Because I am considering the 7500 I emailed ATI a few questions about the ATI 2005 vs. Outlaw 7500. Primarily I am interested in how the published specs can be identical for 2 products so far apart in price. It would seem that the electronics in one or the other would cause some change in specs.

I have yet to get a reply.

I also spoke on the phone to a rep from wwsp.com. He was located in NH a mile or so from Outlaw HQ. He did say that the 7500/7700 were made by ATI to Outlaws specs but were nothing like the ATI 2005/2007.

Interesting!

At one time there were photos of the inerds on the 7500 posted, but I can't seem to find them now. I think I remember that the two brands looked very similar.

Bugbitten,

Not quite sure who wwsp.com is but based upon the specs the guts of the 7500 are the same as the ATI 2005. Even the manuals of the amps are pretty much the same. The only difference (besides the face plate) that I have observed is the 7500 channels are evenly spaced in the chassis while the 2005 are not. ATI offers to add channels to the 2000 series (up to 7 of course) for the $300 each. So I guess the 7700 and 2007 would be the same. As far as the price, bricks and mortar add a lot of cost.

I have no idea who wwsp.com is, so I don't know how accurate his information is. ATI's customer support may not be allowed to disclose differences between their own brand's products and those of a different brand that they also manufacture. As AvFan points out, traditional distribution channels add a good bit of money - that's one of the reasons Outlaw was established in the first place.

wwsp.com is an internet authorized (at least they say so) retailer in NH. Sorry for leaving that out.

ATI should be able to respond why I should want to buy the ATI brand.

No response so far.

I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for a reply from ATI. Take a look at the post on the "naked pictures" of the 7500 and I think you will conclude the ATI and Outlaw are the same. The 7500/7700 are great rebadged ATI amps and Outlaw offers the 30 day return policy and a 5 year warranty. You won't really loose anything except shipping if you don't like the 7500/7700. If a great deal on a 2005 had not come up (two days before Outlaw announced the 7500/7700!!) I would have purchased the 7500 because I was confident it was to be made by ATI based upon comments I got from Outlaw. The info since the announcement confirms the ATI 2000 series is the same as the 7500/7700.

I went from a Pioneer Elite receiver (much like your Denon) to the 990/2005 and I am very pleased. IMO, if you replace your Denon 3805 with the 990/7500 you will also see a big improvement.

Well. I didn't get an email!


ATI called!!!!!


A marketing rep from ATI called this afternoon (am to him).

The first words out of his mouth after the courtesies was the disclaimer. "I cannot disclose any intricacies of the Outlaw amp, and, we have no ownership of Outlaw".

Then he sang the Outlaw's praises. "A great bargain." Very similar to the ATI 2005.

Then the comparison. "Ford makes the Expedition (7500)vs Lincoln's Navigator (ATI 2005). They both have the same frame and you upscale to get the other." "The ATI 2005 is like Outlaw 7500 on steroids." The basics of the two amps are the same. All you have to do is look at internal photos of each.

He told the story of ATI starting as SAE. He listed companies that ATI makes amps for including Onkyo, Integra, JBL, Creston and others. Most are designed by ATI to customer specs, but not all.

He said that the 2005 and 2007 had the same toroid amps. The 2007 adds modules for the additional channels. One main difference between the two was the ability to upgrade an ATI 2005 to a 2006/2007 by returning it to ATI. Using the larger toroid amps in the 2005 (7500), was overkill but necessary for the upgrade path to the 2007.

He said that while the MSRP was $900 higher for the ATI, the street price was $1900 or $400 higher than the Outlaw 7500. He said that there are authorized (he emphasized the importance of being authorized) dealers who sold for the street price. He said that Outlaw's internet sales and outsourced manufacturing make possible huge savings for the consumer.

We talked about the features of the ATI 2000 and 3000 series while I looked at an ATI brochure (link) on-line. We discussed the excellence of ATI design, engineering and manufacture used for all amps ATI produces. We discussed the differences you could see looking at photos of the 7500 and 2000/3000 series.

We discussed the fact that ATI and Outlaw products don't show up often, or stay long, on sites like Audiogon. He said that it would be hard to find an ATI 2005 on a dealer shelf. Most sales drop ship from the factory. Most audio boutiques keep lower end models on the floor. ATI is not sold through the big box stores. He said that there are a few dealers nationally authorized but in recent years contracts are written for local sales only.

