Outlaw Model 5000 @ 4 ohms?

[KEW]

The differences in the power tables is pretty compelling between the UPA=500 and the Outlaw!
IME, when they do not perform the standard tests, it reflects that an amp does not perform so well at that task.
For the UPA-500, note that they did not even do the standard CFP-BW 2-channel test of the UPA-500, they "dummied it down" to one channel, and even then, the THD+N is at 1.0%! 1% THD is a low bar for modern electronics.
In comparison, The Outlaw was tested for 2 channels at 0.1% THD+N, and is even tested for 5 channels driven!
I am no expert, but someone like @PENG will be along before long to let us know if I am spouting BS!
My understanding is the transformer determines how much steady power is available to all channels and is reflected in the CFP-BW measurement, because the load is continuous and steady - a capacitor gets emptied and doesn't have the opportunity to recharge once the load is taxing the transformer.
The 1kHz powersweep and the dynamic power measurements are both short-term pulse type measurements. As I understand it a capacitor allows an amp to reach levels of power above what the transformer allows. They are essentially a battery that charges up when there is extra power available from the transformer (not being used at that moment). When a spike in load comes (from a short loud sound), the capacitor discharges to add the extra oomph/power required.
UPA-500 has a lot of reserve from the batteries, but Outlaw offers the steady power to where the capacitors are not needed so often.
Either can run out of steam and I don't know how you can guarantee it wouldn't without getting different speakers or a very serious amp. However, based on the continuous and short term power capabilities, the Outlaw offers considerably more power across the board than the Emotiva.
If you still had teh Denon or any other amp, I would suggest that you could get the OUtlaw and run 2, 3, and 5 channels from it to see if and when it runs out of steam. I think it is safe that it would do 3 channels and you could use the other amp to do the 2 surrounds without issue.
Simply put, I believe the Outlaw represents (by a nice margin) the best value in a budget amp (aside from pro audio amps).
However, the only way to assure it will do the job beforehand is to buy an amp that offers over-kill (as in $$$$)!
Outlaw does have a 30 day return policy, but you pay shipping.

 

[nickwin]

I also would be inclined to believe it is a matter of the speakers demanding a lot out of an amp. Any modern electronics should be clean! Any amp that colors the sound (like slightly dark laid back treble) is essentially distorting the sound. Reviewers love to talk like this as if they have mystical powers of hearing, and if you believe them, it is easy to convince you hear the same thing. However, companies like Anthen, Yamaha, Denon, Emotiva all have good designers/engineers who can design and build a clean neutral pre or amp!

Slightly off from my OP, but I'd like to dig into this a bit because its an interesting topic.

You are acknowledging that various electronics do sound different, correct? I agree that any differences that are there can be described as coloration. BUT, like you say, any decent modern solid state gear is going to be more or less neutral on paper, so how do you determine which is accurate and which is colored?

Lets use the UMC1 for example. The UMC1 is a bass monster, it adds bass compared to just about everything I have compared it to. Having compared it to lots of other pre's and finding it to be the outlier, I think its safe to assume that the UMC1 is adding bass to the signal, a type of coloration. In most of the systems that I used the UMC1 the bass came across as boosted, but In this room (in the OP) the UMC1 sounds accurate and everything else sounds thin. Had this been my only experience with the UMC! I probably would have determined the UMC1 was more accurate and the others where colored.

Where Im going with this is that I think in most cases people will see whatever sounds more accurate in there particular room with there particular speakers and other associated gear as accurate and anything that sounds different as colored.

If everything is neutral on paper, but things sound different, why not just say things sound different as we will never really know which is technically more accurate?

 

[Andrein]

I would not take emotiva again after xpa-5 which in my opinion did add or remove something to the sound. At the same time Monolith 5 and Anthem mca 525 i had around the same time sounded much better to me.

 

[nickwin]

I would not take emotiva again after xpa-5 which in my opinion did add or remove something to the sound. At the same time Monolith 5 and Anthem mca 525 i had around the same time sounded much better to me.

