Need advice on amping my HT

[Dysmae]

Hey Cornfed. Did you get your new Marantz ma500s? I was curious if you juiced your wf-35s yet. I'm getting ready to buy some this week. I'm "amped" about it!

[cornfedksboy]

Sorry timing is bad. I got them on Monday and I work alternating 12 hour night shifts. Unfortunately I'm in a long sequence and will work 11 in a row (starting last Monday). It may be a bit before I can play.

[psg]

Turn up your test signal tell you have a 100db from 3 feet away
(1 watt 1 meter). Then go back to 11-12’ away (my measurements). And you will
see that 100db drop to around 80-85db depending on room size and acoustics that
can vary a lot but you get my point.

Without any room gain, the most it should drop from 100 db at 1m is to 89.5 dB at 11 feet.

[psg]

tell you the truth I cant hear a difference between my onkyo 3007 and the emotiva xpa-5. Guess I'm not playing my system loud enough.

Wow, there's an honest (and rare) opinion! Unless you are driving the amp to clipping and the amp can handle the impedence of the speakers, you probably won't notice. I don't either.

Interesting...Do you think this is do to some (not all) people "hearing" the amount of money they spent on an amp versus an actual improvement?

Bingo. Maybe in a large room type a difference would b more evident.

Depends on how loud you listen to your system. Personally I crank
it up pretty loud. It’s just easier to watch at reference levels with more
power. A 200x5 amp gives 1,000 watts total. An avr is more like 120x2 which is
240 watts total. I think some avrs are better than others when it comes to
power. So the upgrade will be more with some than others. I think my avr was
bench tested in a review at only about 45x5 watts (it’s a 2k retail avr. Paid
only 1100 though). I did read a denon
avr review that benched close to about 70x5 so it varies a little. But if someone
watches movies at an average of only about 1 -10 watts per channel. Then the
avr would be plenty. But if you like to listen to stuff at about 100 watts or
more average per channel then you would want that extra 100 watts per channel
of head room for the loud parts of movies. In my system I noticed a huge difference
when watching movies. But when just watching tv at normal listening levels I don’t
hear any difference. So an amp isn’t for everyone.

In my case, movies are less demanding on speakers than some music, but more demanding on my sub amplification. I have lots of headroom with the speakers, about 10 dB, reaching reference level for movies with my 50WPC AVR. So the external amp is not needed there. Only on rare music demos will I crank it up louder than that for music. The sub on the other hand has no headroom left because I use one channel of another 50WPC receiver to drive it. I could get a pro amp for it, but than I might be worried about overdriving it with excessive voltage.

[Heritage_Head]

tell you the truth I cant hear a difference between my onkyo 3007 and the emotiva xpa-5. Guess I'm not playing my system loud enough.

Wow, there's an honest (and rare) opinion! Unless you are driving the amp to clipping and the amp can handle the impedence of the speakers, you probably won't notice. I don't either.

Interesting...Do you think this is do to some (not all) people "hearing" the amount of money they spent on an amp versus an actual improvement?

Bingo. Maybe in a large room type a difference would b more evident.

Depends on how loud you listen to your system. Personally I crank

it up pretty loud. It’s just easier to watch at reference levels with more

power. A 200x5 amp gives 1,000 watts total. An avr is more like 120x2 which is

240 watts total. I think some avrs are better than others when it comes to

power. So the upgrade will be more with some than others. I think my avr was

bench tested in a review at only about 45x5 watts (it’s a 2k retail avr. Paid

only 1100 though). I did read a denon

avr review that benched close to about 70x5 so it varies a little. But if someone

watches movies at an average of only about 1 -10 watts per channel. Then the

avr would be plenty. But if you like to listen to stuff at about 100 watts or

more average per channel then you would want that extra 100 watts per channel

of head room for the loud parts of movies. In my system I noticed a huge difference

when watching movies. But when just watching tv at normal listening levels I don’t

hear any difference. So an amp isn’t for everyone.

In my case, movies are less demanding on speakers than some music, but more demanding on my sub amplification. I have lots of headroom with the speakers, about 10 dB, reaching reference level for movies with my 50WPC AVR. So the external amp is not needed there. Only on rare music demos will I crank it up louder than that for music. The sub on the other hand has no headroom left because I use one channel of another 50WPC receiver to drive it. I could get a pro amp for it, but than I might be worried about overdriving it with excessive voltage.

I agree 50 watts for a sub would be really light. I have 2600watts

total rms in my 3 sub amps (1200/800/600). I probably use about 80% of it (2080watts).

Depending on the movie I probably use about half of the xpa-5 power (500watts).