I appreciated his call and his frankness. From what we dicussed I believe the 7500 is what he said, "A great bargain".

Great work Bug. I know this issue has been "bugging" you (sorry, I couldn't resist). As I've mentioned in my PM's, I'm really enjoying the sound of the 7500. I just haven't been sure about comparisons to other seperates as my reference point was an older Yamaha receiver at 85 WPC. So, going to a 990/7500 combo from that really isn't a fair fight.

Regards.

Bug,

That's great that ATI called and gave you the straight scoop! Maybe they are checking out the Saloon and saw your post. I'm curious, what differences did the rep note between the 7500 and the 2000/3000? I know the channel spacing of the 2005 allows for two more channels (@$300 each), but is there anything else?

But I guess the real question is: Now that you got your questions answered are you going to pull the trigger on a 7500/7700 and 990?

Interesting the mentioned differences...Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator...When I bought my 950 and it was compared to the Atlantic design, their differences were the matching blue LEDs (to their other gear...not a plus for me) and they used a machined aluminum volume knob while the Outlaws used a plastic one (I could probably order their aluminum knob if I HAD to have one...I don't)...you just found out the charm of the Outlaw equipment and seemingly talked to someone who is a straight shooter (perhaps new Outlaw Employee???) at ATI...Good Luck.
Bill

One thing that I forgot to mention was very important. He said that He didn't know if I would hear any difference between the ATI 2005 amp and the Outlaw 7500. He obviously thinks highly of the product.

I have to think of it as a win-win situation for ATI. They sell an amp either way.

I'll decide now about whether or not to sell my monoblocks and get the 7500.

Bug

Makes you wonder why you would by a new "Navigator"?

AVFan,

Indeed. On the one hand, ATI benefits from increased production since it helps them generate economies of scale not available on low production runs. So they make just enough "premium product" to keep their dealers stocked and then crank out as many "white box" units as the market can handle. Typically, the people buying the bargain branded unit lose out on customer service, warranty, or some other value added component. In this case, the bargain brand also offers superb service and an excellent warranty. That's great for people who know about and purchase from Outlaw and probably not so great for an ATI dealer if it becomes widely known that their customers can get the same gear at a substantial discount online.

I wonder who makes the mono amps for Outlaw/NHT?

Cheers,

Don't know the company, buy "Made in Taiwan" is printed on the rear panel.

FWIW.

I got a firm price on a ATI 2005 for $1916 shipped.

That's $337 more than the 7500 shipped to me.

Sounds more and more like the 7500 is the "real" deal.

I'd say order yourself a 7500 and enjoy - if my old 750 is any indication, you won't be disappointed.

Ditto.
7500 has same ciruitry as my 7700.
Dead quiet wide open.
Sonically great. Outlaw improved the sound of my speakers.

And gonk still has his 950!!!!

Well, I still have my 750 (Outlaw's very first product), but my 950 has moved on to a new home.

Discussion on this end of the deal (you know what I mean) is that if I want to do this 7500 thing, the monos and unused center channel have to be sold first. The question being asked is if she will hear a $600 difference. Timing may be the key!

Yeah ATI makes amps for a lot of people. I know that Integra Research's RDA-7.1 is made by ATI (designed by BAT), as is the Monster amps and many others.

Sounds like there aren't a whole lot of companies that actually build solid state amps these days.

There are a number of good amplifier manufacturers still around that do traditional solid state designs. However, they are starting to get expensive for the really good stuff.

The future of the industry is in PWM digital amps. Some folks may scoff at that, but those same folks (or their fathers) were probably scoffing at solid state gear back in the 60's/70's and saying that EL34's or 6550's or KT88's were the be-all end-all in amplifying music.

Much like the current state of tube gear vs solid state development, we're seeing a shift in "high end" to the older more trusted technology and the masses are slowly catching on to the newer/cheaper/more efficient stuff. History tends to repeat itself.

Cheers,

Still on the fence.

After some PMs to members of this forum and discussion on the S&V forum, I am beginning to think my old ears will not hear an improvement by changing from M200s to a 7500/7700.

