Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Five monoblocks, or a 5-channel amp? Same price.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

#1 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 19 2003 - 04:16 PM

I was checking out Outlaw's products. I happened to notice that price-wise, the following two things are equal.

Outlaw 755 amp
Five, 200M monoblocks


Given that they cost the same, which one would you get, and why?

Aside from the "if one of the mono's breaks, you still can run the other four" is there any other compelling reason? I'd imagine, the performance isn't much different...
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.

#2 of 30 OFFLINE   Jason Brent

Jason Brent

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 12 2002

Posted October 19 2003 - 04:28 PM

Go to outlaws forum. This has been discussed there.

My personal preference would be to go the 5 channel amp. One big reason would be the single power cord. The biggest advantage I see to the mono's would be seperate power supplies, but that probably would never be an issue under almost all circumstances, especially since the outlaws have pretty decent power supplies on all their amps.

#3 of 30 OFFLINE   Robert_Gaither

Robert_Gaither

    Screenwriter



  • 1,370 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2002

Posted October 19 2003 - 06:57 PM

I'd go monoes, several reasons really: maintenance (if one is defective you still have the other 4 while it gets replaced), flexibility (the way formats change, gives you a lot more options {sell a few and buy the appropriate extra amps}), and possibly resellability (might can sell to multiple parties easier than one lump sum to just one individual).

#4 of 30 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer



  • 11,547 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted October 19 2003 - 07:19 PM

One power cord is NOT a good reason... The fact that they will take up almost twice as much space might be.

Sound-wise, the difference may not be significant, but the performance should be quite a bit different at high SPLs or with demanding speakers, as the monos each have their own power supply. I would expect much more headroom with the monos vs the multi, but the question is, do you NEED that kind of power? (not that it would ever be a bad thing).

I agree with resale and flexibility.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#5 of 30 OFFLINE   Jason Brent

Jason Brent

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 12 2002

Posted October 19 2003 - 08:25 PM

John,

Why is one cord SUCH a bad idea? I understand that with low impedence/low sensitivity speakers any amp will be working much harder. But under 95% of circumstances do you think that a single power cord would really cause a significant drop in performance? (assuming that it is a good cord and power supply)

I understand that the supplied cord with the outlaws is very heavy duty, and if one wants, you can get one of those fancy esoteric cords.

For the ultimate in flexibility, the mono's are the ticket. But IMHO, a good multi-channel amp is fine for most of us.

#6 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 19 2003 - 08:42 PM

Gee, I had never considered the resale value of monos vs. 5-channel. Posted Image That's a very good point!

I'm not at all worried about having "too much power." There is no such thing as "too much power." Posted Image

Heheheh.

Right now, the need for that much power probably isnt' there, but I'll be buying a house soon...may just have a big room to fill w/sound. Posted Image

Having that much juice on hand could only be a good thing.

Space isn't too much of a consideration; the M200s are one rackspace each. Even seven of them is basically the height of two receivers.

Good inputs so far. Thanks!
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.

#7 of 30 OFFLINE   Kevin. W

Kevin. W

    Screenwriter



  • 1,546 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 1999

Posted October 20 2003 - 12:28 AM

Go with the one amp solution. One piece, less clutter. Just make sure the internals can live up to the power being produced. No use getting an amp that boasts 200w but only has 10,000uf of caps and 2 output devices if you know what I mean. One thing I don't like about the Outlaw monos is the power consumption(600w or 3kw for 5). Sure thats at full draw, but even my Rotel RMB-1095 max draw is only 1200watts for (5x200w). You maybe also looking at some dedicated lines for these puppies.

Kevin

#8 of 30 OFFLINE   Charles Gurganus

Charles Gurganus

    Supporting Actor



  • 689 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 02 1999

Posted October 20 2003 - 01:12 AM

Why not consider the Sherbourn 5 channel amp? Get your one box solution AND monos in one box.
Charles

#9 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 20 2003 - 02:02 AM

Good points, Kevin and Charles. Got a link to the Sherbourn 5-channel?
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.

#10 of 30 OFFLINE   Charles Gurganus

Charles Gurganus

    Supporting Actor



  • 689 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 02 1999

Posted October 20 2003 - 03:42 AM

http://www.sherbourn...cts/5_5210.html
Charles

#11 of 30 OFFLINE   Rick Westfall

Rick Westfall

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 220 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 1998

Posted October 20 2003 - 03:45 AM

Michael,

Does Outlaw only sell direct? I was looking for the best price those mono amps you were talking about. Also, the website is simply www.sherbourn.com

Rick

#12 of 30 OFFLINE   Yogi

Yogi

    Screenwriter



  • 1,741 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 25 2002

Posted October 20 2003 - 03:46 AM

For HT use it wouldn't matter performancewise to either go monos or multichannel. In fact in some instances the multichannel option would be better performancewise as all the channels draw power from the common powersupply and in HT its only one or two channels that get taxed at a given time, they will have more reserve power to meet the transient demands of HT rather than the monoblock solution where the power to each channel is limited by its own PS. Also there is lot less clutter and cable management and lower probability of ground loop hiss/humm problems, either from multiple power supplies or from multiple power cables crisscrossing the other line level and speaker cables. Resale value though might be higher in monoblock solution.

