Here is a link to more pics. This is about 60-70% of the audio collection. The pic of the 3 amps together are prototypes out of Jim Fosgates car back in the 79-80 era. There are 4 of them total. They are three PR-2100's (modified) and one PR-250 that is modified for mono 1ch only. Enjoy the pics. http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg278/tomtomjr/CAR AUDIO/?start=all
Hey TomtomJr, Make me a deal on the Mcintosh......that is, if you need a bit more space!
-ALSO-
If you have a Fosgate RF2000 I am looking for another.
jonny_hotnuts@hotmail.com
All I have to say about everything else.....damn.
-ALSO-
If you have a Fosgate RF2000 I am looking for another.
jonny_hotnuts@hotmail.com
All I have to say about everything else.....damn.
Define "old school". Amps made today are the same amps made 20 years ago wrapped in a new package. The only thing "new" is the entry of class D amplifiers into the car audio world. These serve subwoofer duty and offer higher efficientcy.
When it comes to mids and highs everyone still uses class AB or class A which the technology is the same. Why not buy and older amp? Your getting the same thing as a newer amp at a cheaper price. Most of my amps are stuffed behind panels so I really dont care about the bling factor. I'd buy an older quality amp to run my mids and highs over an amp made in china anyday JMO.
When it comes to mids and highs everyone still uses class AB or class A which the technology is the same. Why not buy and older amp? Your getting the same thing as a newer amp at a cheaper price. Most of my amps are stuffed behind panels so I really dont care about the bling factor. I'd buy an older quality amp to run my mids and highs over an amp made in china anyday JMO.
nsxxtreme said:
Old School - An era when 90% of the entire market was NOT produced under one roof in China. Or a time when more then 10 engineers held the state of the art in their hands.
Do I get a cookie?
Maybe in terms of what they do (amplify) but thats where the similarities end. Put aside the fact that designs changed with part evolution and there are still plenty of differences to chose from.
Class D was invented in 1959, and was rumored to be in some very early car amplifier models as early as the 70's if I recall that correctly. And you forgot about class X & T (the true recent additions to the topology chart) and classes G & H which are also very old. And although your statements on serving subwoofer duty are correct, that was not their intent by design initially. They more or less got stuck there because of impractical distortion levels when used full range. It should be said that todays class D topologies will gladly perform in full range operation with very respectable distortion numbers because part technology has imporved to the point where we now have designs that allow error correction of each and every pulse on the train in realtime. JL audio has taken advantage of the newfound bandwidth in it's 'single-cycle control' system. Class X & T used some math in the processing and ended up being well suited for full range, although I would not cry audiophile grade!
Again, the theory of operation is the same, the technology and topology is not.
About the only thing I agree with here is the Chinese build house stuff comment. Otherwise I have been around the inside of too many amplifiers to know that they set themselves apart from each other in some way or another. Saying 'it's the same stuff in a different bag' just won't ever sit well with me. I'm not trying to argue or dispute your statements, but I have to openly disagree with a lot of it.
If I were to seriously define what sets 'old school' apart from 'new school' I would probably say;
Old school: A time when each company had an engineer on staff working to incorporate said companies ideas about features, quality, and innovation into a marketable design.
New school: A time when 90% of the companies have no engineer, no shipping dept, no tech department, and an outsourced customer service department. A dude (preferably one who can meet the minimum buy at a Chinese build house) makes a call and says 'I wan't this heatsink, this soldermask color, put my name on the PCB too! I want it in chrome, it needs to have at least 1k watts and some blinky lights! oh and add a fan.. and two more PS caps! - How much for a thousand units?'
- Matt
nsxxtreme said:
Class A car amps are very rare and most of the ones labelled as such are in fact AB (ie Soundstream) due to the fact that they are so in effecient.
20 years ago car amps were bipolar and not mosfet so that is different and there are numerous other changes as well between old and new school amps.
Chinese and Korean amps have a reputation of unreliablity and extremely exagerated power figures.
Old school for me!!!
This forum needs a quote button.
. Obviously some amps are better then others. Better quality parts are used but both are functioning in the same manner.
Ok guys don't make me type so much next time.
