[johndsmistress]

I have a Yamaha 5.1 receiver and want to switch to separate componets. Probably a 3 channel amp for up front and 2 channel amp for surrounds; I already have a sub amp rack mounted. I'm hundreds of miles from a decent city and need to buy thru the internet. Anyone have opinions on the Outlaw 970 or 990 preamps? How about their 200w monoblock, the 2200? 3 of those would replace the 3 channel amp I've yet to buy; 5 and I could put the old stereo amp back in the closet. I'm looking for performance on a budget, suggestions are welcome.

[slbenz]

I can only speak about my experiences with the Outlaw Audio Model 990.  I've had mine a couple of months and really like it's performance.  Whether in 2 or 5.1 channel mode, this preamp presents a deeper and wider soundstage than my previous HT preamp, a Parasound AVC-1800.  The Outlaw doesn't have the two problems I always encountered with my Parasound, a slow signal lock and lack of DTS bass compensation.  The Outlaw does great in both regards and having 24 bit/192kHz DACs on all channels, I can now fully realize the sound potential of my SACDs and DVD-As.  If you are into vinyl, the Outlaw is probably one of the few processors out there with a phono stage.  Though the phono stage is good, I use a separate Jolida JD-9 which sounds better to me.  I don't think you can go wrong with the Outlaw 990.  Order one and try it for the 30 day trial period, if you don't like it, you can always return it.  That's how I first thought about purchasing the 990 but couldn't give it up after the 30 day trial, it sounded that good!   

[stearnsn]

I know you want separates but I would suggest a Cambridge Audio Azur 540R Version 2 ($700).  It is a killer receiver with some of the best DPLII circuitry anywhere nears its price, a big step up from V1.  If you want a pre/pro look at a used Meridian 568, it will blow an outlaw away.  With processors the software is as important or more important than the hardware and Meridian does it best IMHO.

[stearnsn]

For amps take a look EVS amps from Rick Schultz, they sound great, are easy on the electric bill and Rick will make you a deal on multiples.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=30222.0

[fmw]

I recently went the other way.  I replaced 200 lbs. worth of power amps and a preamp with a 35lb. receiver.  My goal was to get more automation and ease of use.  To my surprise I lost nothing at all in terms of sound quality or movie watching experience and I did gain the ease of use I was after.

Be sure you understand what you want and why you want it before you spend money.  It's fine to get other people's preferences on an internet forum but it is your preferences that matter, not someone else's.  Good luck in the quest.

[ajzepp]

I recently went the other way.  I replaced 200 lbs. worth of power amps and a preamp with a 35lb. receiver.  My goal was to get more automation and ease of use.  To my surprise I lost nothing at all in terms of sound quality or movie watching experience and I did gain the ease of use I was after.

Wow, I'd really like to know more about what gear/speakers you have...I'm a fan of simplicity too, but not if it means sacrificing sound quality. I'm wondering if maybe your speakers aren't all that revealing? Can you talk more about your equipment and what receiver you went with?

As for the Outlaw gear, I recommend it for HT, but not for music (assuming one cares about music). I used to own a handful of M200 monoblocks and they did a great job with HT. I've owned a 950 pre/pro for the past four years, and it's become the weak link in my system. If your focus is more on HT and/or features than overall sound quality, then the Outlaw is probably a great choice. If sound quality is paramount, though, then there are probably better options (e.g. Nuforce AVP-16/17; Audio Refinement SP-2).

[tvyankee]

hey

i would take a look at these guy's

http://www.emotiva.com/

i have heard there stuff and it is really very good and the price is right.

good luck.

also another way to do it is take something like a very good av receiver with room acoustics's software and use the pre outs on it and hook it up to a real good multi ch amp.


this way you are getting all the newest decoding software out there.   get something like a PIONEER ELITE or  ONKYO or DENON.


hope this helps

[JoshK]

I think Dave's suggestion is what I'd do, but I might even use the receiver's amp on the rears and just use external for the front three. 

[fmw]

Wow, I'd really like to know more about what gear/speakers you have...I'm a fan of simplicity too, but not if it means sacrificing sound quality. I'm wondering if maybe your speakers aren't all that revealing? Can you talk more about your equipment and what receiver you went with?

As long as the amplifiers aren't clipping, they will amplify what is there without distortion regardless of how they weigh or how much they cost.  Since my home theater is not large (20X22 feet) the hundred watts per channel of the receiver perform just fine.