One could certainly drive everything with 50watts per channel and be happy. I

guess my argument was if someone could hear an advantage to having 200x5 amp vs

just an avr powering everything. I think a large % of people don’t need it. But

i think a large 100% of people will notice the difference.

[psg]

I agree 50 watts for a sub would be really light. I have 2600watts
total rms in my 3 sub amps (1200/800/600).

Apples and oranges... My sub is horn-loaded. It wll reach reference typically with 30W depending on frequency content (I use EQ extensively because my in-rrom response is preety bad), and it shakes the whole house in Tron at reference level maxing out the amp. I'm lying a bit about 50W... It's a harmon-kardon avr-325 rated at 55WPC but bench tested at 157W into 4 ohms driving a single front channel, which is close to what I am doing. I could double that power into my sub, but likely not much more, before reaching x-max. This way I feel comfortable knowing I am not that close to bottoming out the driver. But I could use a second THT for sure, or a Cimena F-20.

EDIT: The THT sub is under construction in my current avatar.

[Heritage_Head]

I agree 50 watts for a sub would be really light. I have 2600watts

total rms in my 3 sub amps (1200/800/600).

Apples and oranges... My sub is horn-loaded. It wll reach reference typically with 30W depending on frequency content (I use EQ extensively because my in-rrom response is preety bad), and it shakes the whole house in Tron at reference level maxing out the amp. I'm lying a bit about 50W... It's a harmon-kardon avr-325 rated at 55WPC but bench tested at 157W into 4 ohms driving a single front channel, which is close to what I am doing. I could double that power into my sub, but likely not much more, before reaching x-max. This way I feel comfortable knowing I am not that close to bottoming out the driver. But I could use a second THT for sure, or a Cimena F-20.

EDIT: The THT sub is under construction in my current avatar.

(Agreed) That sub does look awesome and if I had better wood

skills I would have probably built all my subs just like that one. Also I understand

the value of the enclosure is huge. The bigger the box the less power is needed

that’s why small little cubs like sunfire, and def tecs use monster amps that

are always in the 1000 to 2500 watt range, and still can’t compete with a big

box with an amp half the size (50watts is still too small for any sub application

even horn loaded for my taste). Have you thought about trying a pro amp like behringer

for your sub? I have read a lot of people love them and are an amazing value

for price.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHoQgwgwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBehringer-EPQ1200-Professional-Accelerated-Technology%2Fdp%2FB003F651W8&ei=pYg7Tq6dDfLhsQLP8735Dw&usg=AFQjCNE2sovUHj3kk3K3ZFMcd9kH0BBekA

[psg]

It was my plan if the AVR didn't work out as a sub amp. But so far so good. I like that particular Behringer amp because it has RCA inputs and LED levels
which the EP series don't, but you can't brigde 4-ohms on them as they
don't handle 2-ohms. That's what made me hesitate.

(50watts is still too small for any sub application
even horn loaded for my taste)

Did you read where I wrote that my AVR is capable of 157W, so it's not really 50W? I could use a 300W amp for 3 dB more than now, but not much more without fearing to max out the sub. So there's little point in the EPQ-1200 which would give me 600W into 4 ohms (6 dB more than what I have now) and give me fan noise which I don't have now.

Did you also read where I can play Tron at reference level in my room using that AVR as sub amp? So far, that's the loudest LFE movie I have.

And, if you really think 50W can never be enough, check this out:

50 Watts each into two THTs and 125 dB in the room. Still think it's too small? The thing that makes me use more juice is my EQ structure, so I need to tame my room to fix that rather than apply more power.

[Heritage_Head]

It was my plan if the AVR didn't work out as a sub amp. But so far so good. I like that particular Behringer amp because it has RCA inputs and LED levels

which the EP series don't, but you can't brigde 4-ohms on them as they

don't handle 2-ohms. That's what made me hesitate.

(50watts is still too small for any sub application

even horn loaded for my taste)

Did you read where I wrote that my AVR is capable of 157W, so it's not really 50W? I could use a 300W amp for 3 dB more than now, but not much more without fearing to max out the sub. So there's little point in the EPQ-1200 which would give me 600W into 4 ohms (6 dB more than what I have now) and give me fan noise which I don't have now.

Did you also read where I can play Tron at reference level in my room using that AVR as sub amp? So far, that's the loudest LFE movie I have.

And, if you really think 50W can never be enough, check this out:

50 Watts each into two THTs and 125 dB in the room. Still think it's too small? The thing that makes me use more juice is my EQ structure, so I need to tame my room to fix that rather than apply more power.

