Logistics and desire to maintain a quality level at the target price point dictate a lot of this, I believe. Tucking an amp the size of a 755 or 770 into a receiver costs both space and money: both of those amps are over seven inches tall by themselves and filled completely with heat sinks, power supply, and amp circuits. Adding the processing and switching components of a receiver to that chassis would be very difficult -- you'd end up with a unit that was easily ten inches tall or taller (making it too large to fit in a lot of entertainment centers), would weigh the better part of 100 pounds, and would cost well over $2000. At that point, it is equally cost effective to buy a pre/pro and amp package like the 950/755 or 950/770.
The 1050 was rated for 65W per channel, but those of us who used the amp section of the 1050 found that to be a
very conservative rating -- it is not the same as a mass-market receiver like you might find at Best Buy. I replaced a good quality Yamaha receiver (RX-V690) that was rated at 80W/channel for the left and right channels with a 1050 and found that if anything I gained amp headroom. The 1070 appears to be rated at 65W with all seven channels driven, which is extremely unusual (typically, receivers' power ratings are listed as "such and so" watts per channel with only two or three channels driven). What I believe Outlaw is trying to do is provide enough power in their receivers to satisfy most receiver owners' needs while keeping the cost as low as possible. The pre-amp outputs then offer an easy route to additional power for some or all of the channels if circumstances dictate a need for it.
------------------
gonk -- 950 Review |
LFM-1 Review |
Pre/Pro Comparison Chart |
Saloon Links
) have started to be real scumbags and rate their amplifiers dishonestly. It's probably time for the Federal Trade Commission to step in again and reign in these low lifes and force them to comply.