Audison Amps
05-21-2006, 03:36 PM
#41
By the way, I think up to last year Rockford actually had real time cameras set up in thier U.S. manufacturing plants to allow customers to see actual products being made, and could be viewed on their website(which I did a few times). I know my P4004 box says made in the U.S.A on it.
05-22-2006, 05:15 PM
#43
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,120
Sure ALL amps are the SAME!
Originally Posted by veeman
It's hard to get a true demonstration of any amps sonics(if there are even any audible differences), because when they are demonstrated they're usually paired with speakers and head units. In the case of Audison, they're usually paired(everywhere I've heard them) with Focal speakers and a very high end deck(usually a 24 bit D/A or dvd unit). How can someone determine whether it's the amp that sounds better or the speakers or the deck. It's not possible with a set up like that, and unless you own a store or you are a really good customer, it's unlikely that they will do a double blind test for you to compare the amps.
With cheaply built amps (lacking robustness) they will happily put out power under specked numbers and sound decent doing it. And by cheaply built I don't mean cheap in price, b/c there are some very nice, well built, value buys in the market place right now.
The trouble comes when you take a cheaply built amp and load it down to a heavy load and then proceed to crank it up. Show me a cheaply built amp perform well under those conditions. I mean take a look at Dave Mac's tests for example, do all amps perform same under harsh conditions. Do they sound the same under harsh, extreme conditions?
The point of all amps sounding the same under safe loads, being used lightly to keep well within specs, not to stress the performance beyond safe limits is a moot one. We all know this to be the case, and as thus RC has had a hay day with the concept. But RC never in his ABX blind whatever tests stresses any candidate product beyond it's safe operational comfort zone. He even measures to make sure no distortion (and eq) is present it the output of the amp prior to beginning the comparison. It's a test designed to make you not be able to tell the difference between amps.
Here's a simile: Imagine two cars going down a level straight road, one is a Yugo, the other a Ferrari Enzo. Both cars are travelling at the same speed of say 50 km/h. Neither are stressed at that speed, and it's easy for both to stay at that speed indefinetely without any obvious glaring differences which might justify the cost of the Enzo. That's pretty much in a nutshell what RC does with his amp tests. Everything is being kept within a safe margin, and then he taunts you to tell the difference between the sound of the amps.
Well, now imagine what will happen when each one of those cars hammers down the pedal, or has to climb a steep hill, or take some twisty high speed turns, and then stop on a dime.
05-22-2006, 06:07 PM
#45
Originally Posted by islandphile
I don't think most people buy high end amps to run them within a safe performance window, or just to put-put around. I expect great performance from my amps and I get it under most, even extreme conditions.
With cheaply built amps (lacking robustness) they will happily put out power under specked numbers and sound decent doing it. And by cheaply built I don't mean cheap in price, b/c there are some very nice, well built, value buys in the market place right now.
The trouble comes when you take a cheaply built amp and load it down to a heavy load and then proceed to crank it up. Show me a cheaply built amp perform well under those conditions. I mean take a look at Dave Mac's tests for example, do all amps perform same under harsh conditions. Do they sound the same under harsh, extreme conditions?
The point of all amps sounding the same under safe loads, being used lightly to keep well within specs, not to stress the performance beyond safe limits is a moot one. We all know this to be the case, and as thus RC has had a hay day with the concept. But RC never in his ABX blind whatever tests stresses any candidate product beyond it's safe operational comfort zone. He even measures to make sure no distortion (and eq) is present it the output of the amp prior to beginning the comparison. It's a test designed to make you not be able to tell the difference between amps.
Here's a simile: Imagine two cars going down a level straight road, one is a Yugo, the other a Ferrari Enzo. Both cars are travelling at the same speed of say 50 km/h. Neither are stressed at that speed, and it's easy for both to stay at that speed indefinetely without any obvious glaring differences which might justify the cost of the Enzo. That's pretty much in a nutshell what RC does with his amp tests. Everything is being kept within a safe margin, and then he taunts you to tell the difference between the sound of the amps.
Well, now imagine what will happen when each one of those cars hammers down the pedal, or has to climb a steep hill, or take some twisty high speed turns, and then stop on a dime.
With cheaply built amps (lacking robustness) they will happily put out power under specked numbers and sound decent doing it. And by cheaply built I don't mean cheap in price, b/c there are some very nice, well built, value buys in the market place right now.
The trouble comes when you take a cheaply built amp and load it down to a heavy load and then proceed to crank it up. Show me a cheaply built amp perform well under those conditions. I mean take a look at Dave Mac's tests for example, do all amps perform same under harsh conditions. Do they sound the same under harsh, extreme conditions?
The point of all amps sounding the same under safe loads, being used lightly to keep well within specs, not to stress the performance beyond safe limits is a moot one. We all know this to be the case, and as thus RC has had a hay day with the concept. But RC never in his ABX blind whatever tests stresses any candidate product beyond it's safe operational comfort zone. He even measures to make sure no distortion (and eq) is present it the output of the amp prior to beginning the comparison. It's a test designed to make you not be able to tell the difference between amps.
