Outlaw Audio unleashes a beast of an amp

danger boy

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/7900.html

"So powerful that it needs dual 15A breakers, this state-of-the-art behemoth takes no prisoners when it comes to turning your favorite soundtracks into life-changing experiences. This all new fully balanced power amplifier uses 24 output transistors per channel to deliver an astounding 7x300 watts per channel, all channnels driven! Our most advanced design ever." :eek:

wingnut4772

danger boy wrote: »

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/7900.html

"So powerful that it needs dual 15A breakers, this state-of-the-art behemoth takes no prisoners when it comes to turning your favorite soundtracks into life-changing experiences. This all new fully balanced power amplifier uses 24 output transistors per channel to deliver an astounding 7x300 watts per channel, all channnels driven! Our most advanced design ever." :eek:

Interesting.....I wonder why my Earthquake (300 watts @ 8, 600 @ 4) doesn't have 2 power cords or if it's really necessary??

m00npie

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Interesting.....I wonder why my Earthquake (300 watts @ 8, 600 @ 4) doesn't have 2 power cords or if it's really necessary??

Because it sounds really cool to have 2 power cords. Brilliant marketing! Outside of that, I too would be interested in knowing if it really is necessary to have 2 of them and why they recommend they be used on separate 15 amp breakers.

McLoki

I wonder if it is so they do not have to require a 20amp breaker in your listening room? Good marketing in my opinion.

Michael

venomclan

It is going to be interesting to see how this amp sells. This amp is a product that is outside Outlaw's traditional market of no-frills, affordable, quality gear. At $3500, they are now competing with the big boys. Performance withstanding, Outlaw does not have a high-end perception for the most part. We will see.

While power is impressive, I have never seen the reason to push 300 watts to small surround speakers that will do great with 75 watts. Unless one was using 7 identical towers in a 7.1 system, this power seems way overkill. I would rather put the dough into a "better" 2 channel amp and let a "budget" amp handle the rest for HT duty. IMHO.
V

polkatese

I almost bought a Sherbourne several years ago, I think it was a 7/2100 model, also with dual power cords, monoblock design, 7 ch., yada, yada, yada. If I recall, they share same platform with Outlaw. So, it could be the same design with a bit more wattage.

PolkThug

Just buy two of their Model 7125's and bi-amp everything for $1k less.

ohskigod

venomclan wrote: »

While power is impressive, I have never seen the reason to push 300 watts to small surround speakers that will do great with 75 watts. Unless one was using 7 identical towers in a 7.1 system, this power seems way overkill. I would rather put the dough into a "better" 2 channel amp and let a "budget" amp handle the rest for HT duty. IMHO.
V

I would put an importance on having big power go to your center too, but definitly feel your argument for powering the surrounds.

I have 500/ch into 4 ohms from the carver to the mains. I have 300X2 biamp from 2 Outlaw mono's going to the center, but only 200 going to the surrounds. when I originally came up with this plan, I had serious concerns for the disparity in power to the surrounds compared to the mains and center. I thought calibration and getting the system to sound even would be a problem. I was wrong for thinking so, since it sounds great.

I have more powerful amps I can put in for the surrounds now, but dont because I'm afraid to screw with the nice balanced sound I got with my current set up.

that notwithstanding, that Outlaw big boy is a frikkin brute. I'm on the fence as to wether it will sound better than what I got, but it would certainly save room. having 4 amps in my stack is damn annoying

venomclan

ohskigod wrote: »

I would put an importance on having big power go to your center too, but definitly feel your argument for powering the surrounds.

that notwithstanding, that Outlaw big boy is a frikkin brute. I'm on the fence as to wether it will sound better than what I got, but it would certainly save room. having 4 amps in my stack is damn annoying

I hear ya Ski on the multiple amp thing, I have been trying to consolodate my amps. For most center channels, big power( 150w & up) is really not needed. Most do not have bass drivers and are efficient enough to run with lower power or even from an (gasp) AVR.

I run a 250w Krell up front, that bench tests more towards 400w. I use a 60w Adcom for the rears and I too was skeptical at the difference, but in the end it works fine. I did find a big difference between the Krell and the Outlaw monoblocks when I had 5 of them. More so in 2 channel than HT.

I only use surrounds for HT use only. I have never seen the advantage of multichannel music, with exception of the sub, as in most cases people run towers in front and smaller speakers for the rear and center. This would create a disparity more in 5 channel stereo than discreet 5.1 DD.