Members who have had both tell me not to expect a "significant" change.

Maybe money spent better elsewhere?

I'm a firm believer in spending the lion's share of the loot on the speakers, then a good pre-amp/processor, then an amp. At the very end of the chain, I worry about the source components (at least for CD/DVD) and then I purchase based on features.

I've heard the M200 and I can hear quite a difference between that and my 755. I'm certainly not old (pushing 40...Oh God, I said it!), but I'd give your ears a bit more credit. 8-)

Cheers,

Ritz: OK, I just have to ask the question. Exactly what difference did you hear and what do you attribute the difference to since they are both 200 watt amps?

Anyone else care to answer about real or perceived differences in the two amps?

Bugbitten,

I think your ears will hear a difference if you replace your Denon 3805 with a 990 versus changing your amplification. I had a Pioneer Elite 43TX which may be similar to your Denon. I originally ordered the 990 with five M2200s but for various reasons sent the 2200s back to Outlaw (great customer service I might add). I then found a deal on an ATI2005 (very close cousin of the 7500) just before the release of the 7500.

I compared the 990/5-2200 setup to the Pioneer using 5 2200s; the 990 was significantly better (clarity, dialog, surround speaker use, etc) than the Pioneer as a pre/pro. I will say the 2200s did improve the sound of the Pioneer as a pre/pro over its internal amps, however it did not have the "wow" factor of when the 990 was used. I can't say for sure that the difference between the pre/pro attributes of the Denon and 990 are that significant; maybe someone has done the same comparison with your Denon that I did with the Pioneer.

Later when I got the ATI2005 I compared the Pioneer to the 990/2005 combo and as I expected the 990/2005 was a huge improvement over the Pioneer.

There was a three month gap between when I sent the 2200s back to Outlaw and I got the 2005 so I can't report on a head-to-head comparison between the 2200s and the ATI2005. There may be a difference in the sound quality between the 7500 and the 2200s but my impression is that the 990 was the significant contributor to improved sound. My recollection is that there was not any real difference between the amps, they were both just so much better than the Pioneer when used with the 990.

It's beginning to sound like I need to get a 990/7500 combo and A/B with the Denon/M200s.

Would anyone come?

That would be a great comparison. With all that gear in one location I think you could provide your opinions on a number of combinations folks have asked about regarding pre/pro and amp choices. A number of folks use Axioms too making the comparison even more useful. If you were in southern California I'd jump at the chance to listen and compare, but the commute to Kentucky is just a bit too long. Let us know what you decide to do and if you can get some Outlaws to help out.

Anyone know what the peak power handling specifications are for both the 7500 and the 2200?

i currently use the denon 3805 with seperate amps. i got it before the 990 was available, but a processor with high quality electronics compared to another is hard to compare sound wise. on the order of importance for the sound, a processor is not at the top. speakers reproduce the sound and are the key to having a sound you like. a processor is judged differently. accuracy of reproduction, features, connections, formats, remote possibilities, etc. it would be nice to have xlr capability/flexibility, but i havent looked back for one second with the 3805. denon even gave me a free remote way out of warranty for the remote when mine had loss of light in the dvd control mode.

one big reason i was reluctant for seperates is because of upgrading, it is easier to resell a receiver than a processor. i felt i could get everything i needed and not lose much if i wanted a change. people who have processors are not typically going to plunk down a lot of cash on an older unit, because people who have processors are typically more critical listeners... im sure the 990 is nice though. speakers make the sound, and you cant ever forget that. trade all your gear out and you can get a 1% change, trade your speakers and you can get 99%.

cure: I agree with your analysis. That is why I bought an Onkyo 703 receiver for all of its features. I looked around studying everything that I could find for over a year. I did this with the notion that I would buy a seperate amp and use the Onkyo preouts. Outlaw amps are on my short list but I am having a most difficult deciding which amp to buy. Most all of the specs are very similar and I am beginning to believe that peak power capability is more important than RMS power.

Maybe we can get a discussion going on this thread about Peak Power versus RMS Power for an audio system?

What amps are you using?

