One more for ApH. While on the topic though, I think a lot of the reason PRpH isn't as popular as it could be.. is because of its flaws. ApH is smooth all the way through, while PR is a little bit "rough around the edges" so to speak. What bugs me most about it, is that nasty plastic smelling sharp accord that dominates some of the top and most of the middle. It's unfortunate, because it smells amazing aside from that.
These are two different fragrances and the only similarity they share is their unique personality and character that deserves respect.
AzPH starts off with a riot of colours whereas PRPH starts linear. AzPH then becomes linear and it's hard to make out the middle notes from the base notes. With PRPH the dry down is sophisticated and mature (in a smoky, dark kind of way) yet it manages to stay green.
When it gets to the vintage versions i love them both equally and cannot decide upon one of them.
They are both masterpieces.
If i have had to choose between the new versions then it is a very easy option.
Concerning that Paco Rabanne pour Homme smells completely different today as it used to smell 30 years ago,i would choose the new version of Azzaro in a heartbeat.
I haven't owned Azzaro for decades so, while I remember liking it, I can't recall what it was like. Paco Rabanne does seem.a bit dated and soapy but as I currently own it and wore it a few times this summer, it has to get my vote.