I will be purchasing the 950/770 combo when my wife finishes school this year, and this will be my first venture into seperates. I have a question regarding stacking the components. Would the 770 generate too much heat to have the 950 sit right on top of it? Until I upgrade my rack, I would have no choice but to put the amp directly on top of my CD changer, and the preamp directly on top of that. I know that this is not an ideal situation, but would the heat generated by the amp make this a really bad idea? Thanks for the input. By the way, this is the first time I have posted to this site, and I must say that I am extremely impressed at the candor and helpfulness of the people that post here. Most sites like this have people bashing each other and making rude and obscene comments. I like it here.

------------------
Benjamin King
benjaminking@yahoo.com

Yep, this is generally a good site for honest and thoughtful comments about all kinds of home audio. Outlaw is a class act for starting the forum and making sure its all above board.

That being said, I think you should shy pretty far away from the 770 in a stack. I have a 125x5 amp, which does get warm, but not hot. But every component I have gets warm and I wouldn't want to start stacking. The other part of the equation is the weight of the 770. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but dedicated 5 channel amps are pretty stout. I can only imagine that the transformer required for 1400 watts (vs my 625 watts) would be way to big to put on a normal shelf.

Honestly, if you are going to be in trouble space wise, could you remotely mount the 770? I guess I'm thinking about on a purpose built shelf on the floor out of the way or something like that. The two advantages would be heat could dissipate without effecting the other components and it would encourage a separate circuit for the amp, which may or may not be needed. Disadvantages would be longer interconnects and possibly a more cluttered look.

I would attempt to find a solution that would allow the 770 to be somewhat isolated from other components, though. All of my components have at least 2" above and 1" below for ventilation. I don't know if that's 'ideal' but it does allow for heat to rise.

Best of luck and welcome to the forum.

S.

Glad you like the forum, Benjamin. I've enjoyed hanging out here for the last year or so. Stick around a while, see the sights...

MrSandman has some good thoughts and ideas. I'll chip in an idea or two, as well as some experience with an Outlaw amp. I've got a 750, which is very similar to the 770 (165x5 rather than 200x7). I would not put anything directly on top of it, but I've got my 750 at the bottom of my rack (no heat sources below it) and have a shelf ~1" above the top of the amp; monitoring it with a thermometer for a few months indicated that it never got more than a couple degrees above 100F in that 1" gap. Also, putting a 770 on top of a CD changer may risk creating a CD changer pancake -- you're talking about almost 90 pounds (plus 20 pounds for the 950). The 770 is also almost certain to be deeper than a CD changer (the 750 is at least as deep as my CD changer, and the 770 is several inches deeper than the 750). Could you put the 770 at the bottom and maybe put some 2" blocks between the top of the 770 and the changer's feet? That would give the 770 breathing room (a little more than my 750 has, but it may want more considering the greater output capacity) until you could get a better rack. Remotely mounting the 770 would probably be even better as far as heat rejection (I think the Outlaws suggested a separate amp stand as a good home for a 770, because of the unit's size), but may be just as difficult as making more space in your rack.

------------------
Gonk

Thanks for your insight and suggestions. I had a feeling that it would run pretty hot. I guess that I will just have to splurge before I get these, and get a nice, new rack to hold them in. I need to figure something out anyway to keep my kids out of the equipment. I have a mentally challenged one year old that loves buttons and wires, so I am thinking about a rack with closing doors on it. Would I need to provide space in front of the amp, for ventalation as well, or would having the face almost touching the door be too close?

What about a door that is mesh, to allow airflow? I think Salamander offers that -- I know I've seen one manufacturer do it, at least, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't cheap. Definitely want some airflow in there. When I had the glass door on my system (when I had a Yamaha pro-logic receiver), it got really hot inside. Or maybe a door over the other gear but not the 770? There's only one button on the 770 (could maybe block it, which wouldn't affect the unit's operation at all) -- not much to play with there.

------------------
Gonk

Hey, guys as a sidebar to this post, can I ask your opinion?

Due to size/clutter up looks criteria in this room, I do not want to go the rack route. Made one pitstop so far to investigate new furniture, wood cabinet/armoire which will hold the 950/770. And suddenly realized, (we’re talking thousands laid out here, I should choose wisely), I ought to factor in the future of where cabinet sized sets are going.
One cabinet I liked, with a few drawbacks, had an opening with a ratio for a 16.9 instead of the typical 4.3 shaped opening.

Then over to a Best Buy, to see what current dimensions on new sets were running.
I wanted to come home with the RCA model F38310, but felt the whole HDTV thing warranted further research, before purchase.

Normally I don’t replace a TV till there are fireworks out the back. but whether I do so now or not, I should factor the changes in set dimensions, which seem to be occurring, for this cabinet purchase.
I personally am very attracted to the 16.9 ratio type screens, Plasma HDTV etc.

Do you thing that’s going to be the ‘shape of the box’ norm for the future?



