Scott had me consider the 755 (200 watts X 5) over the 7100 (100 X 7)...I will probably never use a 7.1 set-up and the thinking is why pay for what I won't use (I am just NOW getting into Home Theater) so should I save the bux and go 7100 or spend a bit, Scrooge and get the 755???
Thanks,
Bill

If you don't need, or think you ever need, the extra channels, go for the juice.

I would tend to lean toward the 755 in that case, as well.

Well lot's of people say "I'll never get a...", but after a week they turn around and wish they had. You can apply the same logic to the 755 vs the 7100 with regards to paying for what you will not use. Are you going to ever use that much power above and beyond what the 7100 can do? If you're never going to use the power you can save the money and have the two extra channels just in case you do go to 7.1 later on. Are your speakers inefficient and/or do you have a larger room to fill? If I did that with my speakers I'd be able to use the extra 2 channels on the mains as I can bi-wire/bi-amp mine, so those would get more power and the other 3 speakers would get a smaller, more appropriate amount of power.

I'm just playing a little devil's advocate to show the other side. silver did say he's new to HT. Many times people don't quite know what they want inspite of what they may think at first. He can add a pair of M200's later on if he does decides to go to 7 if he got the 755. It'd just cost even more money.

Would the size and/or weight of either unit be a problem?

jt,
got a good point!
always keep in mind though:there's always gonna be an upgrade to come,whether it may be biamp or more surround speakers
if the bases can be covered from the start then an upgrade can be justified as "cheaper"

Is there any downside to using a 7.1 (7100) in 5.1 system and not "upgrading" to 7.1 for a few years?
I mean, current creates heat, two of the 7 channels not being used...am I going to damage the amp or system by NOT using the other 2?
If not, I will probably stay with the 7100 but if so, I need to get the 755...
I hope I'm making sense because I sure don't KNOW what I'm talkin' about...;-)
Bill

You will not hurt the 7100 at all if you only use five of the channels. I've even got a friend running a 7100 with only three channels currently in use.

Thanks gonk...I don't think I'll NEED the 200W either but I did think I might be doing harm to the amp if I "neglect" two channels.
Bill

Your choice really depends on your speakers, but I can't imagine any bookshelf type surround speaker ever needing 200W. I would get 7100 with less power and more channels. Even if you don't think you will go 7.1 you never know when that upgrade bug might get you. In the mean time, you can use the extra 2 channels of 7100 to biamp the front speakers if they are floor standers that can be biamped.

...this is an example of my "upgradeitis"...My Yamaha was a BIG jump over the Zenith, the Nakamichi was a jump over the Yamaha and this will be a jump over the Nak...
Yesterday I was totally happy with buying the 950/7100/LFM-1 combo...this is really a conforting thought because I cannot find ANYONE who doesn't even grudgingly like Outlaw stuff...even the salesman at Barrett's yesterday showing me Klipsch said, after hemming and hawing a bit, "I cannot show you anything that will be better than what you are considering (Outlaw) for less money...and they have Rotel (an early contender)...but then Scott asked if I had considered the 755 'cuz I wanted only 5.1 (for now, right???) and even though it was more money, it is MORE POWER!!! Now I keep bouncing back and forth between 7100/755...help me...;-)
now as to speakers...arrrrghhhh.
I want them to be good for Home Theater (and ANYTHING I add will sound better but I don't WANT to upgrade constantly)AND music! (I don't ask much, eh???;-)
But as to the 7100, I am leaning back to this instead of the 755...I do COVET the 755s extra power (insert Tim Allen grunt here)but I don't think I'll need it with Klipsch or Ascend Acoustics...my current contenders.
Thanks,
Bill