies have showed that it's either differences in power, built in EQ in amps or expectations, in other words the mind plays tricks on what you hear.

Some people still beleive in the magic part of amps, maybe even most.

One other major difference now is everything is cheeper and a knock off of something else.

[Bfowler]

I think in addiotion to that^

no one is willing to try new things. the market is so competitive they are only willing to go with tried and true designs. the creative spirit is gone!

[marko]

the early hifonics were zed made (steve mantz), stunning amps, you just gotta look at the price they were then and how much they are now...

[brenzbmr@sb]

Who originally made hifonics? I didn't get it the first few times there haha.

I think that a lot of overseas build houses are just as good as what is or was made in the US. I suppose back in the day there were more original amp designs as compared to the more cookie cutter approach of today. However I think older amps didn't sound any better then amps do now. I think back in the day there was a lot more mysterie behind how things worked and a lot of of what wasn't understood was like magic, no one knew what made an amp sound different\better.

But now studies have showed that it's either differences in power, built in EQ in amps or expectations, in other words the mind plays tricks on what you hear.

Some people still beleive in the magic part of amps, maybe even most.

One other major difference now is everything is cheeper and a knock off of something else.

older amps as a bunch sounded much better then this cookie cutter shit thats out now.

ill take a older rockford amp and [ut it up against the newer stuff

other then current the new amps just lack "life"

i had a newer amp running my highs and when i switched out the amp to my mq430 it was way smoother and the midrange freq was mellow

the amp i swapped it with was a pg titanium 900.7.

i disagree with the comment on back then no one new how things worked.

apparently poeple like steve mantz, larry fredrick , rich coe knew something because there amps sounded good. they understood things like headroom, thats why i fell in love with my ms amps, they had up to 10 db of headroom for dynamics. now thats solid.
how many amps now have that much headroom.

the real reason i believe is because back then it meant more to have a
good sounding system in your car then it does now. really i believe that.

back in the early to mid ninties was the pinnicle of car audio. no budgets and if you wanted good sound you paid for it.


now everything needs to be competitive with cheaper brands because the whole movement changed. now it s all about how much pwer can i get for a cheap price and what woofer will handle it..

now a days the generation getting or into car audio *consumers*

are more aware of products
since the age of compressed music not to many people really know what good sounds like.

music sound dead, everything is geared to ipods and other portable data medias.

when i got into car audio it was about how it sounded. then we worked on how to make it louder and still sound good.


dont get me wrong there is some good amps on the market now
but i say the companies who started the whole scene
ppi, rockford,phoenix gold, alpine, hifonics, lost site of there roots

rockford seems to be kinda getting back to it.

i will stick with the amps of yesteryear, if i need more power ill just buy more old school amps.

[AAAAAAA]

older amps as a bunch sounded much better then this cookie cutter shit thats out now.

I will simply disagree.

ill take a older rockford amp and [ut it up against the newer stuff

Obviously one can put up anything in a test against anything else, not sure what your point it.

other then current the new amps just lack "life"

Is that a new term to describe magical amplifier abilities?

i had a newer amp running my highs and when i switched out the amp to my mq430 it was way smoother and the midrange freq was mellow
the amp i swapped it with was a pg titanium 900.7.

Ever hear of psychoaccoustics? Did those 2 amps have the same power output?

i disagree with the comment on back then no one new how things worked.apparently poeple like steve mantz, larry fredrick , rich coe knew something

Obviously, I wasn't refering to people who actually designed amplifiers....
I was refering to the people that baught up all the marketing lingo about how some amps sound so much better then others because they have "insert marketing term here". It's still like that now but there is much more infrmation available because of the internet and more research as to how we hear and what amp components do what.

they had up to 10 db of headroom for dynamics. now thats solid.
how many amps now have that much headroom.

Is that even a real amplifier spec? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Let me put it this way, if old school was clearly better sounding, then SQ would be dominated by old amps, clearly that's not the case.

