Who says a "serious audio person" would not "settle" for 65w? Tube gear is often low wattage. The need to blast the music is not an audiophile requirement. My 1050 with a powered sub gives me plenty of output. I have thought of adding a separate amp, but could not justify it's expense. I'm sure there are gains to be had, but don't underestimate the amp in the 1070 either.

ok, well i overlooked tube amps. ill give you that much. god forbid a generalization to make the point more clear. rather than state every possible situation where what you say may not be accurate... qualifying every statement in preparedness for attack wastes my time.

back on topic. i think its great that outlaw rates accurately, but to say that just because they are actually putting out 65wts is not a defense for ONLY HAVING 65WTS. my point was, an amp rated at 100wpc by another man. may actually be putting out more than 65wpc, and knowing that, the accuracy of the rating is less important.

if an amp says it puts out 500watts x 50 channels, would you really care if it put out only 300watts x 50 channels if you knew that ahead of time, and was at a better price point than other 300watts x 50 channels amps? i dont care what the label says, other than about price. so i am saying that an informed consumer realizes that some man. overrate the power and take that into consideration when buying.

if you look at the results the 65wpc was not perfect, so while it is a more accurate claim, it is not exactly accurate.

those of you familiar with MTX car audio amps know that they test each amp and give you a little slip that says its actual power rating. sometimes the advertised amp is close to the actual (close but above) and sometimes the actual power rating is much higher than the advertised power rating. if only home audio manfacturers could do this. that would warrant a lot of respect. but they like trying to confuse the consumer, rather than being straightforward. computer processor man. often sell a faster processor under the label of a slower processor (adjusting the clock accordingly) if it costs them less to make the faster one. in these examples man. are giving away free/bonus power.

home audio is like cars though, the sticker doesnt mean much. when is the last time a car actually got its advertised HP or MPG claims? why is this, because the testing is designed and (not regulated enough) to produce these inflated results.

it's marketing and i understand it completely.

outlaw shouldnt have penalized themselves by producing a solid 65wpc, when they could have as easily produced a solid 100wpc. then people would be like "wow, 100wpc and its an outlaw, so you know its good". instead of, "its an outlaw, thats nice, BUT it only has 65wpc".

i dont want to split my ear drums, but i do want enough power to differeniante loud from normal.

A true 100 wpc receiver can get about 2 decibels louder than a true 65 wpc receiver. This really isn't a big difference.

I'm not suggesting more power is not desirable. I had a Rotel separate amp rated at 2X 60watts. It was a dual-mono design, having basically two mono amps in a single chassis. It could be bridged to put out a mono 180watts. I ran it initially full range to my Vandersteen 1b's. It sounded much better than my old NAD 40w/ch integrated. I had to send one of the Vandy's back to the factory to repair a woofer, and in it's absence ran the Rotel bridged to the one speaker. If I could have swung a second amp, I'd have bought it and ran each one bridged! The main difference was in the bass control, extension and definition. Big difference. But, once I added a powered sub that leveled the playing field........somewhat.

My point, if there was one, is that most people don't realize that at average listening levels, only a few watts are being used the mjority of the time. Only on transients, or peaks, are the reserves called upon. If you double the 1070's power rating to, say, 130watts, 7 channels driven, you only gain what....2-3db?

My Rocket UFW-10 has 500watts. My old PSB had 180watts. The UFW is a 10" sealed sub in a roughly one cubic foot cabinet. The PSB is a 12" ported sub in a box approx. 16" square. The PSB will rattle everything in the room at a lower setting on the volume. The UFW is not as "powerful" sounding at first, but is smoother and has better control and articulation. I guess it takes a lot more power to overcome a smaller driver, cabinet and being sealed vs. ported. So while 500 vs. 180 watts seems like a total mismatch in comparison, it is not all that obvious.

