Phoenix Gold Phorum

hey guys, me again.

OK well I got the RSD10d, and the RSD6.5, still trying to figure out amp and HU. do you guys like the xenon 100.4 better than the RSD300.4 or RSD500.4? is the 100.4 more powerful, cleaner, more versatile, anything?

Also I'm looking at either an eclipse cd8053 or the cd5000, they appear very similar in that they both have a simple eq and they both have T/A, but this is for my wife's car and she loves her ipod which is only (directly) compatible with the cd5000, should I take that route?

Thanks again guys, I'd be lost without you!!

I don't know much about the RSd, but as far as the HU go--if she uses her ipod alot then buy the one most compatible. I have an older Alpine HU so I have to disconnect each time, find the song, push play on the ipod, then plug it back in. It can become a hassle. That's why I would say go with the fully compatible unit for the ipod.

PS. are you the one with the bike "handlebar" avatar?

haha! Hello Xterra buddy!


...right? Isn't that where I know you from?

Not me sorry. What was your avatar on SB?

oh yeah that was my avatar on the buggy too

Then you are required to re-use it or your banned. J/K Great avatar.

the rsd vs xenon battle will go on for a while.

they both have ups and downs.

as far as a head to head watt per watt battle, it pretty hard to do. they were rated at different standards. the CEA2006 standards were MUCH more strict so I'm betting the rsd 300.4 is actually very close to the output of a x100.4

pros for xenon - better internal crossover, lower price (since you can pretty much only get them on ebay) better terminals, LPL PORT! Fan cooled (which is a pro imo), the monoblocks put out more power @ 4ohms then the rsd's

cons - needs a high input current. xe.load prevents power gains when bridging, all connections on one side


pros RSD - can get more power when bridging, which is good for running its a 3channel amp for a simple front stage + sub system, beefier internals (larger board traces, allegedly more input capacitance also) simpler design is more reliable (not that then xenon's aren't, but the RSD didn't have a virtual recall like the first batch of xenons did)

cons RSD, no goddamn lpl port in anything but the mono blocks, connections on 3 sides of the amp,

actually now that i look at that.....i like the Xenon better

I wouldn't consider Xe.Load a disadvantage...

What it does is give you the advantage of having your "2 ohm power" at 4 ohms... look at the X200.4... 200 WATTS x 4!! That is retarded! 400 watts bridged as well. Now take your RSD 500.4... 400 watts bridged (not RMS rated, but from what I hear it could probably do it), but only maybe ~125x4 at 4 ohms.

Honestly the Xenon full-range amps were the pinnacle achievement for PG IMHO. It's really too bad they don't get the credit they deserve. I was not as impressed with the Xenon monoblocks just due to their size to power ratio, which is however very good if you consider they make it at a 4 ohm load rather than 1 or 2 like most other amps. There did seem to be a lot of unused retail space on the boards, so it looks like the amps were designed to fit in the same size chassis as the Xenon full range amps after they were built.

Anyways... I wish I could test an RSD amp. The styling makes it impossible for me to integrate into any cars I know of though... plus I absolutely NEED an LPL.

i look at xe.load from the reverse direction.

the x200.4 does 200 watts per channel, and when bridged should do more then 400


that would be like a tantrum 600.4 (75x4) only making 150 bridged.

if you were comparing a tantrum 600.4 to say, a x100.4....and were planning on doing a simple fronts n sub setup....i would take the tantrum easily.

The difference is load optimization. The X200.4 is only making 200 watts because it is optimized for a 4 ohm load. The RSD's and other amps are all optimized for a 2 ohm load instead, so you get half the power at 4 ohms (just like you get half the power at 8 ohms on a Xenon). If a Xenon was just like any other amp, a 200.4 would only make 100 wattsx4 at 4 ohms, and 200x4 at 2 ohms, with 400x2 bridged. Would that make you happier? Me... hell no, my speakers are 4 ohm, so why optimize for 2 ohms? Xe.load just lets you carry this power over into lower impedances, because god knows every tool thinks lower impedances are more LOUDZZ.

So the fact that it doesn't make more power at 4 ohm bridged is simply because that 2 ohm stereo load is below the optimized impedance for the amp, so Xe.Load has to kick in and limit the amp.

i smell what you are cookin. i didnt really think about the other amps being optimized for lower loads. point taken

the xe.load is different from other load optimization circuits i've encountered (like jl slash series for instance). as "overbuilt" as the xenons are i believe the xe.load really only limits the output of the amp when you're considering lower impedance loads.

or in other words i don't think the xenon multi-channels would have any problem providing a significant power gain (over rated power) into lower loads if the xe.load wasn't there to restrain them. this is why xenon amps will still draw more current into the lower loads despite a fairly similar power output.

that said, the x200.4 is also one of my favorite pg amps! but load optimization is not the reasoning behind that preference.

I see what you are saying, but similarly an RSD amp could "have more power" at 1 ohm as well, if it wasn't limited (just like Xenon can have more power at 2 ohms if you bypass Xe.Load). Just because the amp can make this power, doesn't mean that it should, as it would burn out very quickly if done irresponsibly. I'm sure if the Xenons could reliably double their output into lower impedances like one would expect, PG would have just made the amps run 400x4 out of the box instead. Obviously though it does not have this capability.

The Xenon series to me is the 4 ohm equivalent to running an RSD amplifier at 2 ohms. Same power rating either way, you just get it at a higher impedance with the Xenon.