Come one now who are we kidding a 100w class ab amp that was built in 1993 that puts out .05% distortion will sound the same as a 100w Class AB amp built today that puts out .05% distortion. Different parts are used sure. Some parts become obsolete and new parts are made. Both have swicthing power supplies both have an audio stage. Besides addition signal processing there isn't much that is different. I would prefer the amp not do the signal processing.
I didn't forget anything and I know when class D was invented. Class D was not in mainstream car audio 20 years ago. And class X & T still are not in main stream car audio. If we are talking about old school amps they will more then likely be a class AB design. No one really cares about the one obscure case that breaks the mold. Unless your a collector.
You can still find IRF44 transistors in a lot of power supplies. Can still find TIP35 and TIP36 transistors in the audio stages and the mosfet audio stage amplifier still function the same as yester years. Not a lot has changed. Any changes in class AB design I would call minor and insignificant JMO. Just because you use different parts to perform the same tasks doesn't make for an advanced technology.
I can live with that
. Obviously some amps are better then others. Better quality parts are used but both are functioning in the same manner. As much as that may be true it doesn't change the fundamental design. And if your going to compare and "old school" and "new school" amp none of that really matters anyway because old school amps will more then likely no longer be supported by the manufacturer. So having crappy support and no engineers makes no difference either way.
We all know that Class D can put our respectable distortion so much so they will give a class AB a run for there money. BUT show me a mainstream car audio manufacturer taking advantage of this. So it doen't make sense to talk about something very few manufacturers are doing.
No shocking news here. I owned a Soundstream 10.2 and picasso. I had a long discussion with someone from soundstream way back when. They insisted the amp was class A. I disagreed. Nice thing about Soundstream they will provide schematics for free. I really like this company.
There are still plenty of each. RF from what I can remember has always been mosfet.
Ok guys don't make me type so much next time.
And since some amps will produce 100w at .05 percent thd at any frequency from 10 to 50khz and others will only produce 100w at .05 percent at 1khz or a similar or limited range, you can actually hear a difference between a well built old school amp and a newer generic version.
That is part of the difference between the older "overbuilt" amps with true rms ratings and several newer that barely meet the rms ratings.
That is part of the difference between the older "overbuilt" amps with true rms ratings and several newer that barely meet the rms ratings.
ppia600 said:
Who produces a class AB amp built today that will only go to 1Khz?
If we are talking about class D sure there are bandwidth limitations. But people know going in this limitation exists and are willing to make the trade off of bandwidth for efficientcy.
Ratings schmatings..........amplifier ratings have always been a problem because there has never been a standard. My understanding is they now have a standard. But it seems to use the 2ohm rating instead of the 4 ohm rating. So if you applied the same rating to older amps that were rated at 4ohms you could truely do a real comparison.
I'd still buy an older amp just because you can pick them up cheap and they still work just as good as amps built today.
nsxxtreme said:
This forum has a quote checkbox..
All amps are created equal eh? You must be on the Richard Clark bandwagon..
Your defending statements you didn't make in the first place. Go back and reread what you said and how my dispute applies. And I don't know where you were a few years back, but class X and T came and went in regards to 'mainstream'. Dlogix did the class X driver modules (but your going to say you knew that), ask any man here who repairs amplifier for a living how many amplifiers that module showed up in. The results will speak for themselves.
Or the engineer who brought it to fruitation, or the guy who prefers it over the others... let's not forget about those people, you know.. the users..
And you can still find those parts in pinball machines too *sigh* And this speaks mountains about our differences in 'opinion' I speak from a technical and intimate level. Where you speak from I really don't know and can't say based on your statements. But I can say that you won't win or even sustain a technical debate with me by using vague statements that make little sense to me. To say that we have parts now in automotive amplifiers that will sustain 120 amps of current when compared to the parts of 'yester years' that would do 20-30 amps each at best is not a advance in technology is ludacris. To think that switching to that part does not require careful consideration and changes to it's surrounding circuitry is also ludacris. You list only several parts, Proven parts that are still used because they suit and are plentiful and cheap. Care to list how many parts have went obsolete in comparison?
