rsd500.4 or x200.4

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:12 am

hi phorumers,
I'm upgrading my front channel amp that's feeding a pair of comps.
Both of these amps are going for nearly the same price, so pls help me to decide which would be a better deal.

I dont have the previleage of doing an A/B on these, so just have to rely on read-offs over the net.

the xenon seems to be better or that's the impression i got reading the manual that says its build of high-quality output devices with overbild supply.Also with exact x-over tuning and 24db x-over , 200 w per ch - this seems to be an awesome deal

But of course i wont doubt the rsd, its just that i haven came across a real review on its SQ or its built quality.

Which one performs better? or are they both on an equivalent SQ level?

Also is it ok to bridge these amp to feed a pair of comps ? I do that to run a sub but not comps.
Will it have any effect on quality of the output ?

Pls advice and i'm relying on the feedback here before i wire the cash..

Post by **Bfowler** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:16 am

honestly....i still like the xenon over the RSD amps.

the xenon has better crossovers, and LPL. (might matter to you at some point) its fan cooled. and even though the RSD is cea2006 rated at 85 watts....the xenon still sounds like it has noticeably more power IMHO (although never tested.)

the RSD has a smaller footprint though....

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:20 am

I like the Xenon 200.4, loud as all get out and still clean. I bought three of them they sell for so cheap. I have not had the chance to listen to the RSD line. I am sure its fine and dandy though. The Xenons are way cheap for the horsepower they generate, just a bit on the surf board size. Good luck on you system

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:26 am

ahh..so far so good...

more feedback guys..pls......

vin78 · Post by **vin78** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:25 am

I pick Xenon
Enough power to drive your entire system. Mine sounds just as good as my Ti's

Post by **VW337** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:53 am

If you are bridging 4 channels into Stereo I suggest the RSd.

The Xenon will provide more power channel per channel, and offers more user friendly features.

The RSd has a better power supply and is less fussy about it's operational environments and features triple darlington output and dual differentially balanced inputs.

You will no doubt need a line driver to get the most out of the Xenon, whereas the RSd will not need it in most cases.

dragonplayboy · Post by **dragonplayboy** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:17 pm

VW337 wrote:If you are bridging 4 channels into Stereo I suggest the RSd.

The Xenon will provide more power channel per channel, and offers more user friendly features.

The RSd has a better power supply and is less fussy about it's operational environments and features triple darlington output and dual differentially balanced inputs.

You will no doubt need a line driver to get the most out of the Xenon, whereas the RSd will not need it in most cases.

whew! I was starting to regret buying the 500.4 over the x200.4!

Post by **bdubs767** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:15 pm

VW337 wrote:If you are bridging 4 channels into Stereo I suggest the RSd.

The Xenon will provide more power channel per channel, and offers more user friendly features.

The RSd has a better power supply and is less fussy about it's operational environments and features triple darlington output and dual differentially balanced inputs.

You will no doubt need a line driver to get the most out of the Xenon, whereas the RSd will not need it in most cases.

Im going to have to disagree errin,

X200.4 has so much power though doesn't matter if you get full power out of it any how.

I'm almost positive the xenon offers triple darlington also...

Balanced inputs are almost pointless as most decks do not offer balanced outputs, as far as I've seen.

Also I do not see how the RSd has a better Power supply, as it does not have as many Mosfets devices as the xenon.

Also xenon output stage is by far hands down one of the most overbuilt I have ever seen. Not to mention it makes the same power from 1-4 ohms, dual power inputs, and fan cooled.

IMO I havent seen a better amp built then the x200.4 since it's come out, well maybe not from a cosmetic stand point but the performance is what matters.

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:41 pm

dragonplayboy wrote:
VW337 wrote:If you are bridging 4 channels into Stereo I suggest the RSd.

The Xenon will provide more power channel per channel, and offers more user friendly features.

The RSd has a better power supply and is less fussy about it's operational environments and features triple darlington output and dual differentially balanced inputs.

You will no doubt need a line driver to get the most out of the Xenon, whereas the RSd will not need it in most cases.
whew! I was starting to regret buying the 500.4 over the x200.4!

Don't regret anything, if your happy then your happy.

If you want to have street parties buy Xenon's. Just open your doors and crank it up. The whole neighborhood will know your in the party mood thats for sure

dragonplayboy · Post by **dragonplayboy** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:27 pm

bdubs767 wrote:
Im going to have to disagree errin

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!

j/k

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:57 pm

VW337 wrote: The RSd has a better power supply and is less fussy about it's operational environments and features triple darlington output and dual differentially balanced inputs.

You will no doubt need a line driver to get the most out of the Xenon, whereas the RSd will not need it in most cases.

i had bridging in mind only if i were to go for rsd since the xenon's stereo channels offers so much power , more than the rsd's bridged output( as on paper )

my nakamichi HU outputs a 4v through a dedicated sub out , would this be enough for me to go without a line driver if i were to pick the xenon ?
And errin , can you explain more on what u meant by " operationla environment" ?

