Compairing amps

doug lang

Looking at power amps and compairing to used models. First off my receiver is a an onkyo 989 7.1. I will be powering all lsi speakers 5.1 for now. The amps are a 1075 rotel 120 x 5 or a b&k 200 x 7. Of course the b&k is about twice the cost and would match the 7.1 which I have with the receiver. Room demension is small at about 15 x 25. I don' t know if this matters. Please if you have any advice feel free. Thanks Doug

gregure

B&K will be better. Obviously a bigger investment, but it will pay off. Lots of power, nice tonal qualities, with lots of inner detail. Obviously both Rotel and B&K publish accurate and realistic power ratings, so at that point it is no question that 200 wpc will sound superior to 125, not to mention that I personally think B&K sounds better, and does not flinch w/ 4 Ohm loads.

doug lang

Thanks I have been leaning toward the B&K. Like I said more money. But that may be saved If down the road I decided to expand to 7.1 with the rotel. I will think about your advice. Thanks again, Doug

wingnut4772

I agree. The B&K- especially with the power hungry LSIs. I use to drive mine with a 100 w per channel Outlaw Audio 7100 and switched to an Outlaw 770 which is 200 w per channel (300 @ 4 ohms) and the Lsis really opened up. If you can swing it, go for the power.

jmierzur

- Are you using a sub with your setup?
- Do you listen to two channel music?
- How loud do you listen?

If you will be using a sub with all speakers set to small, your power requirements will be lower than having all speakers set to large. Most power requirements are in the lower octives. You may be better off getting a 125 wpc amp and a sub with enough power for your room size.

If you listen to more two channel music, you may want to look at two amps; two channel amp for L+R and multi channel amp for surround duties.

If you listen at higher levels, you may need a bigger amp.

There are many options and more power is not the only solution.

Originally posted by gregure
Obviously both Rotel and B&K publish accurate and realistic power ratings, so at that point it is no question that 200 wpc will sound superior to 125, not to mention that I personally think B&K sounds better, and does not flinch w/ 4 Ohm loads.

Last time I checked, the sonic characteristics were determined by the quality of the amp. If you think B&K is the better of the two, that is fine. More power does not mean superior sound.

gregure

Originally posted by jmierzur
Last time I checked, the sonic characteristics were determined by the quality of the amp. If you think B&K is the better of the two, that is fine. More power does not mean superior sound.

Actually it does. Given that I qualified the statement w/ saying that if the specs were true and the watts were both high current, more watts absolutely means better sound. If the B&K was a lesser amp than the Rotel, then even at 200 watts that would be a different story.
I can hear the difference between two receivers of the same manufacturer that have only 10 watts difference. More power gives you greater depth, deeper and more defined bass, and more detail. Even if a sub is handling the lows, you'll notice the benefit of more power in the highs and mids. And why go w/ 2 separate amps when the B&K provides 200 watts to seven channels?

2+2

Doug, I dont know which LSis you have but if LSi15s are in the mix, I would pass on the Rotel 1075....not enough to drive 15s. I would also interject that most hifi folks state that stereo amps have a slightly different sound than HT multichannel amps...so if the primary use is in music, you may want to go a strong 2 ch amp route and let your Onk power your surrounds....

jmierzur

Originally posted by gregure
Actually it does. Given that I qualified the statement w/ saying that if the specs were true and the watts were both high current, more watts absolutely means better sound. If the B&K was a lesser amp than the Rotel, then even at 200 watts that would be a different story.
I can hear the difference between two receivers of the same manufacturer that have only 10 watts difference. More power gives you greater depth, deeper and more defined bass, and more detail. Even if a sub is handling the lows, you'll notice the benefit of more power in the highs and mids. And why go w/ 2 separate amps when the B&K provides 200 watts to seven channels?

More watts does not necessarily guarantee better sound. It may be a different sonic signature, but not always better.

I doubt the receivers sounded dissimilar due to a 10 wpc power rating difference. If you did notice a difference, it could be attributed to different internal designs, or one or many other factors.

Actually, if I was using subs (and I am) I would look for lower power amp of higher quality. That is why I purchased a Simaudio Moon W-3 for two channel listening.

