Power amp manufacturers 2024

[dolynick]

Buckeye has a few class D 8 channel amps that are in your ballpark or well over per channel.

Outlaw's 7 channel unit falls short but the monoblocks as mentioned would work.

Monoprice's 7 channel:

Monolith by Monoprice 7x200 Watts Per Channel Multi-Channel Home Theater Power Amplifier with XLR Inputs - Monoprice.com

The Monolith™ 7X is a state‑of‑the‑art, high‑performance, audiophile‑grade multichannel home theater amplifier. Rated at a full 200 watts per

www.monoprice.com

There's also stuff like this:

Musical Fidelity | M6x 250.7 Power Amplifier

M6x 250.7 | Power Amplifier The M6x 250.7 is a 7 channel class A/B power amplifier. Find a Dealer...

www.musicalfidelity.com

But one of those is going to put you well into the mid $4k price range or higher.

Rotel makes a 5 channel in your power range but not a 7 :/
Anthem is the same, where you'd have to go 5+2.

 

[Jack N]

Thanks for the ideas however I won’t be considering the Musical Fidelity unit as its’ power rating is at 4 ohm, not 8. Keep ‘em coming though if you think of others.

 

[dolynick]

Thanks for the ideas however I won’t be considering the Musical Fidelity unit as its’ power rating is at 4 ohm, not 8. Keep ‘em coming though if you think of others.

Oops. My bad. I didn't look close enough at that spec and assumed it was into 8.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks for the ideas however I won’t be considering the Musical Fidelity unit as its’ power rating is at 4 ohm, not 8. Keep ‘em coming though if you think of others.

The trouble is jack you are designing for failure.

A bit of history. In the tube days 15 ohm speakers where the norm. That is because tubes are voltage amplifying devices, whereas planar transistors are current amplifying devices.

The problem with planar transistors is their break down voltage. Now 200 watts RMS requires 40 volts RMS at the speaker terminals, but that requires a peak voltage 57 volts. That is going to be right up on the breakdown voltage of output devices.

So, it is much better to design for high current, than high voltage. Now I know the current of four ohm loads blows some and may be a lot of receivers, but that is because the output devices are too small, or not enough of them.

Now you can increase current carrying capacity by adding output devices in parallel. However you can not do this for voltage as all the devices will see the same peak voltage and be prone to breakdown. So by adding devices you increase the chances of failure if you up voltage but reduce chances of failure by lowering impedance and increasing current by add output devices.

My Quad 909s have the output devices tripled so there are six output devices in each channel. Three for the positive deflections and three for the negative, rather than the usual one for each.

For solid state devices voltage kills, due to arcing through the semiconductor material. Current kills due to overheating from the I squared R losses in the devices. The current issue is solvable, but the voltage issue is not.

Next, if you put seven 200 watt amps all channels driven on one box, then the power supply is going to be enormous with a massive heavy and expensive power transformer.

So I really can't warn you enough about how bad your design plan is.

You are favoring domestic/architectural design over sound engineering. That is always the wrong trade off.

There are sound engineering reasons why my power amps are 20 to 40 years old.

I should add, that this really builds the case for active speakers. The amps will fit in the speakers without significantly altering their size. Making active speakers the rule in these days of multichannel audio will greatly increase performance and improve the interior design of listening rooms. In addition amps will be lower power which will up reliability. At least half the amp power and usually more is lost in passive crossovers.

 

[Jack N]

We must be operating on the same wavelength as I have a Yamaha M85 power amp that turned 38 this year, and a Yamaha RX-V3300 receiver that turned 21 this year (got relegated to garage duty last year). I haven’t had to do anything special to/with them though. In fact, neither one of them has been in the shop for repairs. At one point I had four M85s that were all more than 30 years old until I started to thin out the herd.

We’re getting a little off track here. Let’s get back to the original intent of this thread. If there are people out there with more amp suggestions, I’d certainly like to hear what they are. Thanks.

 

[NMG]

NAD M28 is 7x200 at 8 ohms. Pricey bugger though.