I can live with that
As much as that may be true it doesn't change the fundamental design. And if your going to compare and "old school" and "new school" amp none of that really matters anyway because old school amps will more then likely no longer be supported by the manufacturer. So having crappy support and no engineers makes no difference either way.
Nice.. your apathetic too..
When did JL Audio become 'the anti-mainstream'? I believe I cited a specific case, and I can cite more but a man of your intense knowledge in the matter already knows that there are over a dozen mainstream products boasting new class D full range amplifiers so I guess I'd just be making a moot point
And since those class a/b amps from SS are the same as every other class a/b amp out there you only need that one schematic to fix any a/b amp! thats awesome huh?! I mean the part numbers won't be the same, but everything else will right?
tsk tsk... NO.. but a man who lived through the advent of class D was certainly around when Jim started producing amps, so we can let that slide on grounds of senility. It's tough getting old!
Well, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore unless you can carry on a technical discussion with me, so unless that somehow happens you don't have to worry about replying to lengthy posts from me anymore. That should save ya the carpel tunnel!
- Matt
So when is someone going to bench test some amps for RMS and see? I have a newer 111x4rms @4ohm and 14.4v with = or < 1% thd+n that is CE rated infinity 7540a, it has to put out something even if ratings are skewed. I'm thinking it could run midbass drivers nicely. I was going to bail on it but now thinking I may try it out. Is kinda big, but a pair of 100x2 old amps would not be much smaller if any.
You are misinterpreting my post. Many amp manufactures measure distortion within a certain frequency bandwith (not UP TO which is what you apparently thought I meant), usually 1khz. That is a lot easier to do than be measured throughout the entire frequency range. It is easier to produce 1000 fleamarketwatts rms at 1khz and .05% thd than to produce 300 watts rms at the same distortion level, measured from 10hz to 50khz.
nsxxtreme said:
I see you ned things spelled out for you. I'm not sure what your trying to point out here. They are obscure and were obscure way back when and aren't worth mention when your talking about "old school" vs "new school". You know this you just want something to argue about because your one of those "types".MatthewS said:
Again irrelivant noise in the discussion, no one really cares. A person that's looking to buy an "old school" amp doesn't care if the engineer that designed it thinks it's really neat. They care that it performs.MatthewS said:
Not that it matters but I have a MS in EE. Does that really matter? Your qualifications are? This isn't a peeing match can we carry a civil conversation without beating our chest about how smart we think we are?MatthewS said:
MatthewS said:
No its not an advancement in amplifier technology that's completely ridiculous to even assume so. Thats an advancement in semiconductor technology.
Sure there have been advancements in silicon. But how far are we looking back when we say "old school"? Back to when amps were made out of tubes? When I say old school I am refering to late 80's early 90's. Plenty of thos amps were capable of hundred of amps they just required more silicon. But the fundamental way that amplifier made that amplification has gone unchanged.
not sure what that would accomplish. Stange question and silly.MatthewS said:
MatthewS said:When did JL Audio become 'the anti-mainstream'? I believe I cited a specific case, and I can cite more but a man of your intense knowledge in the matter already knows that there are over a dozen mainstream products boasting new class D full range amplifiers so I guess I'd just be making a moot point
And which JL class D amp is a full range amplifier?
Sure.....the amplifier functions in the same way. Protection circuits can get complex and signal processing can be a pain but the straight power supply and amplifier portion pretty much function the same way. Schematic makes things so much easier because you don't have to hunt.MatthewS said:
The first RF amp I laid my hands on was a punch 45. That's as far back as I care to go. RF has been for the most part mosfet amplifiers. If they made other great, that wasn't the point. The point was we had "old school" mosfet amplifiers just as we have "new school" mosfet amplifiers.MatthewS said:
MatthewS said:
seriously that doesn't hurt my feelings.ppia600 said:
Sure that's a valid point. But we had plenty of those amps in the 90's and 80's. So saying we had them now and not before really isn't valid.
There were plenty of old school crap amps just like the new ones but the good old school amps are the ones that are still running today just like when they were new regardless of topography or class and also you can't say that 100% of mosfet amps are better than bipolar amps and vice-versa, but any good quality old school amp is higher on my list than anything from China or Korea.