Wow! Now thats an explanation I can get a handle on. The whole point about pulling all the power from one circuit makes so much sense. It's much clearer to me now. I might think of selling the 770 and getting 7 of the 200's but I don't know if I would be able to run 7 dedicated circuits to optimize the stack of 200's.
Whadaya think? Any other suggestions.

trying to make it simple enough for you to understand keta. glad you got it finally.

here is what sh thought about it if you dont believe me.

posted November 26, 2002 10:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kevin C Brown:
Soundhound (and others)- Any chance you could do a quick list of pros/cons of say 2 mono-blocks vs a stereo power amp?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 monoblocks I believe is preferrable because each channel gets it's own power supply, and a sudden drain on one channel won't effect the other by modulating the power supply. Of course, this is less of an issue when playing typical program material that has a lot of common signal between the channels. There is also less chance of crosstalk with 2 seperate amps.

The only downside I can think of is 2 mono amps might cost more.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited November 26, 2002).]


[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited April 06, 2004).]

Another theory – not necessarily better, just different:

When first considering separates and Outlaw, I was also facing the 950/770 vs. 950/7xM200 issue, but for a 7.1 HT. Perhaps your decision is between a 755 and 5xM200. If expanding to 7.1 is a future maybe, you can add two M200's to either a 755 or five M200's. If a 7.1 setup is definintely in the future, or 5.1 with a stereo zone elsewhere, then a 770 is still a consideration as perhaps less expensive in the long run. Questions I had:

Could the dual transformer, multiple-windings 770 give me seven channels at 200 watts all at once without power supply trouble and within spec as seven M200’s could? Outlaw answer: Yes.

Cooling issues: the 770 has multiple, vertically oriented heat sinks inside, allowing upward-through heat dissipation of all channels at once. Seven M200’s, if driven hard, could not be stacked one immediately on top of the other. Cooling space would be needed between each one.

Mains power issues: even with multiple circuits, all the power comes from the same breaker panel. In my situation I don’t have the option of many circuits just for HT. The 770, even if driven to maximum output, will not draw more than one circuit can handle.

Back Up: I have an older Onkyo THX receiver. I can use the amplifier section only as a lower power temporary back up to the 770 should the 770 need repair.

Start-up Cost: the 950/770 combo was easier on the budget. And, as my user name reflects, I usually don’t put out additional funds for little gain.

Output Power needs: better than 99% of the time, I’m going to be coasting along less than 15% of 1400 watts total power availability. Probably 90% of the time I’ll be under 5%. The point of the 200 watts per channel is headroom and accuracy during transients, not attempting to crack the plaster and shatter glass. If I had slightly more efficient speakers, a 950/7100 combo would have been plenty. Would a 7100 be enough for you? Did I really need to consider multiple amps, power circuits, cooling, etc. as if I was going to really be pushing 7x200 watts continuously?

Shipping: In the event of repair, it would be cheaper to send one M200 out and back vs. the 770 with box at about 100lbs.

Outlaw opinion: I asked Outlaw support for an opinion. Their overall recommendation at the time: the 770. I haven’t been sorry I agreed.

Your situation and anticipated usage should affect your decision. I'm glad I could offer an opinion but sorry if it makes deciding more difficult. I think you will be pleased with Outlaw gear in either case.

I think my feeling on this subject has always closely paralleled bestbang4thebuck's. The independent power supplies could be a benefit to the main channels for music listening (and potentially for the center channel), but without providing multiple dedicated circuits to feed a stack of seven monoblocks I would expect there be to some significant level of diminishing returns involved for a full surround setup. When collected onto a single dedicated 15A circuit, those seven monoblocks have access to no more current than the single seven-channel amp. In addition to that, I would hope that a well-designed multichannel amp would be able to minimize the potential negative effects of a shared power supply. That's why I'll agree that, in theory, monoblocks are better, but the day-to-day reality of it is that the benefits are often negligible, especially compared to the convenience of a single box.



Devil's advocate for a moment, while we're drawing loosely related parallels. In engineering, there can often be a significant economy of scale that should not be overlooked -- a 100HP motor might offer equal power output to a quartet of 25HP motors, but that larger motor can often be designed to provide better fuel economy (potentially significantly greater fuel economy, when compared to four other motors' consumption) and greater reliability. Take refrigeration compressors, for example: the compressor in a 150 ton chiller will be more reliable and surprisingly more energy efficient than 30 5-ton compressors. On the other hand, as you scale up, you do have to accept the reduced redundancy associated with it.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

[This message has been edited by gonk (edited April 06, 2004).]

