Opinions Wanted - My Amp Quandary

[Adam]

Who are you looking into?

I'm considering the SVS MTS-01 line. I'm just not all that excited about them anymore, so I'm starting to think that they aren't for me. However, if I do get them, their bookshelves are about as inefficient as my NHTs.

I don't have an amp .

Slacker. It should be mandatory for all Coach Potatoes to have at least one.

 

[cfrizz]

I went through this for a couple of years. I thought about getting Some Polk LSI's & was told that my Denon receiver couldn't handle them, so I got a Parasound 1500A 2 channel amp. It made such a huge difference that decided to get an Outlaw Monoblock for my center channel.

I finally just bit the bullet & got the 5 channel Sunfire amp in my signature. Which is what I would have done had I known in advance how great it would sound. All my speakers benefitted from more power.

Last week I finally added a Sunfire TGP to complete my goal to get back to all separates. It made another significant improvement to my system.

Adam, I always recommend getting multichannel 200wpc amplifier & just be done with it. You will always be able to use it not matter what other upgrades you do in the future, and you'll know without a doubt that you will have all the power you need for your current speakers & any other speakers you get in the future.

 

[Adam]

Adam, I always recommend getting multichannel 200wpc amplifier & just be done with it. You will always be able to use it not matter what other upgrades you do in the future, and you'll know without a doubt that you will have all the power you need for your current speakers & any other speakers you get in the future.

Thanks for the input, cfrizz!

To be honest, I think that it was one (or more) of your posts this past summer that got me in the mindset of 200W/channel. At the time, I wasn't ready to drop $1500 on a the MPS-1 (and wait over a month for it to get back in stock), so I went with the RPA-1 to give amplification a spin. I'm with you...looking back, I wish that I would have just gotten the MPS-1!

So, in your opinion, would the IPS-1 be an incorrect move because it's only 150W/channel?

 

[jostenmeat]

Hey Adam, isn't it fun to turn the tables and ask for input/advice once in a while, as it seems you are accustomed to giving it a lot of the time...

Well, I agree with cfrizz. A multi-ch amp is easier, straight to the point, and will be very easy to sell. Emotiva has a great bang-for-buck rep here and elsewhere. I think, though, in my countless hours of forum wanderings, Outlaw might be even more loved. They are universally loved it seems to me. My NAD T973 isn't exactly a slouch, but I will say when I was looking for amp advice, everyone invariably was telling me to get the best I could afford (tough speakers). I did my best, but I only sort of barely-slightly wish I got Outlaw's best multi-ch. Its ok, if I get a dedicated room one day, it would have worked out for the best! Outlaw's multi-ch amps don't last a freaking day on the classifieds, Audiogon or elsewhere. (Do Emotiva products also have transferable 5-yr warranty?) (*Oops, I just now see that you are not a "reseller", excuse me....)

Anyways, if you would be hard pressed to find a use for your present amp, other options could include a 3-ch amp (doesn't Anthem make one), or 3 Outlaw monoblocks for the front 3 (Emotiva for rears).
*More innumerable options if only for the pleasure of imagining:
- get 2 more speakers for 7.1(!) and get a 5-ch or 7-ch amp
- 5 monoblocks! lol
- enough amps for height surrounds too! lol
- replace front 3 speakers, use center as a rear, for 6.1!

As entirely pleasurable as it is to spend other people's money, you do say you are getting speakers as well? Why not those first (did you say?). Splurging on the amp is good clean fun, but do you have everything else you want or need already (outside of speakers, of course)?

Yes, after a little moment to ruminate, I say get your new speakers first, and the amp choice will fall into place a bit easier, I would imagine. If only due to remaining budget! (jk, but seriously, if you x-over'd your present speakers say at 80hz in a normal room, I think most of your options will be fine. Its if you really do get top-notch full-range mains that you might possibly think about best power affordable, imo)...

 

[Adam]

Thanks, jostenmeat! I appreciate your thoughts. Yes, Outlaw and Emotiva seem to be well liked around the web. Outlaw might have an edge because they've been around longer (I think). I think that both have transferable warranties - you never know, I might sell something someday.

