Fish Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 My understanding is,there are a few 6.1 dvds,7.1 takes the rear center effects ch and processes if you want two speakers instead of one,thus 6.1 to 7.1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOADEDTUNES Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Seperate mono- blocks are the way to go , multi channel amps in one chassis is a comprimise , that being said your amps are always good and your processor olny needs updating as your system changes. BTW : If you require more power then the " ROTEL " RB-1090 then your speakers suck or your ears are shot . This amp has 380wpc @ 8 ohm load and a dampening factor of 1000 plus enough headroom to implode any klipsch product . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 I'm actually sitting here listening to a Rotel RB 1090 that I picked up today. I've only got a couple of hours on it, but this is one nice amplifier as Loaded said. My B&W's are not the easiest speakers to drive and this thing is wailing on them, yet staying very musical and smooth. I can't wait to hear it after I get a few more hours on it. It also allows you to bi-amp. I would think this would be pretty damn awesome driving some RF-7's...IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 ---------------- On 3/27/2004 7:39:52 PM LOADEDTUNES wrote: Seperate mono- blocks are the way to go , multi channel amps in one chassis is a comprimise , that being said your amps are always good and your processor olny needs updating as your system changes. BTW : If you require more power then the " ROTEL " RB-1090 then your speakers suck or your ears are shot . This amp has 380wpc @ 8 ohm load and a dampening factor of 1000 plus enough headroom to implode any klipsch product . ---------------- LOL! That's the difference between the Rotel and the Sherbourn. Sure, the Sherbourn 7/2100 only does 200WPC (all channels driven) into 8 ohms - but the Sherbourn is 7 monoblocks, each with their own power supply, in one case. The Rotel is the compromise, AFAIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 ---------------- On 3/27/2004 11:09:49 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- On 3/27/2004 7:39:52 PM LOADEDTUNES wrote: Seperate mono- blocks are the way to go , multi channel amps in one chassis is a comprimise , that being said your amps are always good and your processor olny needs updating as your system changes. BTW : If you require more power then the " ROTEL " RB-1090 then your speakers suck or your ears are shot . This amp has 380wpc @ 8 ohm load and a dampening factor of 1000 plus enough headroom to implode any klipsch product . ---------------- LOL! That's the difference between the Rotel and the Sherbourn. Sure, the Sherbourn 7/2100 only does 200WPC (all channels driven) into 8 ohms - but the Sherbourn is 7 monoblocks, each with their own power supply, in one case. The Rotel is the compromise, AFAIC. ---------------- griff.... i don't own rotel..... have never heard this particular amp (others - but not this one).....but the following is from the rotel website.... The RB-1090 stands as the premiere example of Rotel's award- winning prowess in amplifier design. At 9.5" tall and close to 100 lbs. in weight, it is a truly formidable power source for the most demanding systems. Essentially two separate amplifiers sharing only a chassis and power cord, the RB-1090 is capable of putting out 380 watts per channel RMS (both channels driven into 8 ohms from 20 Hz to 20 kHz with less than 0.03% THD). anytime you use more than one amp in a single box it is a compromise..... 4 separate RB-1090 amps is much less of a compromise than a single multichannel amp..... 7 or 8 monoblocks are much less of a compromise than a 7 channel amplifer.... compromise is what multichannel amps are all about..... the sherbourn is impressive but still much more a compromise than mono blocks or even 4 of the rotel RB-1090's.... a mono-block is plugged into a 15 amp (or a 20 amp) circuit..... your sherbourn has seven amps plugged into only two 15 amp circuits.... yet another compromise.... that amp has COMPROMISE written all over it........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I stand corrected re: the Rotel 1090. The Sherbourn 7/2100 actually uses two power cords to overcome that problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 from the sherbourn website: This brute will output a massive 2.1 kW and comes with two power cords to ensure that you can pull all of the needed power from two outlets, which eliminates the need to install a special 20-amp circuit. it is interesting that they list it that way..... because it also means that you need to have two outlets very close to each other on separate dedicated circuits or you will not get the power output that the amp is rated for.... either way... you will probably need to install a special circuit... an additional 15 amp circuit or a 20 amp circuit.... or run a long extension cord around the room..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 But, you must admit, it refutes the complaint you had about available power... This is also why I build super-duty power conditioners that can handle 50+ amps (and are hardwired to a 50A breaker in the box) for clients that order systems with this amp. It's also why I was bugging you about the amperage handling capacity of the conditioners you were talking about in the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 i see the logic from a manufacturer's viewpoint.... but from an installer's viewpoint it is pretty useless..... you have to run another line regardless..... and yes... it does solve the amperage problem.... but i do love my separate amps.... one for the mains... one for the center...and one for surrounds..... and after reading more about the sherbourn, i see it is a real beast...... but more than i really want to invest in amplification for my system.