I am currently running a 6.1 channel surround system with my Marantz SR9200 which is rated at 140watts per. My speakers are Klipshc Reference series.

Given the power output of my Marantz, would I see a benefit in adding M200's to drive my speakers? Or am I possibly getting all I can now with my Marantz?

m200s are better

I seriously doubt that you would hear any difference at any reasonable listening level. I therefore do not think that you would derive a benefit that would be worth the investment.

I also have no reason to believe that the M200, or any other Outlaw amp, is not an excellent product. But that wasn't the question that you asked.

Jeff Mackwood

so that means that marantz amplification is as good as outlaw amplification?... not likely.

No, it means that the difference you can measure with instruments is not detectable with the human ear.

well if the differences cannot be heard to the human ear, then how are they equal? not many people design their system for their dog to listen to. if you cannot hear a difference, then there is essentially no difference, and then you would have to take into account cost to see which thing to pick. i would disagree here, because you should experience more distortion coming from the marantz at say 100wts than you should with the outlaw, and as you get closer to the limit of 140wts on the marantz, you will see more and more, however the outlaw will remain practically the same near 140wts. i dont consider 100wts as unreasonable listening levels...

Jeff Mackwood wrote, "I seriously doubt that you would hear any difference at any reasonable listening level. I therefore do not think that you would derive a benefit that would be worth the investment."

This is the crux of what I was asking. It is my belief that aside from VERY subtle differences in tone, there should be no significant difference in amps. The only reason I would consider upgrading to a seperate amp would be to increase the amount of usable power. I use my system exclusively for listening to movies, no music. So, sonic differences are not as critical as pure power.

This is why I thought it may help to change over to seperates. I know that "all-in-one" units such as the Marantz may sacrifice a bit on power to the amp. And, it may not truly be capable of 140 watts continuous power to all channels.

So, my question remains, will I see any noticeable power improvements, and or better speaker response from an m200 or for that matter the 755?

as posted above: "m200s are better"

There isn't. I have the SR6200 and now use a pair of M200's in conjunction with the remaining channels. There really is not much of a difference between good amplifiers.



That's the biggest reason why I did it. My main speakers are 6 ohms and I'm not sure if the receiver likes that all the time. The place I bought it from said it should be fine down to 4. I had bought the receiver long before those speakers (from someplace else), so they weren't pulling a fast one.



Sorry, not sure. You'd be eliminating the amplifier section completely in yours. I can only do that in stereo mode. It takes too long to switch back and forth for me to really test out. How hard do you push the unit? That'll help decide. If you turn it up regularly I'd get more power.

is it not obvious that a lower power amp has to work harder to manufacture the same amount of power as one that can do twice as much? you will hear differences pushing the marantz hard, while the outlaw still will have plenty of power in reserve. same quality may exist at low levels, but that goes out the window as distortion exponentially increases as you reach the threshold of an amplifier. this is audio 101, people.
it would be like driving a 4cyl engine wide open all the time, or an 8cyl halfway, yeah you can go the same speed, but what happens when you want to pass someone? the 8cyl still has plenty of power to make that pass, while the 4cyl is going to redline. cylinders is not really key, but easier to analogize than 200hp to 400hp...