What kind of watt?

LarryK

I have read several threads on power requirements. There seems to be a mixed feeling between quality and quanity of watts required. Given all things being equal (except the two channel sound is more important than 7.1 home theater) what are your thoughts for the two channel amp(s). I will probably go with a midrange 5 channel (like Emotiva) for the center and surrounds but for the two channel setup I'm thinking of Emotiva Mono-blocks (1,000 watts ea.-quanity) or a used McIntosh MC252 for a little more $$ (250 watts-quality?). What's your vote to drive my LSi15's? Thanks!

reeltrouble1

two amplifier designs on totally different levels of audio

The Mc by light years.

RT1

Hawkeye

I've never owned or heard the Emo so I can't say anything good or bad about it.

If you can get a MC252 for a bit more than the Emo pair, I'd stretch a bit more for the MC352. While the 252 is a fine amp, the 352 is balanced which will enable you to move down that path easier. A true, fully balanced system has got to be heard to believe.

Gordon

zingo

Agreed; the two amps are completely different. If you stick with the Emotiva amps all around, you will have a similar sound all around. However, a Mc would sound great powering your LSis...

Face

Hawkeye wrote: »

I've never owned or heard the Emo so I can't say anything good or bad about it.

If you can get a MC252 for a bit more than the Emo pair, I'd stretch a bit more for the MC352. While the 252 is a fine amp, the 352 is balanced which will enable you to move down that path easier. A true, fully balanced system has got to be heard to believe.

Gordon

Great advice Gordon. In fact I believe the 352 may be the same price, if not even less than the 252 on the used market.

zingo wrote: »

Agreed; the two amps are completely different. If you stick with the Emotiva amps all around, you will have a similar sound all around. However, a Mc would sound great powering your LSis...

I agree. I would maybe consider something other than Emo for the center and rears. I haven't heard an Emo amp in person, but have heard they can be forward or bright and have a high noise floor. Mac on the other hand, is on the warm/neutral side, and usually dead silent.

concealer404

Face wrote: »

Great advice Gordon. In fact I believe the 352 may be the same price, if not even less than the 252 on the used market.


I agree. I would maybe consider something other than Emo for the center and rears. I haven't heard an Emo amp in person, but have heard they can be forward or bright and have a high noise floor. Mac on the other hand, is on the warm/neutral side, and usually dead silent.

The emo amp i heard was pretty forward, at least compared to what i'm used to. It was quiet, though.

Hawkeye

AC is listing a 252: $4300 in A1
$3500 in B1

The listing for 352: $3850 New in box!
$3700 B1

The 352 NOS to me would be a slam dunk done deal in my book if I were looking at this.

But you right Mike, depending on where you're looking the prices could vary a couple hundred in either direction. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Gordon

LarryK

Great input guys, thanks. Gordon, I saw that listing but didn't consider the 352 since it's a discontinued model and the faceplate is the old style but that's only a visual thing, so I should give it serious consideration for the reasons given. Now the question becomes what complements the 352 besides spending another 4-5k on a used MC205 or MC207 and still has the balanced inputs??

Face

Any Mac multi-channel would compliment the 352. Just keep in mind, I don't believe you can bridge them during 4ohm operation. Check out the MC-126 on ebay, you would have enough channels for 7.1 operation.

Lowell_M

There are many good midfi amps out there on the used market that you could try out. Don't just limit yourself to Emo and Mc. There are many here who like Emo, but a demo that we had at my house of the XPA-5 was by far the most dissappointing demonstration of amplifier I have heard. (Sorry Duell) But again, all that matters are your ears and the owner of said XPA-5 preferrs the EMO over others. If you do some searching around on here you will find differing opinions and pricpoints for many brands such as ADCOM, Rotel, Carver, Sunfire, ...and many others. If you try used you can most likely sell it and only be out shipping if you don't like it. Quality has more to do with amplifier design than power.

Hawkeye

Hi Larry, I'm strictly a 2 channel guy. I don't feel qualified to answer your question beyond that. I'd be inclined to follow Mike's (Face) recommendations when it comes to McIntosh and multi channel. I've heard several McIntosh 5.1 and 7.1 systems and they sounded very smooth to me and if I was a multi channel guy, I'd probably do the 352 and a 205 for a HT.

Since I'm spending your money, a pair of 501's can be had for around $5.5k if you shop wisely.

Gordon

P.S. I don't think the 205 or the 207 is a fully balanced amp by the way.

nooshinjohn

you can get a Sunfire Cinema Grand for the center/surrounds and the Mcintosh for the fronts. My experience with Sunfire is that it is a very neutral amp and may be a nice blend with the Macs...

LarryK

Gordon, the 501's were my first choice but everywhere I have looked they seem to be around 7k. It makes sense to stay with a similar sounding multi. I will go down that path, the Sunfire Cinema Grand looks like a very good option and there seem to be a few out there for sale.

I do have a question re: 'fully balanced'. I assumed as long as it had XLR inputs it was 'fully balanced' is this not the case? What is a good way to make sure? Thanks again, I'm kind of new to the forum and you guys are great!

Hawkeye

Be very careful when looking at "balanced" or XLR connections. An item having a XLR is not necessarily a balanced "design". You'll have to dig through some manufacturers literature to find the truth. Several McIntosh pieces have balanced connections but the amp or component design is not balanced.