I don't mind telling you what speakers I have.  They are perfectly competent at reproducing home theater sonics.  The mains are Epos M15, the center channel is an older VMPS (I don't know the model number) that fires in both directions and the sub is a B&W with a 12" woofer.  Surrounds are Tannoy recording monitors.  Nothing fancy.  Nothing incompetent.

[ajzepp]

Wow, I'd really like to know more about what gear/speakers you have...I'm a fan of simplicity too, but not if it means sacrificing sound quality. I'm wondering if maybe your speakers aren't all that revealing? Can you talk more about your equipment and what receiver you went with?

As long as the amplifiers aren't clipping, they will amplify what is there without distortion regardless of how they weigh or how much they cost.  Since my home theater is not large (20X22 feet) the hundred watts per channel of the receiver perform just fine.

I don't mind telling you what speakers I have.  They are perfectly competent at reproducing home theater sonics.  The mains are Epos M15, the center channel is an older VMPS (I don't know the model number) that fires in both directions and the sub is a B&W with a 12" woofer.  Surrounds are Tannoy recording monitors.  Nothing fancy.  Nothing incompetent.

What about the "200lbs" of amps/preamp that you got rid of? What were those?

[fmw]

Those were Crown pro audio amps - 3 stereo models.

[ajzepp]

Those were Crown pro audio amps - 3 stereo models.

Okay, that's probably the main issue then. At least to my ears, those amps are very unrefined, and I have no doubt that a decent receiver would sound as good or better.

I'm glad you were able to find a solution that worked for you....that's what this hobby is all about, man! 

[fmw]

Unrefined in what way?  The Crown amps produce inaudible distortion, frequency response curves that are ruler flat within the audible frequency spectrum and can drive 2 ohm loads at full power.  In other words, they amplify the source material to a level necessary to drive speakers with no audible change in the signal at all except for gain.  How is that "unrefined?"

[ajzepp]

Unrefined in what way?  The Crown amps produce inaudible distortion, frequency response curves that are ruler flat within the audible frequency spectrum and can drive 2 ohm loads at full power.  In other words, they amplify the source material to a level necessary to drive speakers with no audible change in the signal at all except for gain.  How is that "unrefined?"

Well, I can only tell you what I've heard with my own ears. If I could have had the same audio quality from my Outlaw Audio 200w monoblock amps that I get from my Butler 5150, I would have saved myself a fair bit of money! But the difference was quite stark, to say the least. I think when you have a very resolving pair of speakers (and this is not necessarily related to their price tag), differences in gear become more apparent. Taking the room acoustics out of the equation to the greatest extent possible/feasible allows for even greater discernment. It's been a while since I've heard a Crown amp, but I guarantee you if you could come over for an A/B comparison it would be pretty eye-opening.

It just surprises me sometimes when someone says they don't really notice much difference among varying levels of gear quality, so I was curious what you were comparing. It wasn't meant to be a criticism at all, bro...I was just curious.

[fmw]

Actually, what would be eye opening would be for you to get involved in a properly conducted blind listening test.   I was a high end audiophile for longer than you have been.  That's a guess. I've been invoved in high end audio for about 50 years so I'm assuming it has been longer than you.  I was cured of it with blind testing.  It will open your eyes like you can't imagine but it will destroy many of your beliefs and notions. 

I don't know a Butler from an Outlaw and don't care but I know - KNOW - that competently designed amplifiers operated within their designed operating parameters have no sound.  Their purpose is to amplify a signal without adding colorations such as distortion or frequency response anomalies.  If they don't, then either they are incompetently designed or the listener hasn't brought the biases of placebo effect under control.

Unrefined?  Sorry, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The ears are connected to the brain and the brain is a very complex filter indeed.  Try getting past your biases and beliefs.  It isn't hard.

[ajzepp]

We can agree to disagree, my friend     I really wanted to accept the notion that all amps sound the same, but it's simply not true. Like I said, I would have much rather just kept my Outlaw amps...I'm not rich, and if there were no sonic difference between the Butler and the Outlaw, I wouldn't have spent the additional money on the former. Next you're going to try and tell me that the room treatments I put up a few weeks ago didn't make any improvements in the sound, right? 
And no offense, but the fact that you have three completely different speakers for your mains, surrounds, and center might be an indication that cohesive sonics aren't exactly your priority. Unless all those speakers just happen to use the same drivers, there are going to be some pretty obvious differences in timbre from side to side and front to back.


