RC,

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I have no doubt that the 770 is a fine amp and in real world use will far surpass what the specs imply as far as performance. If someone passes on this device because of an engineering choice they are most likely not even qualified to critique (as I am not) then I say consider the source. There are some customers it's better not to have.

On the other hand, even though it's quite heavy I doubt the 770 is carrying a load of fissionable materials for a supplemental power source. I just don't believe the 770 is as productive as your dog!


Charlie

Charlie: you never know. We've been surprised by the Outlaws before!

Personally I think it's got a hamster in it.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

next time your in home deopt look at a 20 amp male plug and compare it to the one on your toaster.
gene

Lets say you are listening to music at an average comfortable listening level of lets say 5 watts, and a drum is kicked producing a producing a sound that is "twice" as loud as the average. This requires your amplifier to provide 10 times more power or 50 watts to reproduce the sound without clipping. A sound twice as loud as the drum would require 500 watts. Twice the "loudness" is about 10 dB louder, requiring about 10 times the power.

My point is that no one will ever want to listen to music (or HT) on their 770 at a continuous power level of 300W/channel. Not only would it be deafening, but the amp would not be able to recreate the dynamic range (the difference in volume between loud and quiet passages). No sound could be louder than the average.

The reason we want amps with lots of power, and the reason they sound so good, is that they have so much dynamic range. And it is also important that they have this power available to all channels simultaneously with close to zero harmonic distortion. This means it can handle virtually all material you can throw at it and still sound good up to its rated power.

As an earlier poster indicated and was incorrectly shot down, the amplifier uses stored power to deliver to the peak requirements. It is not important that an amp can deliver to its maximum output continuously, however, as some on this thread seem to be expecting, i.e. to require more than 1800W AC power. To suggest that Outlaw is being less than honest with their specs if it can't do this is silly. Cut them some slack!

Anybody seen the manual for the CL-2500 MCA amplifier? It claims 500 watts per each of five channels, for a total of 2500 watts output. But, page 15 of the manual indicates it has a 15-amp plug.

http://www.calaudio.com/mcamanual.pdf

Looking at page 17 of the manual, though, its internal fuse is listed at 20 amps. Additionally, it's power consumption is listed at 3.5 amps idle, 32 amps all channels 50% active, 46 amps all channels active at 100%. Apparently the internal fuse is designed NOT to blow until 100% power has been maintained for 15+ seconds.

Interesting, is it not?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

I think 46 amps would burn up the wiring in the house where I am. The electrical system isn't the best in houses that are 40 years old.

Azistoohot -- I can relate to that! When I boughy my house (built in '54), it still had the original 60A service. Can we say "undersized"? I actually had to have the seller install a main disconnect.

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

Well, I have no problem except the Outlaw spec sheet clearly says 300 watts x 7 channels, all driven continously, so what does that mean in your book?


Charlie


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited May 03, 2002).]

I received an email from the Outlaws stating that the torroids in the 770 are "slightly larger" than in the 755, but when trying to post it here, it was erased...twice.

Are you sure you refreshed your browser? I see two posts from you about toroid size in your previous thread , plus this post.

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