I was under the impression the xenon would go anywhere , under the seat, trunk , since its forced -cooled whereas the rsd would be more picky with just conventional cooling ??

also as bdups pointed out , doent the xenon offer the same triple darlington circuit topology as the rsd ?

just trying to understand here....thanks for the feedbacks so far

Post by **bdubs767** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:27 pm

XENON > RSd for what we can see... maybe errin is right and the RSd is better then the xenon via the schematics/ circut design and lay out but only Cecil or Doc could really inform us about that, with their EE back rounds. Sorry errin I just cant see it, maybe I'm missing something but I just dotn see it.

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:40 pm

Bdubs I'm sending you some pics so you'll stop picking fights on Friday night

Post by **bdubs767** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:58 pm

1moreamp wrote:Bdubs I'm sending you some pics so you'll stop picking fights on Friday night

Im not lol....I just want to see what I'm missing cuz errin is not the only one to say RSd is better, I just want to see why. Only thing good I see out of the entire RSd line is the RSd 300.1 for it being class A/B mono amp

which is very attractive IMO.

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:40 pm

Heres a pic or two of inside these two amps

I leave it up to your eyes to tell you who's got the beef, or not....

C

Post by **VW337** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:02 pm

The RSd's don't shut down due to heat nor does the output sag as they get hotter, in fact the thermal switches had to be dropped in value just to keep the things from melting in the surrounding environments during testing as they just kept on going without fail.

The RSd will truly double down when bridged without issues. Whereas the Xenon will literally cook itself if pushed, see Xe.load also know the xenon's will cut their output by 2db in order to cool off.

The RSd's have a far greater thermal ability therefor no need for fan cooling.

The RSd is also a more efficient design hence no need for dual power inputs, no forced output at 1-4 ohms.

IIRC the Xenon is triple D as well however, the inputs are where it is lacking which in all honesty is the only downfall of the xenon preamp, it takes 13volts to get it's real ability the RSd being differentially balanced can make max ability with less than 8 volts and it bleeds off any in excess of that without clipping the preamp section unless it is a huge excess.

The Xenon is triple D but is not bipolar outputs to my knowledge which is minor sonic downfall, whereas the RSd is bipolar.

And I may be really far off on this but if memory serves me right the Xenons use TO-220's and the RSd's use TO-3's, do not quote me on this however as I do not have a clear refernce visual to verify on the RSd but I do know for certain the Xenon's used TO-220's, and if memory serves me right the RSd 500.4 has 4 devices per channel which if they are in fact TO-3's blows away the xenons 8 TO-220's per channel ability.

For reference I believe the output section of the RSd 500.4 is a duplicate of this one but it is doubled for the additional pair of channels.

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:05 am

In the manual i can see that the xenon has a 0.2v to 8v sensitivity range.
So why is it that is works the best with a 13v input when we can match it with any input from 0.2 to 8v ???

I do understand that its better to have a higher voltage level going in to the amp , but i really don't get this 13v part.

Pls do elaborate on this.Thanks again

Post by **bdubs767** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:26 am

VW337 wrote:The RSd's don't shut down due to heat nor does the output sag as they get hotter, in fact the thermal switches had to be dropped in value just to keep the things from melting in the surrounding environments during testing as they just kept on going without fail.

The RSd will truly double down when bridged without issues. Whereas the Xenon will literally cook itself if pushed, see Xe.load also know the xenon's will cut their output by 2db in order to cool off.

The RSd's have a far greater thermal ability therefor no need for fan cooling.

The RSd is also a more efficient design hence no need for dual power inputs, no forced output at 1-4 ohms.

IIRC the Xenon is triple D as well however, the inputs are where it is lacking which in all honesty is the only downfall of the xenon preamp, it takes 13volts to get it's real ability the RSd being differentially balanced can make max ability with less than 8 volts and it bleeds off any in excess of that without clipping the preamp section unless it is a huge excess.

The Xenon is triple D but is not bipolar outputs to my knowledge which is minor sonic downfall, whereas the RSd is bipolar.

And I may be really far off on this but if memory serves me right the Xenons use TO-220's and the RSd's use TO-3's, do not quote me on this however as I do not have a clear refernce visual to verify on the RSd but I do know for certain the Xenon's used TO-220's, and if memory serves me right the RSd 500.4 has 4 devices per channel which if they are in fact TO-3's blows away the xenons 8 TO-220's per channel ability.

For reference I believe the output section of the RSd 500.4 is a duplicate of this one but it is doubled for the additional pair of channels.

But Doc said the xenon used 6 to-3p output devices per channel and that they are bipolar too??? Im lost again lol

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

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:40 am

eyesofra wrote:In the manual i can see that the xenon has a 0.2v to 8v sensitivity range.
So why is it that is works the best with a 13v input when we can match it with any input from 0.2 to 8v ???

I do understand that its better to have a higher voltage level going in to the amp , but i really don't get this 13v part.

Pls do elaborate on this.Thanks again

OK I can help here...

OK All input and output values for amplifiers are rated in R.M.S. scale on the amps themselves. .2 volts RMS = 200 miili-volts RMS. R.M.S. = Root Mean Square of the voltage or in laymen terms DC equivalent.

