[chriscrellin1]

Hey everybody....
I thank everybody for their input previously and I have narrowed my decision down to two receivers.  ONLY 2....given my budget....PLEASE HELP ME DECIDE!!!!!
#1 is the http://outlawaudio.com/products/rr2150.html
#2 is the http://nadelectronics.com/products/av_receivers/T754-A/V-Receiver/specs

I THINK both will adequately power the MMG's, but I also want to run a sub in the future......

Which do I pick???  They are both the same price (well, the NAD is refurbed with a factory warranty)....

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

[whubbard]

I would go with the Outlaw, more focused on audio.
I'm assuming you don't need the video features.

-West

[chriscrellin1]

EVENTUALLY it might pull double duty....home theatre and/or pure audio....for now though PURE AUDIO.....for now means next two+ years

[TheChairGuy]

They look like 2 good choices off hand

The Outlaw gives you a vinyl section should you want to try your hand at that with your new Maggies.

I use a standard 2 channel stereo receiver with my budget video setup....and I am not wanting the additional features for multi-speaker surround, decoding, etc.  Video sounds great on 2 (quality) channels...as does audio.

John

[pearsall001]

With your future plans in mind...the NAD is the way to go. NAD's philosophy of "music first" in their design is absolutely true. You won't be dissapointed.

[mcgsxr]

While the NAD would allow for HT use in the future, the Outlaw has a strong bass management system built in, perfect for integrating the sub in the future.

If you envision only 2 channel use, with possible sub, I would go for the Outlaw for sure.

Very well reviewed, and I very very rarely see them for sale used!

[MaxCast]

I vote for the Outlaw.  The AV receiver is tempting but 1-2 years from now you may have a Blue Ray player and want the hi-rez decoding of a receiver.
The outlaw has good bass mgmt and a good two channel set up sounds pretty darn good for video use as well.

[Parnelli777]

I would consider B&K. Made in the U.S.A., lots of used units available at varying prices. NAD and Outlaw are manufactured in Communist China, and they are not really what one would call inexpensive, I cannot see the big interest or value. Also, take a look at the beautiful old Mcintosh stuff available for a dandy price.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?miscrcvr&1240442520&/B-K-AVR305-5.1-surround-receiv
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?miscrcvr&1240343419&/B-K-AVR-507-7-ch.-av-receiver-
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?miscrcvr&1239204023&/B-K-AVR-507-

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?miscrcvr&1240155695&/Mcintosh-MAC-1900-factory-serv
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?miscrcvr&1241228685&/Mcintosh-MAC-4100-

[chriscrellin1]

Price is definately a concern for me.  That is why I have narrowed it down to the NAD and the Outlaw.  MY ONLY CONCERN.....the Outlaw isn't putting out enough juice at 4 ohms (160) compared to the NAD (200). 

EDIT!!!!!!
This will be an AUDIO ONLY system.  The MMG's and tuner will ONLY be audio.....no HT in the future for these.  THAT being said, I think the Outlaw is the choice of champions with this one AS LONG AS somebody can comfot me and tell me that the 160 vs. 200 is fine and that the Outlaw has more than enough juice to run these well...

BTW, I listened to the MMG's this week....using a wide variety of music and was blown away...I could hear things in the music that I never heard before...ever.  Simply amazing....

[wkatzir]

Hello -

     I have the MMG's as well as other Magnepan's and all I can say is that, given that the sound quality of the amplifier/receiver is high, the more power the better.  I actually powered some MMG's with an NAD 762, and it sounded great, but when I moved on to better and more powerful equipment, such as ARC, Sunfire, B&K, and McIntosh the difference was night and day. Given a budget, I would recommend doing this:

1) Get a good subwoofer because the MMG's provide little to no bass.
2) Get a a preamp and a amplifier versus an all in one unit.
3) Run the Preamp out into the sub, and out from the sub to the amp.

     I have done this, and I know that there are lots of varying opinions on it, but it made all the difference in the world when I was using the MMG's.  You are effectively using the crossover on the sub to cut some of the signal to the amplifier, making for a more efficient use of its power.  The MMG's can't produce low frequencies well at all, so I say, cut it out of the equation and let the sub do the heavy lifting.  This setup sounded amazing!  I know it might be hard to find seperates for a good price, but it may be worth slowly building up to.  Check audiogon.com for items from proceed, which mark levinson had something to do with, or from older carver units.  There is an interesting amp out and available on ebay called a Sunfire SZA-2200.  It is equal in power to the 2 you mentioned and it is a Class T amplifier similar to the one used in the Audio Research 150 series.  I owned one and it was excellent.  You can pick one up for around $200-300, and then just get a nice preamp like an Anthem TLP 1 fr around $400, and you are almost there.  All you would need is a sub with a left and right in/out and adjustable crossover and you are golden.

-Wes

[mcgsxr]

I cannot speak directly to the power issue, though the Stereophile reivew of the Outlaw was very positive.

I can suggest that the bass management in the Outlaw will be excellent for the Maggies and a sub.

[Crimson]

Either amp will be fine.  Using MMGs at rated 86db sensitivity (it's actually more like 83db/W/m), the theoretical difference in output will be less than 3db between the two amps and both amps will have reserves for 107db+ peaks at 1m (and being that line sources don't follow the inverse square law, you'll have more output at the listening position).

[Jeff Ward]

Actually, I think the difference would be far less than 1db-- it's my understanding that it takes a doubling of power to effect a 3db difference. That said, I think that Wes is actually on a better track. I recommended that myself (minus his third point, which I do not agree with) in the previous thread on this same subject.

[wkatzir]

Jeff-

     Normally, I wouldn't recommend it either, but it really worked with the MMG's.  Regardless, he would be tons happier with a sub regardless if he uses it in that configuration or not.

-Wes

[audioferret]

MY ONLY CONCERN.....the Outlaw isn't putting out enough juice at 4 ohms (160) compared to the NAD (200). 

Then get the Outlaw.

The NAD is only 90WPC average power in stereo at 8 Ohms.  The Outlaw is 100 at 8, 160 at 4.  It is not likely that the NAD doubles its average power at rated distortion to 180.  The IHF rating doesn't even do that, it goes from 150 to 200 (33%).  IF the NAD full power spec follows the capabilities of the IHF, you would only see 120WPC (133% of 90) at 4 Ohms. 

The outlaw's 160WPC average power rating does not compare appropriately to the NAD's IHF dynamic power rating.  The IHF Dynamic Power is not a "continuous, average power" rating.  It rates the power provided for 20 milliseconds.  The 90 WPC rating appears to be NAD's "Full Disclosure" Power rating.  They policy claims that it is the minimum power provided at both 4 and 8 ohms.  (See Below)

From the NAD website: http://nadelectronics.com/audio-topics/NAD-Full-Disclosure-Power
From the article: "NAD's approach, on the other hand, is to optimize its power supply to properly drive real-world loudspeakers. This means a properly regulated, high-current power supply is supplied in all NAD amplifiers and receivers. Thus we can rate our receivers with a difficult 4-Ohm load, with ALL channels driven simultaneously, over the FULL frequency bandwidth (20Hz - 20kHz), and at rated distortion. This is the Full-Disclosure rating method on which all our amplifier and receiver specs are based, and it's a far cry from the FTC's minimal requirement of using an 8 Ohm load, any channel (singular), at an easy 1 kHz frequency, with no distortion specified!"

See below:
From the Audio Engineering Society Webpage: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4898
From the article: "The EIA RS-490 (former IHF A-202) amplifier test standard includes a "dynamic headroom" test employing a 20-mS tone-burst. In an informal survey of musical recordings, power bursts were found with durations from a few milliseconds up to several hundred milliseconds, with an apparent clustering in the 80-200-mS range. Since the practical value of an amplifier depends on its ability to reproduce musical dynamics, a more useful power rating would be obtained by amending the dynamic headroom test to employ a 200-millisecond (or similar) tone-burst."

Food for thought: sorry I cannot make it easy for you...

[chriscrellin1]

Audioferret,

Thanks for the response.  I understand now why the Outlaw over the NAD.  You made it pretty clear for me since I didn't really understand the differences and what they meant.  Thanks again!

The Outlaw is on it's way!!

Chris

[tvyankee]

hello

if space is a issue then i would get a av receiver but if it is not then i would do something more on the lines of this. http://emotiva.com/upa2.shtm

with a two ch pre with a sub out. like a used tube pre for a couple of hundred bucks if you say it is only for stereo listening.

it has always been my experience that preamp/amp combo sounds better then av receivers. and btw the emotiva stuff really does sound very good for the money.

good luck.