[thingy]

apparently poeple like steve mantz, larry fredrick , rich coe knew something because there amps sounded good. they understood things like headroom,

apperently larry is now the US importer of audison and he's the reason the new lrx series turned black - don't know why but that's what i've heard - anyone more up to date than me on that ?

[Eric D]

It is a downright fact that one can indeed make a “bad” sounding amplifier. Transistors can be made to operate within saturation, or very close to saturation where they become nonlinear. Traces can be placed such that interaction of right and left channels ruins separation. There are countless ways in which an amp can be make crappy intentionally, and easily anyone would notice it sounds bad.

So, if there is a such thing as a bad sounding amplifier, and there are nearly perfect amps (or agreed upon as such), then it is reasonable to believe there are plenty of amps between these two points, and people would be able to distinguish between them.

Now what about measurements? Well, it is very reasonable to believe (in my mind at least) that two amplifiers with different measurements will sound different. As far as two amps with the same measurements, I do not see anyone ever being able to tell them apart. If I set up an A/B comparison between a PG ZX500, and a second PG ZX500, I do not think anyone on Earth would hear a difference.

I have done my own A/B testing with for example a M25 and a Rockford Punch 250.2. I set the gains for the exact same output voltage at a fixed volume level. There is no way one would be louder than the other. I could tell the amps apart in a blind test 100% of the time, as could friends and family members. Well, clearly these two amps would measure differently in some way. Simply setting their voltage the same did not make them the same, other aspects of their measurable characteristics set them apart.

Most of my listeners felt the RF amp had more bass, but the PG amp sounded more detailed. Well, if the power supply of the PG were weaker, or some capacitance within the signal path was acting as a filter, then yes indeed the PG could lack bass over the RF amp.

So, I believe if any two amps measure the same in all aspects, they will sound the same. If any two amps measure differently, there exists a possibility someone will be able to tell them apart, and that someone may be you.

[Eric D]

Just for the record here, the “Great Amplifier Challenge” this discussion is based upon, states that “Any two amplifiers which measure the same will sound the same”. And since very few amplifiers measure the same, it is pretty obvious that very few amplifiers will sound the same.

[marko]

that should be the "great modified amplifier challenge" then, completely useless in the real world

but that's one big can of worms we don't want to open

[brenzbmr@sb]

older amps as a bunch sounded much better then this cookie cutter shit thats out now.

I will simply disagree.


well i diagree with you and we could argue the point for ever. but my daughter and wife both agreed the mq430 sounded better.
so with that said i am not gonna get into the pissing contest over it.
i like the way my amp sounds compared to the shit out today.
i dont like it and that just me, you can disagree and say what ever you want to back it up, it dont really matter to me because simply to me the older amps just "sounded" better to me.

ill take a older rockford amp and [ut it up against the newer stuff

Obviously one can put up anything in a test against anything else, not sure what your point it.
oh well i must have cut it off or something i was saying that i have a friend who had a punch 200ix in his car and he bought a newer rf amp and he said it sounded different. he didnt like it but he wanted the higher output so he kept the newer amp. now if a everyday joe is telling me his 10 year old punch sounded different then his new one then maybe there is more to it.

other then current the new amps just lack "life"

Is that a new term to describe magical amplifier abilities?
you can take your magical amplifier abilities and pull rabbits for all i care. again since sound is subjective to opinion then again
your idea of an amps ability to have a different sound is magic, mine is more geared toward who designed it. you really dont think that when someone makes an amp that they can and may bias the design to what they like? i really have heard amps in my car with same mids and highs sound different. some sound dead where some sound warm, smooth, but i guess thats magic.

i had a newer amp running my highs and when i switched out the amp to my mq430 it was way smoother and the midrange freq was mellow
the amp i swapped it with was a pg titanium 900.7.