It would be cleaner to have 1 powerful multichannel amp to do it all, but at a cost. Did you hear a big difference when you biamped your center channel vs. just the 1 Outlaw?
v

engtaz

"I would put an importance on having big power go to your center too, but definitly feel your argument for powering the surrounds." ohskigod

+2 on that. Why people skimp on the main speaker in their hometheater is beyond me.

danger boy

Specifications

Power output: 300 watts RMS x 7 (all channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms from 20 Hz to 20 kHz with less than 0.05% total harmonic distortion). 450 watts RMS x 7 @ 4 ohms

Signal to Noise: >120dB below rated FTCfull bandwidth power

Power Bandwidth: 5 Hz - over 100 kHz (+0/-3 dB)

Crosstalk: Greater than -100 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz

Intermodulation Distortion: Less than .02% from 250mV to full rated FTC power

Voltage gain: XLR 28dB, RCA 37dB.

Slew rate: 50 Volts/microsecond

Remote Trigger voltage: 3 - 24 volts DC

Power requirements: 2x 115 V 50-60 Hz

Power consumption: 2x 1,800 watts (maximum)

Dimensions (W x H x D): 17.2 x 95 with feet x 19.5 (inches)

Weight: 125 (lbs)

cfrizz

It is a much cleaner look & for me the cost was definately worth it. All of my speakers sound great & are as clear as a bell.

For me, I will never skimp on giving all of my speakers more than adequate power. Which means they will get a minimum of 200wpc all around!:D

venomclan wrote: »

I hear ya Ski on the multiple amp thing, I have been trying to consolodate my amps. For most center channels, big power( 150w & up) is really not needed. Most do not have bass drivers and are efficient enough to run with lower power or even from an (gasp) AVR.

I run a 250w Krell up front, that bench tests more towards 400w. I use a 60w Adcom for the rears and I too was skeptical at the difference, but in the end it works fine. I did find a big difference between the Krell and the Outlaw monoblocks when I had 5 of them. More so in 2 channel than HT.

I only use surrounds for HT use only. I have never seen the advantage of multichannel music, with exception of the sub, as in most cases people run towers in front and smaller speakers for the rear and center. This would create a disparity more in 5 channel stereo than discreet 5.1 DD.

It would be cleaner to have 1 powerful multichannel amp to do it all, but at a cost. Did you hear a big difference when you biamped your center channel vs. just the 1 Outlaw?
v

venomclan

cfrizz wrote: »

It is a much cleaner look & for me the cost was definately worth it. All of my speakers sound great & are as clear as a bell.

For me, I will never skimp on giving all of my speakers more than adequate power. Which means they will get a minimum of 200wpc all around!:D

I agree that more power is usually better and 1 amp is easier, but for a 2 channel enthusiast with an HT built in, to get the kind of sound enjoyed with a "high end" amp in 5 or 7 channels will cost big bucks. Think Classe, Bryston, Krell, Mark Lev....While the 2 front channels are the focus, to put that kind of power on surrounds is overkill in most cases. Unless one is running large towers all around, who needs 200-300 of these amp's watts for surrounds?
YMMV. For me to put equal amp power and brand for surrounds and center will cost over 3K just for them, a "lesser" amp will work fine.
v

newsman

Hmm - for supposedly a high end amp, I see no dumping factor nor current ratting listed. Also, in my book efficient design would push double watts at 4 Ohms. In their case they "only" go from 300 to 450... I'll be curious to to see what reviews find.

ohskigod

venomclan wrote: »

Did you hear a big difference when you biamped your center channel vs. just the 1 Outlaw?
v

a very significant one. I tried just using 1 mono, figuring I might use the other for a rear center channel down the road, just seemed like at the louder volumes, the center would not blend in with the rest. the center seemed to get very sharp sounding at high volumes compared to the mains. I biamped them just for fun, and found a much smoother overall sound. granted, the difference was at high volume, but I like listening at high volumes in my theater

with my experience biamping the center with same amps as well as biamping my 2 channel with same amps on top and bottom, biamping makes a significant difference.

venomclan

ohskigod wrote: »

a very significant one. I tried just using 1 mono, figuring I might use the other for a rear center channel down the road, just seemed like at the louder volumes, the center would not blend in with the rest. the center seemed to get very sharp sounding at high volumes compared to the mains. I biamped them just for fun, and found a much smoother overall sound. granted, the difference was at high volume, but I like listening at high volumes in my theater

with my experience biamping the center with same amps as well as biamping my 2 channel with same amps on top and bottom, biamping makes a significant difference.

Glad to hear about the positive results. I once has 5 M200's but never biamped. I still use one for center channel duty but am selling it. Nice little workhorses.
v

engtaz

cfrizz wrote: »

It is a much cleaner look & for me the cost was definately worth it. All of my speakers sound great & are as clear as a bell.

For me, I will never skimp on giving all of my speakers more than adequate power. Which means they will get a minimum of 200wpc all around!:D

I agree whole heartedly.