 

[ryanosaur]

I think it's going to be hard to beat Hypex NCxx2MP Amp modules in whatever configuration... for measurement and simplicity of implementation, regardless of whom is assembling and selling. (Unless, of course, they are simply inept at the assembly, that is. )

 

[dolynick]

More class D options:

Apollon:
Purifi 1ET400A Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) (227W @ 8 Ohms)

Purifi 1ET400A Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) | Apollon Audio Hypex Purifi Premium Amplifiers

apollonaudio.com

Purifi 1ET7040SA Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) (250W @ 8 Ohms)

Purifi 1ET7040SA Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) | Apollon Audio Hypex Purifi Premium Amplifiers

apollonaudio.com

Hypex NCOREx NCx500 Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) (380W @ 8 Ohms)

Apollon Hypex NCOREx NCx500 Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) | Apollon Audio Hypex Purifi Premium Amplifiers

apollonaudio.com

Nord:
Hypex NCx500 8CH MKII 5-8 Channel (380W @ 8 Ohms)

Nord One NCx500 8CH MKII 5-8 Channel Power Amplifier - Nord Acoustics Ltd

SPECIFICATION (Per Channel) • Standard 3CH Case • 3 x Purifi 1ET400A Module • 3 x Hypex SMPS1200A400 Power Supply • 3 x Nord (cut down) REV C Buffer Board with OPA1612 Daul Op Amp • Distortion: THD+N - - 0.001 % 20Hz • Frequency Response: 0 - 50k Hz THD+N 100W - - 0.00017 % 20-20kHzHz • Low...

nordacoustics.co.uk

Purifi 1ET400A 8CH 5-8 Channel (227W @ 8 Ohms)

Nord Three 1ET400A 8CH 5-8 Channel Power Amplifier - Nord Acoustics Ltd

SPECIFICATION (Per Channel) • Standard 3CH Case • 3 x Purifi 1ET400A Module • 3 x Hypex SMPS1200A400 Power Supply • 3 x Nord (cut down) REV C Buffer Board with OPA1612 Daul Op Amp • Distortion: THD+N - - 0.001 % 20Hz • Frequency Response: 0 - 50k Hz THD+N 100W - - 0.00017 % 20-20kHzHz • Low...

nordacoustics.co.uk

Same core amplifiers as Buckeye, but different assembly and design. Also more pricey, but options if you want something a little more upscale.

Not Class D, if you want to spend $10,000
McIntosh MC8207-7 Channel:

McIntosh MC8207 Home Theater Amplifier

At 200 Watts per channel, the 7-channel MC8207 home theater amplifier is perfectly capable of powering all the speakers in a 7.1 channel home theater to McIntosh’s legendary standards. It features LED power output indicators that display the amplifier’s power output just as the blue meters do...

www.mcintoshlabs.com

 

[TLS Guy]

NAD M28 is 7x200 at 8 ohms. Pricey bugger though.

It is only 100 watts per channel, all channels driven. Don't forget, that NAD stands for Not Always, Dependable.

 

[TLS Guy]

More class D options:

Apollon:
Purifi 1ET400A Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) (227W @ 8 Ohms)

Purifi 1ET400A Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) | Apollon Audio Hypex Purifi Premium Amplifiers

apollonaudio.com

Purifi 1ET7040SA Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) (250W @ 8 Ohms)

Purifi 1ET7040SA Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) | Apollon Audio Hypex Purifi Premium Amplifiers

apollonaudio.com

Hypex NCOREx NCx500 Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) (380W @ 8 Ohms)

Apollon Hypex NCOREx NCx500 Multichannel Amplifier (6-12 Channel) | Apollon Audio Hypex Purifi Premium Amplifiers

apollonaudio.com

Nord:
Hypex NCx500 8CH MKII 5-8 Channel (380W @ 8 Ohms)

Nord One NCx500 8CH MKII 5-8 Channel Power Amplifier - Nord Acoustics Ltd

SPECIFICATION (Per Channel) • Standard 3CH Case • 3 x Purifi 1ET400A Module • 3 x Hypex SMPS1200A400 Power Supply • 3 x Nord (cut down) REV C Buffer Board with OPA1612 Daul Op Amp • Distortion: THD+N - - 0.001 % 20Hz • Frequency Response: 0 - 50k Hz THD+N 100W - - 0.00017 % 20-20kHzHz • Low...

nordacoustics.co.uk

Purifi 1ET400A 8CH 5-8 Channel (227W @ 8 Ohms)

