VA rating for the Outlaw power supplies??? (1 Viewer)

[JimN]

O.K. I can accept that, but why is there an assumption that the Outlaw will not test up to specs.? The current limitations of the max power consumption specs are very similar for both amps. My problem is with the logic, or lack thereof in assertions that are based upon very incomplete and selective specification reading, IMO. How different does the circuit topology have to be to negate comparisons based upon max. power consumption. I realize if one is class A and the other is class A/B or D then they are non-comparable. Is that the case here?

 

[John Morris]

Ricky and Legairre: It sounds like we agree then, that any discrepency in design or build will show up audibly by displaying compression, distortion or even clipping. Can't we all agree that if we hear those problems, it really doesn't matter what the printed specs may say? Finally, if we could simply judge the value of a component by its' specs, then the Outlaw 950 would do redbook better than the PerpTech PA-3 DAC, since the Outlaw uses 24/192 DACs and the Perptech only uses 24/96 DACs. Hmmm, maybe you specs guys do have something...

I think that the main reason that folks were more apt to believe the performance claims of SVS than Outlaw is because SVS Ron & Tom are all over the place discussing their product, explaining their product in technical terms, defending their product, educating us, and comparing their product to others in a manner which is interesting and non-offensive to most of the people who frequent this forum...first-hand eye-witness testimony versus hearsay perhaps?

Randy: That is fantastic! Okay, so what were the driver and port specs on the SVS Ultra? I'm sure that since they are so forthcoming, they MUST have told you that info, otherwise, I'm sure that you'd be hammering them on that issue too. Right? I'm sure you'd wouldn't want to look like you don't hold all companies to your same strict expectations.

 

[RAF]

John,
As you have seen here, "Spec Speak" is just that - Speculation. In my mind there is only one final judge - your ears and your eyes (for video). Specifications are fine to get the piece in your home to audition up to a point, but what it sounds like is what's important to me.
I never really did understand all these people who try to prove to you with numbers that you can't possibly be hearing what you are hearing. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[Shane Martin]

Post irrelevant since information was further clarified i was wrong.

 

[KeithR]

And it still may sound like crap to you. Do yourself a favor and audition it, then be the judge. People are griping over 40 watts, which is undetectable to the human ear.

How many reviews of stuff that doesn't measure very well, but sounds outstanding---hence our brief foray into tubes.

I get sick of all the spec masters---for instance, the Ayre V-3 amp measures impeccably well, perhaps the best reviewers have seen. However, go listen to it, and it is a boring, boring amp.

I guess I am with the outlaw guys on this one--order 1 and use the 30 day return policy if necessary.

 

[Ricky T]

I didn't realize this thread was about how the Outlaw amp sounds. I thought it was about transformer sizes and power output.

Merc,

I don't think a 24/292 DAC is better than a 24/96 DAC for redbook playback just because it has the number 192. CDs are 16 bit, so a well designed 20 bit DAC/CDP can do fine.

 

[John Morris]

I don't think a 24/292 DAC is better than a 24/96 DAC for redbook playback just because it has the number 192. CDs are 16 bit, so a well designed 20 bit DAC/CDP can do fine.

I agree Ricky. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Mere specs are irrelevant in the face of how a component actually performs.

 

[Patrick R. Sklenar]

Go to the widescreen review of the outlaw amp. It states the amp has a 1.5KVA transformer. This amp is rated at 165 wpc(at 8 ohms....)---not 200 wpc

Outlaw has already failed to reach its rated output on 1 amp. ...

Shane,

Nice to see you. Haven't run across a posting from you in quite some time it seems. I hope all is well?

Anyhow, I don't subscribe to Widescreen Review and their web site reviews are for subscribers only. Are you saying that they reviewed the new 200 watt per channel Model 755 and claim it's only producing 165 watts per channel, or that they reviewed the older 165 watts per channel Model 750 and that they are claiming that it doesn't meet the stated level of output?

 

[Shane Martin]

Patrick,
Doing Great. Thank you for asking.

Are you saying that they reviewed the new 200 watt per channel Model 755 and claim it's only producing 165 watts per channel, or that they reviewed the older 165 watts per channel Model 750 and that they are claiming that it doesn't meet the stated level of output?

The later because they new one hasn't been reviewed yet. Read further posts to reveal i was incorrect in thte fact the older 750 amp produced 165 and was rated at that.
BTW you can find their review if you go to the following page and select on the review. IT will come up in PDF format. You don't need to be a member either. They still give the amp a great review though.
http://www.ecoustics.com/Home/Home_A...Multi_Channel/
Btw this is a great thread.

