80Wx7 channel amp or larger 5x200W ...

[riley2895]

Wondering which would be better running a 5.1 system... Bi amp the 7 channel and have the fronts running this extra channel or go with the 5 channel 200W system...

Thanks

 

[Pyrrho]

There are too many variables not specified to be certain what would be best, but most likely, you would be better off with the 5 channel 200 watt amplifier than with the 7 channel 80 watt amplifier. You would have more power for all channels with 5x200 watts, including the ones that you would biamp with the 7 channel amplifier.

If you want more exact advice, state which specific amplifiers and speakers we are talking about.

 

[Steve81]

On the face of it, 5x200 would have a useful advantage in output, but there's more to the game than rated WPC. If you give us more info on your system, room size, listening habits (i.e. volume), and which specific amplifiers you're considering (guessing Emotiva UPA-700 and XPA-5), we might be able to give you a little more insight.

 

[riley2895]

Guess is correct, Emotiva... medium room size 20x20... Running klipsch rf 62 II speaker front...50/50 music and theater..medium volume mostly - pump it up ounce in a while...working on upgrading surround speakers and sub...I thought the bi-amping of the 7 and running 80x2 to the Klipsch might be close to the 200W (understand the other surround channels would be lower).. just trying to justify the extra 400$

 

[j_garcia]

The Difference Between Biamping vs. Biwiring

Biamping off a receiver will net you nothing.

 

[Steve81]

Guess is correct, Emotiva... medium room size 20x20... Running klipsch rf 62 II speaker front...50/50 music and theater..medium volume mostly - pump it up ounce in a while...working on upgrading surround speakers and sub...I thought the bi-amping of the 7 and running 80x2 to the Klipsch might be close to the 200W (understand the other surround channels would be lower).. just trying to justify the extra 400$

The XPA-5 is going to be a respectable step up in terms of power over the UPA-700, particularly into lower impedance loads (your RF-62s are rated 8 ohm nominal, but I'd bet they dip down to 4 ohms or below). Whether you'll really benefit from the extra power is another story, as it depends on how loud you go when you pump it up. If your idea of pumping it up is 80-90dB at the listening position, there won't be any special benefit. If you're talking 100+dB at the listening position, you'd probably be better served with the XPA-5.

The only potential downside I see to the XPA-5 is it's relatively high voltage gain of 32dB could cause a bit hiss when combined with your reasonably sensitive speakers.

 

[Pyrrho]

Guess is correct, Emotiva... medium room size 20x20... Running klipsch rf 62 II speaker front...50/50 music and theater..medium volume mostly - pump it up ounce in a while...working on upgrading surround speakers and sub...I thought the bi-amping of the 7 and running 80x2 to the Klipsch might be close to the 200W (understand the other surround channels would be lower).. just trying to justify the extra 400$

The XPA-5 would be better than the UPA-700, but since you are talking about Klipsch RF-62 II speakers, which are very efficient, under most circumstances, you should not notice any difference in a normal sized room. If you are wanting to play your music so loud that you damage your hearing, you may want to go with the XPA-5, but otherwise, the price difference is not justified (unless you plan on replacing your speakers). If you are planning on damaging your hearing with loud music, I strongly suggest that you reconsider the matter.

Of course, if you are rich, go with the better amplifier, regardless of whether you will ever need the difference or not.

 

[fmw]

You didn't mention whether the sub is powered or not. If it is, then either option has more power than you will ever use. With efficient speakers like you have, 10 watts per channel will blow you out of the room if your sub is powered. 2 watts per channel would be uncomfortably loud. As an example, my old Klipschorns had an efficiency rating of about 120db. That means the speakers would produce 120 db (painfully loud) with one watt of power at a listening distance of one meter. You would need a very large room indeed to run these at 2 watts on average. I don't know what the efficiency of your speakers is but you get the idea. Yes there are peaks in level, there are differences in impedance across the frequency spectrum and these all affect power requirements. But I think you can see that power would not be an issue if you have a powered sub. If your sub is not powered then you might use a lot more of the sub channel amplifier's power than you would for the mains and the power rating of the amplifier might be a factor, but probably not.

 

[Steve81]

As an example, my old Klipschorns had an efficiency rating of about 120db.

As far as I'm aware, the spec has always hovered around the 105dB mark. Of course, the Klipschorn is considerably more sensitive than the average speaker, being that it's a fully horn loaded design.

With efficient speakers like you have... I don't know what the efficiency of your speakers is but you get the idea.

No comment...

 

[fmw]

105 db is still very loud, as you know. Very efficient speakers.

 

[Steve81]

105 db is still very loud, as you know. Very efficient speakers.

Indeed; Unfortunately, their reference line is much less so in my experience, and from measurements that I've seen.