Rat,

Sorry about the delay. I've been out of the country (sigh...again). The most noticible difference between the M200 and the 755 that I was able to discern was a lack of dynamics. There just seemed to be more "punch" and control over the speakers from the 755. The 755 also seemed to result is a wider and more realistic soundstage.

I haven't heard the 2200 or the 7500 so I can't say for sure that those differences still exist.

It's not just about output power.

Cheers,

Ritz: hopefully your trip was productive!

What I am trying to understand is what is causing the difference (from an electronic standpoint) between these two amps?

If you look at the specs, they are very similar. The only "major" difference that I can think of is, at high power, the monoblock switches to class G (or something like that) whereas the other does not.

Alright sportsfans, is this enough to hear a difference?

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand this. I thought channel separation was related to crosstalk. Monoblocks would have better separation than multichannel by design.

Wouldn't "soundstage" be a product of the pre/pro?

Please give me the correct interpretation.

Bug: we don't seem to be getting much interest on this thread????

I'd really like to have some more information as to what REALLY caused the difference.

I don't have any experience with either amp, but there are some specs missing from the site that could have some relevance.

Intermodulation Distortion is listed for the 7500 but not the 2200. Also damping factor is not included. Slew rate is not reported for the 2200 (although most modern amps are fine in this regard).

Also, while many people don't believe anything that is different about about 20Khz makes a difference, there is plenty of evidence that a component, or design, that has issues in the ultrasonics can manifest issues within the audible domain, even though they are extremely difficult, or in some cases impossible, to measure in the audible range.

The NHT A1 (same as M200) has;

Damping factor: >100 into 6 ohms.

So Rat, what are you saying? Buy and try?

Bug

I believe scientific evidence. Got any?

From: http://www.vex.net/~pcook/RecAudioPro/digital.html

From: http://www.promastering.com/pages/techtalk_mac/tt-3_mac.html

From: http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_world_above/index.html

As you can see there have been a number of demonstrations where signal that should be out of our hearing range have caused signal change that is in our hearing range.

A number of people don't believe the Rupert Neve story about Geoff Emmerick and hearing an issue in a mixer that involved a component causing issues at 50khz. I had the lucky occurrence of hearing the story from Mr. Neve himself.

Bug: I just don't really know if you should buy and try it. Of course, it may be the only way that you could convince yourself. I guess that you could return it if you aren't impressed with the results!

Looks measurable to me. I'm looking for proof that unmeasurable levels of audible range distortion (created by ultrasonic range issues) are detectable by the ear as indicated by this statement:

Still waiting for that evidence. Of course if a device produces artifacts in the audible range for any reason it will be, ah, potentially audible. What I'm looking for is evidence of distortion in the ultrasonics that produces audible distortion that's impossible to measure. Not likely IMO.

Charlie: if its not measurable, then it is not there. And, with test equipment being so accurate these days, if you can't measure it, then you can't hear it.

You can take that to the proverbal bank!

Couldn't agree more. You're preaching to the choir on this one.

Shawn,

Pretty interesting read though in every case there was doubt given on whether Rupert was jumping to conclusions. Though it does bring up some thought of whether these type of differences might well cause some distortion in the audible range.

doc: I read, somewhere, that the human ear can't tell differences of less than about 1 dB. For the sake of argument, lets make that 1/5 of a dB.

You don't think that modern test equipment can measure to less than 1/5 of a dB in the audio spectrum?

I think that we are beginning to discuss an area that is much like discussing audio speaker cables. That is: some people just do not understand the RLC properties of cables and spend $1000s on cables needlessly.

I think it's very plausible that this might be the case. Where I stop drinking the kool-aid is when someone asserts that audible distortion is unmeasurable. The bottom line for me is that either there is audible (and thus measurable) distortion, or not. Cause is a secondary concern.

There's always the argument that scientific knowledge isn't fixed and that we don't know everything and that therefore it is possible that there are types of distortion, or complex wave interactions that cannot be measured with current equipment, but that show up as artifacts to the human ear.

Which is why people buy into various products that either make unsubstantiated claims, or claims based on pseudoscience or just plain bull shiitake.

Kind of like trying to argue with someone over whether aliens have visited earth. You can make the arguments about theory of relativity and how mass can't even begin to approach speed of light, let alone go faster, but the believer will always come back with, "yeah, but how do you know that there isn't some phenomenon or technology that will allow us to do that, but that we haven't discovered yet?"

