Difference between RF & Kenwood amps

[Grmanalishi 10+ year member]

I noticed that the Kenwood 2-channel amps are really inexpensive. A Kenwood (KAC-7202) 150W RMSx2 @ 4 Ohms goes for $115, a comparable RF amp goes for at least $160 and a Kicker goes for $230. Is there a difference in quality? Kenwood has a reputation for putting out good amps.

Click to read more...

 

[Prowler573 5,000+ posts]

The Kenwood is going to output its given rated specs when fed 14.4vdc.

Both Kicker's and RF's amps will generally exceed their given ratings by some degree.

This doesn't make them specifically "better" it's just that the pricetag reflects the level of power you're actually getting as opposed to what the published specs say.

 

[Grmanalishi 10+ year member]

Has Kenwood always done this?

 

[inapontiac 10+ year member]

RF + Kicker > Kenwood when it comes to amp.

 

[Max_Power 10+ year member]

everyone is right, but Kenwood still makes a solid amp in my oppinion

 

[luvinthebass 5,000+ posts]

The Kenwood is going to output its given rated specs when fed 14.4vdc.
Both Kicker's and RF's amps will generally exceed their given ratings by some degree.

This doesn't make them specifically "better" it's just that the pricetag reflects the level of power you're actually getting as opposed to what the published specs say.

]it's just that the pricetag reflects the level of power you're actually getting as opposed to what the published specs say.

i noticed that too

 

[Stel 10+ year member]

Here are some typical RF power ratings vs actual output:

http://www.rockfordfosgate.com/products/amp_power_output.asp

 

[skylineTT 10+ year member]

kicker> kenwood+fosgate togeth.

 

[whitemax 10+ year member]

I have owned many Kicker amps over the years. Back since the mid 90's. I would not say that "kicker> kenwood+fosgate togeth". Fosgate puts out solid amplifiers, as does Kicker. In your opinion, what makes Kicker so much better?

 

[andytb 10+ year member]

rockford over all

 

[whitemax 10+ year member]

I would not say that either....

In my case I ended up going with the new Power series mainly due to size, and knowing that Fosgate makes solid amplifiers. The added flexibility that also allows me to wire them down to 2ohms bridged also came into play, as my sub has dual 4ohm vc's. I would not have any issues picking up a Kicker amp if it also met these things.

 

[Prowler573 5,000+ posts]

Has Kenwood always done this?

It's not just Kenwood by any stretch of the imagination. It gets its origin back in the days where for competition purposes you were classed according to the rated output on your amplification. So - for reasons of cheating the classing system there were more than a few amps available that their actual output far exceeded their published specs. So - you'd have an amp rated for 2 X 25w (50w total) and get classed accordingly at the Sound Off but you're making 400w+ once you get in the lane.

So - fast forward to modern day~

Some brands give power ratings more or less as a generality but very often don't quite reach their target when comparing actual output Vs rated output. Think: Profile, Power Acoustik, and amps of that ilk. Does it make them crappy amps?

Nope.

They're just budget amps which more often than not prove to be very reliable amplification. But they're amplification with a small degree of fudging on their output claims. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Some amp manufacturers' products will hit right along in line with their published specs. Most of this ilk of brand-names are the ones who chose to become CEA 2006 ratings standards compliant.

Then there are the brands who will generally exceed their published specs. Does it make them a better product?

Not always. For marketing purposes, though, it makes great sense because it makes the novice user who just paid retail on X amp feel bloody GREAT because his amp that is rated for 300w actually does 362w.

Then there is the bargain-basement garbage that won't even come close to outputting rated wattage. Think: Pyramid, Pyle, DHD, Boss, and the rest of the brands seen frequently at those "Blowout Sale" affairs at your local fairgrounds.

8 days a week they're crap and that's all they ever will be.

RF + Kicker > Kenwood when it comes to amp.

I'll sit my KAC-PS401M next to any Kicker or RF amp with comparable output and dare you to find a real weakness in the Kenwood as compared to either of the other two.

My KAC-PS500F 4ch is the same.

Just like most other companies Kenwood makes some crap. RF makes plenty of it in their own right. Kicker has tended to stay away from making just plain garbage (even their entry-level gear has stayed decent for the money) through the years so perhaps with that in mind Kicker owns both of the other two...

everyone is right, but Kenwood still makes a solid amp in my oppinion

Mine, too.

That's why I have ran Kenwood amplification of one form or another for a great many years now.

kicker> kenwood+fosgate togeth.

See the last statement of my response to inapontiac. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[andytb 10+ year member]

rockford makes more of a variety of amps especially in the larger sizes

 

[Grmanalishi 10+ year member]

Kenwood KAC-7203 states 170W RMS x 2 @ 4 Ohms (at 14.4 V) for $110.

Rockford Fosgate P4002 states 100W RMS x 2 at 4 ohms (at 14.4 V) for $120.

Which of these amps is the better buy?

I just bought a Kicker ZX350.2 which is rated at 110W RMS x 2 @ 4 Ohms and it clips with the gain ~ 20% which really sucks. I need a better amp.

 

[whitemax 10+ year member]

What HU are you running, and what's the preout voltage on it?