But I agree with you on one thing, Curegeorg(OMG ) For the difference in price from the 1050, I expected a higher power rating too.

my main sub is velodyne hgsII 18 1250rms, 3000+peak. i used to supplement with velodyne hgsII 10s for the fronts 1250rms, 3000+peak before my theatre room got smaller and i got less excited about audio.

i dont know how much you know about velodyne, but they are the amplification/performance that i expect. very high quality, low distortion, and gobs of extra power (enough to blow out the lights if you arent wired right). not that power is the only measure of quality for subs, but still...

do i know for sure that 1250rms is being produced or used, no. do i care if is actually only 1225rms, no. i care that when i hear an explosion i can feel it, and when i hear a car backfire it sounds different than that explosion. i care that i can listen at thx ultra2 level, or i can listen down the street/in the yard, etc. do i crank up the sub past 1/4, not often, but have i, yes. has the sub produced as much power as it says it can, not likely, but im sure i have gotten it close.

65wpc is not enough for me, and its not enough for a lot of other people.

subs have higher power requirements because they have different goals than loudspeakers, plus drivers are larger, etc. so the comparison is not the best, but since it was taken there, i analogized.

you have got to be crazy, if you think you can convince me that 65wpc is better than 100wpc (same quality assumed). only way 65wpc would be better is if it was priced for 65wpc, the 1070 is in the price range where you can get quality and 100wpc.

i am using 100watts as my argument, because i think that is the lowest acceptable power rating that most people want. LOWEST being the key word.

people with exotic needs and equipment, arent likely looking at a receiver, no matter who makes it or how great it is!

the outlaws appreciate our opinions, so dont dare mislead them into the idea that 65wpc was a good idea. you guys should be appalled and complain, so that next time they take it into account.

anyway, i have gotten this urge to crank up my sub now and revel in its excessive power capabilities and wonder if i could get more from my gear if i build a reactor in my basement.

i am not saying that 100 is SO SO much better than 65, but it turns people off to the 1070. you can see it in this very forum. a new person will say, oh i like this 1070, it has good features and i hear outlaw is a good company, BBBBUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT it is only 65wpc, i dont know. more sales=more money=more variety of products=happy consumer=even happier outlaws.

THe key words are "same quality assumed". With most of today's "100 wpc" receivers you aren't getting anything near that.

Of course, you can always go to separates, and I think the Outlaws have more than enough solutions there.

AND: with the presumption that the watts are "REAL", did it occur to you that some people can't afford that? What you are saying may well be right for you and for some other people, but to make it a global statement is absurd. Why not leave people to, date I say it, LISTEN and then make the determination?

Oh, and could you possibly trade is some of those watts for a supply of capital letters? It would be greatly appreciated by those of us who read your posts.

Thanks

Paul Klipsch said something like "What we really need is a good 10 watt amplifier", but obviously he wasn't a "serious audio person" by some standards.

2 decibels is 2 decibels, and it doesn't take much to make as much or more difference in volume. For instance, the obvious one is speaker sensitivity. Another is simply adding a powered sub. In contrast, an outstanding pre section can't be faked or added in later.

Finally, for $1500 one can get a pair of 2200's and have 200 wpc on the front channels. I stand by my statement: The 1070 is a damn good unit in it's price range, what more can one reasonably expect? Magic?

gonk, I understand the purpose of the internal test tones. My point was that there have been several posts (not all in the Saloon) about having to use a +10dB setting and not reaching 75dB or even 70dB. In my mind, you should never have to turn the volume to it's maximum setting --- and if you do, and still haven't achieved a 75dB reading it's worrisome unless you have unusually inefficient speakers.

60wpc x 7 with a subwoofer is perfectly fine for HT. However, IHMO, 69w x 2 is not fine for two-channel stereo listening at a $900 price tag. As the reviewer said: Times have changed in the past few years and as curegeorg says there are quality receivers out there in the $900 price range. It's a different league than the $500 receiver market of five years ago. Dismissing all the other "100 wpc" receivers would be underestimating the enemy

it is no surprise that you older outlaws support the 1070, while newer outlaws question it.

i would fall in the middle, with saying it is a good product, just not great. for that price, you can get better. its a little disappointing.

it is what it is and is already being made, but i would like to see the sales # info in a few years compared to some other receivers that are comparable. yeah i know, internet only will be hard to compare to anybody, but just for my own delight it would be interesting none the less.