[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited February 15, 2002).]

I have a 16:9 55" Mitsubishi, and my wife and I love it. Of course, we don't watch ANY television - only DVD's, so I never need to worry about aspect ratio discrepancies. I think that if I watched 4:3 TV, I might get annoyed. But for movies, it totally adds to the theatrical experience! I am personally going to just keep from watching TV until HDTV becomes more wide-spread. Besides, is there ever anything on that compares with a good flick?

------------------
Benjamin King
benjaminking@yahoo.com

First of all here’s a useless piece of information for everyone: Hot air rises, heat moves in all directions. If heat rises, standing next to a campfire on a cool evening would do absolutely nothing to keep you warm.

That being said it doesn’t matter if you put the amp (a radiator of heat) above or below another piece of equipment, you will still have heat transfer problems. I conducted a crude test of this theory on my own equipment rack; the temperature above my amps was the same as the temperature below them.

What I’m trying to say is, move the amp if you can! I used to have my DVD player sitting directly on top of the 1050, after about an hour of operation the sound would quit. It turned out to be an over heating problem, I moved the DVD player next to the 1050 (about a 4” gap in-between) and the problem was solved.

By the way great choice on the TV I have the 46" version and I love it.

Till the cabinet thing came up, I wasn't even contemplating new TV.
Saw a review somewhere on HDTV's, where a mention was made of a Sony which did something to 'use' the 16:9 screen size for 4:3 formatted viewing without using the black bars down the left & right sides?
It had never crossed my mind before, (since the sets I had seen were prob. being fed DVD footage) that you end up viewing 4:3 in a little center box on your 16:9 screen.
Between that kind of (new to me) infor. and the great copyrighted Digital connection debate, I assume I do need to research quite a bit.
We watch mainly Satellite or DVD, I'll guess the satellite is all 4:3 feed.
I felt if they sort out mixing a good picture onto a 16:9 screen from a 4:3 feed, or switch to feeding all in 16:9. Then that would be the 'shape' cabinet, I should definitely purchase.
(I’m just hanging on by fingernails learning audio. (sigh) a whole new piece of the pie to dig into to)

Hydro,

I was same time typing.
How does that set handle 4:3 feed. (is it terribly anoying?

(I almost told them to load up the box,hehe..without asking the other half, so you would recomend 'go for it'?)

I've also seen some of the 16:9 tubes (including the 38" RCA you saw, Lena) and been enthralled. The reasons I don't have one currently? Money (trying to minimize home theater investments in order to afford a bigger house), long-term HD compatibility and features (every time I start reading up on direct-view and rear-projection HD, I get wary of the current options), and aspect ratio (I'd love to go 16:9, but my wife watches a lot of TV and so 4:3 is a more useful aspect ratio for the time being). A lot of people feel differently than I do about rear-projection, but I have always preferred direct view; the screen will be smaller, but a really good tube can look wonderful. Rear projection is also larger than Mrs. Gonk wants in her living room, so that's one more reason to stay with direct view. Interesting point I heard recently -- a 40" 4:3 tube that is HD capable (Sony makes some, and I think there are others) has the same 16:9 viewing area as a 34" 16:9 display, give or take an inch, but offers a lot more for 4:3 TV watching. I will probably get an HD-compatible set after we move (next year, if all goes well), dont know if it will be 4:3 or 16:9 but it will most likely be direct view.

If you are thinking of going with a direct-view set in the future, you might look at the cabinet dimensions for a 40" 4:3 TV and a 34" or 36" 16:9 set (they should be similar width) as well as the RCA 38" (although I've read some less complementary reviews of the RCA). If I get a new entertainment center before a new TV, that will be my approach (space for 40" 4:3 or a 34" 16:9).

Having made my pro-direct view comments, I will say that rear projection has come a long way in recent years, and 16:9 HD RPTV's have become pretty reasonably priced as well as offering very good pictures (especially if you watch a lot of DVD's). Benjamin's got a very nice one with his Mitsu (my little 27" TV is one of the last direct-view sets that Mitsu made, and I love it -- just wish it had component video inputs).

------------------
Gonk

Gonk, I feel your pain, from the ‘other’ side of the coin. We live in the ‘cottage’ big lot, 60-yr. neighborhood, were values have soared. My guy resists any and all major upheavals in his life, and is sentimentally attached to a megalith 2-story garage, he and his father built. (I’d have to burn it down, or pop it on a truck!)
And yes we’ve discussed razing it and building bigger but even I shudder at living thru that mess. SO… I have more income to pick up occasional ‘big’ toys for the dollhouse.