 

[Patrick R. Sklenar]

You're right, that is a nice review WSR gave the Model 750. But I didn't see anywhere in there where they said it was claimed to be a 200 watt/channel amp that only measured up to 165 per?
I just did a quick Google search and found the original press release for the Model 750 from May 1999 and it talks about the amp being 165 watts per channel. The oldest review (1 June 1999) of the Model 750 on AudioReview.com also states "... 5 channels at 165W per channel for $1100 can't be beat. ...". Where did you hear that the Model 750 was originally claimed to be a 200 watt per channel amp?
And yeah, this has been a fascinating thread!
Anyhow, I'm glad you're doing well. Like I said, I don't recall having seen you posting for a while.
Take care,

 

[Legairre]

Ricky and Legairre: It sounds like we agree then, that any discrepency in design or build will show up audibly by displaying compression, distortion or even clipping. Can't we all agree that if we hear those problems, it really doesn't matter what the printed specs may say?

merc,
YES, the sound is all that matters. I agree with you too. Damn, I can't believe I'm agreeing with you and RAF. What's next an Outlaw 950 in my rack. OK, let's not get carried away. Even though I agree that in the end the sound is all that matters. I still think all companies should provide the specs is requested too.
Jim,
I'd love to answer your question, but I don't know the efficiency of either the Rotel or the Outlaw amps, but I'm searching. I'm searching.

 

[Legairre]

OK, guys here's a story that happened to me. Back before I was really into this stuff I had a Sony receiver that claimed to be 100wpc. It powered my 50 watt rated satellite speaker system fine. I went out and bought some new speakers that were rated from 50 - 250 watts. One month after getting the new speakers while watching Air Force One. I had the system cranked at a moderately loud level. There's a scene in the movie where the F16s fly around air force one. As they fly around the sound is REAL high pitched. I had watched this scene many times before with the 50 watt speakers and a lot louder. When the jets hit this part of the movie all of a sudden the highs in my speakers were there, then gone. What happened? My tweeters fried that's what happened.

I took the speakers and the receiver in to be checked out and the service center said that lower priced Sony receivers never make their rated 100wpc. After testing the receiver he said it barely made 40wpc and that because the receiver was trying so hard to power my speakers it fried my tweeters. I told him I had played that scene way louder on my 50 watt seakers with no problem. Well, he gave me my first lesson about clipping.

What I'm trying to say is that if I had known the TRUE specs of that receiver I would have never tried to power a 250 max set of speakers with it. I had no audible sound that told me that the receiver wasn't up to the task until it was WAY too late. Tht scene came and went so fast there wasn't any time to turn it down. I trusted Sony when they said it made 100wpc and figured I could power my 50 - 250 watt speakers just fine. The true 40wpc wasn't even close the the receivers 100wpc spec.

This is why I do beleive the sound is all that really counts, but in this case. Everything sounded fine until a split second of clipping.

This is why the tranformer size of an amp does matter to me. I still have the manual that list the transformer size. If I knew then what I know now. I could have looked at the specs for the transformer and said, hey, there's no way you can make 100wpc all channels driven with a transformer that small and I would have never bought speakers that were so hard for that receiver to drive.

Sony refused to pay for my tweeter repair and I was out $75. So even if you bring it home and it sounds really sweet. Sometimes it's too late when you find out that it doesn't make it claimed power rating. Transformer size matters a lot to me now. I like it loud so I could be risking my speakers by not knowing what's inside an amp. Even if everything sounds fine, it only takes a spit second for things to turn ugly. Movies transition in there sound so much that I need to know up front if I have the right gear.

Just give me the specs so I know what I'm dealing with. I'll decide if it sounds good.

 

[John Morris]

Legairre: I think we all probably have stories about over enthusiastic receiver power ratings. Heck, Onkyo used to be one company that I always thought under rated their power, until recently one of their receivers was tested as having only about half the power before clipping occured. This isn't limited to just receivers either.
A few months ago, I was listening to an Aerial 10T setup at a local dealer and I turned it up to the volume level that I like to listen to for rock or classical music. First, the highs seemed compressed and the bass got muddier. Next, I started hearing some distortion during certain extreme transient passages. Finally, the speakers started to clip. At this point the dealer rushed into the room as I was turning down the volume. He asked me what happened, and I told him about the clipping. He said, "That's impossible. That's a Classe A CAV-150 driving these speakers and it has plenty of power." So... I turned up the volume and let the dealer listen for himself. The next day, the CAV-150 was replaced by the CAV-500 in the Aerial room.

 

[Shane Martin]

I just did a quick Google search and found the original press release for the Model 750 from May 1999 and it talks about the amp being 165 watts per channel. The oldest review (1 June 1999) of the Model 750 on AudioReview.com also states "... 5 channels at 165W per channel for $1100 can't be beat. ...". Where did you hear that the Model 750 was originally claimed to be a 200 watt per channel amp?

