Rockford Power vs Soundstream
|
Anonymous | Ok which amp does everyone think i should get for a good 4 channel amp. I have narrowed it down to 2 amps the Soundstream Tarantula TR500/4 or the Rockford Fosgate T15004. I dont really care about price i just want a solid good sounding 4 channel amp. |
|
Silver Member Username: Pat_lTucson, AZ USA Post Number: 532 Registered: Apr-04 | You will defanetly be satisfied with a Rockford, really good amp, very good power, usually under-ratied. |
|
Visitor#78 Unregistered guest | You might want to look at this: MB Quart Reference RAA4200 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4950%26item%3D5719275772&rd=1 |
|
Bronze Member Username: Koz1031Monticello, In United states Post Number: 99 Registered: Jul-04 | I've got the soundstream Tarantula 480.2 have had it a few months now, and have no complaints about it at all. |
|
edster922 Unregistered guest | Soundstream. Rockford used to be good about 15 years ago, now they're all about marketing---that's why you see them pushed at places like Circuit City as "high end"...HA! |
|
Johnathan Unregistered guest | sony dude |
|
edster922 Unregistered guest | sony? heh heh, that's a good one... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1605 Registered: May-04 | Really, neither are top of the line. Rockford is better though, remember that Soundstream was bought out by Power Acoustik. Rockford amps are a lot more reliable. Old school Soundstream amps were nice, though. |
|
Silver Member Username: InsearchofbassPost Number: 528 Registered: Jun-04 | i defiantely agree with the old school sound streams jon they were excelent amps |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1621 Registered: May-04 | Old school Rockfords were awesome, too(late 80s, early 90s stuff). Newer ones aren't nearly as good as the old ones, they're aimed more for a user looking for a decently priced reliable amp, but top of the line and Rockford Fosgate honestly don't belong together anymore, IMO. Same for Soundstream. Sad, but true, and people tend to choose equipment according to brand names, these companies realize that. Reminds me of Bose, riding on a reputation. People fail to realize that Bose is among the WORST home audio equipment you can buy. I can't stand Bose, biggest marketing scam I've ever seen in my life. |
|
Anonymous | Jon why do you say the older rockford amps are better than the new ones? |
|
New member Username: AllproDacula, Ga United States Post Number: 5 Registered: Sep-04 | I just installed a T15004 in an escalade. Might be one of the best sounding amps I have heard. Birthsheet had it rated at 200 watts. Extremely clean amp. GO FOR THE ROCKFORD. MB quart does have a good amp in the RAA4200 but I have been working in car audio for 14 years and Rockford is back, oldschool. I know...I speak to their techs daily! Before you go out and purchase, let me know what prices you are getting. I can get that amp for you very reasonably. Trust me....Go T15004, experience talking. |
|
Anonymous | i was going to get the T15004 for 850 at the local shop i go to. Every single birthsheet i have seen on them has them rated at around 300 watts per channel at 4 ohms was that 200 a typo ALLPro? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1643 Registered: May-04 | They were hand built, designed better, more reliable, much better SQ, milspec components, just much better amps back in the day. Now they're just sticking with what works, mass producing stuff and making decent quality, but not really going the extra mile for anything. Sound quality was the biggest difference between then and now. Better Quality control back then as well. Like I said, newer RF is aimed at the mid-level user looking for reliable equipment. Put a new RF amp up against a Zapco, Audison, McIntosh, Eclipse, JL, and you'll hear the difference. I don't ever see RF being like they used to be. Not until they get money off their minds and get their products off Best Buy shelves. Oh well, better companies to be had. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AllproDacula, Ga United States Post Number: 21 Registered: Sep-04 | Old school is back. You will not find the POWER or RF series amps on the shelves in Best Buy. They carry the Puch brand. Still a great amp , but defintley mid-level. The POWER series will absolutely numb your mind. In speaking with Rockford, they admit they went away from what got them there, but have gone back with the new series. USA built and way, way underrated. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyPost Number: 35 Registered: Sep-04 | Oh so sad. I was a Soundstream nut. I've owned 3 Class A 50's and a Class A 100II. Man that Class A 100 was a sweet amp. I had it running a pair of A/D/S 320i's and rear fill in my old Cherokee. It blew away The PPI 4200am(I think thats the right model #, was 4x50) that it replaced. I'm running an Xtant 4180C now to a pair of MB 5 1/4" Q's and there's just no comparison. That soundstream was was just plain warm. It caressed your ears with highs(that might've been the 320i's tho) instead of assaulting them. Does anyone make a decent Class A amp anymore? I haven't listened to anything Zapco yet. How does their stuff compare to Soundstream's old stuff? or do I need to buy a tube amp. I'm gettin bummed out here.  -Fishy |