Yes, after a little moment to ruminate, I say get your new speakers first, and the amp choice will fall into place a bit easier, I would imagine. If only due to remaining budget!

My thinking is that I'd like to see how my speakers sound with good, clean power. The two front speakers on the RPA-1 really sound better at louder volumes now. If I still think that I should upgrade them, then I'll do that. Seeing as how I'm going to get an amp anyway, I figure that I'll get it first. It's an easier (maybe) choice for me - pick a respected brand and get enough power.

My "quandary" is really all about doing this in the most efficient manner. I can be overly analytical, so I figured that I'd ask the group here for opinions and advice. As you mentioned, it's fun to spend other people's money, and I knew that I'd get some good advice from everyone here.

 

[cfrizz]

You answered your own question as to whether or not settling for 150wpc would be a mistake. You already have 200wpc for your fronts, why would you settle for less now?

That is the problem with most guys & this hobby, you don't want to exercise the patience required to get what you really want!

Thanks for the input, cfrizz!

To be honest, I think that it was one (or more) of your posts this past summer that got me in the mindset of 200W/channel. At the time, I wasn't ready to drop $1500 on a the MPS-1 (and wait over a month for it to get back in stock), so I went with the RPA-1 to give amplification a spin. I'm with you...looking back, I wish that I would have just gotten the MPS-1!
So, in your opinion, would the IPS-1 be an incorrect move because it's only 150W/channel?

 

[avaserfi]

I think cfrizz is dead on here Adam, basically what I said in my first post here too. The IPS-1 may be enough, but there is that psychological factor involved and that will likely make you second guess getting the IPS-1 over the MPS line. Just wait a bit for another sale, Emotiva has them quiet often, and pick up an MPS-1, then give me your RPA, you will have never been happier .

Its all in your head, but you have to placate irrationality sometimes, besides its only money!

 

[Seth=L]

besides its only money!

If you gamble with this mentality you will always lose.

 

[jostenmeat]

Adam, my first instinct was to immediately agree with the following statement.

You answered your own question as to whether or not settling for 150wpc would be a mistake. You already have 200wpc for your fronts, why would you settle for less now?

That is the problem with most guys & this hobby, you don't want to exercise the patience required to get what you really want!

You know... why not just get the best you can afford, right?

Well, however, but, um, if this purchase reduces your choices at all for the front 3 speakers, I would reconsider. If you get more bookshelves, and are crossing-over, you might be fine with any of the choices. That's sort of why I say speakers first. But, I do understand your position and/or present psychological disposition. Heck, Im sure we all do.

If and once you get really top-notch fronts, you just might become like me, and start imaginatively perusing Audiogon classifieds for strange things such as tube pre-amplifiers with HT bypass....

"That'll be the day when you say good-bye... That'll be the day..."

 

[Adam]

...you don't want to exercise the patience required to get what you really want!

You nailed it! My mindset is...if I can order it and have it shipped on Monday from Emotiva, it should arrive on Friday (based on my past two shipments), which is my next weekday off from work.

Its all in your head, but you have to placate irrationality sometimes...

Sometimes? Try always.

If you get more bookshelves, and are crossing-over, you might be fine with any of the choices.

I am definitely going with bookshelves for the rears. I might go bookshelves again for the mains, or maybe towers. Either way, I'll be crossing over to my PC13-Ultra.

 

[jostenmeat]

I might go bookshelves again for the mains, or maybe towers. Either way, I'll be crossing over to my PC13-Ultra.

You mean that you will use that sub. You did not mean that you will still apply high-pass to the towers, right?

 

[Adam]

You mean that you will use that sub. You did not mean that you will still apply high-pass to the towers, right?

I mean that I'd be setting a crossover of 80Hz with the low frequencies going to the sub and the rest going to the mains, whether they are towers or bookshelves.