Here's a simile: Imagine two cars going down a level straight road, one is a Yugo, the other a Ferrari Enzo. Both cars are travelling at the same speed of say 50 km/h. Neither are stressed at that speed, and it's easy for both to stay at that speed indefinetely without any obvious glaring differences which might justify the cost of the Enzo. That's pretty much in a nutshell what RC does with his amp tests. Everything is being kept within a safe margin, and then he taunts you to tell the difference between the sound of the amps.
Well, now imagine what will happen when each one of those cars hammers down the pedal, or has to climb a steep hill, or take some twisty high speed turns, and then stop on a dime.
And with regards to an amps "safe operational comfort zone"; Is it too difficult for you to purchase the correct amp for the job or do you pay extra for that Audison amp so that your amplifier can protect you from your lack of system design?
I'm not at all saying that Audison makes bad amplfiers and quite the contrary. What I do believe though is that there exists as good if not better choices for the same if not less money.
05-22-2006, 07:01 PM
#46
Originally Posted by islandphile
I don't think most people buy high end amps to run them within a safe performance window, or just to put-put around. I expect great performance from my amps and I get it under most, even extreme conditions.
With cheaply built amps (lacking robustness) they will happily put out power under specked numbers and sound decent doing it. And by cheaply built I don't mean cheap in price, b/c there are some very nice, well built, value buys in the market place right now.
The trouble comes when you take a cheaply built amp and load it down to a heavy load and then proceed to crank it up. Show me a cheaply built amp perform well under those conditions. I mean take a look at Dave Mac's tests for example, do all amps perform same under harsh conditions. Do they sound the same under harsh, extreme conditions?
The point of all amps sounding the same under safe loads, being used lightly to keep well within specs, not to stress the performance beyond safe limits is a moot one. We all know this to be the case, and as thus RC has had a hay day with the concept. But RC never in his ABX blind whatever tests stresses any candidate product beyond it's safe operational comfort zone. He even measures to make sure no distortion (and eq) is present it the output of the amp prior to beginning the comparison. It's a test designed to make you not be able to tell the difference between amps.
Here's a simile: Imagine two cars going down a level straight road, one is a Yugo, the other a Ferrari Enzo. Both cars are travelling at the same speed of say 50 km/h. Neither are stressed at that speed, and it's easy for both to stay at that speed indefinetely without any obvious glaring differences which might justify the cost of the Enzo. That's pretty much in a nutshell what RC does with his amp tests. Everything is being kept within a safe margin, and then he taunts you to tell the difference between the sound of the amps.
Well, now imagine what will happen when each one of those cars hammers down the pedal, or has to climb a steep hill, or take some twisty high speed turns, and then stop on a dime.
With cheaply built amps (lacking robustness) they will happily put out power under specked numbers and sound decent doing it. And by cheaply built I don't mean cheap in price, b/c there are some very nice, well built, value buys in the market place right now.
The trouble comes when you take a cheaply built amp and load it down to a heavy load and then proceed to crank it up. Show me a cheaply built amp perform well under those conditions. I mean take a look at Dave Mac's tests for example, do all amps perform same under harsh conditions. Do they sound the same under harsh, extreme conditions?
The point of all amps sounding the same under safe loads, being used lightly to keep well within specs, not to stress the performance beyond safe limits is a moot one. We all know this to be the case, and as thus RC has had a hay day with the concept. But RC never in his ABX blind whatever tests stresses any candidate product beyond it's safe operational comfort zone. He even measures to make sure no distortion (and eq) is present it the output of the amp prior to beginning the comparison. It's a test designed to make you not be able to tell the difference between amps.
Here's a simile: Imagine two cars going down a level straight road, one is a Yugo, the other a Ferrari Enzo. Both cars are travelling at the same speed of say 50 km/h. Neither are stressed at that speed, and it's easy for both to stay at that speed indefinetely without any obvious glaring differences which might justify the cost of the Enzo. That's pretty much in a nutshell what RC does with his amp tests. Everything is being kept within a safe margin, and then he taunts you to tell the difference between the sound of the amps.
Well, now imagine what will happen when each one of those cars hammers down the pedal, or has to climb a steep hill, or take some twisty high speed turns, and then stop on a dime.
05-23-2006, 12:54 AM
#47
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,120
Wow did you guys ever miss the point here, Lol!
Point was, you DO want an amp matched to what YOU want it to do. Everyone has reasons for what they use, and for some the budget is the one.
For me, I saved for a long time to get what I wanted for vast number of reasons personal to me.
Cheeply constructed amps with inferior parts are not often designed to drive big loads with realiability, and can behave quite nasty when outside their comfort zone...and thats why some people will buy stuff that can take the abuse and sound good or at least listenable into soft clip unless you really abuse them, plus reliability of a robust and well protected amp is worth a lot too.