|
Anonymous | There is no way you could tell the difference in amps SQ wise john. That is between the new rfs and old ones. If they were both not being clipped and putting out the same power there would be no differnce sq wise. Looking at an o-scope trace would show you that. And its been proven. No one has been able to beat richard clarks amp challenge of being able to tell the differnce in amps. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyPost Number: 36 Registered: Sep-04 | I never thought any of the RF stuff sounded any good for mids and highs, i.e. harsh. Of course that was the Punch 45/75/150 era. Haven't listened to their later offerings. The early stuff all hit hard as hell for their power but just sounded a bit rough to me. -Fishy |
|
Bronze Member Username: AllproDacula, Ga United States Post Number: 27 Registered: Sep-04 | Fishy, I started in car audio because of the punch 45 and 150. RF's new power series are even more powerful, the more you put on them the more powerful they get, and are very clean. Suprisingly so. Arc Audio offers up some extremely clean and warm sounding amps. Go to their web site and read their reviews. I can get ARC if interested at awesome prices... Take care... |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 41 Registered: Sep-04 | sounds good. My system right now has the loudest mids/highs I've ever had(180 Xtant watts/chan into the MB Quart Q's). They're incredibly accurate and bright with awesome imaging considering their locations. They just don't sound, well, pleasing. They're fatiguing after awhile at moderate to hi levels if you know what I mean. It may be the titanium tweets. I haven't tried knockin down the tweets 2 db for fear of sacrificing this imaging. Mebbe try that tomorrow. thanks -Fishy |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1648 Registered: May-04 | There are differences that you can hear, anon, and Richard Clark answered this: Turn on/off noise DC offset Hiss in some cases Noise reduction technology Compression Radio interference (class D and T) Damaged components Power oscillation/instability These amps have differences in a few of these categories. By the time you meet Richards criteria and match levels on Richard Clark's testbench, you may as well compare the same amp. He matches power levels within .1 db, distortion is not allowed to pass a certain point, his point of the challenge was this, and I quote him: "WHEN THEY ARE COMPARED EVENLY THE SONIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMPLIFIERS IS BELOW THE AUDIBLE THRESHOLD OF HUMAN HEARING" Of course, when you test things evenly, the results will thus be the same. When you test in a car, when voltage instability, heat issues, overall amp efficiency, dynamic power, speakers used (impedance issues) etc. come into play, it's a totally different ballgame than Richard Clark's test. You have to match the horse to the course, going solely by that test won't get you far in car audio. A Sony may sound the same compared to a Zapco on a testbench with certain criteria met, but once you get it in a car, it'll have heat issues, distortion, they are crap for reliability, the power supplies are poorly designed. The amplifier power supply will show it's color in a car, when reserve power, efficiency, and good components and design are needed. I agree that under the same test conditions, a fixed 14V source, controlled levels and distortion, yes two amps that have the same power and are unclipped will sound the same, but a scope and testbench can guarantee that these criteria are met, a car cannot. The car environment is too unstable and iffy to create similar results. If you want relevance to this issue, try to get Richard to put his 10,000 on a bet of people listening in their own vehicles, in an everyday application where voltage continuously rises, drops, etc. I'd say he wouldn't take the bet. How do you know the amps have the same power, and aren't clipping anyway, do you have a scope in your car? I'm entitled to my opinion as are you, but the newer RF amps compared to the old ones, I notice a difference. Allpro, I haven't yet tested the new Power or RF yet, I'm looking forward to it, I'll tell you what I think if I get a chance to test them. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 47 Registered: Sep-04 | Ummm you mean to tell me that a class A amp supposedly sounds the same as a class D at higher frequencies? So we humans can't detect crossover distortion in high dollar tweets? Or is that a "distortion" that this guy just doesn't allow in his bench tests. I'm sorry, I ran a Punch 150, a PPI 4200am, and finally a Soundstream Class A 100II off my 320i's back in the day and the differences, at least to me(even factoring in product prestige), were definitive. Or mebbe we all should go buy Sony and just don't play it so "loud". -Fishy |
|
Anonymous | John how can you give an amp a fair recomindation if you havent even heard it or any amp in the line for that matter. You said you dont like the new rockford stuff aka t15004 as much as the old but you havent even listened to 1 single amp in the line. I urge you to go down a check out some of there new power amps i was shocked by them myself and me and my friend got the goosebumps because we knew the old rockford is back. I dont think you will be disapointed at all. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1651 Registered: May-04 | He wouldn't allow that. Actually, anon is right, no one has beat that test, but Class D wouldn't be allowed b/c the distortion is too high. The test constitutes that when comparing 2 amps with the EXACT same power, with distortion below 2%, you won't notice an audible difference. Like I said above, when you set up an amp to perform exactly the same as another one power-wise and distortion-wise, OF COURSE it's going to sound the same. In a car it's a totally different story, and this should be your basis on choosing a car amplifier, since it's going in a CAR and not to a testbench. They are totally different environments and will thus produce different results. Really, the Clark test theory wasn't intended to be applied in this type of case, it was to prove that with amplifiers operating within their linear limits(with freq. range below 1 db at all freqs.), the difference is below audible range, and that different topologies (marketing hype, basically) isn't true and doesn't affect the sound of an amp, and this is true. In a car, though, when you have road noise(needing to crank it up to compensate), current delivery fluctuation from the alternator, inefficient speakers, impedance curves, etc, his test doesn't apply, nor did he intend it to. The power supply has to be well designed to combat the error in a car environment. A lot of people give this test more credit than it's worth. He's not telling you to go buy the cheapest amp that'll get the job done. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1652 Registered: May-04 | "Allpro, I haven't yet tested the new Power or RF yet, I'm looking forward to it, I'll tell you what I think if I get a chance to test them" When I said that I meant I haven't tested them on a scope when I stated that above, should have clarified. I have listened to them, and while they're a HUGE improvement over the other models, I still don't quite like them like the older stuff. Of course, I could just be remembering things better than they really were, that's why I'm saying I haven't truly put it on a bench to see results, so I'm not going to form an opinion solely on hearing it. Of course, listening to them in a car, IMO, is better than a testbench, but it never hurts to look at the numbers. I'm not knocking them, but I'm not promoting them either since I haven't tried it for long enough to base a full opinion on them. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 50 Registered: Sep-04 | So the difference in crossover distortion between a class A amp and an A/B would be inaudible at less than 2% thd. 2% seems a lot. What I don't understand is that some amps are "cleaner" and/or louder at certain frequencies or is frequency resonse not an issue since output is output. Seems like frequency dependent distortion would make them sound different or is he playing tones and that 2% limit is at a specific frequency. Just what the hell made my Class A 100 sound good!? Was I hallucinating? lol, or was I somehow just enjoying 5% thd. -Fishy |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1653 Registered: May-04 | His test dictates that you ONLY use commercial music, no tones allowed as certain test tones can reveal distortion. Remember that amps are part of the chain, head units, and speakers themselves also have distortion that contribute to the total sound in the vehicle. It really depends on the application, and given the variables I listed above that happen in