 

[jostenmeat]

I mean that I'd be setting a crossover of 80Hz with the low frequencies going to the sub and the rest going to the mains, whether they are towers or bookshelves.

Why?

Dolby and DTS send out full-range signals to every speaker. Yep, your surrounds too. Ideal setup would be 7 towers with no cross-over applied to them. Yes, you still want a sub with low-pass at 80 hz. 6 of my 7 speakers are set to full-range/large (not center channel), while sub is at 80hz for HT.

Yes, many state that x-over'd bookshelves and sub work great. Im sure they do. Me? I love having full range surround. Especially for the rears. Nothing cooler than great mid-bass/bass coming from them. People say its not localizable, but for whatever reason, perhaps such as other harmonic cues, etc, I know where its coming from...
(Oh well, not to open yet another can of worms, I can just about hit 80hz singing, and my voice has poor "extension" for a bass). Go figure...

 

[Seth=L]

Why?

Dolby and DTS send out full-range signals to every speaker. Yep, your surrounds too. Ideal setup would be 7 towers with no cross-over applied to them. Yes, you still want a sub with low-pass at 80 hz. 6 of my 7 speakers are set to full-range/large (not center channel), while sub is at 80hz for HT.

Yes, many state that x-over'd bookshelves and sub work great. Im sure they do. Me? I love having full range surround. Especially for the rears. Nothing cooler than great mid-bass/bass coming from them. People say its not localizable, but for whatever reason, perhaps such as other harmonic cues, etc, I know where its coming from...
(Oh well, not to open yet another can of worms, I can just about hit 80hz singing, and my voice has poor "extension" for a bass). Go figure...

Um, that can cause bass nulls and humps, not necessarily ideal. If you set the speakers to small (all speakers) it starts a rolloff around 80hz were the speakers play less and less material, given they where able to play much useful bass below 80 hz in the first place. The subwoofer is given an increasing higher signal as the frequency goes lower than 80 hz. If done properly (hard to do by ear, if not impossible) with SPL meter or a auto correction system the bass should blend from the speakers to the subwoofer better than they would if all speakers where set to full range.

A few reason why we don't run speakers full range is because it taxes the amplifier. As the frequencies go lower the speaker cone moves more reducing the amount of resistance and making the amplifier work harder to produce the same SPL. This is why there are subwoofers, they are designed to produce lower frequencies, the subwoofer amplifiers are designed to handle the impedances as they lower. So let the subwoofer do what it does best, and allow your amplifier/receiver to breath.

This type of configuration should not only improve acoustic performance, but overall dynamic capability of your system.

Also, consider this...

Most home theater systems use a variety of different speakers to carry out specific tasks. The most common of course would be a 5.1 system, so I will use that for my explanation. The front left and right are likely to be the same exact speaker (unless you dug them out of a dumpster) and the Center channel may be the same make, but not likely the same style (however it has become more common for people to purchase 3 matching MTM style speakers for their fronts). You also have your special surround speakers. Each set of speakers, or center, have different frequency responses. The fronts may go down to say 40hz and the center to 60hz and the surrounds to 80hz. If you set the subwoofer to 80hz on it's own x-over then it will be produce the same frequencies as your fronts, and rarely the center when it receives a lower frequency, which isn't often. So you could get cancellations, or bass humps that will create a very uneven frequency response in the listening room.

 

[jostenmeat]

Um, that can cause bass nulls and humps, not necessarily ideal. If you set the speakers to small (all speakers) it starts a rolloff around 80hz were the speakers play less and less material, given they where able to play much useful bass below 80 hz in the first place. The subwoofer is given an increasing higher signal as the frequency goes lower than 80 hz. If done properly (hard to do by ear, if not impossible) with SPL meter or a auto correction system the bass should blend from the speakers to the subwoofer better than they would if all speakers where set to full range.

A few reason why we don't run speakers full range is because it taxes the amplifier. As the frequencies go lower the speaker cone moves more reducing the amount of resistance and making the amplifier work harder to produce the same SPL. This is why there are subwoofers, they are designed to produce lower frequencies, the subwoofer amplifiers are designed to handle the impedances as they lower. So let the subwoofer do what it does best, and allow your amplifier/receiver to breath.

