DIYMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been looking for a 4-channel amp to fit my needs for a while now and I've narrowed it down to these two, the PPI P900.4 and the PPI BK800.4.

Precision Power PPI P900.4 (p9004) 4-Channel Phantom Car Amplifier

Precision Power PPI BK 800.4 800W RMS, 4-Ch Class A/B Black Ice Car Amp

The BK800.4 is PPI's top of the line and is class A/B, but I've heard almost nothing bad about the P900.4 (except that it's hard to take advantage of its full power when using a low voltage out put HU) and it is class D. I would like a first hand (if possible) comparison of the two in general but especially on the difference in efficiency and SQ. I'm gonna be running them no more than the rated RMS into tweeter frequencies. And if anyone could tell me the amps they consume, that would be nice. Thanks
 

· Registered
2013 Dodge Dart 1.4T
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
The noise floor on the P900.4 is almost totally inaudible. If you use the Balanced Line Transmitters on the BK800.4 you will have the same or better results in terms of the noise floor. PPI designed these lines of amps to suit difference tastes, as some people don't want class D powering their full range speakers, plus some people don't like the looks of the Phantom amps and might prefer the old school looks of the Black Ice amps.

I have a 20 amp fuse on the power line to my P900.4. Full range amplifiers don't use nearly as much current as people assume based on the built in fuses.

I haven't heard of anyone who has tried one of these amps and then also tried the other one, but maybe this thread will bring out that person.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
I'm gonna be running them no more than the rated RMS into tweeter frequencies.

Let us know how this goes.. This is like trying to kill a fly with a cannon. Complete waste IMO... If tweeter amp is necessary, I'd throw in something like an Alpine MRX-F35 (4x60watt? amp) or PPI Black Ice BK340.4 (4x55watts RMS). Even then, it can easily kill a tweeter if not setup correctly. I am talking about tweeters without a crossover. Some crossovers use attenuation to save the tweeter from a thermal death.. in which case all that power is wasted at the crossover, with tweeter playing not louder than an active front stage tweeter running on very modest power.

Having said this, there is another reason I wouldn't want P900 used as a tweeter amp. If you are building a reference quality SQ system, the P900 doesn't seem to have that good of channel separation. I believe the channel separation spec is something like low-30s at 1KHz. The crosstalk increases at higher frequencies (see here). Should you worry about this? Only if your setup is designed _reference level_ imaging. By that I mean that you use placement of speakers optimized for best imaging AND/OR you use time alignment AND you use an independent left/right equalization to equalize the frequency response of the left and right side speakers. If you don't do this, then the channel separation spec kind of doesn't matter in a car to begin with because, without additional processing, imaging is already screwed up by default.

Otherwise, from installation perspective, P900.4 is fantastic. Right now, I use two of its channels bridged for subwoofer, which I push hard enough. The amp is just warm even with almost no air flow around it. Compare this to my MB Quart REF4.80 (4x80watt Class A/B). All 4-channels are running at 4ohm, with two channels powering tweeters and other two powering mids. The thing has plenty of air circulation around it, and it is usually way too hot to touch.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the input and I may decide to go with something else but I would like to know which is better for SQ and how much better, of anyone knows.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
How bout using one to power a JBL C608GTI MKII comp set? Which one do you think would be better? And how would i go about linking two together if I decide I want more power (I don't want any comments about too much power). I plan to use an active processor I just don't know which one yet.
 

· Registered
2021 Chevrolet Silverado Trail Boss Crew Cab
Joined
·
2,463 Posts
If I am not mistaken the Power Class is PPI's top of the line line. I do not believe either of these amps can be daisy chained if that is what you are asking. BUT they can be bridged into 2 channel amps. The 900.4 would give you 450x2 while the BK would only give you 400x2.

I have a 900.4 and can verify that there is no audible noise floor. I am running mine to a passive diy 3-way set and running the rear channels to 2 8's and have to agree that this thing does not get too hot.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Yes thats what i ment. I have decided to definately go with the P900.4 for a passive set up but I would prefer to go active if i can and later add a 4" midrange driver. How would I do this? I will use an active processor I know but can I run the 3-way set up with this single amp and a processor?
 

· Registered
2021 Chevrolet Silverado Trail Boss Crew Cab
Joined
·
2,463 Posts
But if you add another 900.4 and bridge it to the midbasses you would have the power you really want for them and have 6 channels which is 1 for each driver. Or use the 600.2 on them @ 200w 's.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
I've been looking for a 4-channel amp to fit my needs for a while now and I've narrowed it down to these two, the PPI P900.4 and the PPI BK800.4.

Precision Power PPI P900.4 (p9004) 4-Channel Phantom Car Amplifier

Precision Power PPI BK 800.4 800W RMS, 4-Ch Class A/B Black Ice Car Amp

The BK800.4 is PPI's top of the line and is class A/B, but I've heard almost nothing bad about the P900.4 (except that it's hard to take advantage of its full power when using a low voltage out put HU) and it is class D. I would like a first hand (if possible) comparison of the two in general but especially on the difference in efficiency and SQ. I'm gonna be running them no more than the rated RMS into tweeter frequencies. And if anyone could tell me the amps they consume, that would be nice. Thanks
Figured I'd bump this. Because a friend of mine was looking at these two amps. I usually hear a difference in drop in tests with amps.

Generally I have preferred an a/b over a d for mids and tweets. Seem's like there are less spikes in the high end.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
Also a difference in the mids. Less of a difference in the bass response.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top