This doesn't surprise me. I think the XPA5 is a good value, but the 5x200 and MCA525 are both exponentially more expensive amps. Im actually considering the 5x200 for my main system.

Do you notice any additional output from the 5x200? Its actually a much beefier amp than the 525.

 

[Andrein]

This doesn't surprise me. I think the XPA5 is a good value, but the 5x200 and MCA525 are both exponentially more expensive amps. Im actually considering the 5x200 for my main system.

Do you notice any additional output from the 5x200? Its actually a much beefier amp than the 525.

To be honest both sounded more or less the same but much better than emotiva which i returned next day. I had yamaha 860 which had a number of issues - low preout voltage and low amp output all channels driven both 5x200 and mca 525 fixed the issue... I replaced 860 with 1070 few months later anyway.)))

 

[PENG]

Well, one of my concerns actually came from the review; capacitance. I can’t find a single comparable amp that has this little capacitance. For example another budget amp I have owned the Emotiva upa500 (only rated 80 Watts per ch) has 40,000uf compared to the 5000s 34000uf.

Interestingly though most the emotiva amps have smaller transformers than the 5000 (smaller transformer but more capacitance).

I’m curious what this means for the model 5000 in real world use? Will it mean less dynamic capabilities but more continuous output?

Gene said those caps were rated 50V, so if you put two in series and if the voltage is less than 100V, say 80V, the effective capacitance of the four 6,800 uf caps should be more than 6,800 uf. That means the total capacitance would be more than 34,000 uf, may be closer to 42,500 uf, or 8,500 uf per channel. I disagree slightly with Gene's comments that it only meets the bare minimum because his assumption of 7,000 uf (6,800 uf to be more accurate) appears to be based on 70V rail voltage, yet two 50V rated caps in series will be rated 100V and the effective capacitance at 70V should be higher.

Regardless, I would say more capacitance would give better dynamic performance, in terms of lower ripple. Keep in mind, this is a 120 WPC amp, really not better than a upper mid range D&M or Yamaha AVR except for continuous duty.

 

[highfigh]

That is certainly possible. Its a big room, 24x24x8, thin carpet over concrete, wood walls and a drop ceiling. The room is EQed with ARC.

I think its also very possible that its 350VA transformer can't keep up with 5 4 ohm speakers asking for 120wpc. Thats a theorretical 600 watts drawing off a 350va transformer...

Definitely a grass is greener scenario, the Parasound I went to, despite being overbuilt, sounds thin at all volumes. Maybe just a bad match with these speakers which are pretty hot in the upper freqiencies. Its certainly a robust little amp, it shouldn't really have any issues with 4ohms but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to be a good combo.

I don't care how it's EQ'd unless it was done at a level that's equivalent to high SPL, with your theoretical 600W output. Crank the level on a system that sounds good at low level and it will ALWAYS sound bright, unnatural and harsh unless the room is acoustically dead and yours isn't.

The info that would make it easier to guess at why it sounds the way you described includes:

Distance from your seat to the speakers,
Distance from speakers to walls and ceiling,
Where the speakers are in the room- are they straddling a corner, next to a corner, middle of a wall, which direction they face...
What materials were used for the walls and how much surface is exposed, without anything between the speakers and walls?
What kind of drop ceiling materials? Plain and flat, or perforated?

Perforated ceiling panels are not made for high SPL audio, they're made to attenuate reflections from ambient sounds and quiet talking. Above normal levels, they reflect.

Listen to the speakers in an acoustically dead place (or outside, in a place where there are no reflections) and if they still sound harsh, etc, it's not the room and you'll need to find out why.

Think about sound as pool balls- the harder they're hit, the longer they'll bounce off of the bumpers and other objects. The difference is that sound is happening in three dimensions. Bouncing longer means they haven't lost enough energy to stop and when upper mid and high frequencies are concerned, it's worse because humans are more sensitive to upper mids.

 

[PENG]

IMO Just because it puts out the power on the bench doesn't mean it will sound good doing so with 4 ohm speakers. Think of an AVR, they can usually crank out some decent wattage but they tend to sound like crap with 4 ohm speakers at any volume.

