I'm a 50-50% AV and 2-channel listener. If I start with a 990/7500/LFM-1 combo and opt to go with a couple of 2200's later (say two years)... what will I be out from an audio perspective in comparison with starting with a 7700? I've blown my budget on everything in my AV system so far...went shopping for a 42" or 50" TV and came home with a 60" Sony XBR The $500 would be REALLY nice to have in my pocket...

I do not believe you will be out anything. I Have a 990 with a 755 amp and two 200s. The 200 drive my rear speakers in a 7.1 config, however I have driven my mains with the 200s for comparasion, and my ears could not detect any difference.

I don't think you'd be losing anything at all.

Both are correct. However I asked Scott about seven channel amp vs. 5 ch plus two monos. I wondered if the 2 monos would be better for the front L/R because of independent power supplies.

Scott pointed out that the "sharing" of the seven channel amp's power supply (obviously sufficiently strong for 200w @ 8 ohms RMS driven and x 7) is not seven isolated supplies and that therefore more power/headroom or whatever is available. For example the surrouns are rears might not be "taxed" as much as the fronts and center, and power is available in shared mode, that is not in individual.

But as said above probably doesn't make a difference and you won't hear it. I like the idea of the seven channels in a package. It makes for easier wiring and component placement.

I kept my 755 when I triggered for the 7700. The 755 replaced old Crown amps in another room and made the electrostats there sound like new.

I also have the 755 and (2)200 combo (pushing the 990) in a 7.1 configuration - I've tried the 200's running the rear surrounds and the front LR mains, and couldn't really detect any difference...you do get an extra helping of spaghetti in the back of your rig as compared to the 7700, of course

I went through the same decession and ended up getting a 7700 even though I only use 5 channels at this time, thought about the 7500 and adding a couple of mono blocks down the road but I have already filled my new 7 shelf AV rack. I not only wanted the ability to expand to 7 channels when I move into a new house but can also use these two extra channels to power a Zone 2 or to bi-amp my mains. Just like guns and money, channels are another thing you just cannot have too much of!

Hey Gonk or other outlaws:

What do you think about the "sharing of power" as I pointed out above, citing Scott.

It's what I've been saying all along. In addition to just being a better amp in general (the 2200/200 is just not that great), the very much larger output transformer of the multichannel amps can dump a lot more current into any given channel when they're all not being driven to max levels simultaneously (which probably rarely happens except on the test bench). So if you're listening to stereo programming the tranformer is sitting on a lot of excess capacity that it can bring to bear on the 2 channels actually being driven.

Cheers,

Ritz,

I have noticed many post by you knocking the 200/2200, "the 2200/200 is just not that great". What experience have you had with either amp? Have you compared them with the Your 755. If you have some listening comparasion data please share it, or are you just bench listening?

I don't have any doubt that sharing a larger transformer can provide benefit to power-hungry main or center speakers. On the other hand, if your budget is getting tight and you don't plan to add two more speakers for a long while, if you buy five channels now (with a 7500) and add a pair of M2200's to drive surround back speakers, you'll be using 200-watt monoblocks to drive surrounds that will be asked to do far less than the mains and center. In that scenario, even very inefficient surrounds would never call for more power than a 200-watt monoblock could provide. If postponing the purchase of those last two channels lets you buy nicer speakers or a better surround processor or some new DVD's (or groceries) now, I think you'd be better served with that now and in the long term.

Para,

I think the 2200/200 is fine to drive surrounds, but it just isn't as polished as its big brethren. It's got a higher noise floor and lower gain compared to the 755/7500. I have listened to the 200 and it just didn't do anything for me as a mains amp. A friend is using several of them to drive 4ohm subwoofers. I don't think they sound very good in that role, but for my friend, they were a big step up from the old Pioneer power amp that was doing the job. I borrowed 2 of them for a few days when I still had my Dahlquist DQ-20i speakers as my mains and they just sounded rather lifeless. However, that wasn't a very fair comparison because my regular amp was an Adcom GFA-5802, a MUCH more expensive piece of gear. That's when I decided on the 755 instead of a pile of 200's for my theater system. For a theater system, where it's just going to drive surrounds (not the mains), it's probably got the right mix of stuff...it's cheap, it's small, and can adequately feed smaller surrounds and you won't notice the lack of soundstage, the higher noise floor, or lack of punchy bass.

But let's compare apples to apples. The 200/2200 is outsourced to a factory in Asia (not the same manufacturer as their other amps) and is probably not made with the same quality of components as the ATI amps. If one of you 2200 owners has the chance, I'd be curious to see some closeup digital photos of the innards of the 2200 to be sure.

Hope that clarifies things a bit. For the money, it's not a bad little amp for what it does. But I certainly wouldn't use it for critical listening on my main speakers. There are better choices for that which aren't a whole lot more expensive that will yield more pleasing results.

Cheers,

Just a question. Are you assuming that the 7500/7700 series is made from components not from Asia?