Anyhow, my point is that it's very difficult to disprove that which is beyond knowledge...which a lot of these types of claims are.

It's really pretty simple. Science is about what we presently now know about the natural world around us. We can change it later when we learn something new but it's what we know for now. It also allows us to design things and have them work in predictable ways. Granted that there can be arguments between scientists about interpretation. What might or might not be discovered is, however, not science, it is the presently unknowable. It could be supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, but it isn't science. Science can neither prove nor disprove the possibilities that have been raised here. Engineers , designers, and fact-based critics can only operate in the realm of reality and what is known--that is to say that they can only use the best available science. Until there is evidence the possibilties are mere idle speculation--granted it is speculation that sells a lot of high end equipment. As I have noted before, a well designed doubleblind test can ferret out real from imaged effects. The fact remains that some gear sounds better than others and we don't have a good quantitave handle on explaining that. I agree with some of the thoughts here to the extent that some gear sounds good and others don't even with similar specs. But I would strongly encourage all to keep to the facts and the cold engineering science. Decisions made on what could be will almost invariably be worse than those based on fact. That is the underlying strength of western rationalism that has underpinned our society since the Renaissance. It's not that science is always right or that it can explain everything, it's simply the best way we have of understanding natural phenomena and is more likley to be right than any other form of explanation or understanding. In recent years our society has lost our respect for the scientific method, for fact, for truth and a lot more. Can we at least be rational about our audio gear? Of course not! Why should that be any different? I think I'll go buy some expensive wires....ooppps I meant "interconnects."

A double blind test is a kind of experiment; if it's independently verified, then it's science. I doubt there's a case where a group could hear a difference (scientifically demonstrated) and a difference could not be measured. It seems more likely that one of the following would be true:

• A difference is clearly measurable but it's not immediately clear which component(s) of the difference are audible
• A difference is clearly measurable but the difference doesn't make the test subjects or test administrators happy

The former explains the cases where something "sounds better" although it has "similar" specs. We aren't looking closely enough at the measured differences, and companies like Harmon Intl. use this as a means of making real useful progress in understanding what matters.

One example of the latter was a test where (sure enough) tube lovers could identify and prefer the sound of tube amps and the measurable difference was (drum roll) the tube amps in question had slight (but barely audible) levels of even order harmonic distortion. This apparently meant that that group of listeners preferred the sound of a little distortion, which, needless to say, didn't sit well within the group itself.

The limits of human hearing are, at an extreme level, set by the physics of pressure wave propagation, diameters of the atoms involved and the 'sound pressure' produced by Brownian motion. Measurements in the electrical domain prior to the transducer suffer no such limits and may be orders of magnitude more precise.

If humans could hear much better, we could hear how warm the room was. Not very useful.

I am a newbie here. But I want to touch two points. My setup first:

Sony CD/DVD DVP-CX985V (hate it)
Denon AVR-2105 (drives center and surrounds)
Outlaw 2200 monos X2 (drives mains)
Polk LSi15
Polk LSiC
Polks RTi28 surrounds
SVS sub PC-Plus 20-39 (newest addition down to 16hz)

The Outlaw 7500 looks intriguing to me. I could buy it and use the 2200's for Surround BACKS. Or, I could bi-amp the LSi15's. But as it is, the LSi15's are rated at 250 max watts. I like moveis, but I love music! Classical and rock! My system benefits greatly from the addition of the 2200's and obviously the soumdstage is off because Denon is driving half the system. But in stereo, everything is great. The SVS sub may seem useless, but it ebbs into my next issue. With certain classical recordings (particularly large orchestral ones in rooms) the mics picked up "building" sounds and sometimes air. What showed me this? The SVS subs! It exposed too much!

My background: I am a violinist and composer. As part of my education, I had to take a class in physics/acoustics. That it was a POS at the time, but now things are really making sense to me. I cannot and will not presume to know 1/8th of anyone here so forgive me if what I say is common knowledge. Since what I am going to talk about is attempting to fuse real acoustic with solid state technology, it may not translate at all.

