Worth it to go seperates? If so, recommendations?

[CECAA850]

The XLS series is also annoying because they pop when being turned on/off unless you have the volume controls low. They also lack a lot of important power filtering and safety features to keep your speakers from blowing up. Nasties on the power grid quickly get translated to the speakers.

The early XLS amps that popped (B series I believe) should be returned for repair. The D series do not pop. As far as power filtering goes, I was not aware that they were lacking. I was planning on running a power conditioner (to be determined), so hopefully that won't be an issue.

[plissken99]

Ok, hopefully someone will say how seperates enhance the sound. Meanwhile, as a baseline, looking at Crown amps, something like this is what I'm going for. http://www.djdeals.com/crownXLS402D.htm, thats 300w per channel.

$300 per 2 channels doesn't seem all that outrageous. Is there anything in that range better than the above?

Also, should I get an amp for the rear speakers in a 7.1 set up, or just let the reciever drive those?

First, don't go with the Crown XLS series. They are decent amps, but not the most refined and the fans are extremely loud. I would power my mains with the 3806 before the 402. Heck, I own a 402 that I use for subwoofer duty and prefer the sound of my Denon AVR 3300...

Going seperates is definitely a good approach though. You're going to notice most of the difference in the low level detail. The biggest improvement will be from more defined transients and a lower noise floor. Or we could get into a few more of the technical terms if you're intereseted...

As far as suggestions, going with pro amps is certainly a good approach. The Crown D, K, Studio Reference, and XTi series seem to be popular for home use. There's also the QSC PLX (?) that everyone is raving about too. The biggest issue with the RF-7 is the very low impedance dip towards the bottom of its response. What you're looking for are amps with a high damping factor, which will keep the low impedance dip of the RF-7's from affecting the frequency response.

Outlaw audio has gotten a lot of good reviews on the forum and elsewhere on the internet. Their 7705 amp might be right up your ally:

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/7075.html

Or you might consider a pair of their monoblocks:

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/2200.html

A big step up would be the Sunfire TGA amplifiers, which mate very well with Klipsch:

http://www.sunfire.com/amp.htm

I hope this helps.

I like the idea of Sunfire amps. When I was searching for a new reciever(when I bought the 3805), the Sunfire recievers sounded oh so nice, but at a 5k price tag.The TGA-7400 would be nice but the price is a bit hefty at $4500. The 7200 is more reasonable at half the price, and watts, even the 5200 if I didn't care about powering the back 2 channels. Would I hear any difference powering those? So little sound comes from them anyway.

Also, why would the 3806 not be as good a pro-amp? Has all the features I want, and I already have one lol.

[DrWho]

I think you mean pre-amp? In which case, the Denon 3806 is more than good enough to realize the benefits of outboard amplification.

Going with the 5200 would be more than enough power and you probably won't notice a difference in the surround channels. It might even be a stronger move for you since you could always upgrade to a really really nice 2-channel amplifier for your LR mains in the future when funds are available again. And by that time, the new Hi-Def video formats should have stabilized a bit and then it would make sense to upgrade your pre/pro. Sticking with sunfire all the way through should yield you some awesome sounds.

[plissken99]

Would it sound off if the mians were driven by a completly different 2 channel amp than the rest of them?

[plissken99]

Actually, looking at the prices, the 5200 new is $2200, and the 7200 is $2500. Depends what deals are around when I have the funds, whichever is on Audiogon for a good price.

[DrWho]

If the amp is very different, then it's possible that you'll notice a difference. But having different speakers in different locations in the room is going to make a bigger difference than any two amps (unless you try mixing tubes and SS together...)

[wheelman]

Separates are worth it but don't skimp on quality. Not all amps are created equal. My newest amp was build in 1978. I would put it up against any "modern" amp.

Here is my HT rack. http://forums.klipsch.com/photos/the_klipsch_gallery/picture731580.aspx

The reason seprates work better is you get better separation. Since there are no shared components, power supplies, grounds, etc, there will be less channel bleed. This will create a more open better imaging sound quality.

You have to watch out when you get too solid state power hungry. I am not a RF guy, but with Heritage, I would not go over 100 watts per channel with Heritage. With my heritage, I probably use 1 to 5 watts normally, and never go over 20 WPC so 100 is more than enough headroom. Paul once wrote that a dampening factor of 20 was about perfect. In modern high power amps, they are required to create such a high dampening factor to control the speaker. If you have a 300 watt amp and are only using 5-10 watts, it will not sound open, you need to push the amp to get it to perform.

JM

This is excellent advice I had a Rotel amp hooked up to my Heresy II's and they would almost tear your head off before the amp opened up. Now that same amp hooked up to Synergys, or References would of been probally outstanding. My Nak av receiver is warmer and more open sounding ( not as clean I will note) at moderate volumes. I want to go seperates down the road. I've had them on an off through out the years. Never owned a good pre though, and that is crucial i'm betting after not being impressed with some so called descent amplifiers through many different brand av receivers.

By the way JM nice rack I just took a peek. Cool, 20 watts A? I will have to consider that.

[UFObuster]

I have RF-7 mains, RS-7 surrounds and the RC-7 center(SVS PB-2 sub), all are driven currently by the Denon 3806, which has 7.1 pre outs. I've heard seperate amps are the way to go. Basically, what kind of improvement would good seperates bring to the table? Right now my system already sounds amazing, so it's hard to imagine it sounding any better(but thats what I've said before a few audio upgrades).