Here are a couple of excerpts from Ian Robertson Sinclair's "Audio and Hi-Fi Handbook":

"...it has been confidently asserted by well-known engineers that all competently designed power amplifiers operated within their ratings will sound alike. This may be true in respect of units from the same design stable, where the same balance of compromises has been adopted by the designer, but it is certainly untrue in respect of units having different design philosophies, and different origins."

"The compromises which result, and which have an influence on the amplifiers sound, are based on the personal judgment or preferences of the designer, and will vary from one designer to another."

[fmw]

In my experience room acoustics have more effect on the sound of the system than any of the components, including speakers.  I once had a $60,000 two channel system installed in an acoustically poor room that sounded rather poor.  That same system in an acoustically great room was very satisfying.   So I would say room acoustics have more sonic effect than the entire rest of the system combined.  You misjudge me for some reason.

In my experience rooms that are longer than they are wide with plenty of space behind the speaker systems and behind the listener seem to represent a good foundation for acoustics.  Small square rooms with dead acoustics and with speakers backed up against walls seem to be poor foundations.  I could tell you about some listening tests I conducted that would surprise you but this isn't the place, obviously.

Center channel speakers deliver about 70% of the content of a Dolby movie sound track.  I understand how, in some circumstances such as sound that follows action from side to side, there is an advantage to having matched speakers for the mains and center.  Certainly there is nothing negative about having such a match.  However, given the importance of the center channel in surround systems, my own experience is that choosing the center channel is the most important decision one can make about the entire system (except for room acoustics, of course.)  Since the center channel delivers 70% of the content and since most of time it is delivering different content than the mains, the mismatch hasn't been so important for me.  I rarely notice it.  I find it more satisfying to have a center channel sound that I like more than having matched sonics in those rare occasions where it is a benefit.  I like the sound of my center channel.  If all of that makes me oblivious to "cohesive sonics" then so be it.

I like Sinclair's quote.  It seems to pander to both sides of the equation.  I'm sitting here imagining a design engineer wondering where exactly to put that mid bass peak in the frequency response.  The thought gives me a chuckle. 

I think you will agree that amplifiers with similar performance measurements will amplify signals in a similar manner and sound the same under normal operating conditions.  I have conducted blind tests in which amplifiers were sonically distinguishable from each other so I realize that all amplifiers don't sound the same.  My comment was that competently designed amplifiers sound the same when operated in a proper manner.  I disagree with Sinclair in that I consider it incompetent to design a sonic "signature" into an amplifier.  The whole purpose of an amplifier is to make the waveforms larger without coloring them.  One can add sonic signatures to a sound system in many ways that are adjustable or removable.  It isn't possible to adjust the sonic signature of an amplifier.  If you have it, you are stuck with it.  Amplifiers should be designed to be neutral.  To me it is downright crazy to do otherwise and it represents incompetent design.  With all due respect to Sinclair, of course.

The sonic similarity of amps with neutral designs was brought home to me once when I conducted a blind test between my Audio Research power amp which is a tube driven design and one of those very same Crown amplifiers that you decided were "unrefined" with no knowledge of them whatsoever.  The Audio Research amp, unlike many tube amps, had very good performance measurements.  Nowhere in the audible range was the frequency response 3 db away from flat and, while it had higher distortion numbers than the Crown, they were still in the inaudible range.  Three audiophiles couldn't tell them apart in a level matched blind test.  (Audio Research solid state CD player, Conrad Johnson preamp and B&W Matrix 802 speakers in case you were worried about a lack of refinement in the test components.)

It's hard for me to imagine two amps with more different design philosophies.  Yes, I've tested tube amps with a throttled back high end and they are common and distinguishable in blind tests.  They are incompetently designed.  I can tell you that Audio Research appears to make competently designed tube equipment.

I'm not suggesting that your two amps don't sound different from one another.  Obviously, I don't know.  I'm suggesting you haven't conducted a proper level matched blind test so you really don't know either.  You're comfortable in believing what your ears tell you in a subjective listening environment.  Been there.  Done that.  Done it for 40 years.  I used to use the same arguments you use.  How can I not believe my own ears?  Well, let's not go into why you can't because it doesn't appear to be an appropriate subject for this forum.  I'm sure you know the reasons.  Enjoy the new amp.  It's always great to get new gear.

