Lanzar Vibe amps

[hihoslva]

Opinions opinions opinions!

I can get my hands on these amps for very cheap - 125 watts RMS x 4 @ 4 ohms for $130 - I can hardly resist.

I know the "too good to be true" adage, and I've been my own victim with cheap amps in the past. But I've been reading up on lots of boards, and the general consensus is that Lanzar Vibe amps are a damn solid budget amplifier. I know the Vibe 1200D is a serious JBL 1200.1 competitor, and many people actually PREFER it, saying it has a better crossover section AND a subsonic filter, and will put out almost 1300 watts @ 2 ohms.

I wonder if the quality makes it down the line to the Viberant models, which is what I'm looking at.

I can also buy a lot of watts for the money - more than I really need - which means I don't have to push the amps too hard.....

So - any Vibe experiences would help. Buy 'em or don't buy 'em? And WHY!

~HH

 

[chuyler1]

It depends on what you're going to power with it. If you're looking to get some sweet sounds out of your new $300 components then Lanzar isn't the way to go. However if you're looking to send some decent power to a pair of subs then I say go for it. With bass, its more about watts than SQ.

So do not confuse quality with quantity.

Lanzar used to make nice equipment years ago, but other brands have far surpassed them in recent years.

 

[hihoslva]

Plan goes like this:

Infinity Reference components - front doors - front channels of 4 channel amp - high passed @ 300Hz or so (guessing of course).
Peerless 6.5" Midbass drivers - rear doors - rear channels of 4 channel amp - low passed at 300Hz or so (again, guessing)
Infinity Kappa 100.3se 10" subs (2 of 'em) - run off separate amp, either bridged 2 channel or a monoblock.

The amps I'm looking at are:

Vibe 428. 125 watts RMS x 4 @ 4 ohms. Infinity components only need about 90 tops. The Peerless could probably use a bit more, but they are pretty efficient so it won't be a problem. I only want a bit of midbass fill from them anyway. So I won't have to push the amp very hard.

Vibe 238. 300 watts RMS x 2 @ 2 ohms (600 rms X 1 @ 4 ohms bridged). Kappa 110.3se's are DVC 4 ohm subs - so no impedance problems. 275 watts RMS - and VERY efficient - they'd do nicely with half that power. So again - no real need to push the amp very hard.

Preliminary plan. The speakers/subs are done - dead-set choices. The amps are what is up for grabs right now.

Other than the price, the other draw of the Lanzar amps is the remote bass-boost feature. Now I know it's "gimmicky", but my deck has no dedicated sub-outs - only front and rear. And I have gotten very accustomed to using the remote bass on the RF amp I have now - I find it extremely useful. BOTH Vibe amps have the boost controller; on the 4 channel, it only boosts the rear channels. So I would have control of the bass on the midbass speakers AND the subs at my fingertips. Call me a hack, but I really like that idea.

I will be able to return these amps for about a 15% hit if I don't like 'em. Not bad, I guess - but an educated decision is the best one, I think - so keep the opinions coming!

~HH

 

[chuyler1]

If you're used to RF amps, the Lanzar are going to be a big surprise. RF, even though they may be rated lower, will give you more bump for the buck. They are designed to give you the power when you need it.

I'm not a big fan of RF subs and speakers, but I have never heard a system, even a low power system, that didn't sound tight with RF amps. I think these Lanzar amps will be loud, but they won't be dynamic as I said before. Comparing to a RF they will sound muddy in the mid-range area, and the highs could come off as being a bit harsh and unfocused.

I have never heard them though, so this is just my prediction based on other amps I have listened to in the same price range.

My one suggestion is, have you checked out ebay yet? My last system was an 'ebay' system and I spent the same amount of money as I did in the past, except I could get more power, and higher quality components, because I was willing to buy used or refurbished equipment. I picked up a clarion 9575rz (flagship model for 2000) for $250. It was ~$700 new. Try getting that quality out of a new $250 unit from Crutchfield. Sure the amps may have a few scratches on the heat sink, but who cares, a few dabs of paint can fix that.

 

[hihoslva]

Chuyler1 - seems that you are of the opinion that amps can have varying sound quality.

There should be little if any difference from one amp to another. If two amps, both pushing a TRUE 100 watts, for example, are played side by side, you would not be able to hear a difference between them, regardless of price.

This is physics, basically. A Watt is a measure of electrical current. Current cannot be "good" or "bad" - it's just "there". If your TV needs a certain amount of current to operate, it doesn't matter HOW you get the current, so long as you GET it. Same is true with speakers - a watt is a watt is a watt.

