amp for m70

mvs9963

hey guys, need to know what min wattage amp i should buy to power my m70 or if it is even worth it? thanks

mvs9963

know what just read the rant in the clubhouse nevermind will try to utilize the search again sorry for noob questiion

cfrizz

Welcome to Club Polk MVS.

All speakers benefit from clean power. Buy as much as you can afford. Also make sure that your receiver has preouts in order to hook up the amp to it.

mvs9963

thanks yes it has preouts marantz avr would love to start getting into seperates for 2 ch just pretty clueless about amps trying to read up though:o

cnh

mvs..

DO you want to just amp the M70s? As for external amps, those speakers will benefit from MORE POWER. I have a set and use 200 Watts/channel for each. But it's not just a question of RAW power it's also about what kind of amp. And what you want to SPEND. A 50 watt tube amp will beat the pants off a much more powerful solid state amp....but will cost you more. A class A amp of less than a 100 watts will also sound excellent and better than ANY AVR. As for other amps, those we usually go with, the rule of thumb is an SS amp should have about 200 watts or more...but that's just a suggestion not written in stone. For example an Adcom GFA-545 which is about 125 watts/channel would power those Ms fine!

Amps you should be thinking about could include Sunfire, Parasound, Cambridge Audio, Nad, Adcom, Rotel, B&K, etc.

Some sell on this very site. Your best value is to buy on the used market!

Audiogon.com is a great source for that. That's where I bought some of my stuff as well as from Club Polk itself. A lot of great gals and guys here with good gear at good prices, see their sales ratings!

Hope this helps some...


cnh

mvs9963

thanks for the help the thing i was confused about was the total watts vs watts per channel like a lot of the amps i have seen in my price range are usually less than 100 watts per channel. I ve read peoples previous posts and theynseem to suggest 200 watts ie 100 per channel yes for now only the 70s 2 ch

cnh

The M70s are rated to 275 watts each so, yes 200 watts per channel won't do anything to them but make them sound better. That's what I'm currently feeding mine...I use, for now, a Denon 2807 as the pre-amp, and an Adcom GFA-555 (2 channels x 200 watts each at 8 ohms, 325 each at 4 ohms)...and they rock all day! It's very difficult to damage a speaker with too much good high current wattage! It's the opposite that blows things...to little power clipping (distortion).

cnh

mvs9963

so an amp with 80-100 watts per channel wont do much obviously as a 200 watts per channel. pretty much save money for a more powerfull amp!

wutadumsn23

mvs9963 wrote: »

so an amp with 80-100 watts per channel wont do much obviously as a 200 watts per channel. pretty much save money for a more powerfull amp!

You hit the nail on the head there, save you cash for a decent amp with atleast 200-250 watts per channel to bring those 70's to life. That is the same boat I am in, so I can see what the 70's are really capable of. Good luck and welcome to Club Polk.

daboyz

Please forgive but the must have 200 watts to run your speakers is a bunch of baloney. I'll gladly put the Marsh at 120 watts up against many of the 200+ watters and it'll spank them.

Just MHO,of course.

Please don't hate me,Cathy.:)

curved

daboyz wrote: »

Please forgive but the must have 200 watts to run your speakers is a bunch of baloney. I'll gladly put the Marsh at 120 watts up against many of the 200+ watters and it'll spank them.

Just MHO,of course.

Please don't hate me,Cathy.:)

I'm sure he's working on a limited budget. Your talking about your $1000+ amp compared to others for much less. Not apples to apples IMO

daboyz

Never really saw a price range and I didn't pay anywhere near $1,000. The main point is that you don't need to have 200 watts to make your speakers sound great. That seems to be the "magic" number with a lot of folk and I'm just saying it's a bunch of hooey.

heiney9

curved wrote: »

I'm sure he's working on a limited budget. Your talking about your $1000+ amp compared to others for much less. Not apples to apples IMO

I believe this is the amp daboyz is talking about.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1250103783&/Marsh-Sound-Design-A200s-Power

Would be a great choice for the OP.