I don't think so, that is not possible, I mean the "at any volume part". 4 ohms or even 2 ohms speakers do not defy physics, but I guess if you are just making a point that's okay. People need to know Ohms law, and the power formula still apply in calculating voltage, current and voltage, regardless the impedance. Whether speakers will sound like crap or not depend on other factors too, not just what's powering them.

I have two AVRs, one retired, and the other demoted to a 2 channel system, that will likely perform as good or better than the Outlaw 5000 driving 4 ohm speakers (in 2 channel application). One is the AVR-4308 CI and the other is the AVR-3805 so I suspect yours maybe defective as mine does not have any harsh sounding issue at all.

image: https://www.soundandvision.com/images/archivesart/denavrmeas.jpg

This graph shows that the AVR-4308CI's left channel, from Multi input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reached 0.1% distortion at 198.6 watts and 1% distortion at 218.9 watts. The distortion level remained at or below 0.002% across all power levels until it reached about 165 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reached 0.1% distortion at 298.0 watts and 1% distortion at 343.4 watts.

 

[nickwin]

I don't think so, that is not possible, I mean the "at any volume part". 4 ohms or even 2 ohms speakers do not defy physics, but I guess if you are just making a point that's okay. People need to know Ohms law, and the power formula still apply in calculating voltage, current and voltage, regardless the impedance. Whether speakers will sound like crap or not depend on other factors too, not just what's powering them.

I have two AVRs, one retired, and the other demoted to a 2 channel system, that will likely perform as good or better than the Outlaw 5000 driving 4 ohm speakers (in 2 channel application). One is the AVR-4308 CI and the other is the AVR-3805 so I suspect yours maybe defective as mine does not have any harsh sounding issue at all.

image: https://www.soundandvision.com/images/archivesart/denavrmeas.jpg

This graph shows that the AVR-4308CI's left channel, from Multi input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reached 0.1% distortion at 198.6 watts and 1% distortion at 218.9 watts. The distortion level remained at or below 0.002% across all power levels until it reached about 165 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reached 0.1% distortion at 298.0 watts and 1% distortion at 343.4 watts.

Possible there is something wrong with my 3805. It literally made static/crackling sounds during dynamic passages with these speakers. BUT it sounded quite good with 4 ohm speakers so I don't know.

"At any volume" was probably the wrong way to phrase that. What I really mean is at low to moderate levels. I know most amps including AVRs will do fine 2ch driven, but Im driving 5 speakers. Do you have a power v distortion graph for either of those AVRs 5 channels driven continuously into 4 ohms? Care to take a guess at what wattage the distortion would go through the roof with 5 (or even all) channels driven into 4 ohms?

 

[nickwin]

I don't care how it's EQ'd unless it was done at a level that's equivalent to high SPL, with your theoretical 600W output. Crank the level on a system that sounds good at low level and it will ALWAYS sound bright, unnatural and harsh unless the room is acoustically dead and yours isn't.

The info that would make it easier to guess at why it sounds the way you described includes:

Distance from your seat to the speakers,
Distance from speakers to walls and ceiling,
Where the speakers are in the room- are they straddling a corner, next to a corner, middle of a wall, which direction they face...
What materials were used for the walls and how much surface is exposed, without anything between the speakers and walls?
What kind of drop ceiling materials? Plain and flat, or perforated?

Perforated ceiling panels are not made for high SPL audio, they're made to attenuate reflections from ambient sounds and quiet talking. Above normal levels, they reflect.

Listen to the speakers in an acoustically dead place (or outside, in a place where there are no reflections) and if they still sound harsh, etc, it's not the room and you'll need to find out why.

Think about sound as pool balls- the harder they're hit, the longer they'll bounce off of the bumpers and other objects. The difference is that sound is happening in three dimensions. Bouncing longer means they haven't lost enough energy to stop and when upper mid and high frequencies are concerned, it's worse because humans are more sensitive to upper mids.

I think its very possible that this explains what I was hearing from the UPA500 when taking it to the limit, but the Parasound in this system sounds strained at any volume. Not sure what to make of it.

