Thinking of buying an Outlaw 950. Can I use my 6-ch-ready receiver as the amp?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Steve Owen, Jun 15, 2002.

  1. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 1999
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    0
    My current receiver (Marantz SR870) is a dolby-digital-ready receiver (6-ch direct input) and I have an outboard Dolby Digital / DTS decoder (Technics SH-AC500D). My problem now is that I've overloaded the receiver, TV, etc with too many things plugged into it. There isn't enough S-Video inputs on the receiver to make me happy, and the pro-logic performance of the system is good, but not great. Dolby Digital is OK too, but not stellar.

    So, I've been researching options. I think the Outlaw 950 can last me a good long time, has plenty of inputs to keep me happy, and from what I've read is likely to be a big step up in quality. Only problem... it's at the upper end of my budget and leaves me with no amp.

    So... until I can scrounge up enough dough to buy a 5-ch amplifier, would I be able to use the Marantz (110Wx3 in the front, 75Wx2 in the rear) as the amp using the 6-ch input? (it would actually just be 5 ch... the sub would be plugged directly into the 950). When in 6-ch-direct mode, the Marantz ignores all of the surround-volume and delay settings and seems to just pass the signal thorugh the main volume control and out to the amplifiers. If I just left the marantz volume at 0db and used the 6-ch output from the 950, would that pretty much just let me use the Marantz as a simple amp until such time that I could get a "real" amp?

    Any gotchas in this type of setup?

    Thanks for any help!

    -Steve
     
  2. Ned

    Ned Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2000
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    0
    It'll work, if you can survive everyone frowning at it [​IMG]
     
  3. Steve Owen

    Steve Owen Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 1999
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frowning in what sense...?
    Frowning because they don't have a 950 and are jealous, or...
    Frowning because the can't believe I'm using such a fine preamp/processor with a hack of an amplifier?
    [​IMG]
    -Steve
     
  4. Legairre

    Legairre Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both
     
  5. Tom Vodhanel

    Tom Vodhanel Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 1998
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    8
    Let them frown,

    I have my MC-12 patched into an old DPL $199 kenwood krx1000 thx receiver(using the amp section for 5 channels of amp power).

    TV
     
  6. Holadem

    Holadem Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Until I got this tremendous deal on a Denon 4802, I was thinking about doing the same thing with my Onkyo 575x and posted about it. Some else though the same a couple of week ago and posted it here . For some reason, people just weren't very warm to the idea, without really any good reason except Saurav's reply [​IMG]
    I would go for it. If the amps quality turn out to be a bottleneck (which I doubt), you can always return it.
    --
    Holadem
     
  7. RAF

    RAF Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    7,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Steve,

    Go for it. Before I purchased some additional amplification I used some of the amps on my receiver (Denon 5700) to power the surround channels with my 950 and it did the job.

    It sounds to me like you've got a game plan and you will eventually upgrade your amps. Your Marantz appears to have the amplification to provide a satisfactory solution for the moment and later on you can upgrade the amps as you see (and hear) fit.

    Good luck.
     
  8. Wes

    Wes Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1997
    Messages:
    1,190
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Utah USA
    Real Name:
    Wes Peterson
    It will work fine! I don't doubt if you had this set up and a 6 channel amp set up side by side that you would notice a better sound with the amp, but until you get that amp you will think it sounds great. You will have one small problem, Your Receiver is a 5 amplified channels and the 950 will need 6 amplified channels to operate the EX/ES. The 5.1 will still work fine!

    Wes
     
  9. RAF

    RAF Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    7,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes,

    Actually, 7 amps, since there are two rear channels.
     
  10. Robert_Gaither

    Robert_Gaither Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Steve, I was wondering why don't you just add an outboard S-VHS switch for the additional switching option (granted you'll have to consolodate certain less watched options or buy a switch that is remote operable)? I'm in a similar predicament (own the same decoder but use an outboard switcher and a RS 15-1242 for A to D conversion so I can get DPL playback) and have thought the similar option (I think everyone thinking about jumping ship looks at the affordable Outlaw option first).
    Hey Tom, are you using one of former Fidek, Sampson, or the K2 to get you 7.1 setup with the Lex (I hate to say it but I've seen the pic with all the Sonosubs and thought you also went overkill for your other speakers as well)? I can sort of state that I'm shocked you're not running a bridged Crown for each channel (not that the Klips need them but the headroom potential).[​IMG]
     