If your focus was on two channel audio, you could start with a Rotel 1080 or B&K Ref 200.2 for the L+R channels. Then add a 1075 for surround duties. This would be accomplished in several steps. These are some options for those who do have worldly constraints.

gshisme

Originally posted by 2+2
Doug, I dont know which LSis you have but if LSi15s are in the mix, I would pass on the Rotel 1075....not enough to drive 15s. I would also interject that most hifi folks state that stereo amps have a slightly different sound than HT multichannel amps...so if the primary use is in music, you may want to go a strong 2 ch amp route and let your Onk power your surrounds....

I concur!

From experience, my Adcom 5400 two channel amp has it all over the Rotel 1075 for music listening. I will never go back to multi channel amps..ie 5 and 7 channel for two channel listening. IMO, seperate amps is the way to go. And they work just fine for the H/T experience.

unc2701

Originally posted by gshisme
I concur!

From experience, my Adcom 5400 two channel amp has it all over the Rotel 1075 for music listening. I will never go back to multi channel amps..ie 5 and 7 channel for two channel listening. IMO, seperate amps is the way to go. And they work just fine for the H/T experience.

I would agree, except in the cases where the multichannel amps have one power supply per channel... That's the main reason why the multichannel amps aren't nearly as good. However, 5x mono designs are hard to come by, and don't know that I've ever seen a 7x mono.

Actually, the 5400 isn't the best example to compare with- it shares its power supply between the two channels, but it will do better than the Rotel which shares a single power supply among all 5 channels. Regardless, the 5400 is a great amp and you'd probably get the most bang for your buck upgrading the amp for the front two channels first, then going back & beefing up your surround amp when you have more cash.

unbridled_id

You know just to add another option to the mix, spearit sound has a nad t973 for $1400. The nad 973 is a 7 channel at 140 watts per channel and it is a nad..

malikarshad

I use OUtlaw 770 for my LSi setup. I had outlaw M200 mono block and I found 770 sounded better. I use it for both music and HT. I have not heard B&K and rotel but I guess you cannot beat 770 for its price/performance ratio.
I'm very happy with my amp.

doug lang

I have been bidding on this b&k amp, and I think I might pull back. True it is a 7x200, but Now I am cosidering the outlaw 755 a 5 channel. I can buy new and save some money for my front lsi 9s. I just hate to buy used. People will tell you it's perfect,but there is nothing like new with no marks on it. For two grand which I am sure the bk will cost, I can save 500 going new with the outlaw. Tuff decision buying an amp, not like the lsi line which I have heard.

unbridled_id

Ok so the nad t973 from spearit sound for 1400 did not seem to make an impression.
How about this, a nad s250 5 channel at 125 per channel from saturday audio for $999. Those nad silver components are very good...

W WALDECKER

the odyssey stratos with the 120.000 uf cap upgrade is tough to beat for the money. i own a rotel rb 1080 at 200 wpc and auditioned the bk 200 wpc 2ch amplifier and the price of the stratos is right in the middle between the rotel and the bk. and sound quality wise the other two though good cant even play in the same yard as the odyssey stratos. and there are many upgrades including buying another stratos at a later date and having both converted to monoblocks free of charge. and you wont find better customer service than odyssey in the audio industry. they are also made in america and carry a twenty year warranty. the stratos is rated at 150 wpc but is a high current ultrawideband design based on the german made symphonic line rg 11 amplifier and will drive your speakers as loud as you could stand it. and you would have to pay over three times as much to get another amp in the same class as the stratos.look on the internet and check out the customer reviews. these amps are sweet!p.s if you buy a used stratos from the original owner the balance of the warranty is transferable to you!

BobMcG

unc brings up a valid point,

I would agree, except in the cases where the multichannel amps have one power supply per channel... That's the main reason why the multichannel amps aren't nearly as good.

Notice he mentions it as being the "main reason" and not the only reason. Same chassis designs suffer from internal signal interaction/interference. The amps made with separate power supplies for each channel is a big step in the right direction.

However, 5x mono designs are hard to come by, and don't know that I've ever seen a 7x mono.

The reason why the separate 3x and 2x complimentary mono design amps made by some companies are popular.

Amps with separate power supplies are of course more expensive but are more apt to be using higher quality electrical components in their construction. They will have individual channel circuit boards utilizing metal film resistors rather than carbon and capacitors using one of the poly family dielectrics as opposed to electrolytic or tantalum.

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

sowen010599

That's what I run after months of demo's.

That's the best recommendation I can give it.

It's the one I laid out money for and I'd do it again in a heart beat.