My mistake. I thought it was 200 but indeed it was rated at 165 and thus delivered it. I'm going to edit my earlier post since its in error.

 

[John Royster]

ALRIGHT ALREADY!
enough is enough. Owners/moderators/administrators of this forum fess up that you own or have partial stake in outlaw, better cables, and/or SVS.
Please don't ban me for I do love the information here, but c'mon. Am I not the only one who notices such an overwhelmingly "use outlaw, better cables, SVS or else you're crazy" attitude from anyone associated with this forum?
sorry for being rude - this has been festering for quite some time. I did not taste the kool-aid and could not evernot, willnot purchase audio gear without hearing it first. to do so is just plain dumb.
Member Suspended from Home Theater Forum, This kind of posting behavior will not be tolerated. It's nothing but a cheap shot, and slanderous. Steve Simon

 

[Mifr44]

"...and could not evernot, willnot purchase audio gear without hearing it first. to do so is just plain dumb."

You are mostly right, it is best to audition equipment before trying it out. Most of my local dealers are moving away from allowing in-home auditions of their demo equipment, so unless you know someone with the component(s) you desire, you are sorta out of luck.

Ironically, you are irate with the repeated mentioning of Outlaw and SVS. Both of these companies have a money back guarantee, so all you will be out is the shipping charges. Most local audio dealers don't allow this, or at a minimum charge a steep restocking fee.

BTW, I own no equipment from the companies you have mentioned, nor do I have any immediate plans to.

Michael

 

[Patrick R. Sklenar]

Shane,
No problem. I was just confused because ever since I'd heard of Outlaw (some two years ago), they'd been touting the Model 750 as 165 per. I was really curious as to where along the way it had been changed.
But darn it, you made go do more reading and more learning!
John,
Outlaw Audio is a privately held company. I've met, spoken on the phone with or corresponded with five members of the company ... none of them are associated with any of the online forums and all five have stated emphatically that none of the other Outlaw's are associated with these forums either. And yes, I *do* believe them. Also, if you search the various advertisements throughout HTF, you won't find a single advert for Outlaw Audio.
But I'm glad you're not interested in checking out Outlaw's equipment ... one less person I have to wait for before I can get my pieces.
G'night all!

 

[John Morris]

I did not taste the kool-aid and could not evernot, willnot purchase audio gear without hearing it first. to do so is just plain dumb.

JohnR: Of course that is your option and one which I'm sure all of us respect, except of course for your "dumb" comment to us. It is just that many of us don't have the money to throw away by paying exhorbitant middlemen upcharges on our gear. If we can get a pre-pro with the sonic attributes of the gear that you'd buy at a local B&M, for less than half of what you might pay, we poor folk would be "dumb" not to do so. To us, risking a $30 return shipping fee is well worth the opportunity to save $1300.

I hope that our enthusiasm for the high performnace products we own, that we could afford to buy, is a little clearer to you now.

 

[John Royster]

Thanks for the understanding.
I hope you see the merit behind my slanderous accusations. I too cannot afford high-end gear (rather, cannot justify)and would love to see (err...I mean hear) equipment that would satisfy my "champagne taste on a beer budget". But in the back of my mind I can't help but think "gee, I could probably design a pretty decent amp. Hype it up beyond reasonable comprehension and roll on home to the bank."
This thread seems filled with "it doesn't matter, just by the amp" posts.
So my skeptism (sp?) remains. I would and probably should try out these pieces. But the more hype I see and the more sponsorship I see makes me wonder just what's behind it. Sorry, I've dealt with WAY too many marketing folk and am seeing a pattern here.
Anybody remember Bazooka tubes? same thing, different millenia. to that end I cannot offer an objective opinion - I've never heard the gear in question. I'm too busy spending money just trying to fix my room with constant WAF going on.

 

[Saurav]

John,

Try DIY - it's the best route to champagne sound on a beer budget. I built a tube preamp from a kit for $300 (which includes several mods) which people say holds its own with commercial equipment costing multiple thousands of dollars. I wouldn't know, I've never heard a multi-K preamp because I cannot afford one. I do know that I've heard $200 - $300 receivers and integrated amps, and my DIY unit is in a totally different league. Similarly, I built speakers from a kit for $500 which are supposed to be as good as commercial speakers costing multiple thousands. In this case, I did listen to 2 pairs of commercial speakers at the $1000 price mark, and the ones I built are better. The kit came with pre-built cabinets, so all I had to do was solder/glue/screw things together.

With a DIY kit, you're paying only slightly more than the parts cost. Compare that to the several stages of profit/markup that you have to pay for in retail gear. Of course, the icing on the cake is the fun you have building your own stuff, the stuff you learn along the way, and the pride you can take in telling friends/guests "I built that myself" and watching their faces as they hear how it sounds.