Gday,

I'm going to fit a pair of Phoenix Gold Xenon X6.5 splits up front that have an RMS of 150w

I was originally going to get a PG Xenon X100.2 and bridge it to 200w so the splits have plenty of power.
But I could perhaps save myself a bit of cash if I get an Audison SRx2 that will provide slightly less power, but still enough. Not to mention I'll get it locally (as opposed to the PG from US)

I'll be using my standard Falcon HU, so Im a little confused about the advantage the Audison has here, as described on their website.

Which would be a better amp for my X6.5 splits?

Cheers

if you bridge the X100.2, you'll only end up with 1 channel. that obviously won't work with a set of L+R splits; you'll need 2 amps. hardly economical.

overall, the X100.2 is a superior amp to the SRx2, in both power, build quality, and performance (this last point is based upon my perception rather than actual use of an X100.2). i use a couple SRx2 amps for minor duties - ambient tweeters and centre channel - and they're a good compact little amp with great performance at this pricepoint. only 'downers' are the fiddlly controls and screw-holes, but these are set-and-forget so easily dismissed as being major probs. build quality is fine if not plasticky and not a patch on a xenon.

there's no rationale to matching brands/series of products, so the xenon amps are not specifically matched to xenon splits.

stock HUs tend not to have RCA preouts. instead you have to rely on the speakerwire outputs. this is a bit inferior because the signal passes through the internal amps first, and these are usually 'average' at best, so degrade the signal very slightly. it would be a pity to use a factory HU and a high quality amp like the xenon. will you change the HU later?

anyway, relying on the speakerwire outputs means you need an amp with speakerwire (high-level) audio inputs or use a separate converter (line-output converter aka line level converter, etc). the SRx2 features high level inputs whereas the xenon does not. a separate quality LOC will be $80+ or so, or check out the navone model:

http://www.caraudioaustralia.com/forums/in...57673&hl=navone

it's a bit of an 'unknown' as to the quality of the LOC inbuilt into many amps, the SRx series included, but i would expect it to be fine.

aside from any ebay issues, i'd go the X100.2.

Thanks for the reply mate.

My system is going into a Falcon Ute, a F6 Tornado. So I had planned to bridge the 2 channels of the X100.2 and feed it into the X6.5 splits. Overpowered, yes... totally excessive, probably... but considering I will be running two 12" subs in the extra cab of the ute I figure I should get as much power and quality to the front splits as possible.

200w into the 150w X6.5 and turn down the gain I figure will give me plenty of power

Plus there is the future-proof ability of the 2x100w

I'm happy to forget about the rear speakers as they'll be blocked by the sub enclosure to start with, plus they're not really a necessity in a ute I'd imagine.

I'm so close to getting a Soundstream DVD/MP3 player aswell, but dont want to butcher the console. It's a lease car and I want to totally avoid drilling holes into the dash. If I was to get an aftermarket HU then it would go in the 'tissue holder' and I'd imagine a bit of work would be needed to fit it there too.

Anyone have any ideas/opinions?

Thanks again

so you want mono sound? why's that?

i think you need to reconsider. music is recorded in stereo, with discrete (individual) signals to L and R. this helps provide lifelike sound, and i presume you have 2 functional ears (not one damaged ear).

if you're just after 'noise', then go with a mono setup, and can save money by using inferior gear too if you want instead. but for quality music reproduction, go stereo. this means you need 2 separate amp channels, and not 1 bridged channel.

You know, it had only just occured to me that indeed bridging the 2 channels would make it mono.

Thankyou so much shinycar, you saved me alot of pain.

Cheers!