Many pieces for sale, new or used have XLR. Personally, I think in a lot of cases, it is a marketing gimmick to give a person the "audiophile" satisfaction of having XLR. Depending how the piece is wired, one may find that a RCA/XLR connection are one in the same inside.

I'm not an EE and my extent of electronics knowledge goes as far as plugging something in . There are plenty of people here and elsewhere that can give a better description than I ever could

Gordon

reeltrouble1

Well, Balanced Audio Technology is a sort of no brainer for Balanced Technology, btw they sound very neutral and quite pristine, if your into solid state they will deliver the bass growl, liquid mids and a nice smooth extended top end, I sold one to a fellow who had been running Krell, he wrote me thanking me as the BAT crushed his old amps and offered his first born child, I declined the child but asked about his girlfriend......the Mc and the BAT are in the same league, just taste I would and have owned each, the Emo with this bunch is just outclassed, albiet a large difference in cost, but then cost/value have no place in defining component performance, buying simply because of cost is a sure way to begin planning your next upgrade.

If you just want a solid entry into multi-channel high-end performance then one of the B&K multi-channel amps should be on your list to consider, the 200.7 offers your balanced requirement they can be had used for 1500-2000 and offer plenty of power 200/400 @ channel with 75 ampres of pk to pk performance.

RT1

Hawkeye

RT1 offers a great suggestion on the B&K. My HT, which is not cutting edge at all, has a B&K Ref 30 and a 7250 5 channel amp. In my other house, I had a 7.1 and the front mains were powered by a B&K 2220. I had all Polk speakers at the time and the sound was just right for HT in my opinion. 2 Channel wasn't a slouch at all, I just didn't want to try and have a perfect multi purpose system, hence my separate 2 Channel system.

B&K offers a real glimpse into what higher end gear can do for a reasonable amount of money.

Gordon

LarryK

More great advice guys. Everything making my path a little more easy to follow. Thanks again

jimmydep

I have an Emo XP-5 and a Sunfire Cinema Grand and have heard several Mc's.

The Emo is definitely a forward sounding, quiet amp that I feel compliments the LSI's laid back nature.....the Sunfire is very warm and detailed, as are the Mc's and as others have said they would most likely compliment each other.

Jimmy

Lowell_M

If you are still considering MTosh you really should forget about Emo and consider other brands that are in the same sonic arena as Mtosh. ....seriously.

CoolJazz

I think folks are being somewhat misled with the thought (not just on this thread, so this isn't pointed at any one person) that an amp with an XLR that doesn't have fully balanced circuit end to end is somehow a fraud.

It's very possible that such an internal topology might not be able to match a more conventional "unbalanced" circuit. This is because building a design that is matched well enough to not screw up trying to keep the signals identical is very, very tough to do.

I did not come up with this wild eyed idea that it's tough for a balanced topology to top an unbalanced one....this was commented on some years ago in Stereophile in an article. The point here isn't that good fully balanced designs can't be done, it's that it's not necessarily inferior technology to have the advantage of a balanced input converted to single ended and then presenting the option of a balanced output. It's not necessarily that they are designing this way to deceive the unsuspecting...

Balanced audio originates with the phone company. It was a huge step in being able to carry audio on wires over long distances with acceptable audio. This was done with transformers breaking up the line every so many feet and line amplifiers at given intervals to keep the level high enough over noise floor. The lesson learned was the noise rejection characteristic of balanced audio. The lesson lost was the usefulness and quality of good transformers.

A balanced input stage first takes what is out of phase and passes it along, while rejecting all in phase information. After that point the biggest advantage to carrying opposing phases would be that you have to have two identical paths. Or twice the cost, because you have two of everything. The big advantage here is to the manufacturer for making a high cost device and having something they can point to as making them different. But what's the advantage????

This is all about circuit topology and either way, can excel. Either way can be done well or be done just plain expensive! So maybe the companies with "fully balanced" circuits are the ones being deceitful. :eek:

CoolJazz

ben62670

Hawkeye wrote: »

Be very careful when looking at "balanced" or XLR connections. An item having a XLR is not necessarily a balanced "design". You'll have to dig through some manufacturers literature to find the truth. Several McIntosh pieces have balanced connections but the amp or component design is not balanced.

Many pieces for sale, new or used have XLR. Personally, I think in a lot of cases, it is a marketing gimmick to give a person the "audiophile" satisfaction of having XLR. Depending how the piece is wired, one may find that a RCA/XLR connection are one in the same inside.

I'm not an EE and my extent of electronics knowledge goes as far as plugging something in . There are plenty of people here and elsewhere that can give a better description than I ever could

Gordon

Very well put.
Thanks G.
Ben

Hawkeye

I don't want to debate the pros and cons of balanced versus unbalanced. Ranks right up there with tubes or SS. To each their own flavor.

However, truly balanced equipment costs more than unbalanced. We're paying for the engineering and the bits and pieces that make up a truly balanced piece of gear done well or not.

My intent was to make Larry and others aware of the fact that an XLR connection does not make a balanced piece of gear. Manufacturers say a piece of gear has balanced (XLR) connections without saying the gear is balanced and to some people, that may mislead them into believing they are or have purchased a balanced piece of gear when in fact they have not. A definite case of Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware)!

Gordon