From parts and guts xenon is far better amp....look at it compared to the RSd come on far more there. Xenon is just silly overbuilt.

Now people with inside information claim the RSd is a better amp leading me to think that the schematics have to be far better laid out...possibly giving the RSd an advantage that can only be measured by fine tunning equipment or maybe just maybe can be heard in an install....but I doubt that highly.

Xenons ROCK tho and IMO prob the most usable amps ever made with the BP on board xover and the xe load. It allows them to be used in any way possible in any install.

dedlyjedly wrote: that said, the x200.4 is also one of my favorite pg amps! but load optimization is not the reasoning behind that preference.

That amp ROCKS, I almost like it as much as the MS (only reason I like ms better is because they so purty). WHy do you think I bought another.


4 channel 950 +watts @ 4ohms. All the features, just the best amp made I think in the past few years.

well now I'm about as torn & confused as can be. the HU will be an eclipse cd5000, I'm not putting in any logic devices or anything. I'd like to go all RSD but I want the better amp since they'll all cost around the same price. so what do I get? RSD? xenon? I also won't be upgrading the alternator on her scion so if the rsd doesn't need the input current then maybe I should sail on that ship...

x200.4 call it a day....i can piont you to a BNIB one for $285 shipped if youd like

as i read it you want one 4 channel amp to power a pair of components and a sub, correct?

if so, the rsd 500.4 will give you more power than the x100.4 when bridging a set of the channels, but you will lose the lpl capability (you could use your sub-level control on the deck though). however, for this configuration i've always used a 4 ohm sub load and don't have experience driving the rsd multi-channels @ 2 ohm mono (for your rsd10d).

i hope that cleared up a little of your confusion because i'm going to propose a third option. a ti500.4 would perform very similar to the rsd 500.4 while adding an lpl port. I also believe Tom has experience running the rear channels of his ti500.4 into 2 ohm mono loads. It also has greater crossover versatility than the rsd making it more flexible for future system configurations.

or if you've got the room, take bdubs advice above. due to the extra power for the sub (let alone headroom for the components) this option trumps all.

two problems with the 200.4, it's huge, heavy current draw, and it's quasi-pricey for what I wanted to accomplish here (whole system for 600 or less)

I guess that's three.

I think I'll give the rsd500.4 a go and use the deck as the LPL...
or keep and eye open for a ti475 or ti500.4, I owned one of those in the past and was quite happy with it.

dedlyjedly wrote: or if you've got the room, take bdubs advice above. due to the extra power for the sub (let alone headroom for the components) this option trumps all.

JED KNOWS ALL

It will be cheaper....more watts for front (rsd 6.5 will LOVE THE EXTRA POWER) and the sub can be run at 8 ohms instead of 2ohms (well really 4 instead on 1) and that alone is worth it to your eltircal system. Plus the LPL, beefed up xover, and BP xover.

dedlyjedly wrote:if so, the rsd 500.4 will give you more power than the x100.4 when bridging a set of the channels

r500.4 Xenon equivalent is the x200.4, the x100.4 is more like the r300.4. When you compare like that, things seem much more favorable to the Xenon side of things. The 200.4 is not what dragon asked about though, so I am getting a little off track here. Between the X100.4, R300.4 and R500.4, the R500.4 will be the most powerful, by far. The Xenon wins out on features and future usage... swap the stereo into a new car, and the system may change a lot. However, the amp can still manage a wider range of loads, so has a higher probability that it can still be useful, even with a completely different layout.

dedlyjedly wrote:third option. a ti500.4 would perform very similar to the rsd 500.4 while adding an lpl port. I also believe Tom has experience running the rear channels of his ti500.4 into 2 ohm mono loads. It also has greater crossover versatility than the rsd making it more flexible for future system configurations.

This is hands down my favorite PG amp (along with ZX450). It's small, robust, can power a whole system, and has all versatility you can imagine. Run a whole 3 way active system off of it (tweeters, mids, sub) all off one RCA using the same crossover. Or shit, install it somewhere awkward like under your parcel shelf . With the amps as cheap as they are, they are a complete steal. Despite that it sounds like not a lot of power, it can kick your ass, whether at 2 ohms or 4 ohms bridged.

dedlyjedly wrote:or if you've got the room, take bdubs advice above. due to the extra power for the sub (let alone headroom for the components) this option trumps all.

Seconded. X200.4 is ultimate if you can fit it.

Now that I think about it, Xenon should have been released as Ti Elite amps, with a much more rugged chassis. The X200.4 would power an Elite 9-5-1 set perfectly, with the X1200.1 being a great match for the Elite 12D. The Xenon speakers didn't match the amps nearly as well IMHO.

dragonplayboy wrote:or keep and eye open for a ti475 or ti500.4, I owned one of those in the past and was quite happy with it.

They are constantly on eBay, along with the ZX450's (which are typically an even better deal).

stipud wrote:
Now that I think about it, Xenon should have been released as Ti Elite amps, with a much more rugged chassis. The X200.4 would power an Elite 9-5-1 set perfectly, with the X1200.1 being a great match for the Elite 12D. The Xenon speakers didn't match the amps nearly as well IMHO.

Biggest failure IMO the xenon speakers....

Comp set that cant go below 100hz and subs that cant go higher then 50hz wtf


x2 on that ti elite idea....IMO if they did that PG would be in a much different place then they are now.