[ajzepp]

Well, at least we both have the same view of room treatments 

So given your view on amplifiers, what piece of gear - outside of speakers - do you feel has the greatest influence on the sound? The source?

And I couldn't help but laugh when I read your take on the center speaker, cause we couldn't be more opposite there, either! lol  You focus on the best center you can find, irregardless of your mains, and I got so tired of center speakers that I just scrapped 'em all and went with a phantom   That's what I love about this hobby, though...we can all tailor it to our own preferences and goals 

[fmw]

Well, at least we both have the same view of room treatments 

So given your view on amplifiers, what piece of gear - outside of speakers - do you feel has the greatest influence on the sound? The source?

And I couldn't help but laugh when I read your take on the center speaker, cause we couldn't be more opposite there, either! lol  You focus on the best center you can find, irregardless of your mains, and I got so tired of center speakers that I just scrapped 'em all and went with a phantom   That's what I love about this hobby, though...we can all tailor it to our own preferences and goals 

If we limit the discussion to competently designed equipment then I would say the turntable, arm and cartridge combination would have more affect on system sonics than anything aside from room acoustics and speakers.  Next would be the FM tuner.  Just as it is trivial to design a neutral amplifier it is also trivial to design a neutral optical disc player.   I submit optical disc players and amps and preamps are good places to save some money in a system and that comment is based on objective listening tests, not opinion. 

ADC's and DAC's are a mature technology.   Even the DAC in an old plastic Playstation 1 seems to get some audiophiles excited so, obviously, it isn't a very critical part of a system.  Amps and preamps are very, very mature technologies.  Yes, we use op amps and other high tech modern devices compared to what we used in the old days but the results are pretty much same as they have been for 40 years.  Neutral amplifiers have been available for a long, long time.  As long as the listening room is normally sized in a normal home and as long as the speakers don't represent a difficult low impedance load to the amplifier output, the amp isn't a very big deal to me.

Recently I'm very enchanted with the convenience of the music server and I do almost all my music listening from 320mb MP3's that are streamed to my system with a Squeezebox.  So my digital music player is now a Seagate hard drive for the most part.  I have to use an optical player for SACD's and DVD-A's.  I truly love the Squeezebox.  I have about 1200 CD's and 2000 record albums ripped to hard drive on my network.  The whole thing is incredibly convenient and sounds great - or at least I don't notice any meaningful lack of sound quality on my "unrefined" system. 

Understand that I don't listen to equipment any longer.  I just listen to music.  I have more flexibility than I did when I was beset with audiophilia for all those years and enjoy listening to music more than I did then.  I also play music (piano and keyboards for 30 years) and operate a small digital project recording studio as a hobby.  That gives me some experience and perspective on the recording, mixing, mastering process as well.

There is nothing wrong with adjusting a system to your preferences.  I do it myself just like you do.   Everyone should.  I see nothing wrong with using the mains as a phantom center channel. 

By the way, those American made Crown amps cost $1600 apiece back in the mid 1990's.  Super amplifiers in every sense of the word.  250 wpc into 8 ohms, 500 wpc into 4 and they would blow 15 amp home circuit breakers into 2 ohm loads  We had to temporarily replace the breaker with a 30 amp unit to measure the 950 wpc into 2 ohms.  Ruler flat frequency response, no audible distortion.  Exactly what a competently designed amp should be and huge overkill for virtually any home sound system.  They were designed primarily to drive recording monitors.  They were pretty much overkill for that purpose too.

[ajzepp]

Okay, I have a question for you based on what you just said...

I have an Outlaw Audio 950 pre/pro that I consider the weak link in my system. AFTER I put up my room treatments (bunch of GIK panels), I was shocked at what happened when I switched back and forth between the analog out of my Denon universal player (i.e. using the denon's DACs for processing) vs. the optical out of the Denon into the Outlaw (i.e. using the OUtlaw's internal DACs for processing). The difference was NOT sublte. It also can't be explained by an extra ADC conversion, cause I was running it through the analog bypass on the Outlaw. The entire presentation was completely altered from one setting to the next, and it was something I could easily change on the remote. It's not like I was getting up and having to change the disc, swap cables, etc.

I know very little about squeezeboxes and MP3s, but it's definitely something I want to get more into. I love the idea of being able to download music off the internet, though I'm not sure I know how to get around compression issues (?)

With regard to the Crown amps, I've never heard a $1600 offering from them...the one I heard listed for a few hundred bucks, I think. I just wasn't impressed at all.