H9

P.s. Here's another nice choice

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1251683978&/Parasound-HCA-1000-A-very-low-

Poee7R

daboyz wrote: »

The main point is that you don't need to have 200 watts to make your speakers sound great. That seems to be the "magic" number with a lot of folk and I'm just saying it's a bunch of hooey.

This man speaketh the truth, he does.


Dave

NewHTguy

Mvs,
I ran Rti10s with an Onk 875 and they sounded good. I then added a Parasound 250 wpc and they sounded better. BUT the improvement was subtle to me, more than subtle for my fiance who has a very good ear from years of music training. To her the difference was large, to me it was subtle. The point is, although an amp will improve the performance of your m70s, you should not NEED an amp to enjoy them.

Kex

daboyz wrote: »

Please forgive but the must have 200 watts to run your speakers is a bunch of baloney. I'll gladly put the Marsh at 120 watts up against many of the 200+ watters and it'll spank them.

Just MHO,of course.

Please don't hate me,Cathy.:)

Totally agree with daboyz and some of the others on this one. I've even seen decent AVR's spank some amps (claiming far more power) in the buttocks until their glowing red with shame. The 200w theorem is not for everyone, and those speakers are quite efficient, so they shouldn't be hard to drive. Also, the fact that your priority is for two channel has its importance, as the extra theoretical power some suggest might have more use in HT in some setups. YMMV, of course, so make up your own mind.

(P.S. Cathy hates me already, so I've got nothing to lose!)

cnh

cnh wrote: »

mvs..

But it's not just a question of RAW power it's also about what kind of amp. And what you want to SPEND. A 50 watt tube amp will beat the pants off a much more powerful solid state amp....but will cost you more. A class A amp of less than a 100 watts will also sound excellent and better than ANY AVR. As for other amps, those we USUALLY go with, the rule of thumb, is an SS amp should have about 200 watts or more...but that's just a suggestion NOT written in stone. For example an Adcom GFA-545 which is about 125 watts/channel would power those Ms fine! .....


Hope this helps some...


cnh

As Kex and others say...it's not just wattage...it's the 'kind' of watts. That's what I said above...I think?

cnh

cfrizz

I never even mentioned 200wpc! There are now more than enough people on here who spent the money to get a nice 200-250wpc amp who have heard the difference for themselves to do the recommending!:D

Kex I don't hate anyone on here including you, we simply disagree about this matter.

As NewHTguy pointed out, women have better hearing than men & she easily picked up the night & day difference that he couldn't hear.

The whole point of making the recommendation is

1. It pretty much ensures that a difference for the better WILL be heard.

2. It also ensures that if/when you upgrade to other speakers in the future, you can get 4ohm speakers and KNOW that you have the power you need to drive them to THEIR FULL POTENTIAL.

There will be no need to spend more money on an amp a 2nd time around.

Do it once, & do it RIGHT the first time around. Then sit back and enjoy.:)

NewHTguy

cfrizz wrote: »

As NewHTguy pointed out, women have better hearing than men & she easily picked up the night & day difference that he couldn't hear.

Especially when you come home at 3 AM after having too many beers. They always hear that, with or w/o an amp.:rolleyes:

Poee7R

cfrizz wrote: »

...women have better hearing than men

Haha your generalizations kill me.

The reference was towards her having a trained ear, in which I would suspect by the way he put it, he does not.


Dave

Kex

cfrizz wrote: »

... Kex I don't hate anyone on here including you, ...

I know Cathy. Besides, I'm not worth it ... but I was just havin' a wee poke at ya, coz I wanted you to mention me in one of your posts (I have been feeling neglected lately).

Sorry!

cfrizz

ROTFLOL! Kex, you're crazy!:D

Kex wrote: »

I know Cathy. Besides, I'm not worth it ... but I was just havin' a wee poke at ya, coz I wanted you to mention me in one of your posts (I have been feeling neglected lately).

Sorry!