I guess I'm not to good at writing with sarcasm. I don't see any benefit to having seven amps stacked on top of each other for the sake of saying you have monoblocks. Having seven dedicated outlets is beyond ludicrous. I would bet if you call Outlaw and ask them which is truly a better amp they would steer you to 7 series. If you only have a need for 1,2 or 3 channels of amplification then the monos would be the smart move. Bottom line the 200 is not better because it's a monoblock and the 770 isn't better beacause it's multichannel. Again in my opinion the 770 is a great amp and maybe the 200 is just as good. Get what fits you needs.

PS curegeorge please don't ever assume that you need to make something simple for me or anyone else to understand. Although thinking back on many of your previous posts simple does fit.

i have found that in audio many people talk in terms that are too technical and lack value for the normal consumer. so i ALWAYS try to explain things in a way that a normal person (not audio enthusiast) can understand, if that is a crime then so be it. without having used the 200s or 770 in a comparison, both of us are just giving opinions. if you asked 500 people who knew what they were talking about, whether they though mono amps per channel or a multichannel amp was better, i bet 450 of them AT LEAST would say monos. now that does not mean that EVERY multichannel amp would be inferior, and perhaps the 770 is not (it seems pretty stout from what i can find about it and from people's comments), but if i had to purchase 7 200s or 1 770 i would buy the 200s.
you shouldnt assume that people place their mono amps stacked in a rack on top of each other, one of the benefits (i have failed to mention) is that you can put a mono amp very close to your speaker (utilizing a longer ic run and a short speaker wire run). surely you can acknowledge that having a longer ic is more desirable than a longer speaker cable for obvious reasons. here is one thing that amuses me about people: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PRODUCT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT PRODUCT WOULD BE PERFECT FOR EVERYONE; some people realize this and others dont. i am kind of surprised that the outlaws didnt make the m200s decisively better than the 770, because when you look at other companies you see that most of them have superior mono amps, but sell multichannel amps as a more cost effective solution. i do like the 770s modular design and im sure it or either the m200s would be superb. if i had my choice in any situation i would pick monos every time (all things being equal).

I agree with Keta, It would be great if someone with some real design knowlege could comment about the differences between the amps. I can clearly read differences in the specs, like s/n ratio, damping factor, etc...
How do these differences equate to sound quality?

Post script – when considering 770 vs. 7xM200, my initial thinking was very similar to curegeorg:

1) A single box with a single function has been historically and generally agreed upon as a better choice, all other things being equal.

2) I was definitely considering the amp-immediately-next-to-the-speaker approach. But then, which is more likely to contribute the fewest problems and maintain the better overall sound, longer interconnects with shorter speaker cables or shorter interconnects and longer speaker cables? This was part of my question to Outlaw prior to purchase.

I suppose if the 950 had a digital output for each channel with each M200 having a high quality DAC option, and/or balanced connectivity for the 950/M200 analog signals, I may have gone with 7xM200(dac).

In response to 1 and 2 above:

1) After considering many variables, I felt all other things were not equal and that some of these other things would have to be weighed in the decision making. Plus, there are compromises in almost every product design and production process. After considering specs and reviews, I felt that the 770, channel for channel, was not a lesser choice than 7xM200.

2) Part of Outlaw’s answer in favor of the 770 was shorter interconnects, longer speaker cable. I was aware of problems with both long interconnects and long speaker cables. I agreed that fewer potential problems existed with long speaker cables. I also felt that the problems with long speaker cables could, for the most part, be addressed.

My choice was the 770 with what is basically a flexible-tube-conductor cable having a resistance of 1.1 ohms per 1000 feet for speaker runs. Typical single-conductor 12AWG stranded copper is 1.6 ohms per 1000 feet. Single conductor stranded copper 10AWG will measure about 1 ohm per 1000 feet, 14AWG 2.6 ohms per 1000 feet and 18AWG 6.5 ohms per 1000 feet. For reasons I won’t go into here, I like the idea of a “hollow” conductor and keeping the resistance of the speaker wire on any round-trip run down to about 0.1 ohms or less.

As with most of us, the resources I have to spend on audio/video are less than I would like. As a result, my choices have been to give myself the bestbang4thebuck I can. I’m happy, for the most part, not to be chasing the nth degree of perfection at great cost. The results I see with Outlaw gear, some common sense, and a bit of eccentricity just for fun, have been great.


[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited April 07, 2004).]

i think this question has been beaten enough and no "scientific types" have weighed in... so you are probably no better off than you started out being, but you will probably be happy with either. from what people have posted the outlaws recommend the 770, so i dont see why they would recommend an inferior or less expensive product.

I have 5 model 200 monoblocks and am very happy. I noticed that the S/N ratio was 119dB for the 770 and 112dB for the monoblock. If higher S/N is better (quieter?) what would account for the difference? Are the amplifier circuits different between the two? Not that it matters a great deal because I am happy, I have long ICs and short speaker wires, and the amps are paid for and working just fine! Just looking for more understanding...