 

[2channel lover]

IMO Just because it puts out the power on the bench doesn't mean it will sound good doing so with 4 ohm speakers. Think of an AVR, they can usually crank out some decent wattage but they tend to sound like crap with 4 ohm speakers at any volume.

I hear ya.

That largely depends on the bench tests...if it's done by an independent reviewer or the manufacturer...If Gene and his crew say it can handle a 4 ohm load comfortably...they are putting their rep on the line...most likely it will deliver.

AVR...most manufacturers give us info with 2 channels driven because the numbers look more favorable for marketing, etc....yes, I would be more leery of such results.

 

[nickwin]

I hear ya.

That largely depends on the bench tests...if it's done by an independent reviewer or the manufacturer...If Gene and his crew say it can handle a 4 ohm load comfortably...they are putting their rep on the line...most likely it will deliver.

AVR...most manufacturers give us info with 2 channels driven because the numbers look more favorable for marketing, etc....yes, I would be more leery of such results.

The problem is Audioholics doesn't do a full suite of bench tests at 4 ohms for multi channel amps. For example they never do ACD continuous at 4 ohms. This means that their bench tests don't provide all the relevant info for those of us that use 4 ohm speakers.

Gene actually told me that the reason for this is because "ACD at 4 ohms is unrealistic". I don't buy it. If ACD continuous measurements are unrealistic why use them at all? Im not saying ACD continous its a good representation of real content, but its a useful metric to know when choosing an amp. Without it we can only guess based on the other measurements.

This is just my assumption, but I think its more because very few multi channel amps will hit there ACD 4 ohm spec and they don't want to ruffle more feathers then they feel they have to. The less capable an amp is the less measurements AH provides. They rarely post a measurement that conflicts with the manufactures claimed output. Instead they just leave that measurement out and keep us guessing (see KEWs post above about the UPA500 review). This is precisly what lead to to this post.

 

[PENG]

Possible there is something wrong with my 3805. It literally made static/crackling sounds during dynamic passages with these speakers. BUT it sounded quite good with 4 ohm speakers so I don't know.

"At any volume" was probably the wrong way to phrase that. What I really mean is at low to moderate levels. I know most amps including AVRs will do fine 2ch driven, but Im driving 5 speakers. Do you have a power v distortion graph for either of those AVRs 5 channels driven continuously into 4 ohms? Care to take a guess at what wattage the distortion would go through the roof with 5 (or even all) channels driven into 4 ohms?

For the AVR-4308CI or the AVR-3805, I would guess they can do 5X60 to 5X75W into 4 ohms at 0.1% THD+N, and distortions would likely "go through the roof" if push higher. I must emphasize this is just my educated guess. I would definitely not use those AVRs to drive 5 real 4 ohm nominal bookshelf or tower speakers.

 

[PENG]

The problem is Audioholics doesn't do a full suite of bench tests at 4 ohms for multi channel amps. For example they never do ACD continuous at 4 ohms. This means that their bench tests don't provide all the relevant info for those of us that use 4 ohm speakers.

Gene actually told me that the reason for this is because "ACD at 4 ohms is unrealistic". I don't buy it. If ACD continuous measurements are unrealistic why use them at all? Im not saying ACD continous its a good representation of real content, but its a useful metric to know when choosing an amp. Without it we can only guess based on the other measurements.

This is just my assumption, but I think its more because very few multi channel amps will hit there ACD 4 ohm spec and they don't want to ruffle more feathers then they feel they have to. The less capable an amp is the less measurements they provide. They rarely post a measurement that conflicts with the manufactures claimed output. Instead they just leave that measurement out and keep us guessing (see KEWs pots above about the UPA500 review). This is precisly what lead to to this post.

Again, like anything else, it depends. For example, it is entirely realistic if we are talking about ACD into 4 ohms with outputs limited to say <500 watts. More than that you would likely exceed the rated current of a 1600 VA transformer that has to be sized for the much higher wattage rating for 8 ohm nominal load.

 

[KEW]

You are acknowledging that various electronics do sound different, correct? I agree that any differences that are there can be described as coloration. BUT, like you say, any decent modern solid state gear is going to be more or less neutral on paper, so how do you determine which is accurate and which is colored?