I take the ‘direct’ approach; for some reason projection has just never wowed me (but the new 16:9 does).
That’s food for thought on the 40” Sony and aspect ratio, although I bet it’s more than the 2K RCA? (sill like to know how Hydro feels watching 4:3 on the RCA)
‘Wary’, - me too, - just trying to decide which side of the firewire issue to land on, was enough for me for now. I peaked into tech. on DTV issues and thought, …well .. What a bigger mess!
And low and behold even Congress cares about this one, (which by past experience will just aggravate the situation)

I should sit on my 32” inch JVC for a bit longer and see how it all plays out. Honestly, I have loved the pic. I get from the set, and never a prob. running constantly. If my memory serves me it had higher Horizontal Resolution than was the norm when purchased and it’s really a beautiful/gorgeous colored screen.
It’s nice to hear from Benjamin that some have gone forward and never regretted back!

Thanks so much Gonk for the Cabinet dimensions (extremely helpful advice!!!) I juggle so much in my “bear of very little brain” head, and trying to also factor “allowances” for the future can be mind bending, we know the set will at least be bigger!

(do I have a fever, am I catching audio lands upgradeitis)

Lena,

16:9 is the approved aspect ratio for all digital television programming in the "near future". There are reasons why a rear projection set (RPTV) can deliver higher resolutiions with HDTV sources versus a direct view tube set so you may not want to by-pass this option. Plasma, LCD and DLP are other options (expensive!) to look into and I feel will eventually replace existing tube technology because they operate only in the digital domain. You might want to go to www.hometheaterspot.com to learn everything you want to know on this subject- that is until the first Outlaw set becomes available. I hope this helps. .02 on this subject.

[This message has been edited by steves (edited February 15, 2002).]

Thanks to everyone!
You have confirmed what crossed my mind when studying "cabinet ratio", that it is important to factor for the wider-ratio sets. Unfortunately choices are scarce, out of 40 at the furniture store I like, they had only one fully enclosed cabinet set up that way. And it lacked one component shelf I needed, (leaving one item on top) which I'd rather not do. I’ll just have to keep looking.
And thanks Steve! I’ll try to spend some time soon on the site listed. Cause I have a feeling…. if I come home with the furniture for the 950/770 pretty soon, I’ll be saying, “Well that old JVC just doesn’t fill that big old hole right!”

Be careful if you take the plunge into the larger RPTV realm. I currently own a WS55807 mitsu that has been ISF/I2C'd by Chuck W. I love the extra screen size so much that I'm considering the move to a front projection system.

Watching 4:3 programming on this size and shape of a set does not bother me at all. You get very used to it after the first day or so. I actually dislike watching TV on my 32" bedroom set now, but sometimes I'm too lazy to get out of bed.

------------------
Food for thought. An electron moves at the speed of about 8cm/hr in a typical light bulb.

Troop

Then, of course, there's the doubly-annoying situation that comes with the increasing number of TV shows that are now being broadcast in "letterboxed" format -- gray bars on the sides of your 16x9 screen, and black bars at the top and bottom! When, oh when, will DTV get here?

What TV shows are you watching Matt? I own a 16 X 9 set (Mitsubishi WT-45809) and the picture fills the whole screen on normal 4 X 3 viewing without "zooming in" or "stretching" the picture and I live in Alaska where the thought of "DTV/HDTV" is something we won't see for sometime.

I'm watching store displays as my home TV is 4x3. Anything that's anamorphic, like newer DVDs, comes through properly as long as the DVD player is set right: letterboxed on 4x3 TVs and full screen on 16x9 TVs. Anything which is in 4x3, such as most broadcast TV, comes through full screen on 4x3 TVs and with gray bars on the left and right on a 16x9 TV. Anything that's 16x9 but letterboxed into a 4x3 format, such as a letterboxed VHS tape, a letterboxed movie on TV, or some of the newer TV shows that are recorded in letterbox, will show up properly letterboxed on a 4x3 TV but with both gray bars and black lines on a 16x9 TV.

I've noticed at home that a lot of the TV shows I watch now are being broadcast in letterbox (such as _Angel_ on the WB, for example). I assume that if I had a 16x9 TV that it would put the gray bars on because it's a 4x3 signal, and then show the black lines top and bottom which are part of the signal.

Matthew Hill: I've noticed at home that a lot of the TV shows I watch now are being broadcast in letterbox (such as _Angel_ on the WB, for example). I assume that if I had a 16x9 TV that it would put the gray bars on because it's a 4x3 signal, and then show the black lines top and bottom which are part of the signal.


You are technically correct Matthew. If you watched regular 4:3 programming with no stretching/zooming involved you would end up with a picture with bars on all sides of the display. Most people that I know that have 16:9 sets alter their 4:3 images to fill the entire screen. I do this because I would hate to have burn in from the side bars.

The only time that I know of where you cannot adjust the set for the bars on all sides would be if: You were watching letterboxed 4:3 material on an HDTV station. (This does happen!!!) On my Mitsu TV I cannot adjust the format when in 1080i mode.

Common HDTV. Lets get going... hehe like that's going to happen.

Troop


------------------
Food for thought. An electron moves at the speed of about 8cm/hr in a typical light bulb.

Troop