Systems

m00npie wrote: »

I to would be interested in knowing if it really is necessary to have 2 of them and why they recommend they be used on separate 15 amp breakers.

It would need to source a lot of current to meet it's 7x300 all channels driven rating so 2 15a lines would allow it to comfortably do so.

VR3

Where did the 200 WPC standard come in to play?

Theres so much more to it than that. I'd put some 100 watt amps (and much lower) up in the ring with alot of 200 watt amps.

What on earth are you doing with 200 watts on your mains?

I always figured current was far more important.

Its like PA amps - high power, zero current.

cfrizz

We have had this discussion numerous times. High wpc usually= high current. And we are certainly not talking about PA amps which are not designed to run HT equipment.

Someone might want to ask Outlaw Audio that question.

I don't understand why people have such an objection to 200wpc. It doesn't hurt & I have never come across anyone that having that much hasn't helped.

It just makes good sense in the day & age of multiple speaker setups to have high power driving them.

Systems

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Where did the 200 WPC standard come in to play?

Theres so much more to it than that.

Yes ,speaker sensitivity and the size of and acoustic properties of the room etc.

I always figured current was far more important.

Yes high current output ability is important if the speaker presents a difficult low impedance load to the amp,but lots of clean power is always a good thing.

VR3

Isn't Outlaw like Class G?

Thats not exactly the cleanest amp out there by any stretch of the margin.

I'd take 10 watts of Class A over 200 watts of Class G..

McLoki

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Isn't Outlaw like Class G?

Thats not exactly the cleanest amp out there by any stretch of the margin.

I'd take 10 watts of Class A over 200 watts of Class G..

The monoblocks are class G. Thier multi channel amps are A/B. I assume this one is as well.

VR3

Ive never been able to like multi channel amps. To much stuff in a chasis... and if a channel were to fail.. bleh

But honestly... for 3,500 bucks..

You could get standard stratos mono blocks - a khartago and a khartago mono block for just a smidge more...

cfrizz

I think they are A/B but at a certain point if needed go into G. (the mono's).

McLoki wrote: »

The monoblocks are class G. Thier multi channel amps are A/B. I assume this one is as well.

venomclan

The Outlaw monos go into class G after 80 watts. I look forward to the reviews of this new amp, especially since it does not double its wattage at 4 ohms. Most amps at that price point will.
V

reeltrouble1

Although an amp does not have to quite double I do see cause to wonder about 300/450 rating, its an indication this amp may struggle with a 4 ohm load, not power wise necessarily, but you may hear some congestion during complicated passages with individual transients, the slew rate is a bigger cause for concern she's big but not nimble by any means add that to the amperage question and it would seem to make a recipe for a lack of coherence and control.

But as always Outlaw lets you give it a go in home. No doubt she is a beast and if I am reading that spec correctly I would not be running the amplifier on a 15 amp line, its says 1800 watts x 2, that is a massive draw. The balanced output is a nice option.

RT1

Systems

Amplifiers with balanced ( bridged) output stages usually don't like lower impedances but with 24 output transistors per ch I would expect a bit more from this one into 4 ohms.But then again these are just specs that don't really tell you anything about how its sound and 450 watts should PLENTY for any reasonable speaker.

Edit:The 4 ohm maximum output rating would probably be much higher if they were only testing one channel instead of all seven at a time.

reeltrouble1

So is it your suggestion the spec only show a rating using 1 channel???

I know of many balanced amplifier's whose 4 ohm spec doubles or nearly so.

RT1

ohskigod

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Where did the 200 WPC standard come in to play?

Theres so much more to it than that. I'd put some 100 watt amps (and much lower) up in the ring with alot of 200 watt amps.

What on earth are you doing with 200 watts on your mains?

I always figured current was far more important.

Its like PA amps - high power, zero current.

for home theater, power does seem to help. when I went from 100 150/ch of rotel power to 500 watts into 4 ohms of the Lsi's, believe me, it made a difference. of course, things not being black and white, there are amps out there that can do amazing things, lower power ratings be damned due to build quality and design. does a company like...say...Odysey fit into that category? I would say probably, but never got ears on one.

am i curious to see what 5 channels of odysey would do? sure, but if I am going to experiment like that, it would be in 2 channel, with say 2 odysey extremes powering the AR9's, versus my hafler 500 biamp set up.

Klaus's amps just from looking at the build quality are great, and have been on my list of amps to try for a very long time truth be told, but the AR9's are a power hungry speaker that reacted verywell to the extra power of biamping, so I just dont know. would love to find out one day though

VR3

I may lug the Mono Extremes down to Georgia in October... since i have the boxes and all.

Will think about it.