I don't know if you've heard of Richard Clark's $10,000 amp challenge. He offers to put up several different amplifiers side-by-side. The amps will have been tested to produce identical output, and any internal processing (Eq's, crossovers, etc) will be bypassed. He's offering $10,000 to anyone who can repeatedly tell the difference between the amps. Fact is, no one can. A watt is a watt. Just like a meter or appliance can't tell the difference between generator A's electricity and Generator B's electricity, your speakers can't tell the difference between Amp A's and Amp B's watts, if they are the same amount of watts.

I'm not trying to doubt your assertions about these Lanzar amps, or any other - and I certainly DO appreciate the feedback and opinions. But you should realize that all we are really talking about is current. If the amp delivers what it says, it should not sound any different that a McIntosh that pushes exactly the same amount of true power, except for possibly a higher s/n ratio (though anything 90 or above is considered more than high enough).

Build quality, reliability, features, and true power ratings are what separate the cheap from the pricey in the world of amps, or any electrical device.

~HH

 

[1sty]

I am well aware of Richards contest but as you mentioned both amps have to produce the same power first. AS we all know most manufactures drasticly over rate the power or under rate it. So one brand claiming 100 is giving only 50 and the other 200. Another big thing there is each amp would have to perfom its power at 12 volts not one at 14.4 and the other at 12.


With that out of the way, as I see you know most of it just wanted to mention it.
I hate RF amps, they are prone to more high pitched noise and distortion then any amps I have ever heard. not to mention they are ugly as hell and over rated on power specs these days.
By the way if you want to get yourself 10K use an alpine V-Power amp and a cheap Pioneer for the test. The pioneers sound so bad most systems are better with themoff and they were just recalled for producing smoke. So even if you can't hear the difference just wait till you smell fried amp and hellow $10K.

Another thing is what amps are used in that challenge. Would he use a JL and a Phoenix Gold or use a Pheonix and a Jensen. That part I have never read about and it would be much harder to tell a high line brand apart form each other then a chep one.

 

[hihoslva]

Well - as far as I know - it would be two amps of ANY manufacturer. So yeah - a Jensen and a PG could go head-to-head in this contest.

Of course, the actual output is the kicker (figure-of-speech, not the brand ). The Jensen might advertise 400 and only put out 100 before reaching, say, 1% THD. While the PG might advertise 400 and output 600.

The idea would be to compare two amps who's REAL output matched, regardless of wattage claims.

As far as the "sound" of a particular amp, this is most likely due to the onboard processing - much of which is "in use" all the time, even with eq's and crossovers in what would be considered the "off" position.

Clark's challenge would physically bypass all of this stuff. Of course, there are major stipulations and levelling factors in his challenge. But that's really what it is about - with all the whistles and bells gone, and comparing actual output, a watt is a watt, and there is no SQ (or lack thereof) associated with pure power.

Anyway - enough of that shi-ot. 1st MP3 - would YOU have any opinions on the amps I'm considering?

~HH

 

[chuyler1]

I agree, RFs are ugly, the newer they get, the uglier the design. I haven't seriously listened to any of the models after the trapazoid design.

Here's what I have to add...

Take my MTX amp for example. it is rated 25x4 or 100x2 at 12.5v. I know for a fact that it puts out over 250x2 at 14.4 volts based on various articles I have read and people's tests. Compare that to a budget brand amp that says it puts out 25x4 at 14.4 volts (common trickery of budget amps) and won't even double the power when bridged (maybe 80-90x2). So, even if a watt was just a watt, my MTX amp is more than worth its price in watts. 250x2 does not compare to 80x2.

Cheaper amps, made of cheap components, regardless of their output, cannot handle low impedences as well, they induce extra noise into the system, and they can't handle the dynamics of music as well. Music doesn't require a constant power load like a TV set. The required power varies depending on how loud, and what frequencies are playing. The amp must be able to adjust and send the right amount of power at the right time to the right frequencies. It is the very reason we use external capicitors, (and there are internal ones as well). Listen to a system with a capacitor, and without one. You will notice with a capacitor it sounds a little tighter, and yes your lights don't dim as much. People don't need capacitors on their TVs to get a good signal do they (forget the fact that they run on AC)?

Besides, with TVs and other home electronics, we rate the wattage of the powersupply. With amplifiers, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), we rate the wattage of the output signal, not the powersupply that creates it.