Quote:
Why not consider the Sherbourn 5 channel amp? Get your one box solution AND monos in one box.

The resale value logic doesn't apply here.

IMHO go with the multichannel option.
The truth is not out there but within you.

#13 of 30 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer



  • 11,547 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted October 20 2003 - 04:23 AM

I'm not suggestng that having all those power cords is a better idea, just that one power cord vs 5 is not an advantage in my mind. How much current they will draw could be, and I was going to mention that as well, since the monos have the potential to pull down a lot of juice.

The question was, which is the better way to go? With the Axioms, I'd say a multi-channel is the way to go, sice they don't need a TON of power.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#14 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 20 2003 - 11:44 AM

Rick,

Yep, Outlaw only sells direct. Here's a link to their Amplifiers page.

Thanks, Yogi and John. Posted Image

I've got much to consider. Resale value is part of it. Granted, I probably wouldn't be getting rid of anything for 7-10 years (that seems to be my "upgrade window" for some reason). But if/when I did, it would be nice to know that I could sell the gear w/o a problem if need be.

Power considerations do concern me. Having a dedicated circuit run by a licensed electrician isn't cheap.

One thing that's been on my mind about the 770/755 Outlaw amps is the power supply issue. More than one person has speculated that b/c Outlaw distinctly says which speakers should go on what outputs, that the amp may run out of juice, due to certain channels sharing a common transformer.

The 770 has two transformers...possibly, the front three are on one, and the rear four on the other. This would make some sense, as the front three typically pull the most power in HT apps.

I guess though when you're dealing w/an amp that's been tested to indeed put out it's rated 200 W.P.C. @ 8 ohms, you shouldn't be concerned. Posted Image

Thanks for all the replies/ideas/thoughts. You guys rock.
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.

#15 of 30 OFFLINE   Rick Westfall

Rick Westfall

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 220 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 1998

Posted October 20 2003 - 11:53 AM

So, would the Outlaw mono block be sufficient to power my PSB subsonic 6 that has a blown amp?

#16 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 20 2003 - 12:27 PM

Rick,
I'm not sure. What's the ohm rating on that sub? Unless you could get that info from PSB, you'd have to open up the box to find out.

It could be single or dual coil, 8 or 4 ohms per coil...anything, really.

You could probably just unscrew the plate amp, detach the speaker's wires from the amps output terminals and put a VOM across it...that would give a fairly accurate estimate.

The M200 monoblock puts out 200 watts @ 8 ohms and 300 watts @ 4 ohms.

I'll hazard a guess and say your sub has a total resistance of 4 ohms. This is just a guess though. Using a lower-ohm rated speaker is an "easy way" of getting more power out of a small amp.
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.

#17 of 30 OFFLINE   Ryan_D

Ryan_D

    Agent



  • 41 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 26 2000

Posted October 20 2003 - 01:07 PM

If they cost the same, the 755 should sound better. If you buy the monoblocks, you are paying for 4 more cases, power supplies, power cords, assembly labor, etc. They have to use cheaper components to make up the difference. Besides, the M200 switches from Class A/B to Class G above 80 watts.
My HT Pics

#18 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 20 2003 - 01:36 PM

Is the class switching (A/B to G) a bad thing?
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.

#19 of 30 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer



  • 11,547 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted October 20 2003 - 02:56 PM

With a dedicated, multi-channel amp, especially with the reputation of the Outlaws, you are going to have a much harder time running out of power than with a similarly powered receiver. I'd say power is going to be more than adequate.

Quote:
They have to use cheaper components to make up the difference.

I am not familiar with the M200s, but I doubt a small manufacturer of this type would do something like this, when their entire reputation depends on this sort of thing.

MichaelDDD, have you tried contacting Outlaw directly? They may have some insight of their own.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#20 of 30 OFFLINE   MichaelDDD

MichaelDDD

    Supporting Actor



  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2003

Posted October 20 2003 - 05:04 PM

Thanks, John Garcia. Posted Image

I didn't take any stock in the "use cheaper components" comment. A small company like Outlaw lives and dies by word of mouth alone; they have to be top-notch.

I definitely know that the components used in an Outlaw amp are just "a little better" than in my Kenwood 409. Posted Image

An email to Outlaw is forthcoming.
Yeah, I base all my HT purchases on the WAF, too. Wallet Acceptance Factor.





Forum Nav Content I Follow