Lol Yes I read your post sorry my comment wasn’t meant to

sound like I didn’t I was just talking about amp sizes in different types of

subs. The 50watt amp comment wasn’t actually directed at your set up. Although I

can certainly see why you would have thought it was after re reading my post. Anyway

anything’s possible but head room would be my main concern running a small amp

vs a bigger one. It might have the potential to reach a high db rating but

would limit your overall settings. A good example would be your comment about how

using an eq limits your power. Even though

someone could get a high db level with a small amp what happens on the next

movie that has even more bass demand does the amp clip. And to take that a step

further if some is watching a movie it would be way easier when the bass really

hits to run an amp to clip vs a larger one with more head room.

[psg]

Yes, but I guess part of my point (and I should have been clearer about it, sorry) is that the physical limit of the sub (i.e.reaching x-max) might be a truer limit than an amp clipping. If I want more headroom, I need to build another THT and I will get 6 dB out of that, or, better yet, tame the nulls out of my room to get rid of some of that 13 dB of EQ gain.

[cornfedksboy]

Hey Cornfed. Did you get your new Marantz ma500s? I was curious if you juiced your wf-35s yet. I'm getting ready to buy some this week. I'm "amped" about it!

So I hooked up the WF-35s to the Onkyo with the Marantz MA-500 monoblocks (it was easier to carry my speakers downstairs then reconnect all my speaker wire and amps upstairs. Also, my HT has MUCH better accoustics than my living room). I ran the Onkyo in Pure Direct mode so that only the towers are playing the music and there is no processing on the part of the receiver. I popped in "The Black Keys" for their all around rock/blues sound and followed up with the "Black-Eyed-Peas" to make sure I got some really fast and low bass. Well, I LOVE THOSE SPEAKERS! The bass was always tight, but they dropped down an octave or two and REALLY dug in. The bass wasn't thin at all. The extra power from the amp opened em up and they sung. In fact, the bass was so low I thought I had the sub running some how....nope...not the case. It was all tower. I turned the subs on and the bass was more full for sure, but it didn't really add to the music (of course I have them tuned for HT, not music). I flipped back over to the RF-82s and they do go deeper, but not as tight. Impressive beasts none-the-less! Still, the mid-range wasn't near as clear as the Icons and the highs were a little brighter.

Overall, my RF-82s just can't beat the WF-35s for music. HT, on the other hand, the big boys are equally better than Icons in that regard. If you haven't bought the MA-500s for those yet, do it or do something similar. I really feel like they are a musical speaker and the extra power really brings it out (though I don't know that I have a critical ear).

[elitedemo]

i would say thats a bit suprising, the 82s look like they should whomp the wf35s, never did hear the 82s but i would say i like the sound from the wf35s as well but more on the ht side rather than music side, i thought they sounded a bit thin and revealing on music, although being a best buy demo room i didnt expect much, it might also be the amps too, they do a good job but the ma500s dont pack a huge punch although they do a great job, i found a huge improvement going to the xpa amps over having biamped ma500s, have you tried biamping or bridging them yet? looks like your profile has 3, you could do it one side and see if there is improvment also

[cornfedksboy]

i would say thats a bit suprising, the 82s look like they should whomp the wf35s, never did hear the 82s but i would say i like the sound from the wf35s as well but more on the ht side rather than music side, i thought they sounded a bit thin and revealing on music, although being a best buy demo room i didnt expect much, it might also be the amps too, they do a good job but the ma500s dont pack a huge punch although they do a great job, i found a huge improvement going to the xpa amps over having biamped ma500s, have you tried biamping or bridging them yet? looks like your profile has 3, you could do it one side and see if there is improvment also

Well, I actually have four amps. I bought with the intenion of bridging, but it just seems like overkill. May have to do try it anyway. As for the "thin" comment, the WF-34s I have heard were very thin, to the point that I knew they weren't for me. The 35s, were also much thinner than the RF-82s, but with the extra punch (via the Marantz) to the Icons the bass is tight and pretty dang deep (although, again, I don't have audiophile ears). As for the 82s, I fully expected them to "whomp" the 35s, and with my receiver they certainly do in the bass department. The added amp brings them closer, but the 82s still win out easily. For the music, the 35s are MUCH cleaner in the mid-range, and slightly more airy but less dynamic up high.

One last note; where my WF-35s are currently set-up (in front of a wall-to-wall brick fire place) they aren't overly impressive. The space is much bigger, the placement is poor, there are no accoustic treatments, and I don't have the external amp. My RF-25s actually sounded about the same to slightly better in the same configuration, so yeah, that plays a huge part in it. Perhaps I need to play with the placement of my RF-82s to get tigher bass and more mids?