  11. Tom Vodhanel

    Tom Vodhanel Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 1998
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm using an old alesis RA100 for the side channels.
    With an all Klipsch HT...my $300 worth of 7 channel amps does just fine dynamically [​IMG]
    I do have a k1 bridged for the sub right now---but it's a proto woof type that needs some kinks worked out.
    If I find an affordable component switcher...I'm putting the MC-1 back in my system when I get the time...I thought it was the better unit.
    TV
     
  12. Michael Mohrmann

    Michael Mohrmann Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom,

    "If I find an affordable component switcher...I'm putting the MC-1 back in my system when I get the time...I thought it was the better unit."

    Did I missread your post, or did you just say that the MC-1 was a better unit in your system than the MC-12?

    Michael
     
  13. RAF

    RAF Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    7,061
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. Tom Vodhanel

    Tom Vodhanel Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 1998
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    8
    Hi Michael,
    With 5.1 sources the 12 is great(maybe not any better than the mc-1 though). With stereo or dual mono sources...I thought the MC-1 was a more refined unit. More *refined* in that...the 12 needed another 6 months tweaking the algorithms before it was released imo. Since I surf through the DSS a bit...the problems with non 5.1 sources get magnified. I do think it does well with music playback...and I'm not sure if thats because my ears are less sensitive to the problems with music as the source...or the MC-12 doesn't have the same problems with music as it does with non music stuff.(maybe a little of both)
    This isn't a very popular POV of course...esp with the guys who just put the MC-12 on the plastic[​IMG] I caught hell-flak for saying I thought a DC-1 (v3.1 or higher) was very close if not equal to the MC-1 sonically way back when too though...
    Its good to be worried about using eleventy-billion adc/dacs...it reads well in the spec sheet I suppose and gives all the golden ears(who probably represent a large portion of the demo that can afford a 10k retail unit)an excuse to hear that more *liquid* audio from the mc-12 [​IMG] If they need more of an excuse than the retail price...
    Me? Give me the guts of the DC-1,V3 software...and all the inputs/outputs of the 12 and I'm happy. Well, my DC_1 crashed a lot. So give me my MC-1 I guess(it only locked up every 6 months or so).
    TV
     
  15. derek

    derek Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1998
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    opps...sorry reread the msg my comments don't apply.
     
  16. Mark_Buss

    Mark_Buss Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm trying to decide between the Rotel 1066 and the Marantz AV9000. The AV9000 costs a grand.... is the Rotel a clear choice here? Has anyone heard both? Certainly it has more features, 7.1, software, etc... Leaning towards the Rotel but does it SOUND better?

    mark
     
  17. Robert_Gaither

    Robert_Gaither Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, other Robert[​IMG] , I still have one of those bad old habits of refering to certain part of the HT components in terms of things that I associate them with (for the longest time the S-Video interface to me was only associated with the S-VHS VCR). Though I meant to say what I posted originally, what I should of meant to post is what you corrected me on.[​IMG] Thanks.
     
  18. RAF

    RAF Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    7,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problem "other Robert." I trust you didn't mind the correction (and your reply indicates you didn't). This wasn't a case of me nit-picking, it's just that the S-VHS/S-Video confusion has become so prevalent that even manufacturers and dealers make the mistake in their manuals and literature. A pet peeve of mine that, like Topsy, just keeps growing and growing.

    For those on the sidelines -

    S-VHS is a recording system. "S" for "Super" VHS.

    S-Video is a method of delivering a video signal through a wire. "S" for "Separated" video (chroma and luminance).

    One "S" has nothing to do with the other. Mutually exclusive.
     
  19. RichardMA

    RichardMA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even though the rear channel may be split to two
    in some EX/ES systems, the only time you'd need more
    than one amp for it is:
    -Your speakers have low impedence (4ohm) and running 2 of
    them (2 ohms combined in parallel) off the same amp and it
    can't hack the low impedence.
    -You are running THX decorrelation on the rear channel
    which produces different signals for each speaker (chs 6
    and 7).
    Otherwise, you can simply run two sets of speaker wires
    from the one mono amp and power two speakers with it
    because chs 6 & 7 are monophonic.
    -Rich
     

Share This Page