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 ---------------- On 3/28/2004 12:49:41 AM minn_male42 wrote: i see the logic from a manufacturer's viewpoint.... but from an installer's viewpoint it is pretty useless..... you have to run another line regardless..... and yes... it does solve the amperage problem.... but i do love my separate amps.... one for the mains... one for the center...and one for surrounds..... and after reading more about the sherbourn, i see it is a real beast...... but more than i really want to invest in amplification for my system.... http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif"> ---------------- From an installer's viewpoint (which I am) - the separate power cords means I can use 2 15A transformers in my conditioner instead of one massive 25A - believe it or not, it's cheaper to do the two smaller units. The Sherbourn isn't for everyone, that's for sure. It's a mighty amp that is very clean and mellow at nearly any power output, short of maximum. If you actually need 200W (or 300W at 4 ohms) to drive your HT, you need to replace your damned speakers, because they suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 of all the speakers I've know, B&Ws need that kind of power... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Yeah, I guess they suck..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 ---------------- On 3/28/2004 11:36:30 AM Colin wrote: of all the speakers I've know, B&Ws need that kind of power... ---------------- DAMN! What, are they like 60dB sensitive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 the Nautilus line runs about 91db.....speakers that can take, or excel using, high amounts of current do not "suck" by definition (as you stated) Griff.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 ---------------- On 3/28/2004 1:04:17 PM arthurs wrote: the Nautilus line runs about 91db.....speakers that can take, or excel using, high amounts of current do not "suck" by definition (as you stated) Griff.... ---------------- If they excel using high amounts of current, that's perfectly acceptable. It's when you can't get anything out of them with less than 50W that it becomes an issue of "sucking". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurs Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 fair enough, I would agree with that....probably my favorite part of the Nautilus is how far they reach with the more power you provide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 ---------------- On 3/28/2004 11:38:52 AM arthurs wrote: Yeah, I guess they suck..... ---------------- Cool, send them to me for disposal There is a difference between NEEDING a lot of power to go loud, and being able to take 500 watt peaks to ensure HUGE dynamic headroom. Look at the RF-7's - 250 RMS, and 1000 peaks! Even the RB-15's can take 300 watt peaks!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 ---------------- On 3/28/2004 1:57:48 PM kenratboy wrote: There is a difference between NEEDING a lot of power to go loud, and being able to take 500 watt peaks to ensure HUGE dynamic headroom. Look at the RF-7's - 250 RMS, and 1000 peaks! Even the RB-15's can take 300 watt peaks!!! ---------------- Precisely what I was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFinco Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 ---------------- On 3/26/2004 9:05:16 AM Griffinator wrote: My opinion, after yesterday's get-together (a very positive one for my local business dealings - could be an alliance of sorts to be formed between our two companies) is that the Sherbourn amps absolutely trounce the Rotels. The Rotel pres are much more user-friendly and feature-rich than the Sherbourns. ---------------- Griff-- I am leaning toward useing my 49tx as a pre/pro and going with a nicer power amp. my choices at current, but not necessarily in order... 1. B & K 200.7 or the 7270 2. Rotel 1095 AND 1080 (1 2channel, 1 multichan for H/T) 3. Sherbourn 7/2100 4. Aragon 7 channel give me your thoughts, suggestions about these items---or any that are similar in price that I may have neglected, or combinations of various channels (i.e. a 3 channel and a 5 channel by B & K for example...or whatever...) Sherbourn got added recently as I read more about them--your post above put them in my list.. ANYONE! feel free to let me know your thoughts on this--(no. I can't buy krell, or Theata, or ADA or Proceed or "HALO" parasound....out of my range.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Specs don't mean jack. Your ears are the only thing that is going to tell you what is better for you. Lower sensitivity can be a good thing if they can handle the power. It will have a nice balance at lower to medium volumes so you are not deaf when you get older. I noticed some higher sensitivity speaker sound really bad at lower volumes nothing but treble. My klipsch sound good at all volumes but they do beg to be played loud. When you are comparing amps are you comparing watts per watts? Or you can get this amp with more watts for the same price as that amp. Then that isn't fair you have to compare watts per watts. To see who has the best quality. There has to be some equation watts vs. watts plus through value. But if the question is. Is Rotel really that good then? Honestly i couldn't tell you only a ton of reviews saying they reach audio nirvana is pretty convincing. But i am still not going to believe it till i hear it myself. My audio utopia probally differs from yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.