Nord Three 1ET400A 8CH 5-8 Channel Power Amplifier - Nord Acoustics Ltd

SPECIFICATION (Per Channel) • Standard 3CH Case • 3 x Purifi 1ET400A Module • 3 x Hypex SMPS1200A400 Power Supply • 3 x Nord (cut down) REV C Buffer Board with OPA1612 Daul Op Amp • Distortion: THD+N - - 0.001 % 20Hz • Frequency Response: 0 - 50k Hz THD+N 100W - - 0.00017 % 20-20kHzHz • Low...

nordacoustics.co.uk

Same core amplifiers as Buckeye, but different assembly and design. Also more pricey, but options if you want something a little more upscale.

Not Class D, if you want to spend $10,000
McIntosh MC8207-7 Channel:

McIntosh MC8207 Home Theater Amplifier

At 200 Watts per channel, the 7-channel MC8207 home theater amplifier is perfectly capable of powering all the speakers in a 7.1 channel home theater to McIntosh’s legendary standards. It features LED power output indicators that display the amplifier’s power output just as the blue meters do...

www.mcintoshlabs.com

That one will deliver 200 watts to each output all channels driven. Because of the auto transformer the power is the same four or eight ohm load.

 

[lovinthehd]

It is only 100 watts per channel, all channels driven. Don't forget, that NAD stands for Not Always, Dependable.

Basis for that claim since NAD does spec it at 200wpc ACD?

 

[TLS Guy]

Basis for that claim since NAD does spec it at 200wpc ACD?

I do find now that Amir bench tested that amp and got 187 watts per channel at 1% THD. So that is close to 200 watts per channel. However distortion is relatively high at the higher ends of its power range.

 

[Jack N]

Wow. Lots of Class D stuff. Do all of you guys use Class D? I've read reviews from "Pro" reviewers but I always have that thought in the back of my mind "Is this guy getting paid by the company to review this?" I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually use it on a regular basis as to how D compares to AB. Is the dynamic range as good? Is the clarity there? Etc.

 

[TLS Guy]

Wow. Lots of Class D stuff. Do all of you guys use Class D? I've read reviews from "Pro" reviewers but I always have that thought in the back of my mind "Is this guy getting paid by the company to review this?" I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually use it on a regular basis as to how D compares to AB. Is the dynamic range as good? Is the clarity there? Etc.

For your spec. then you are pretty much going to have to go with class D switching amps. You are not realistically going to get the power you require without going class D to get the efficiency. The Mac can manage it because of their use of auto transformers. They are essentially using tapped output transformer similar to old tube amps.

I do not use class D, not because I have anything against them, but because my amps come from a time before class D, and my AV room uses 9 unique and unusual solid state amps. they are highly efficient, and use class B dumper amps with a feed forward class A amp for error correction. This was a Quad patent of Peter Walker's, and absolutely brilliant. You get linear class A performance without any of the disadvantages which is principally massive heat production. These amps run very cool. In fact the two ceiling amps, powering the four ceiling speakers, Quad 405-2s actually have the output transistors biased class C, and yet have superlative specs and measurements.

Peter published the details and theory behind the design in 1975 in Wireless World. This was a Quad patent. It is pure elegance with the amps having a very low part count and high reliability, as the output transistors are not imitating a toaster oven.

Nelson Pass almost certainly infringed Peter's patent but he was too much of a gentleman to make a fuss.

The patents have now expired and I have never understood why others have never produced them

For one thing they could likely make receivers be far more reliable, lower the part count and generate far less heat. If I was cramming all those power amps in a receiver, I can tell you I would be designing current dumping receivers, and conferring huge benefits on the purchaser.

 

[lovinthehd]

I do find now that Amir bench tested that amp and got 187 watts per channel at 1% THD. So that is close to 200 watts per channel. However distortion is relatively high at the higher ends of its power range.

I saw 262 wpc in his 5ch test at that spec, which was constant 1-5 channels. I don't remember seeing 7ch.

ps This report from ASR https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-m28-seven-channel-power-amplifier-review.15939/

 

[dolynick]

Wow. Lots of Class D stuff. Do all of you guys use Class D? I've read reviews from "Pro" reviewers but I always have that thought in the back of my mind "Is this guy getting paid by the company to review this?" I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually use it on a regular basis as to how D compares to AB. Is the dynamic range as good? Is the clarity there? Etc.

