Xtant or Arc audio??
10-28-02, 10:16 PM
#1
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: northern va
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xtant or Arc audio??
i was concidering either the 604X (4X75) or Arc audio 4150-cxl(4X85). The amps will be for dyna 240mkII and quartz for rear fill. any suggestions will be appretiated! thanks!
T
T
10-29-02, 09:42 AM
#3
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: northern va
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks again percy! always helpin a man out! 
but woudl u say xtant is not as good as arc? or maybe even not worth it? or just your opinion? thanks again!!
Tony
but woudl u say xtant is not as good as arc? or maybe even not worth it? or just your opinion? thanks again!!Tony
10-29-02, 12:28 PM
#4
Pole Position
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would go Arc, unless you really like the polished look of the xtants. I used to run xtant amps and never had any real problems, but if you take the shroud off and look inside they're not up to par with Arcs build quality. There are also more finish choices from the ARC factory if you dont mind waiting, but I like the black chrome finish myself. Either way you will be buying a pretty good amp, good luck.
10-29-02, 12:35 PM
#5
Moderator - Electronics Forum
The Xtant amps just aren't as well finished. If you take a look at the cover and it's exposed (but semi finished edges) you'll notice that you can cut yourself fairly easily on these. It's just a thin sheet of metal. The Arc, imo, is better constructed.
Percy
Percy
10-31-02, 01:34 AM
#7
Pole Position
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: California
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arc gets my vote. I have one
Had one of the first xtants that came out and while it sounded good, the install was such a pain in the ***. You had to open up the cover exposing the board. I was afraid to cut any wires on top of the board fearing the copper would fall and short out something inside. Just one of the worst designed amp in terms of ease of install...not sure if the new ones are still like that...
Had one of the first xtants that came out and while it sounded good, the install was such a pain in the ***. You had to open up the cover exposing the board. I was afraid to cut any wires on top of the board fearing the copper would fall and short out something inside. Just one of the worst designed amp in terms of ease of install...not sure if the new ones are still like that...
Trending Topics
11-05-02, 02:15 PM
#8
Honestly, I would suggest Xtant over Arc but I prefer Zapco above all Amplifier brands. I have been using it for about 10 years in all of my systems, two of which were IASCA competition systems, and have NEVER had a problem with any amplifier and always got great SQ and tons of reliable power. Right now in my GS 400, I am running a Zapco 9.0 (2000 watts) to the subs, and 2 Zapco 4.0 amps (100x4), one in 4 channel config , one channel each to a 5 1/4" tweet set and one briged to two channels to a 6 1/2" mid bass.
Manville Smith of JL Audio listened to the car at the IASCA world finals and had nice comments. Look at the Carsound forum, IASCA sub forum, "2002 Fossil Awards" to see how he thought it sounded. He listened to 15 cars in total and thought my Lexus sounded better than 3 of the 5 Expert Cars he listened to (as well as most of the pro cars).
I say - if you are open to suggestions, look into Zapco
Manville Smith of JL Audio listened to the car at the IASCA world finals and had nice comments. Look at the Carsound forum, IASCA sub forum, "2002 Fossil Awards" to see how he thought it sounded. He listened to 15 cars in total and thought my Lexus sounded better than 3 of the 5 Expert Cars he listened to (as well as most of the pro cars).
I say - if you are open to suggestions, look into Zapco
12-14-02, 11:37 PM
#10
Search Function Inc.
To choose between ARC and Xtant, I would go with ARC simply because it is built better. Also the problem that I have seen with Xtants is the dirt and dust collected by those square holes on top of the heatsink. Real pain in the *** to clean!
Now ARC vs Zapco, that's a tough one. IMO Zapco wins because of the more flexible x-over setup and ARC wins in price. You can't go wrong with either of the amps mentioned above.
Now ARC vs Zapco, that's a tough one. IMO Zapco wins because of the more flexible x-over setup and ARC wins in price. You can't go wrong with either of the amps mentioned above.
12-15-02, 02:17 PM
#11
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: northern va
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where does mcintosh stand between all this?? i hear ppl sayin.. maybe zapco.. but no mcintosh. is there something i should know about mcintosh 
thanks everyone for their replies!
thanks everyone for their replies!
12-15-02, 03:32 PM
#12
Moderator - Electronics Forum
My personal experience is if you need an amp that does as advertised (actually a bit better in all the cases I've seen) in "real life" situations then Mc is a good way to go. I can't run Zapco since, according to Velodyne, they don't amplifiy the low frequencies well enough. It says so in their instructions and in their tests. Something with not enough amplification below 30hz....Even if the Vel could run with Zapco I'd still stick with Mc. Very high channel seperation numbers as well as signal to noise ratio. I have still YET to see an amp that will beat the Mc on channel seperation and real life signal to noise/distortion numbers.