Ever hear of psychoaccoustics? Did those 2 amps have the same power output?

yes i have and no the two amps didnt have exact pwer outputs, the mq430 was bridged putting out 60 watts by two and i used the front outputs from my 900.7 which is 70x2 but i set both with the same voltage output. so yeah at a moderate to decent loud volume the mq sounded better, it sound smoother overall against the 900.7, but again your killing me with the psychoaccoustics comment. i know what i heard and could tell the difference. its not like i swapped the pg amp with a pos amp.

i disagree with the comment on back then no one new how things worked.apparently poeple like steve mantz, larry fredrick , rich coe knew something

Obviously, I wasn't refering to people who actually designed amplifiers....
I was refering to the people that baught up all the marketing lingo about how some amps sound so much better then others because they have "insert marketing term here". It's still like that now but there is much more infrmation available because of the internet and more research as to how we hear and what amp components do what.

okay, but maybe some amps do sound better then others.

they had up to 10 db of headroom for dynamics. now thats solid.
how many amps now have that much headroom.

Is that even a real amplifier spec? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Let me put it this way, if old school was clearly better sounding, then SQ would be dominated by old amps, clearly that's not the case.

headroom in an amp should be concidered if listening to dynamic music. i just simply stated that pg built there old amps with enough headroom to simply do that. 3db of headroom i guess is a normal number. weather its a spec i cant say since i dont see it listed in new amps specs but pg used to list it. the ms2125 was cabable of 1200 watts dynamic peaks but was rated at 125x2 and 400 watts mono.

maybe the reason is that they are harder to comeby and that also since its in a sq competition that most of the competitors are sponcered. who knows?

i think i see how you are seeing this as an amplifier only amplifies what ever is put into it. that they all sound the same, or maybe that the newer amps sound better or dont sound any different then the old school amps. i really dont know but there is alot of people who agree that some older amps do sound better. not only on this forum, i guess to me its boils down to that i like my older pg amps because to me they do sound better. can i tell the difference between a richard clark amp sound challenge set up by his standards, dont know.

but i leave you with this, it s like saying all apples taste the same
but they dont do they?

aloha

[AAAAAAA]

We all know where everyone stands and that's fine, the nature of the beast.

I do want to add something about the psychological aspect of things. One of the problems is that everyone uses their ears as the base of comparisson for different sounding amps (hard to not use your ears right heh). Now the problem with that is that the human ear is one of the less trust worthy senses we have.

We hear things differently depending on our mood, our expectations and we can hear things even if there is nothing to hear and we can tune out other things.

People claim to "hear things they didn't hear before" when refering to a new CD player or new amp.... but really warn't you just paying more attention?

Basically what has been estabished time and time again is that you can't trust the ear, so when one says "I know what I heard"really you don't. That's why people come up with blind tests where nothing but the sound comes thru since so many things can influence your hearing.

Ever been somewhere and didn't notice all the noise of cars around you till someone mentioned them because you were focusing on something else? Or someone ever ask you if you hear a hummmm comming from somwhere only to have to pay attention to hear it since you were not conscious of it before?

[Stewart]

To get back to the original question asked, the ZPA line is the best PG has ever engineered from a sound quality point of view (and it makes a nice arc weilding rig). The trade-off of course, was cost.

When discussing sound quality, phase response through the amplifier should be concidered- from a sound quality perspective, it is every bit as important as distortion and headroom. Many of the newer designs sacrifice stability (by adding more negative feedback) for phase response. Typically, a good design will have less negative feedback and little phase shift from input to output in the audible frequency range, while retaining stability into lower impedance reactive and capacitive loads. This is why PG uses dual differential error amplifiers in the first stage of the amplifier, as well as triple darlington output stages and little negative feedback. This increases the cost of the overall design, and is very hard to compensate for instability- but once it is done, it is worth it.

It is also worth noting that the ZPA had no op-amps in the audio portion of the circuitry, and was direct coupled- careful hooking up those RCA jacks with the power on!

[dejo]

my question then. If all amps sound the same, do all head units also sound the same? If electronic differences dont make a difference in amps then why in source units