Phoenix Gold Phorum

I know I no longer represent the demographic PG is marketing its products to cosmetically, and many others here probably are in the same boat as me. However, would PG want our input anyway? I have more suggestions what not to do, than what to do, so maybe they are worth something.

All of the new PG amps are pretty much an extruded heatsink with ends on it, either sheet metal or cast. This is the same as maybe 90% or so of the rest of the market. So, I think the next PG amp needs to be a bit different. Even though the Xenon was not a huge hit, it was at least not built like very many other amps out there. Its extruded heatsink was hidden, and I think that makes for a more catching concept. If you go back farther, the ZX, ZPA, and original Ti amps did not show off their heatsinks either. Now we know your Asian sources can do sheetmetal, as the Xenon top is more complex than any of the parts on the older amplifiers.

Another point I have is the glossy/shiny finish on the terminals for all of the amps needs to go. If it means an acid wash on the injection molds, or maybe even a bit more difficult change, it would be well worth it. For some reason the shiny finish looks a bit cheesy, and a nice matte or at least satin finish would make the terminals look far more custom, and refined (IMO).

sounds good to me. But I think a lot of it has to do with is $$$. an extruded heatsink is pretty cheap and pretty easy to control the quality of that piece coming out of the machine. With something that is formed with a brake press using sheet metal can be more of a problem with parts being out of tolerence being to big or little, and not fitting well.

Thanks
Justind

vwguy3 wrote:sounds good to me. But I think a lot of it has to do with is $$$. an extruded heatsink is pretty cheap and pretty easy to control the quality of that piece coming out of the machine. With something that is formed with a brake press using sheet metal can be more of a problem with parts being out of tolerence being to big or little, and not fitting well.

Thanks
Justind

I agree with that, and do see your points. What if the parts were cast, instead of extruded?

I would think that extruding would be lower in cost because the length can be changed based on the need for each amp. If you had a different casting for every amp that would be a lot of money because it would be a casting for every different amp. Now if you could fit say five or six different amps under one casted heat sink that might be a different story.

vwguy3 wrote:I would think that extruding would be lower in cost because the length can be changed based on the need for each amp. If you had a different casting for every amp that would be a lot of money because it would be a casting for every different amp. Now if you could fit say five or six different amps under one casted heat sink that might be a different story.

True, but I am thinking along the lines of one chassis could hold a mono amp, a 4-channel amp, and a 2-channel (if you need a 2 channel).

Much like the ZX450, and ZX500 were the same size, or the M44 and M100.

extruded sinks allow for the creation of things like the MS1k and FAS... if the sinks were made here in the states, we might be able to get our hands on some extended length sinks to make our own one-off amps...

how cool would it be to have a competition to create the next LE amp? order a sink xx inches long from PG, with blank endcaps... build your own - then put it to a vote...

sorry... dreaming again.

Cool discussion. Ti we had the process down from ZX and did the metal in USA, but it was a process. Grain, punch, bend, powerdercoat, silk, etc. Not to mention to overhead of this process became a larger burden as quality in asia got better and less expensive.

Xenon we spent MAJOR tooling dollars due to the three sizes and numberous shapes and punches. This was a project where we took some chances instead of playing it safe cosmetically. I always like the look of the amp, but in hindsight rubber was not the best idea, but we wanted to try it. The cooling system worked great, but the first production runs were buggy due to the overcomplex electrical package. Simpler is often so much better, I think you will see that will the newer electrical designs.

Good topic, we are listening and always looking for new and better ways to do things.

How about the terminals. Can the shiny finish go? I know it seems like a minor point, but the terminals are the ONLY cheap looking aspect of these new amps.

any hope for plexi in any of the regular production amps?

Eric D wrote:How about the terminals. Can the shiny finish go? I know it seems like a minor point, but the terminals are the ONLY cheap looking aspect of these new amps.

That terminal is not available in a different finish.

I personally prefer the shiny finish, as it matches the smooth and clean lines of the amplifier.

Blonds or Brunettes...

Plexi is something we always consider, key thing is that is has to be done tastefully. Its easy to make an amp look cheap with plexi these days. Any suggestions?

MW3 wrote:Plexi is something we always consider, key thing is that is has to be done tastefully. Its easy to make an amp look cheap with plexi these days. Any suggestions?

Maybe something that goes in this direction!

using plexi with the logo machined in it would certainly set your apart from almost EVERY other amp with plexi in it.

I don't think plexi is viable anymore.

The guts of these new amps look OK, but they are not the works of art amps in the past used to be. Showing them off might actually look bad.

If the boards were refined to be more symmetrical, organized, and otherwise tweaked, then plexi could look good, however, that would cost a lot more money.