Yes, go separates. Specifically, the RF-7 needs high-current, quality amp. I just finished going down this road. Was using a Yamaha RX-V2600 with RF-7, etc. When I added 200wpc to them, it was like getting new speakers. It's a must. With some advice on these threads, I then added a 5-channel amp to complete HT too. Now, it's dedicated two channel first, with 2+5 = 7 channel HT capability. I ended up canning the Yammi and using the Rotel rsp-1068 with 2 channel analog bypass and good 7 channel processing for HT. A "hybrid" system. My amps happen to be Rotel but I would shop for any good quality with high current to satisfy the RF-7 requirement. My subjective opinion only is that I suspect using a large 7 channel ht amp may not give as good 2 channel reproduction as a dedicated 2 channel amp....forum, correct me if I'm wrong on this....so I like the set up with 2 amps and it didn't really cost a lot more.

(btw: my multi-channel is used mostly for DD and DTS music and concert DVD...classical and pop. If I was just doing movies I don't think a would spend too much on upgrades for this)

Roger

[Arky]

UFO, right on. I'm set up similar with 2 channel QSC & 5 channel Outlaw.

[Zen Traveler]

I have RF-7 mains, RS-7 surrounds and the RC-7 center(SVS PB-2 sub), all are driven currently by the Denon 3806, which has 7.1 pre outs. I've heard seperate amps are the way to go. Basically, what kind of improvement would good seperates bring to the table? Right now my system already sounds amazing, so it's hard to imagine it sounding any better(but thats what I've said before a few audio upgrades). Even going from the 3805 to the 3806, the improved room eq calibration was mind blowing.

Hi plissken99. I cut and pasted this from another thread which may be uselful info:

I have had my Klipsch RF-7 based HT for over 4 years and I have been happy with it. Unfortunately lightening struck close to my house and my Denon AVR 4802R was damaged beyond repair. For the last 4 months I had to drive my HT with a Denon AVR 3805 which I use to drive a smaller system in the Bedroom.

Normally I run towers as side surrounds and sometimes played both A & B surrounds simultaneously on action movies. With the AVR 3805 I had to replace my side surrounds with Bookshelf speakers and I could only run a 7.1 systems to satisfaction (with the ".1" going into 2 subs).

Last week I received my replacement Denon AVR 4806 THX ultra II AVR and I am extremely pleased with my "9.2" system with towers as my side surrounds, again. That being said I have mused in several threads about using my AVR as a preamp and at least getting something like a QSC PLX 1802 to drive my RF-7's. It is still something I am considering but don't necessarily feel the need to upgrade.

[jheis]

When I first dipped my toe into HT waters, I got talked into a Denon AVR-1804.

My two channel set up at the time was a Carver CT-17 pre-amp and a Carver TFM-45 amp driving a pair of Cornwalls.

When I got the Denon home I hooked it up to the Cornwalls with a Niles switcher so that I could switch back and forth between the Denon receiver and the Carver separates and compare the sound.

This may not have been a fair test because the Denon wasn't exactly a top of the line model, but here was no comparison. The Denon receiver finished a very distant second. I don't really know how to describe it, but the Denon just sounded thin & lifeless -- no body. On top of that, the Denon's tuner was crap. It couldn't even pull in stations that the 14 year old Carver handled with ease. So, the Denon went back and was replaced by a B&K Ref 50 pre/pro and a pair of B&K ST-125.2 amps. And so I started my journey down the slippery upgrade slope....

James

[Zen Traveler]

When I first dipped my toe into HT waters, I got talked into a Denon AVR-1804.

....This may not have been a fair test because the Denon wasn't exactly a top of the line model, but here was no comparison. The Denon receiver finished a very distant second. I don't really know how to describe it, but the Denon just sounded thin & lifeless -- no body.

Ummm. [^o)] The Denon AVR 1804 was their bottom of the line, entry level AVR. {edit: I just googled the Carver TFM-45 and it appears to be 375 watts per channel! []}

[DrWho]

James, what speakers were you running when doing the comparison?

[jheis]

The Denon receiver and the Carver separates were connected to the same pair of Cornwalls.

As I recall, the Denon AVR 1804 was rated at something like 90 watts per channel (and I was only using two channels). I set the spl levels the same so I wasn't just hearing differences in volume. At the levels I was listening to, I probably wasn't using more than 2 watts from either the Denon receiver, or the Carver amp. It was the difference in the quality of the sound that struck me.

As I said, it may not have been a fair comparison, after all, the Carver stuff was nearly 15 years old and the Denon was brand new. But there really was no comparison, the sound quality of the Denon was so lousy I couldn't stand having it in my house.

By the way, just as the Denon receiver didn't fair very well against the Carver separates, the Carver separates didn't fair very well in comparison to the new B&K stuff. The Carver TFM-45 amp has since been sold and the CT-17 pre-amp has been relegated to my garage system.

I know lots of folks are very happy with the higher end (38xx) Denon models and these models have a very good reputation. My recommendation, however, is to avoid the lower end (made in China) Denon receivers if you can afford it -- and, separates do make a BIG difference. As always, YMMV.

James