sunprairie Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Ok, here goes; I'm running a Denon 4802 Receiver and a Klipsh heritage 5.1. (LaScalas, Chorus II's, Quartets, RC-7) I like the processor, but have an itch to go Mcintosh. I'm either going to buy an MHT200 processor or buy a MC 207 amp and eventually work up to a separate McIntosh processor like a MX134. Is this a crazy move? I demo'd an MHT100 at my house for a weekend(Great local Mac dealer), but want more power. Plus, I like some of the features of the Denon processor. Anyone with any Mac experience in home theater would be greatly appreciated. Should I be looking elsewhere than McIntosh @ $4500?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Sunprairie, The weakest link in any receiver is the amp section. If you buy an outboard amp, that amp may last 20 years. On the other hand, processor technology changes rapidly. Many folks buy separate amps before buying a processor. There is no requirement to use the same brand processor as amplifier. There are some compaitibilty issues, but rarely cause problems. I use Sunfire amps with a receiver as processor. I will buy a separate processor when separate processors catch up with current technology for high resolution music. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunprairie Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 I think you are right. I was offered a McIntosh 207 at a very good price. I think that with this, I can always upgrade processors down the road. I'm getting closer to making that decision all the time. Would it be a thought to look at some more reasonable used 2 channel amps, Class A, and try to find a couple to run the front and another to run surrounds later? Or I could run the surrounds with the Denon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Be advised that big pure class A amps run very hot. The heat is wasted energy. Unless you are going to run multiple 20 amp circuits, class A SS makes little sense to me. You may also throw your back out trying to move the big boys. Smaller Class A amps might be a better choice for a number of reasons. Stereo amps have their own power supply and do not have 5 or 7 channels crammed into one box. Better channel separation is likely. I use a 2 channel amp for my main that has more power than the 5 channel amp for the other channels. It is quieter and has better dynamics. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunprairie Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Any suggestions on 2 channel amps? Class A was probably a poor choice of vocabulary. Just don't exactly know what to look for in a quality amplifier as far as specs and sound. Maybe a listing from some forum members would help. I saw a new Monster Cable 3250 on ebay; would that be a good choice? I just need to find something that basically is going to give a nice sound on my heritage line up. I'm not sure what that is, but i really don't want the maintenence of tubes, but would like the sound, or as closely as I can get in SS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 ---------------- On 1/18/2005 1:48:28 PM sunprairie wrote: Ok, here goes; I'm running a Denon 4802 Receiver and a Klipsh heritage 5.1. (LaScalas, Chorus II's, Quartets, RC-7) I like the processor, but have an itch to go Mcintosh. ---------------- I am running a B&K Reference 200.7 amp using a Denon 3802 reciever as the pre/pro. With the RF-7s that I am using, I cannot be happier. The B&K amp delivers a very clean, smooth, detailed, and dynamic sound to my speakers. Now, granted, if I could do it again, I would not mind using a seperate 2-channel amp for the front mains (and I may still in the future, if I have any extra money to get something like a B&K Ref 200.2). That is a very good way to go about that - start out with a good 2-channel amp to drive your mains and still use your Denon 4802 amps to drive the rears. Eventually add a 5-channel amp to drive the rears (if you want to go 7.1). B&K is certainly another brand of amplifier to look into (and probably cheaper than the Mac gear). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I used my Parasound with a Denon 3802/03/05 and it was a big improvement.The b&k are nice amps w/smoother sound,you would notice much more difference in pre/pros than amps,imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkot Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 check my profile i use bridgeable amps that i found on ebay/pawn shop/ garage sales ect. start with one 2 channel, find an other one that matches and bridge them. for me this went on for a couple of years (6?) but i now have a big enough pile of amps that i will never need to upgrade anything other than the pre/pro and the projector the projector is an other thing that people forget when it comes to seperates. (you have the screen and projector) buy a good screen and then its cheaper to upgrade that projector than it is to upgrade the 60" hi-def rear projection tv!! jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 ---------------- On 1/18/2005 3:44:43 PM MrMcGoo wrote: Stereo amps have their own power supply and do not have 5 or 7 channels crammed into one box. Better channel separation is likely. Bill ---------------- I have to point out, although I've said it many times before... Sherbourn 5 and 7 channel amplifiers use individual transformers for each channel, and each "channel" (or amp) is magnetically isolated in a "module" (as they refer to them) within the box. There is literally no crosstalk between channels. The only thing they share in the 7/2100 is the dual power cords (since 20 amps will not be sufficient to power this beasty under maximum load) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunprairie Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Good information everyone. I just can't understand why it's necessary to go to one of these new high $$ multi amps when good used older 2 channels can be bought on ebay, pawn shop, garge sale, etc..My McIntosh dealer is of course telling me that the new MC 207 is fabulous;haven't heard it yet. I'm rethinking the whole deal. More to spend on speakers. I only have 2 LaScalas and would like to at least have one more for a center channel. Thanks--keep the recommedations coming on amps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 ---------------- On 1/18/2005 3:55:24 PM sunprairie wrote: Any suggestions on 2 channel amps? Class A was probably a poor choice of vocabulary. Just don't exactly know what to look for in a quality amplifier as far as specs and sound. Maybe a listing from some forum members would help. I saw a new Monster Cable 3250 on ebay; would that be a good choice? I just need to find something that basically is going to give a nice sound on my heritage line up. I'm not sure what that is, but i really don't want the maintenence of tubes, but would like the sound, or as closely as I can get in SS. ---------------- i have never heard anything good about those monster amps other than they were designed br richard marsh, but i think that he is a sell out (personally) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