It's mostly because there is not a lot of 200W+ 7 channel amps that aren't Class D. 5 Channel there are are more AB amps out there but 200W or higher are often something you see in a more dedicated 2-channel amp. You'll likely find a lot more 200W A/B monoblocks than you will 7 channel amps.

The only other one that I can think of offhand is the Emotiva XPA-7, but that brand seems to have a bad name around here based on some of the earlier posts so I left it out.

There are a couple high power, well regarded Class D designs currently - and you'll note that the same modules keep coming up across the different brands. Reviews seem to be generally good to very positive, depending on the reviewer and methodology (the objective measurements are generally very impressive). I haven't tried a dedicated Class D myself yet (although i do have a powered set in my office that uses one and it seems fine), but I did consider an Apollon NCORE over the last few weeks. I decided against it becuase it was actually more power than I really needed (600+ W into 4 ohms is well over spec for my towers) and I went with something a little more traditional.

 

[lovinthehd]

Wow. Lots of Class D stuff. Do all of you guys use Class D? I've read reviews from "Pro" reviewers but I always have that thought in the back of my mind "Is this guy getting paid by the company to review this?" I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually use it on a regular basis as to how D compares to AB. Is the dynamic range as good? Is the clarity there? Etc.

I have five class D two channel amps and at least one sub plate amp. I can't tell any particular difference with my class AB or G amps. Don't know what you expect in terms of dynamic range or "clarity" whatever that is.

 

[ski2xblack]

I think the question regarding dynamic range is valid (hopefully @PENG will respond, he knows more than I). It's my admittedly limited understanding that these purify and hypex amps with switching supplies don't offer much in the way of dynamic headroom above rated power, unlike a standard a/b amp with unregulated supplies which can often provide an extra db or two above rated power, albeit briefly. So that may be something the prospective buyer should keep in mind. "Too much is just enough" is a rule I try to follow regarding amps; clipping is to be avoided.

Otherwise, the hypex and purify amps have SOTA performance that leaves traditional a/b amps in the dust. They really seem to approach the "straight wire with gain" ideal. Clarity? They got it.

Another point to clarify: I thought the Buckeye amps were the more budget conscious compared to the Nord and Appolon amps. I could be wrong. They are available with the latest and greatest purify modules.

 

[TLS Guy]

I saw 262 wpc in his 5ch test at that spec, which was constant 1-5 channels. I don't remember seeing 7ch.

ps This report from ASR https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-m28-seven-channel-power-amplifier-review.15939/

I suspect that is because he did not have enough gear to measure 7 amps at once. However you ca assume that five channel test is close or if not at max power. In db terms that five channel output extrapolated is as close to 200 watts seven channel as makes no difference. You can see though that the distortion of that amp is not the best on the planet, with distortion starting to rise above 100 watts. Whether that is audible is another matter, but it might be.

The wider issue is the wisdom of having seven channels in one box, from one power supply.

I think one, two or at most three amps in one box is optimal. I think home AV systems need to be much more aligned to professional practice. I would like gear to be pretty much designed around the 19" rack mounting standard. That would make for better looking neater systems, better grounding practice better service access.

 

[lovinthehd]

I suspect that is because he did not have enough gear to measure 7 amps at once. However you ca assume that five channel test is close or if not at max power. In db terms that five channel output extrapolated is as close to 200 watts seven channel as makes no difference. You can see though that the distortion of that amp is not the best on the planet, with distortion starting to rise above 100 watts. Whether that is audible is another matter, but it might be.

The wider issue is the wisdom of having seven channels in one box, from one power supply.

I think one, two or at most three amps in one box is optimal. I think home AV systems need to be much more aligned to professional practice. I would like gear to be pretty much designed around the 19" rack mounting standard. That would make for better looking neater systems, better grounding practice better service access.

In all of that you still don't justify your previous statement fwiw. You said Amir/ASR did at 187 at 7ch so where did that come from? I don't believe Amir has done a 7ch ACD test, not sure his gear accomodates such.