Mc is the cleanest amp that I've experienced so far, and their build quality, imo, is second to none. If you've ever taken an amp apart you'll notice that most amps on the market have sharp edges, lots of surface mount components and a few penny pinching schemes going on inside. Mc has none of the problems mentioned above. You may notice that with a few amps on the market they brag about surface mount components - they're actually weaker in "hold strength" due to the very tiny leads and solder joints. Need proof? Take a pair of pliers to an old, non functional component that has surface mount. Try to rip it off the board - it comes out fairly easily. Now do that with a "through hole" component of the same size...you'll have a much tougher time. So be careful if a company brags about the "superiority" of surface mount components. "Through hole" components (standard size IC in DIP packages) will have much more resistance to vibration and shock.
If you're after a no holds barred system, consider Mc being the top of the list. You won't see them very often in USAC or IASCA competitions since they are quite expensive. Over in Japan, where Sound Quality is of the utmost importance, you'll see Mc running in alot of installations. Add that to the array of Alpine F#1 Status systems, Sony XESZ50 and any other top end HU/Processor combos.
If anything comes out to be better than Mc and has the numbers AND the SQ to prove it, you can be sure I'll be switching over. But, for an amp that's been released in 1994, (Mc car audio gear) it definitely has held up despite the other companies so called "technological breakthroughs".
Arc Audio, Zapco and Brax....EXCELLENT amps. But my money still goes to the Mc with zero hesitation.
Percy
Mc is the cleanest amp that I've experienced so far, and their build quality, imo, is second to none. If you've ever taken an amp apart you'll notice that most amps on the market have sharp edges, lots of surface mount components and a few penny pinching schemes going on inside. Mc has none of the problems mentioned above. You may notice that with a few amps on the market they brag about surface mount components - they're actually weaker in "hold strength" due to the very tiny leads and solder joints. Need proof? Take a pair of pliers to an old, non functional component that has surface mount. Try to rip it off the board - it comes out fairly easily. Now do that with a "through hole" component of the same size...you'll have a much tougher time. So be careful if a company brags about the "superiority" of surface mount components. "Through hole" components (standard size IC in DIP packages) will have much more resistance to vibration and shock.
If you're after a no holds barred system, consider Mc being the top of the list. You won't see them very often in USAC or IASCA competitions since they are quite expensive. Over in Japan, where Sound Quality is of the utmost importance, you'll see Mc running in alot of installations. Add that to the array of Alpine F#1 Status systems, Sony XESZ50 and any other top end HU/Processor combos.
If anything comes out to be better than Mc and has the numbers AND the SQ to prove it, you can be sure I'll be switching over. But, for an amp that's been released in 1994, (Mc car audio gear) it definitely has held up despite the other companies so called "technological breakthroughs".
Arc Audio, Zapco and Brax....EXCELLENT amps. But my money still goes to the Mc with zero hesitation.
Percy
12-15-02, 05:46 PM
#13
Search Function Inc.
McIntoch has pretty high cost amp and personally I don't like the lhe looks that much (subjective). I still think that MC is one of the very best amps out there on paper and in real life (better then ARC or Zapco and don't know much about Brax).
12-16-02, 08:31 PM
#14
Surf-Mount vs Thru-Hole Ramblings
"Take a pair of pliers to an old, non functional component that has surface mount. Try to rip it off the board - it comes out fairly easily. Now do that with a "through hole" component of the same size...you'll have a much tougher time."
Well, I'll have to somewhat dispute this notion, since I work with this stuff every day. (Sorry, Percy!) Yeah, if you take a big pair of pliers to your electronics, you can apply a he!! of a lot of force. The issue with surface-mount stuff is the amount of solder vs. the lead size, the pad size, and the weight of the part being soldered down. Some designs are great, some manufacturing facilities are great, others are lousy. The problems show up when you haven't applied enough solder relative to what's being soldered. You need much less solder for a surface-mount part, and if done right, the joint is PROPORTIONATELY STRONG for the size of the leads/parts. That's the whole key. Yes, you can rip it apart with a pliers, but maybe it's more apples vs. apples if you use a pliers on the thru-hole stuff and a tweezers on the surface-mount!!!
Some of the advantages of the surface-mount parts are generally a more controlled manufacturing process (in terms of making the part itself), so usually tighter tolerances, also shorter lead lengths reduce parasitic capacitances and inductances, and overall smaller circuits (and hence loop area) reduce the probability of coupling of unwanted signals like power supply, etc. etc., into signal path.