customsteve01 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 when using a 2 channel amp for the fronts and a seperat 5 channel one for your center and surounds, is it ok to use a more powerful amp up front than what you use on the other. In other words would it be ok to run a 300x2 for the front so you will have more power when listening to two channel, and using a 200x5 on the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 ---------------- On 1/18/2005 7:35:06 PM Gramas701 wrote: i have never heard anything good about those monster amps other than they were designed br richard marsh, but i think that he is a sell out (personally) ---------------- I've heard some positive responses from at least one forum member about these amps, but right now you have your conscience to deal with if you buy anything Monster. Of course, that never stopped anyone (except me) from shopping at Wal-Mart or buying Behringer "professional" gear, but.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 ---------------- On 1/18/2005 8:10:18 PM customsteve01 wrote: when using a 2 channel amp for the fronts and a seperat 5 channel one for your center and surounds, is it ok to use a more powerful amp up front than what you use on the other. In other words would it be ok to run a 300x2 for the front so you will have more power when listening to two channel, and using a 200x5 on the rest. ---------------- I wholeheartedly disagree. Even under ideal conditions (7 matched speakers all the way 'round) using a higher powered amp for the front pair will force you to jack up the volume on the rest of the speakers (at the preamp stage) to keep up with them. This, in turn, creates unnecessary distortion, and distortion on Klipsch speakers comes shining through just like the music and movies we so love... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunprairie Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Sounds like the simplest way to resolve the whole issue is to go for the McIntosh MC-207 and maybe upgrade the processor someday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 ---------------- On 1/18/2005 9:43:08 PM sunprairie wrote: Sounds like the simplest way to resolve the whole issue is to go for the McIntosh MC-207 and maybe upgrade the processor someday. ---------------- Probably. You're a Mac fan, they make good gear, go for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOOTERDOG Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I also run a seperate amp for my la scala's, an onkyo m504. Before I got into DD and DTS I ran all seperate components. When I bought my denon 3801 I kept the onkyo just to run the la scala's. the denon handles the center and surrounds but cannot hold a candle to the shear dynamics and power the onkyo provides. I've had the onkyo for about 11 years now and it sounds just as sweet today as it did 10 years ago ( 1st year was the breakin). scooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunprairie Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 I've run accross some 504's and thought about them, but had no experience with them. May have to keep my eyes open. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The use of different power amps does not ipso facto lead to problems with channel levels. If both amps provide 29 decibels of gain, they will run in perfect parallel. The more powerful amp merely has more headroom. My sound meter says it works as well in fact as the math works on paper. I calibrate at 75 db. When I run the system up to 85 db, the channels are still in balance. When one amp has 32 db of gain and the other has 28 db of gain, then you have a big problem. You can only balance the system for one level. The idea of having a separate power transformer for each channel has a drawback IMO. Most designers use one or two big transformers. I am a fan of the two big transformers. There is more headroom available when only a few channels are playing and you have a big transformer. You are not limited to the smaller power transformers output. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 ---------------- On 1/19/2005 1:44:19 AM MrMcGoo wrote: The idea of having a separate power transformer for each channel has a drawback IMO. Most designers use one or two big transformers. I am a fan of the two big transformers. There is more headroom available when only a few channels are playing and you have a big transformer. You are not limited to the smaller power transformers output. Bill ---------------- One of these days, you and I will actually agree on something. When that happens, I'll likely die of a heart attack. Meanwhile... Sorry, but no one has implemented a system where fewer transformers was a good thing. No one! This is why we're all so careful to check for "all channels driven" when we look at multi-channel amps. Now you stated earlier in this thread that you favored two-channel amps because there was channel isolation and power supplies removed from the rest of the channels. Now you turn around and say you think one big transformer is better than several small ones. What's the deal, man? Are you arguing with me just to argue, or do you have an actual position on this issue? The two guys who run Sherbourn used to work for Macintosh. One of them was the CEO. I'd be willing to suggest that they know at least a little bit about peak power and how it relates to the power transformer, and how that would affect the sound quality of the amp's final output. Meanwhile, please, come up with another, unrelated argument to throw at me because I disputed your initial claim... 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.