a car(voltage swings, impedance, etc.) this can change. Crossover distortion isn't that bad in a well designed amp and inaudible usually, it just depends on the bias voltage, a well though out amp can nearly eliminate crossover distortion. Linear frequency response is very important, like I said above the test requires that amps are within 1 db at all points. It has to be below 2% at all frequencies, and the power of the amps tested must be exactly the same. A lot of rules to the test, when it's all said and done, you may as well be testing two of the same amps. 2% isn't that much in a car, but remember it's a chain. In a home application, it's different and you need as little as possible since a home is so quiet and subtle sounds come out. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 52 Registered: Sep-04 | K thanks. I was just wonderin why I haven't seen any Class A amps lately. Guess those current mongers aren't necessary anymore if you can make an A/B sound as sweet. Does this test apply to tube amps? Oh nevermind. Tube amps aren't very clean at all are they? They just sound "good" distorted. -Fishy |
|
Anonymous | I am not joking when i say the new power amps compare to the old ones. The T15004 reminds of my old power 650 mosfet. Which btw i still have but no longer use its more of a collectors item now. Rockford really turned it around with there new 04 line. If i were you i would definantly go with the rfit has better crossovers and is a much better amp than the soundstream imho. Only downfall to the 1500 is thats its kinda long 33 inches. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AllproDacula, Ga United States Post Number: 31 Registered: Sep-04 | Remember...sound is an objective measure. We all will have our varying opinions for decades to come on the best brands. Soundstream amps are extremely nice. Hell, I just pulled an all Crossfire system out of my car that sounded like I was in a concert hall. It all depends on install and set-up. Personally...I think the new RF POWER series has extremely clean sound. Not to mention horribly underrated. But by design so. Note...we are all talking about if RF is back! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1655 Registered: May-04 | Absolutely. Like I said, I could just be remembering things better than they really were, kinda like when you hear about the good ole days of walking 2 miles in the snow to go to school lol. And Fishy, a well made tube amp actually can be as clean as a solid state, plus the benefit of even ordered harmonics. Look at the US amps tube amps and those made by Butler, for car audio anyway. Very well made and have excellent sound quality. To me, the best solid state and tube amps sound a lot alike. High end home audio tube amps sound fantastic as well. Richard also said that his test was originally intended for tube amps, so yes the test applies to them. A lot of people see tube amps as dirty, and while older ones weren't as good, the technology has improved, you have to remember tube amps were in their prime in the 1940s-50s. If you heard the first transistor amps you'd hate them, they sounded HORRIBLE, much worse than a tube amp. I had a friend that tested the US amps TU-600 and the THD held true to their rating (actually was a little lower), always less than .05%. .05% definately isn't noticeable. S/N was higher than 100 as well, and very linear frequency response. Excellent imaging from those amps, better than most solid states. You should hear one, they're fantastic, and I was considering them before I got my amps for free. You don't see a lot of Class A because they draw so much power, put out a lot of heat, and are huge. As good as A/B amps have become, they really rival Class A amps, as long as the bias for the transistors is kept reasonable, crossover distortion is low to nothing. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AllproDacula, Ga United States Post Number: 32 Registered: Sep-04 | As for class A amps...there is a new 12volt company that hit the industry by storm last year called XSITE. Very basic line but absolutely rocks. Very good pricing. Anyway, there amps are all class A amps. They are very solid and compact. I heard there 800 watt mono amp on 3 10's last year and could not sit in the car. SQ, not the best, but rivals the mainstream stuff. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 54 Registered: Sep-04 | Lol, wish I had more money. Nah what I was referring to was comparing a tube amp to a solid state on that test. And yeah I know Class A doesn't automatically mean better SQ. I remember back in the day Kenwood had a Class A that everyone used as a sub amp because it actually sounded worse on the upper frequencies, but had plenty of oomph, of course I dunno if it was a "pure" class A set up. I guess the whole trick is to catch these companies early before their stuff gets too commercialized. I remember I got a pair of some of the first of JL's 10w5's. They were so new they hadn't even been silk-screened with the JL logo yet and were $105 each. Two years later the same sub was going for $180. Now I have a pair of 10w3d2's I paid $200 ea for and altho they look a lot better on paper(winISD) I swear my old 10w5's played lower and cleaner albeit maybe not as loud off the same PPI pro MOS-2050. But mebbe thats just the reminisce factor comin into play. -Fishy |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 55 Registered: Sep-04 | Actually my old Cherokee probably just had a "better" transfer function than my Explorer Sport. The cabin was a lil bit longer I think. -Fishy |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1657 Registered: May-04 | IMO, if a Class A doesn't have fantastic SQ, then it's not worth having. I mean if it doesn't have good SQ, then there is no point of using it b/c it'll have more heat, a larger amp, and draw considerably more current. A lot of amps aren't truly Pure Class A, a lot of companies market A/B amps as Class A b/c they have a high bias for the transistors, but anyone that cracks the amp can see it isn't. Most amp companies wouldn't readily show you what's inside. |
|
Anonymous | kind of funny how we were talking about old vs new rockford and if you go on there website they have a camparsion of some of the older rockford models vs the new rockford. http://www.rockfordfosgate.com/scripts/rightnow.cfg/php.exe/enduser/std_adp.php? p_faqid=418&p_created=1095366703 |
|
Anonymous | The website doesn't have any valuable comparsion. If you base on those numbers and telling me that the new RF is better, than what about boss, sony, audio(ban) and etc, they have 10 milllions watts, is that mean they are good? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 1674 Registered: May-04 | I don't know about that load of crap about life changing power of the punch, but I agree with the fact that a lot of us (including myself) tend to remember things better than they really were lol. Like I said, I haven't cracked the new ones to see the difference, but I also haven't cracked an older punch or power amp in a long time either. You really can't go by those PDF files, power output and features don't necessarily mean a better amp. I could design a 2000 watt amp and rate it at 1000 watts, and while yes you're getting more amp than what you thought, that doesn't make the SQ better than one that puts out the 1000W rated power. I mean, an amp rated at 150 watts RMS at 4 ohms, and really puts out 350 at 4 ohms at 14.4V? 200 watts underrated is a little dangerous for those fragile sets of component speakers, don't you think? Personally I'd rather know the true power at 12-12.5V. And as far as features, a lot of times simpler is better, electronics like to be alone for the least interferance (S/N) and the less components there are (such as filters, RCA preouts, etc.) the less chance there is for noise interference. I believe whole-heartedly in the K.I.S.S. principle. Note that the Alpine F#1 status head unit is $3000 bucks, but actually doesn't have many features at all, less than the entry level Alpine head units. The Nakamichi CD-700 and Mcintosh MX-406 are pretty featureless as well. They are considered some of the best SQ head units out there, though. I'm not saying the amps aren't just as good, I'm just saying that link doesn't prove anything. It does prove that you get more bang for the buck, but SQ isn't about just power. Even if both are beyone audible limits, an amp that does better on a scope would be considered the better SQ amp, at least I would consider it that way. Linearity, distortion, damping, slew rate, etc. Power supply and circuit integrity are the key factors in a well designed amp, and unless they show pictures of the circuitry, or readily show the difference in tech talk, you'll never know. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FishyTamarac, FL USA Post Number: 61 Registered: Sep-04 | I wouldn't even consider those amps the "old school" versions anyways. The Punch 45/75/150(we were too poor to afford the bigger stuff) line were what impressed me(bass apps. only have you). One of the first amps RF produced that preceded this line was the Punch 40(also the 100 I believe) and it had much inferior SQ compared to the 45 but was every bit as "loud". Nah the amps they're showing in that pdf were what "we" considered examples of the beginning of RF's nosedive in quality. -Fishy |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics