I'm new to the outlaw scene, but I'm going to purchase some items based on their reputation. My question is would it be better to buy five 200's vs one 770 to power a 5.1 home theatre system. I would end up saving 200 bucks that could be spent on cables, etc. What do you think?

If you only need five 200's, what about the 755? It (like the 770) would simplify the power wiring but reducing the number of power cords to just one. You can still go back and add a pair of 200's if you upgrade to 7.1 later.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Don't forget the deals that Outlaw now have on the M-200s. If you use ground shipping you can get 5 for $1289 or 7 for $1674. I bought a pair of them about 1.5 months ago and have been very pleased with them. They generate little heat, at least at the sound level at which I normally listen (a little louder than my friends like). jd

[This message has been edited by jeffdavis (edited April 03, 2004).]

monos are a better choice, unless you want only one box.

Why? I can't wait to hear this.

i thought you knew... BECAUSE I SAID SO!

how could you possibly think that having monoblock amps per channel is not better than having one amp splitting its power?????? i cant dignify that with anything more.

I don't know it just seems to happen.

I would THINK that a properly designed multi channel amp would perform as well as a properly designed mono amp given that the two respective amps are similar in design.

Given this thread was asking the difference between the 200 and the 770 I was just wondering what specific insight you had between the two to make such a concrete statement. I'm not an EE or some amplifier guru but there are differences in design between the two and I couldn't say which is better from a design standpoint.

I do own the 770 and am very happy with it. Given my experience with all of my Outlaw products I would expect the 200 to perform very well. I think the choice comes down to convenience or which look you like.

Maybe some outlaws with real knowledge of amplifier design could comment on the design differences between the 200's and the other 7 series amps.

I can't say from a technical aspect, which performs better, but I use a 755 in my main room, and i use 2 m200's in my bedroom stereo setup, and I prefer the sound of the 755 to the 200's, i'm sure there are several different variable's that affect the sound between the two setups, but just from a sonic standpoint the 755 sounds better to me.

not that i have compared the 770 and 200s, but ill try to explain it for you. ac power comes from the wall and gets converted into dc power which in turn powers the amps (watered down version). so the idea of mono amps is this: you have one input, one power supply, and one transformer doing one thing: amplifing the input signal and outputting it. the idea of most multichannel amps is this: you have several inputs (all need routing), you have one power supply, and you have a couple of transformers or just one big one (power gets split to each channel). a multichannel amp has to pull more from one outlet (which is not as good as pulling from several, particularly if you have seperate circuits for each) because it only has one ac voltage input. a multichannel amp then has to convert that larger amount into dc and split it to different amp modules (in a good setup like the 770) or possibly split the output at the end. in a multichannel amp you have many things going on at one time, all impacting each other, for example if one amp module is slightly inferior to the others if may need more power than the others and lower the total output of all the other channels. crosstalk between different components inside all doing different things can interfere with the signal and amplification itself. HEAT is more prevalent because of larger components that are needed to supply each channel with power. a one channel amp has it easy, it only has to make power for one amp module so it can have smaller components, it doesnt have any other things going on inside of it other than input, amplification, and output. it is a much smoother stream than having to be ganged together and then split apart where flucuations in any one thing can influence the others.
having said that this is assuming that the mono amp is equal quality to the multichannel. also if one mono amp fails it is easy to replace. the 770 is modular based so it is easier to replace one part of it, but you still are out the whole amp while it is being fixed.
most electronics benefit from a dedicated application and suffer when many things depend on each other. is that enough or would you like more?
which would be stronger/more efficient/better? one engine that could make 100hp at 7000rpm divided to your four wheels or 4 engines that could make 25hp at 1000rpm each powering one wheel only. which would last longer? which would require less gas to run? what happens when one of the 25hp engines fails... you still have 3 others working at 75hp, but if that 100hp fails you are gonna be walking...

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited April 05, 2004).]