ottscay Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Ok, I am seriously looking at upgrading to an RF-7 system in the next week or two. I want to get seperate amps to drive the RF-7 mains. I've read some really good things about Flying Mole's monoblocks with Klipsch. I also know that B&K amps go well with Klipsch. I can't afford a new B&K stereo amp (or two monoblocks), but ebay regularly has used ones like the B&K Reference 200.2 220 Watt Stereo Amp for around a grand (which is pretty much my limit for the amps right now). What do you guys think? Should I get new Flying Moles, or used B&K gear? Or is there something else I should be considering. Thanks for your opinions! Scott PS, 70/30 music/HT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 I can tell you that the B&K will drive the RF-7s with ease. The minimum impedance of the RF-7s is a challenge for most amps. I have no opinion about your other choice. Look for the amp's ability to double from 8 to 4 ohms. The B&K comes close. The better amps can drive 2 ohm loads and will have specs for that load. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 ---------------- On 4/30/2005 10:20:26 PM ottscay wrote: Ok, I am seriously looking at upgrading to an RF-7 system in the next week or two. I want to get seperate amps to drive the RF-7 mains. I've read some really good things about Flying Mole's monoblocks with Klipsch. I also know that B&K amps go well with Klipsch. I can't afford a new B&K stereo amp (or two monoblocks), but ebay regularly has used ones like the B&K Reference 200.2 220 Watt Stereo Amp for around a grand (which is pretty much my limit for the amps right now). What do you guys think? Should I get new Flying Moles, or used B&K gear? Or is there something else I should be considering. Thanks for your opinions! Scott PS, 70/30 music/HT. ---------------- since you are considering the digital flying mole amps, i would like to suggest a better digital choice with more power and more detail.... here is an excerpt of a review of the flying moles "However, compared to essentially every amp I've heard (including the very fine but much more expensive Bel Canto digital amps), the DAD-M100pro HTs display a lessening of high-frequency vitality and especially the air around performers that we audiophiles crave. Cymbals and brass are missing some of their steely sheen when reproduced over the DAD-M100pro HT amps, and while this helps bad recordings sound listenable, it also causes really good recordings to lose some of their distinctiveness." http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/flyingmole_dadm100proht_amps.htm a better choice in my opinion and in my experience is the carver professional ZR1000 digital amplifier.... about $825 brand new online... these amps have referred to as the "poor man's bel canto" 225 watts per channel @ 8 ohms and 300 watts per channel @ 4 ohms..... my ZR1000 does a fantastic job of powering my KLF-30's (same efficiency as your RF-7's).... i had it in my system since october of 2003 and i not heard a better sound on my speakers even though i have tried many different amps in my system the ZR amps are fan cooled, but after talking directly with carver pro tech support, i disconnected the fan and the amp never gets hot.... it runs very cool - even at extended loud volumes http://www.carverpro.com/zramps.html edit: there is a ZR1000 on audiogon right now for $600.... almost tempted myself for my rear channels.... http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1118384308 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted May 1, 2005 Author Share Posted May 1, 2005 Thank you Russ! I'm pretty impressed with the links you provided on the Carver Pro. Of course, I already knew B&K amps were good (but thank you, Bill), but they are also expensive. I didn't realize how affordable the ZR1000 is. Even new it's pretty darned reasonable. I assume that the horns on your heritage are similar enough to the RF-7 to know that there won't be any harshness in the highend? Thanks again, I'm getting excited! Scott P.S. I'm waiting on a few non-audio related auctions, and maybe graduation gifts, to finish saving the money I'll need to upgrade my system, so it will be a week or so before I can pull the trigger. So definitely grab that excellent Audiogon deal for yourself if you want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 i picked up a used nakamichi pa-5 STASIS amp on audiogon for under $400.. this amp is based on an old threshold amp originally designed by nelson pass.. its 100wpc pure class A, and it sounds absolutely FANTASTIC with my cornwalls... alot of people here will tell you that threshold/nakamichi stasis amps are an unbelieveable match for horns. of course these are only stereo amps, so you would need more than one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted May 1, 2005 Author Share Posted May 1, 2005 Hey thanks, I'll look into those. Actually, I really only need stereo amps for now. My Arcam AVR-300 is no slouch for driving music. I just know (thanks to many posts by Bill, etc) that the rf-7s are beasts for recievers to drive due to their low impedence dips, so I want to drive them with sepearate amps and use my reciever as a pre/pro for the mains. Eventually I'd like to get seperate amps for the whole system, but I'm running a 7.1 system for home theater, and I think I'll be all upgraded out (read: broke) after the new speakers and the initial stereo amp. