Thanks Ritz! What if I just stuck with the 1.6's? Will the P1000 be sufficient to drive those? I am thinking this is not a very high end system anyway, so the 3.6s can be bypassed for now which will save me more than $2500. I see you're driving your 1.6's with the 755. I was planning to biamp the front L+R speakers to improve the sound of my 2 channel music system and only run 5.1 for HT. Does anyone here think 7.1 is the way to go instead with such a setup?

Sorry, I think I am getting out of line here posting non-Outlaw products.

I initially set my 1.6's up biamped with the 755 before I had my theater system totally set up. I didn't notice even a hint of difference in sound.

The 1.6 and 3.6 are equally piggy in terms of efficiency. So switching to the 1.6 in the hopes of saving some $$$ on an amp is really not going to help. That said, I didn't really hear any advantage in the 3.6 vs the 1.6 either. Audio equipment is a very personal choice and we've all got different aspects weighed in at different levels. I personally don't find the P1000 to be a very good bang for the buck. But I've also not spent any real time with one. If you're going to "overpay" for something like that, it would be in your best interests to sit down and listen to one for a while and make sure you're happy with the bang/buck tradeoff. I have no doubt that it will be "sufficient," but I guess I'm just a bit puzzled at spending premium bucks for sufficiency when you can spend less and get more/better amp for your $$$.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Cheers,


Hope that helped.

Cheers,

.

Wayne's got a very good point. There's an extra piece to that puzzle that reinforces the value: Outlaw has proven a commitment to maintaining their performance/value product line. That means the 990/7700 combo is still a significant value today, but in a few years you can factor in the ability to ugprade the 990 to a next-generation successor (selling your 990 for a respectable share of the original price, if history is any indication). The 7700 (or 7500 or 7125 or whatever amp you might have) can stick around for many years. True, that's been a selling point of separates for years, but the cost of admission used to be restrictively high.

Anyone heard both that can comment? [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't think the new AVP-700 was made to compete with Outlaw, etc. I think it was made for the Arcam crowd that wanted a separate version of their high end receiver. Its supposed to be a hell of a deal, but I haven't had the opportunity to demo it.

The review you point to fails to mention that the AV8 has been replaced by the AV9. Which is supposedly a big thing over at Arcam. The AV8 won best processor awards from The Perfect Vision, Home Cinema, Hi-Fi Choice, TechTV, Hi-Fi News, Widescreen Review, and some others I'm sure that aren't listed in my 1 year old product guide.

They aren't cutting corners either that is normal. Its just one reason the AV9 will sound so much better than a 990 they just aren't built fairly enough to compare. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Not sure what your trying to say here. If the AVP-700 was not designed to compete with the 990, then who is their target? Are you saying the AVP-700 is that much better or worse?

Also, you still didn't address the single DAC issue. Appears to me the better processors, including the Arcam AV8, have individual DAC's for each channel. The AVP-700 does not, but it looks as though the 990 does. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with performance and this is why I was asking. But, seeing how the higher end processors seem to have individual DAC's, I think it probably does.

You said the link I provided fails to point out the AVR-8 has been replaced by the AVR-9? So what? I'm not trying to compare the 990 to either of these, I've been talking about the AVP-700. After all, it only double the price of the 990. :0)

If we have to use the AVP-8 or 9 to compare to the 990 there really is no comparison. If the 990 is even mentioned in the same breath, then the 990 is a clear winner.

Your final statement has me really confused. You mention all the awards the AVP-8 has won, but once again this is not the processor I was talking about. Then you reply to my questions about cutting corners, but once again, I was talking about the 700. I know the AVP-8 didn't cut corners, but look at what it sells for.

And, exactly why aren't they "built fairly enough to compare"?

ninoe99, my Maggie 1.6's aren't biampable - the crossover network would have to be removed or bypassed with shunts from the external binding posts to the tweeter and woofer "voice coils". That would require some pretty delicate internal surgery and of course void the warranty. Then of course you'd need to buy an external line-level crossover. Yet you say you biamped yours, Ritz. How? And are the results worth the trouble and expense?

When I biwired mine (not using exotic wire) I did notice some apparent improvement in cleanness and detail. It might be interesting to try to compare one biwired with the other monowired (?), using mono material (if I can find any) and the balance control and see whether I was just BSing myself.

I suspect that Ritz is passively bi-amping - retaining the internal crossovers and simply using separate amps to feed each set of binding posts. The significant surgery you describe is required for active bi-amping (setting up external crossovers upstream of the amps). Most folks who have experience with both approaches seem to suggest that active bi-amping offers the greatest benefits, whereas passive bi-amping yields similar results to employing a single larger amp.

Thanks, gonk - I never tried passive biamping, just biwiring. It must require Y connectors from the preamp to feed the two amps in each channel. Makes me wonder what my results would be with my nOrh monoblocks connected to the 1.6 woofers and my old Dyna Stereo 70 to the tweeters - assuming it still works, and both amps have about the same gain, and the 990 accepts their combined parallel impedances.

I just discovered this thread... very interesting. I've owned both the Anthem AVM30 and Arcam AVP700. I've also recommended Outlaw gear without hesitation (a good friend got the 950 combo based entirely on my recomendation). Here are my thoughts on some of the topics:

- Comparing the Outlaw 990 to the Arcam AV8 is not fair. They are in completely different leagues. The AVP700 is a much better comparison.

- From my experience, the "Arcam sound" is very real. My experience with the AVP700 is much the same as tsd's AV8. The imaging and spaciousness is unmatched by anything I've ever heard, though admittedly I haven't heard the $5k+ pre/pros. The 2 channel music performance still makes me shake my head. This thing lived up to the hype, which bring me to...

- It's not only about price. I bought a more-expensive Anthem AVM30 and was never quite happy with the sound quality. It was only marginally better than my Marantz SR8200 receiver at more than double the price. When I heard all the hype about the new Arcam AVP700, I brought one home to audition. Well, needless to say, I sold the Anthem at a considerable loss (and explanation to the wife) after only six months of ownership. The Arcam was about a grand cheaper than the Anthem.

- With respect to the single chip DAC solution: I'm not an engineer, so I can't give any scientific explanation. I can only tell you that I compared the Marantz SR8200 as a pre-pro (which is dual differential - 2 DACs per channel in stereo), Anthem AVM30 (one DAC per channel) and AVP700 (all channels on one DAC chip). The detail and sound stage was pretty much the inverse: Arcam was the best by far, Anthem second, and Marantz was close to Anthem but still third. Is it because the Wolfson's are better? I don't know. I even saw another post that theorized that a single chip may actually help with its shorter signal paths.

- For what it's worth, I've also heard some reports that the P1000 amp is not as special as the Arcam receivers and pre/pros. I kept my Anthem PVA7 (which I like quite a bit). If I didn't already have the Anthem amp, I'd probably have gone the used route.

- I haven't heard the Outlaw 990, but from what I've heard, it sounds like a great value. For music-first enthusiasts, I'll always recommend Arcam, though I've heard great things about Audio Refinement and NAD. For those who are looking for a good balance (or mostly HT) at a good price, I still wouldn't hesitate recommend the 990 - at least for an audition.

Chris