I firmly believe that surface-mount components themselves are superior in resistance to vibration and shock. I think what you're referring to in your statement is improperly-soldered components - a complete nightmare. In agreement with the premise of your statement, improper soldering is not very likely with thru-hole stuff, but much more likely with surf-mount. It is hard to test joints during manufacturing for mechanical stability, and dried solder paste can make a joint seem stable when it's barely even soldered. This is the stuff that you get out on the road, temperature cycle it a few times, maybe even get thru a season or two, and it dies. (And I just love uninstalling stuff I just installed, don't you all???) However, if surface-mount components are properly soldered, neither temperature nor vibration should affect them.
I think the bottom line is, stick with the good manufacturers, don't buy the junk. The better manufacturers control their manufacturing processes better and test more completely, and spend a lot more money doing so. That's part of what you pay the higher prices for. That being the case, it shouldn't matter whether you have thru-hole or surf-mount.
Headunits and processors are chock-full of surface mount components - the good ones tend not to die prematurely. You can't avoid surface-mount stuff, given the complexity of what we're trying to shoehorn into our cars. Amps are no exception.
And I'm sure if McIntosh started doing more surface-mount stuff, it would be awesome, 'cause that's just them. Thay have the added advantage of making lower quantities, too.
Well, I'll have to somewhat dispute this notion, since I work with this stuff every day. (Sorry, Percy!) Yeah, if you take a big pair of pliers to your electronics, you can apply a he!! of a lot of force. The issue with surface-mount stuff is the amount of solder vs. the lead size, the pad size, and the weight of the part being soldered down. Some designs are great, some manufacturing facilities are great, others are lousy. The problems show up when you haven't applied enough solder relative to what's being soldered. You need much less solder for a surface-mount part, and if done right, the joint is PROPORTIONATELY STRONG for the size of the leads/parts. That's the whole key. Yes, you can rip it apart with a pliers, but maybe it's more apples vs. apples if you use a pliers on the thru-hole stuff and a tweezers on the surface-mount!!!
Some of the advantages of the surface-mount parts are generally a more controlled manufacturing process (in terms of making the part itself), so usually tighter tolerances, also shorter lead lengths reduce parasitic capacitances and inductances, and overall smaller circuits (and hence loop area) reduce the probability of coupling of unwanted signals like power supply, etc. etc., into signal path.
I firmly believe that surface-mount components themselves are superior in resistance to vibration and shock. I think what you're referring to in your statement is improperly-soldered components - a complete nightmare. In agreement with the premise of your statement, improper soldering is not very likely with thru-hole stuff, but much more likely with surf-mount. It is hard to test joints during manufacturing for mechanical stability, and dried solder paste can make a joint seem stable when it's barely even soldered. This is the stuff that you get out on the road, temperature cycle it a few times, maybe even get thru a season or two, and it dies. (And I just love uninstalling stuff I just installed, don't you all???) However, if surface-mount components are properly soldered, neither temperature nor vibration should affect them.
I think the bottom line is, stick with the good manufacturers, don't buy the junk. The better manufacturers control their manufacturing processes better and test more completely, and spend a lot more money doing so. That's part of what you pay the higher prices for. That being the case, it shouldn't matter whether you have thru-hole or surf-mount.
Headunits and processors are chock-full of surface mount components - the good ones tend not to die prematurely. You can't avoid surface-mount stuff, given the complexity of what we're trying to shoehorn into our cars. Amps are no exception.
And I'm sure if McIntosh started doing more surface-mount stuff, it would be awesome, 'cause that's just them. Thay have the added advantage of making lower quantities, too.
12-16-02, 09:50 PM
#15
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Hi Jerry!
I think the only piece that Mc makes with SMT parts is their MX406 head unit. Everything else (at least for car audio anyways) is using the standard DIP package, 0.1 inch spacing between leads. Probably the only reason why Mc still does this is because it makes for easier assembly.
Bad SMT solder...seen too many of those. Most recent was in a laptop (compaq/ibm) and in the Alpine ERAG320. Thin hairline cracks...probably the customer dropping the laptops.
Percy
I think the only piece that Mc makes with SMT parts is their MX406 head unit. Everything else (at least for car audio anyways) is using the standard DIP package, 0.1 inch spacing between leads. Probably the only reason why Mc still does this is because it makes for easier assembly.
Bad SMT solder...seen too many of those. Most recent was in a laptop (compaq/ibm) and in the Alpine ERAG320. Thin hairline cracks...probably the customer dropping the laptops.
Percy