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted May 1, 2005 Author Share Posted May 1, 2005 Hey, Russ, if you are still checking this thread, would there be an appreciable advantage of going with the ZR1600 over the ZR1000? I assume the only difference between them is the power rating, and since the RF-7s are high-efficiency, I would just be spending extra money for little gain with the ZR1600...right? I will learn all of this, I will! Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 ---------------- On 5/1/2005 12:39:10 PM ottscay wrote: Hey, Russ, if you are still checking this thread, would there be an appreciable advantage of going with the ZR1600 over the ZR1000? I assume the only difference between them is the power rating, and since the RF-7s are high-efficiency, I would just be spending extra money for little gain with the ZR1600...right? I will learn all of this, I will! Scott ---------------- scott, i agree that for use with klipsch speakers, there is not a whole lot of advantage in going with the ZR1600 over the ZR1000... additionally - the KLF-30 is the direct ancestor of the RF-7... similar specs - just a three way design compared to a two way design with the RF-7 good luck in your amp search! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Russ, Ever thought about grabbing the second 1000 and having 700x2 or am I just insane. I am personally considering the one on Agon for my Dean G modded RF7s'. Do you think it would sound much different than my 325x2 Anthem Statement P2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 ---------------- On 5/1/2005 6:24:12 PM Buck wrote: Russ, Ever thought about grabbing the second 1000 and having 700x2 or am I just insane. I am personally considering the one on Agon for my Dean G modded RF7s'. Do you think it would sound much different than my 325x2 Anthem Statement P2. ---------------- never thought about needing more power than my 225 watts per side.... the only time i reached the max output on my ZR1000 was on the cannon shots on the telarc 1812 SACD..(running my KLF-30's set to large) i am planning to get another ZR1000 for my surrounds....... i have never heard the anthem amp you mention so i cannot comment on that particular comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Russ, How would you describe the sound of the carver. I have heard it has tube like characteristics but the info/reviews out on these amps seem to be hard to find. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 ---------------- On 5/1/2005 6:45:57 PM Buck wrote: Russ, How would you describe the sound of the carver. I have heard it has tube like characteristics but the info/reviews out on these amps seem to be hard to find. Jeff ---------------- very smooth sound...esp in the upper registers... i've used other solid state amps with my KLF-30's... and there was always a hard edge in the upper registers.... that hard edge is not there with the carver ZR1000... very smooth...yet i get a ton of power and bass control with this amp and alot more detail in the highs than i have ever heard with a tube amp... on my speakers or any other speakers... as for reviews.... here is a thread from audio circle on the ZR1600..... http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?t=5201 "The ZR 1600's sound is easily characterized and stayed essentially the same in two systems and on four different speakers: clean, clear, explosive, forward, dynamic, lean and tight. There is no "liquidity" to the sound and anyone who hears anything reminiscent of tubes from the Carver should do a direct comparison. The presentation can be very exciting. Compared to the Ampzilla there was considerably less front-to-back and side-to-side depth from the soundstage. The first octave output was considerably stronger from Ampzilla, whose smooth quality was almost a polar opposite from the brash Carver. There is little to no warmth from the Carver and I undamped my speakers (RM 40 and RM 2) to compensate, redamping when I switched back to Ampzilla. Who wants the ZR1600? IMHO people with warm-sounding cone dynamic speakers with softdomes. The unit tightens up underdamped bass and really projects into the room. Owners of metal-dome systems might find the Carver's aggressiveness detrimental, and planar owners might go either way. I liked the sound I got in my room from virtually all program material, and I used a lot of it over 3 days to make my evaluation. With all the good I must report some bad. The ZR1600 has a flaw which you may or may not be able to live with: upper trebles (10kHz and up) are gritty and somewhat artificial. High percussion shows this clearly, but surprisingly violin and piano (Lara St John/Sarasate) was fine, not edgy or irritating. The grit was more evident once I started listening for it, having been alerted by the sandpaper maracas of the "West Side Story" original cast album (cut 7, "America"). I would dearly love to install RCA's and short out the no-name 12 cent electrolytic input coupling caps. Modders, man your irons! The unit responded so well to the removal of adapters and level controls that I will do no more listening until Wayne Wanaanen can send me a 1.5m pair of his splended Bybee interconnects with RCA's on the preamp side and 1/4" phone plugs on the other. I could easily understand the rock and jazz listener preferring the ZR1600 on many speakers. However, I found my much more expensive Ampzilla monoblocks outpointing the stock ZR 1600 (did I mention those mods I recommend?) in naturalness, soundstage, lowbass, and upper treble. The Ampzilla had resolution equal to the ZR1600 with considerably more warmth and a pleasant, engaging listening quality. The Carver, on the other hand, engages you by the throat! The full sonic potential of the ZR 1600 remains to be explored. I would also like to see some of the technical issues address (see posts on bench tests performed by me and John Curl). It will be interesting to hear from VMPS/ZR1600 owners as to the listenability and long term fatigue, if any, from their particular combo of amp and speaker. I will report further once my 1/4" phone plug terminated IC's come in." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted May 1, 2005 Author Share Posted May 1, 2005 Russ, my reciever pre-outs are RCA, and it appears that the Carver Pro uses XLR inputs. I see that some of the user comments warn against using converters with th XR1000...so what kind of cabling would you recommend? Thanks again! Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Russ, Interesting how one review differs from another. The way Brian describes the Carvers, Klipsch would be the last speaker you would want to mate the ZRs' with. Have you done any mods and do cables make that much of a difference? His review now has me thinking twice about purchasing one. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 ---------------- On 5/1/2005 8:05:02 PM Buck wrote: Russ, Interesting how one review differs from another. The way Brian describes the Carvers, Klipsch would be the last speaker you would want to mate the ZRs' with. Have you done any mods and do cables make that much of a difference? His review now has me thinking twice about purchasing one. Jeff ---------------- i guess it comes down to the sound that you want to hear coming out of your speakers.... personally, i love the extreme detail i hear from my KLF-30's...every nuance...every breath.... every valve noise (on brass instruments).... every string scrape.... all of the above i get with my carver ZR amp if the amp is "warm".... it covers up the fine details and makes the bad recordings sound better.... i prefer to make the good recordings sound even better and not to listen to bad recordings i do not believe in using cables to affect the sound.... if they affect the sound (IMHO) - it could only be to degrade the sound and that is something that i don't want to do.... read the entire thread on audio circle... it's a good read "Russ, my reciever pre-outs are RCA, and it appears that the Carver Pro uses XLR inputs. I see that some of the user comments warn against using converters with th XR1000...so what kind of cabling would you recommend? Thanks again! Scott" cables to go as well as other sources have premade RCA to XLR cables if you don't feel up to making your own cables.... (i made my own cables using belden RG-59 and neutrik connectors) http://www.cablestogo.com/product.asp?cat%5Fid=2029&sku=40046 here is a 3 foot cable for $10.99.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted May 1, 2005 Author Share Posted May 1, 2005 Cool. I'm going to be too lazy (or, more acurately, to busy) to roll my own this time around. I trust your audio judgement, and I too like lke to hear lots of detail in my music (not to mention HT). You don't suffer any listening fatigue at all? That's all the "smoothness" I really want. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 ---------------- On 5/1/2005 9:16:12 PM ottscay wrote: Cool. I'm going to be too lazy (or, more acurately, to busy) to roll my own this time around. I trust your audio judgement, and I too like lke to hear lots of detail in my music (not to mention HT). You don't suffer any listening fatigue at all? That's all the "smoothness" I really want. Scott ---------------- since i am divorced and only see my two daughters one night a week and every other weekend - i have my system on almost constantly when i am home..... at least 6 hours almost every night of music and/or movies..... at very realistic (loud) volumes.... no fatigue at all and i am a former music educator (16 years as a band director).... i KNOW what live music should sound like..... if the recordings of Maynard Ferguson don't induce any listener fatigue - then it must be a good amp..... (Maynard is a screaming trumpet player with over 40 recordings released over the past 50 years) http://www.gr8music.com/Ferguson,_Maynard/mf-bio.html btw - one of the favorite things that my daughters like to do at daddy's house is watch movies!!!..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v3spitfire Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Russ is right. Bright is not a negative term. To one person, an amp characterized as bright by others sounds perfect. That same person may veiw a warm amp as too laid back or dark. I think a lot of it may depend on what type of sound you grew up on. I'm in the brighter camp and reading this review lends me to believe the carver amp would sound great to my ears, but I'm not in the market for an amp right now. In my auditions, I thought the B&Ks were to warm. I do agree they are excellent amps, but too warm for my taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 look at this way... you can always add room treatments to "deaden" or "darken" the sound..... but you cannot change ANYTHING in your room if your amplifier is "warming" the sound and removing the details in the higher frequencies... btw - i don't use my tone controls at all..... but i did run the MCACC on my pioneer elite 55txi.... it has a 5 band digital equalizer on all five channels to eq your speakers to the room you are in.... it does slightly "turn down" the eq of my KLF-30's at 11 khz compared to the "direct" setting... 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.