This type of configuration should not only improve acoustic performance, but overall dynamic cability of your system.

Hm. I guess one needs to consider if their speaker can't handle full-range, or if their amp is not up for the task. Otherwise, for my ears, its a no-brainer, and I highly recommend it. My opinion, but I feel pretty strongly!

Lets say one does not have access to nice frequency corrections systems such as those supplied by Audyssey. Even with the nulls and peaks, the effect is fantastic, imo. Its not music we're talking about. Its helicopter crashes, Nasghoul shrieks, and tank shell explosions. Well, for me at least

So, Seth, I respectfully disagree. Well, sorta, assuming speakers and amp are up for the task. Beefy amp with speakers that can crank, you've got to at least just try, and go from there....

ok to add: its not so much the bass that I love as much as its the lower mid-bass (or upper bass). It adds so much more depth, oomph, and HT wonderfulness. Even if speakers are rated to go down to say 40hz, you're getting another whole octave. That is a lot.

If full-range surrounds were not ideal, why did DTS and Dolby design it that way? They know what they are doing... or so I've been told!

 

[Davemcc]

I see that you're looking at the Outlaw 7500 for $1599. If you wait just a little while, you can get the Emotiva XPA-5 to perform the exact same function for $699. You suggested that depth is an issue, but to save 1" of depth will cost $900. That seems a hard pill to swallow considering that, functionally, the XPA-5 serves exactly the function you need. It might just be easier to find a way to deal with the inch than to part with an extra $900. Good luck with this decision.

 

[Seth=L]

you've got to at least just try, and go from there....

It is so funny you should say this, because I used to have the same mindset as you. I used to run all speakers full range (with a beefy amp) and I think it sounds much better now than the way I had it before. So simply put, I did try it, until I found a better way.

THX standards recommend that you set the receiver's x-over to 80 and set all speakers to small, and they know what they are doing, or so I'm told.

 

[mike c]

i would personally go for the outlaw monoblocks (buy how many you need at the moment) maybe one for the center, you don't need 200wpc for the surrounds. unless you run your surrounds large and with no crossover, 100+w for the surrounds is plenty.

OR

Parasound NC2250 250wpc x 2 1k USD (use this for the fronts, use one of the channels of your existing amp for the center)

OR

the official audioholic reply:
Behringer A500 bridged to 360w 180bucks.

 

[Adam]

I see that you're looking at the Outlaw 7500 for $1599. If you wait just a little while, you can get the Emotiva XPA-5 to perform the exact same function for $699. You suggested that depth is an issue, but to save 1" of depth will cost $900. That seems a hard pill to swallow considering that, functionally, the XPA-5 serves exactly the function you need. It might just be easier to find a way to deal with the inch than to part with an extra $900. Good luck with this decision.

Thanks, Dave. I totally agree that $900 is too much to spend just to save some component depth. I am going to talk to Emotiva to ask if they think that the XPA-5 is near the same class as their MPS series (which is more comparable to the Outlaw 7500 or 7700, IMO). If so, then I'll be much, much more interested in the XPA-5. Again, though, if they think that the IPS-1 is a better amp than the XPA-5, then the XPA drops out of contention.

 

[Adam]

i would personally go for the outlaw monoblocks (buy how many you need at the moment) maybe one for the center, you don't need 200wpc for the surrounds.

Thanks, Mike. You just had to go and disagree with everyone, didn't you?

My go-cheap-in-the-near-term approach would be to buy one Outlaw M2200 for the center and call it done. However, I'm trying to think about the future, and I know that I'm not going to want to buy a stack of those as I start to upgrade. Just personal preference, as some people really like having a number of monoblocks. That's why I'm thinking hard about a multi-channel amp and am really leaning towards that. If I can convince myself that I'll never want to amp more than three channels, then it's one M2200 for me. If I can't convince myself, then it's one of the multi-channel amps that I mentioned.