I believe all well designed electronics (and that pretty much includes all mainstream manufacturers), when used within the parameters of their designed capabilities will essentially sound the same.
Where they can sound different is if processing is applied (such as RoomEQ). if they are standard AVR's being used in Pure Direct mode, they should sound the same...unless they are being operated outside their capabilities. I once attempted to compare two amps. I set them up with two identical sets of speakers located side by side, 6" center to center. I was initially surprised because I definitely heard a difference. However, I swapped the speaker connections between the amps and the change in sound followed the speakers, not the amps.
IOW, the differences I heard were due to the location of the speakers. That 6" difference was what I heard. once I swapped them, the attributes I had assigned to one amp were now being heard with the other amp. The sound only changed when I changed which pair of identical speakers I listened to.
There may be an audible difference between some amps, but I think it is so small that unless there was a way to hold all other variables the same (use the very same speakers in the very same location) and switch back and forth instantly (to minimize having to rely on audio memory). Also, I think I would likely be swayed a believe I heard a difference if one was a beautifully built amp with nice big power meters and the other was smaller and very plain! I am human!

Unfortunately, in your case, it seems we are looking at speakers that exceed the design parameters of many amps.

 

[Verdinut]

Unless the BG speakers have an impedance curve going down to less than 3 ohms at frequencies below 500Hz , I suspect that the preamp on your Anthem might not be putting out enough voltage to drive the Outlaw to its full potential, because technically, there would be no reason for the Outlaw to be inadequate to drive your speakers.
What you are probably hearing is the amplified clipping distortion coming out of the preamp.
Then, if that is the situation, you have to look for power amplifiers with a higher input sensitivity close to 1 volt for full rated output, such as Crown or QSC pro amps.

 

[highfigh]

I think its very possible that this explains what I was hearing from the UPA500 when taking it to the limit, but the Parasound in this system sounds strained at any volume. Not sure what to make of it.

At what volume control setting did it sound strained?

Was this amp new when you bought it?

Does ANY amp not sound strained with these speakers? You may well be driving the amp into clipping- did you ever consider the possibility that these speakers are the reason the sound is thin?

For the record, the BG speakers I heard sounded great, but I never listened to them at high SPL.

 

[2channel lover]

The problem is Audioholics doesn't do a full suite of bench tests at 4 ohms for multi channel amps. For example they never do ACD continuous at 4 ohms. This means that their bench tests don't provide all the relevant info for those of us that use 4 ohm speakers.

Gene actually told me that the reason for this is because "ACD at 4 ohms is unrealistic". I don't buy it. If ACD continuous measurements are unrealistic why use them at all? Im not saying ACD continous its a good representation of real content, but its a useful metric to know when choosing an amp. Without it we can only guess based on the other measurements.

This is just my assumption, but I think its more because very few multi channel amps will hit there ACD 4 ohm spec and they don't want to ruffle more feathers then they feel they have to. The less capable an amp is the less measurements AH provides. They rarely post a measurement that conflicts with the manufactures claimed output. Instead they just leave that measurement out and keep us guessing (see KEWs post above about the UPA500 review). This is precisly what lead to to this post.

I'll grant you some of that...certainly, AH or any other professional reviewer will gloss over a weakness to some degree, while at the same time acknowledging it.

Post 35 really seems to be shedding more light here...imo you need to amp up to rid your concerns over an amp such as the 5000 not being up to the task, or reconsider the speakers if they are that demanding to drive.

 

[everettT]

I couldn't find his speakers measured bit did find the model below his. It had a minimum impedance of 2.9 ohm at 165hz and phase angles of 50 degrees at 120hz. They also noted the 4 ohm average was through most of the audio band.

 

[nickwin]

I couldn't find his speakers measured bit did find the model below his. It had a minimum impedance of 2.9 ohm at 165hz and phase angles of 50 degrees at 120hz. They also noted the 4 ohm average was through most of the audio band.

Interesting, do you have a link for this? Was it the 520i? Would you describe that as relatively difficult or very difficult load?