Let's say a violin plays his open G sting (the lowest all by itself. It is actually playing a fundamental and everynot in a harmonic series. And brass player could tell you those right away. In my example, the first note (fundamental) is the G, then the series of harmonics above (not always audible seperately) D, G, B, D, F, G > infinity

There's an Algebra function where the curved line (forgive me for not going to my books and checking) runs parallel into the Y or X axis and your eye will say that it will touch of you just followed it longer (off the paper perhaps) but mathematically it is impossible because a "0" cannot be in a certain part of the equation. Above, you noted the "F" in the series based on a G. Above that the harmonics get into the inaudible range and to dogs . . . they must hear some atonal stuff!!!
In that series, you also noted that the series at the first part outlines a harmless G Major chord. Andyone else playing a REAL B or D note would fit in well. Remember, that THEIR notes are also kicking off their own harmonic series notes. The obvious here is why #1 minor keys sound so "dark." They don't jive with nature's physics. #2 pianos are intentionally out of tune. M3's, M6's and M7's are all sharp. Nature, in fact, to OUR ears eventually shows it is out of tune. On an ocsilliscope (sp?) play a A1 and an A5 at the same time. The A5 will sound HORRIBLY flat. Yet orchestras do the equivalent of this all the time and make it work. You want to here the harmonic series yourself? Have a piano? Go to it. Press down the peddle that let's the note go on for a time. Make sure the room is utterly quite. Stick your ear as close to the box as possible. Hit only ONE note in the middle of the piano somewhere. Your ear will slowly discern the upper partials of the harmonic series. It will be kind of like looking at those crazy puzzles that turn out to be a saiboat or something after you look at it and then go into "blurry" mode.

How does this have anything to do with anything. Well, these harmonics at any performance are being picked up by the mics. They are being recorded. Many modern speakers, pre-amps, and amps (and even sources) claim to reproduce well outside the 20hz-20Khz range. Why? What more are they giving you? On my computer, I can record a perfect sin wave at 16hz. I heard and felt something. What did I hear? My math says that 16hz should be like a C#/Db. Did I hear an upper partial in the 20hz range? How complex must all of this seem to a processor.

Which takes me back to this story above about 48-50Khz anomoly. Without my interpretation of it first, I'd like you to consider what I said.

p.s. I am also torn between an all 2200 system or a 7500 amp system.

knownalien,

The musicians in my house got all exited when they read your post. (Probably the first time they got exited reading anything in the Saloon!) I play my home theater, but between my wife and kids they play the piano, trumpet (and other similar brass), flute, piccolo, oboe, and english horn. I got a lesson in harmonics when my son played various notes on the piano and explained overtones. My son used the example of an electric piano versus a regular piano. The electric piano plays just the notes and it sounds shallow. A regular piano plays the notes and you hear the overtones being generated by the rest of the piano. It is a much more deep and rich sound. Room effects are nothing new to audio so room overtones with a live performance seem reasonable too. It was pretty cool lesson.

Is your question whether overtones outside of the audible range impact the quaility (depth) of the sound in the audible range? Well, the debate kicked off in the house between my family members with a call to a friend who is studying music. Their conclusion is that in theory the inaudible overtones would have an impact on what you hear. This would be no different than audible overtones impacting the sound in the audible range.

So when you buy audio equipment do you really hear it like you were in front of the musicians? I think there are so many variables that its hard to know. How good are the mics and every other piece of recording and playback gear between the musicians and your ears. If the overtones are subtle (as I suspect high frequency overtones would be) it seems they would not be carried through the recording and playback process.

Now something I can answer. I recommend the 7500 versus 5 2200's. I tried five 2200s and for a variety of reasons (# of cords, the space the 2200s took, and a quality issue) I sent them back. Just before the 7500 came out I got the equivalent ATI model at a very good price and I couldn't be happier.