Now based on some simple math the 13 volt figure comes from the PEAK voltage equivalent of 9 volts RMS.

If you multiply 9 volts RMS X 1.414 <peak to peak multiplier value> you get 12.726 volts Peak to Peak AC voltage.

So you get 13 volts Peak to Peak AC voltage input equals 9 Volts RMS DC equivalent.

Does this make sense to everyone as to the why and how of the input voltage difference ratings Eerin spoke about ????

Also any amps input SPAN can be altered by changing the input by adding or subtracting the input multiplier circuitry.

PPI has a simple mod to make there older 2.0 volt amps go to 8.0 volt drive levels, by simply cutting a trace in each RCA input circuit and adding a 30 K ohm resistor to form a 4 to 1 voltage divider network.

So don't let input voltage scare or confuse you, or throw you any curves as thats why they build line drivers. To raise the drive voltage and to lower the Noise floor of a audio system. This effectively cancels HISS and other noises that the car can inflict on the audio signal.

High End Audio systems tend to use Line Drivers to gain lower noise floor figures to allow for Much higher playback levels involved with very high SPL systems.
You don't need this sort of thing on a average run of the mill day to day basic amplifier deck and four system most people get installed in their daily beater.

Only freaks of nature like myself need toys like this so we can cause nose bleeds in the adjacent cars at a stop light

Don't blame Eerin for the fact that the audio industry as a whole was setup by engineers looking at bottom line numbers. Eerin was using the real world PEAK values that you honestly look to on a daily basis for answers.

In the real world Peak Unclipped signals are where your SPL figures come from, and that clean unclipped large dynamic music content gets faithfully reproduced without causing you to bleed internally from the distortion, and amplifier failures that overdriven systems deliver daily to average unknowing audio enthusiast.

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:59 am

emmm... seeing a little a bit of light here....
but when errin said 13v , did he meant p-p value or the rms ?

also typically when manufacturers rate the pre-out of HU and line drivers ( say pg line drivers that puts out 8v ) , are those values in Vp-p or Vrms ?

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:36 am

Eerin I believe meant peak to peak 13 volts, I base this on the 9 volt scale I see on my xenon 200.4, and the simple peak-RMS math above. It makes sense to me this way.

All of the devices you mentioned are being rated RMS in output to my knowledge.

Why RMS ? ask the industry to change the way they do things and see what happens...

The magic numbers are 0.707, and 1.414. the first number gives you RMS of a peak signal, the second number gives you the peak rating of a RMS number, just by multiplying the number of choice to the magic number you get a degree in engineering from DeVry institute. and a $40,000 a year job thinking about this stuff all day long

And of course people will stop talking to you and stay away from your cubical as much as possible. You might even be called "nerd" because no one understands what you saying in plain English

Capital_M · Post by **Capital_M** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:22 pm

So wait, should you be sending an x400 9 volts or 13 volts? And is this the same for all other xenons?

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:06 pm

i'm wandering the same thing now...

and what bout octane-r, I'm powering my 15.0.1 with a 4v from my HU and that's running 5metres all the way to the trunk. Do i need a line driver now ?
And its 4 to 0.2 sensitivity range.

1moreamp · Post by **1moreamp** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:01 am

With your gains all set to the max input (i.e. 9 volts), it will probably take that much signal to drive the amp to full power. That is after all the reason for even giving you those numbers in the first place.

Now please remember that Music is a very variable signal. From its very low volume passages to its highest output crescendo's can be a difficult signal to setup. Thats why test CDs with 0 DB output levels are pretty handy for aligning your system.
0 Db being a full clean max output level track. As for the question do you need a line driver ? Well I run a lot of old school PG Eq's and other processing devices in front of my amps. They give me all the gain I could ever use without a line driver. So I am a happy camper drive level wise.

Now if you guys got 4 volt decks, and no outboard processors like I do then YES you might just well need a line driver, IF you run your gains topped out like I do.

This is why you have gains in the first place, to adjust your amps to the proper output level of your deck.

Now if you have noise issues and want to run your gains at Max input of 9 volts. Then consideration of adding a Pro Line driver is well within the possibility of a must have.

It all depends on your setup and YOUR listening habits, and any noise floor issues you might have.

Are they a good investment, I think so thats why I keep so many of them around. I use then in systems that have line level matching issues, like video add ons, they never match level, and so these things just fit like a glove fixing issues like that.

As cheap as they are, it won't break your bank to try one. Good luck on getting your drive levels setup correctly. Please do a search of this site and you will find several excellent posts about gain matching your system amps. I recommend them highly as a great problem solver from some of the more talented members here on the forum.

Post by **VW337** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:20 am

bdubs767 wrote:But Doc said the xenon used 6 to-3p output devices per channel and that they are bipolar too??? Im lost again lol

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

The Xenon has 24 TO-220's for a total of six per channel, I was incorrect when I said 8 per channel.

see page 2:
ftp://208.187.38.55/Phoenix_Gold/TechSu ... epaper.pdf