[Dysmae]

Thanks for the update Cornfed. I have actually already bought three of these ma500s. I only have one so far and it is running on my center channel. I should be getting the other two sometime this week. My center channel already sounds a tad bit better so I am really excited to get the other ones in to run the front towers. I'll let you know how it sounds. I should get them by Thursday. As a side note, what do you have the ma500s plugged into? I have mine running off my Panamax conditioner, but that means they are always on. When everything is off, the amp stays on and you can hear a hiss and a slight crackle sound coming out of my center channel. My Denon has two ac outlets on the back that will turn the amps off when the receiver is off. Is it safe to do that? It won't take away any power from my Denon will it?

[cornfedksboy]

Don't know about plugging into the Dennon. I'd be hesitant. I bought (actually already owned) a power conditioner/Surge Protector from RadioShack with one "main" and three "switched" outlets. I plug the receiver into the main and the amps into the switched and they go on and off with the receiver. There are several of these available from $30.00 up to whatever you want to spend.

[elitedemo]

My Denon has two ac outlets on the back that will turn the amps off when the receiver is off. Is it safe to do that? It won't take away any power from my Denon will it?

i would not run any amps through the switched outlets on the back of the receiver, you can easily blow the circuits in the receiver, id search for a powerstrip capable of handling and controlling outlets

http://www.greenandmore.com/smart-strip-energy-saving-power-strips.html

did a quick search and something like this is likely what you are looking for

[Dysmae]

So I got my other two MA500s, and sure enough, I noticed a descent increase in quality. My WF35s image better and have a crisper, brighter sound to them that I welcome. My surround speakers also sound a lot better, since those are the only thing that my Denon is now powering. I wanted to play around with the amps. Since I have three, I bridged two to my left tower and left the third amp to run my right tower to see if I could notice a difference. There was NO comparision. I could hardly even tell that the right speaker was on. With 250 watts going to my left tower, it totally dominated in stereo sound. To actually describe it, it sounded like the left tower was about four feet closer to my seating area even though it wasn't, and the right tower was just chimming in with effects. It had a much more airy and detailed quality to it. I was amazed. However, there was a downside. There was added distortion for sure. When all is silent, there is a pulsating clipping distortion to the bridged speaker. It follows a rythem. It goes "clip...clip...clip................clip...clip...clip". It is really distracting when you are at low volumes. When you have just one amp going to the speaker, it still does this, but is very silent so much that you have to put your ear to the speaker to notice it. But bridge, you can notice the pulsating distortion at my seating around. Have you tried bridging any of your speakers yet Corfed? Do you notice that clipping distortion sound at all? I really wanna buy another MA500, but I am so unsure about that annoying clipping sound. I know it will just drive me insane.

[willland]

Since I have three, I bridged two to my left tower and left the third amp to run my right tower to see if I could notice a difference. There was NO comparision. I could hardly even tell that the right speaker was on. With 250 watts going to my left tower, it totally dominated in stereo sound. To actually describe it, it sounded like the left tower was about four feet closer to my seating area even though it wasn't, and the right tower was just chimming in with effects. It had a much more airy and detailed quality to it. I was amazed.

Not 250w/ch, more like 360w/ch.

Do you have it bridged according to Marantz?

MA-500

Amplifier Section

Continuous power output (RMS)

8½ 20 Hz - 20 kHz <.05% THD 125 W4½ 20 Hz - 20 kHz <.09% THD 180 W

EIA Dynamic power

8½ 170 W4

½ 270 W2½ 320 W

Bridged mode (2 x MA-500)

Continuous power output (RMS)

8½ 20 Hz - 20 kHz <.1% THD 360 W

EIA Dynamic power

8½ 500 W

4½ 600 W

How to bridge wire two monoblock Marantz MA-500 or MA-700 amplifiers together

---

Thought this would be nice for people trying to bridge their Marantz monoblocks like the MA500 or MA700 to have, it was a PITA to track this down!



I believe the * note was not to ground the units, the Marantz tech on the phone mentioned that to me.

Hope this helps someone! (It sure woulda saved me some time haha)

This was taken from a thread on AVS forum.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1121946

Bill

[cornfedksboy]

I have not yet attempted to bridge them. I'm in the midst of 25 straight working days at 12 hours per shift. In September I'll have a little free time to play.

The bridged output is 250 watts at < 0.05% THD or 360 watts at < 0.09% THD across the audible field according to Marantz. They bench tested at 210 watts unbridged and 440 watts with < 0.1% THD, so they are very conservatively rated when compared to mid-level recerievers.

As to the clipping, I haven't noticed it as you described it. There is an audible noise floor when I have my ear within 6 inches of the speaker and the volume muted. Nothing that is noticeable under normal listening conditions.

[Dysmae]

Yeah, I did use this diagram to bridge the amps. It was super easy. Is it really 350 watts? That seems like too much power for a speaker that is 150 watts RMS, 400 peak. I probably won't run them bridged all the time. God, it sounded awesome though.

Cornfed, are you a crab fisherman?