None of my post was BS, RC's tests are set up to make you fail if you try and tell the difference between amps running in their comfort zones, and at the same wattage. I was merely pointing out that his tests do not take into account how those amps behave when they're stressed, and the fact that the parts capacity (comfortable operating range) and robustness (such as power supply and output transistors, or reserve capacitance or quality of the actual capacitors) of the amp build become a factor at a certain point. And that behaviour matters to certain people and other people don't care, it's personal, or in the case of people who are not aware it's ignorance or bad system design or both.
If you NEVER take your amp up to that upper range of it's operating range where you would hear a difference, then you'll be very happy to drive your Yugo. RC keeps everything safe and easy for all amps in his tests, I think I already spelled all that out.
So by the "Keep it within safe operating range at all times" and "Make sure you pay close attention to your system design and match your power to impedance and sensitivity" principals, you guys must be using London Drugs Pyramid Power and high efficieny drivers. Just don't clip it...but at least you're saving some money so take heart.
Why call my design faulty? Maybe you don't know the reasons so why spout off before you're informed?
The VRX amp was acquired purely for the purpose of driving a sub section at 1.5 ohms mono with Class AB power (and it can do 1 ohm mono, safely and realiabily with the available fan kit). Sure I could have gone with a variety of class D designs but chose not to for personal reasons and because I have an electrical system which is up to the task for Class AB sub-amp.
And sure, good if not better choices may exist, but sometimes it's nice to have something not everyone else has, like the Enzo....I mean why drive an Enzo when a F-40 or a Lambo Gallado can be had for waaaaaay less money. Oh yeah, drive down the street in downtown Van and you might see like 2 or 3 Gallardos. See any Enzos?
And what amps are you guys using again? I bet it's not the cheapest power money can buy...so why did you spend the extra bux then?
Point was, you DO want an amp matched to what YOU want it to do. Everyone has reasons for what they use, and for some the budget is the one.
For me, I saved for a long time to get what I wanted for vast number of reasons personal to me.
Cheeply constructed amps with inferior parts are not often designed to drive big loads with realiability, and can behave quite nasty when outside their comfort zone...and thats why some people will buy stuff that can take the abuse and sound good or at least listenable into soft clip unless you really abuse them, plus reliability of a robust and well protected amp is worth a lot too.
None of my post was BS, RC's tests are set up to make you fail if you try and tell the difference between amps running in their comfort zones, and at the same wattage. I was merely pointing out that his tests do not take into account how those amps behave when they're stressed, and the fact that the parts capacity (comfortable operating range) and robustness (such as power supply and output transistors, or reserve capacitance or quality of the actual capacitors) of the amp build become a factor at a certain point. And that behaviour matters to certain people and other people don't care, it's personal, or in the case of people who are not aware it's ignorance or bad system design or both.
If you NEVER take your amp up to that upper range of it's operating range where you would hear a difference, then you'll be very happy to drive your Yugo. RC keeps everything safe and easy for all amps in his tests, I think I already spelled all that out.
So by the "Keep it within safe operating range at all times" and "Make sure you pay close attention to your system design and match your power to impedance and sensitivity" principals, you guys must be using London Drugs Pyramid Power and high efficieny drivers. Just don't clip it...but at least you're saving some money so take heart.
Why call my design faulty? Maybe you don't know the reasons so why spout off before you're informed?
The VRX amp was acquired purely for the purpose of driving a sub section at 1.5 ohms mono with Class AB power (and it can do 1 ohm mono, safely and realiabily with the available fan kit). Sure I could have gone with a variety of class D designs but chose not to for personal reasons and because I have an electrical system which is up to the task for Class AB sub-amp.
And sure, good if not better choices may exist, but sometimes it's nice to have something not everyone else has, like the Enzo....I mean why drive an Enzo when a F-40 or a Lambo Gallado can be had for waaaaaay less money. Oh yeah, drive down the street in downtown Van and you might see like 2 or 3 Gallardos. See any Enzos?
And what amps are you guys using again? I bet it's not the cheapest power money can buy...so why did you spend the extra bux then?
05-23-2006, 11:02 AM
#48
^ I see the point you are trying to make and agree with it. I think that amps do not, or at least should not, have any sound of their own nor sound different than the next. I do however feel that a more robustly designed and built amplifier will handle performance extremes better than a cheaply made and designed amp. Clipping sooner, less speaker control, overheating quicker, terminals that fail after a few uses, etc. Better design and materials on more expensive amps justify their extra costs. That's about where I leave it though. I don't agree that (for example) a 100x2 amplifier costing $10,000 will SOUND any better than a $1000 100x2 amplifier. $1k is already a fairly hefty price to pay for an amp of say 100x2 size. No, I don't think paying $200 for a 100x2 will give you a quality amplifer that would trust to perform well in any conditions I present it.
As for cars, I think F40s now go for about as much as an Enzo and I'd probably take the F40 anyway since its one of my favorite all-time cars
1987 technology that can do an 11 second 1/4 mile and 196 MPH to speed with still-beautiful looks to boot. Sounds great to me.
As for cars, I think F40s now go for about as much as an Enzo and I'd probably take the F40 anyway since its one of my favorite all-time cars
1987 technology that can do an 11 second 1/4 mile and 196 MPH to speed with still-beautiful looks to boot. Sounds great to me.