AvFan,

Thank you for your quick response. I am in line with all that you said. It's interesting because the violin is a really good example of everything we are discussing here. Often with stringed instruments (usually the more complex wave recepies on an ossiloscope) you hear the phrase "try to ring." It is not without out its physics counter part. Imagine a violin plays the open G string. Then at the same time they play the open D string. The perfect 5th. Now imagine all of the overtones kicking off from there. To an osscilospce (I stopped trying to spell it right long ago) the wave recepie will look crazy. In truth, RINGING is getting the upper partials to jive better which is directly affected by how well "in tune" the fundamental notes are. And interestingly enough, just because A (440 hz) is playing, who's to say on a piano (for example) it is not "exciting" the A at 220 or 110. In fact, it is!! Certain piano tuners out there are legendary because they tune (whether they know it or not) to the partials. That is the RING! I am a bit of an elitist when I mention the violin, but to be sure, of the string instruments, it is acoustically the most perfect. I mean, for the string bass to be able to play at the same db as a violin, it would have to be nearly 5 times its size! Ofcourse, nothing is as perfect as the human voice. It can produce a perfect sin wave and in seconds a complex one just by adjusting the mouth.

I just got through listening to the Rach piano concerto #3 with Horowitz playing in the 1970's. It is an older recording than the one I was complaining about earlier: Stravinsky Rite of Spring played by chicago Symphony with Seiji Ozawa and the Firebird suite played by Boston Symphony with Erich Leinsdorf conducting. These are 1991 recordings. The Horowitz recording is MUCH MUCH better and both are ADD I believe. I use the Rach/Horowitz for the audition of every piece I buy. And today, I was listening at reference levels.

btw, I bought a 120mm brushless fan to put on top of the two stacked 2200's. It is really very quiet. Thoughts? I thought if I had 5, they could all be stacked with a flow of air going down through all of them. If I go the 7500 route, I spend nearly $500 more than if I get 3 more 2200's.

knownalien,

Outlaw recommending stacking no more than three 2200s. Give them a call if you want to stack more of them but with a fan. I personally like the US made amps Outlaw sells and have gone that direction, however, cost is always a consideration.

I have to get the musicians in the family to help me out with the first part of your message!

well, if you want to really ponder on the oddest thing about sound, it is this (and it is the single oddest thing that makes electro-statics seem even wierder):

at its essence all sound is is compression and rarifraction (sp). That is to say, a 16hz wave "transmits" "propogates" and "travels" by compressing air and creating a vaccum somewhere next to it and then relieving that vaccum according to the wave recipie. Thunder is an extreme example of this. The lighting heats up the surrounding air and that (thermal dynamically) causes a nearby vaccum. When the air immediately cools down, it sends it's "signal" across the sky. Loudly!

For what it is worth, many can hear above 20Khz and I am one of them. I can also hear below 20hz. I don't know why. I am concerned a little about the G class amp part of the 2200's. But I listen to them and they sound fine. Sonically, I am not that advanced yet in terms of comparing them to other high end stuff. I can only afford mid-fi. But as outlaw and SVS subs have shown, you can get near hi-fi for mid-fi prices. This is an amazing phenomenon for folks like us who love music.

In case you wondered what "rock" I listen to it is anything from the Doors, to Rush to the Dead Kennedys.

p.s. the LSi15's are pretty well known and I have to tell you, that Rachmoninoff recording I told you about . . . . you hear everything: chairs squeaking. pages turning. talking in the audience. On older setups you heard none of that, so what should annoy me is at the same time an indication of just how accurate and faithful the LSi15's and the 2200's are. I credit the Denon amp very little. That is why I want the Outlaw 990!!!!

I moved up from a Pioneer Elite receiver to the 990/ATI 2005 and never looked back. I tried the 990 with 5 2200s and was equally impressed with the improvement over the Pioneer. Many here have commented on the two channel capability of the 990 and I must say the 990/2005 revived my interest in music again. I now listen to music (Dave Matthews to Yo Yo Ma) far more often than TV or movies.

To that end I'm thinking of putting together a two channel system. My M&K's are great for movies (and they work size-wise in my family room) but I think I can do better for music. I like the idea of satellite speakers with a subwoofer and so I'll be auditioning a pair of Selah Audio Tanzanites (www.selahaudio.com) in August. They are sold as a kit and I'm a decent woodworker so I could make the cabinets to match the decor. Maybe I should listen to the LSi15s! Outlaw's RR2150 has some great features (in particular bass management like the 990) that is available in just a few expensive stereo preamps so it is on my short list if I put together a stereo rig.

I wish I had your hearing! Age, loud concerts, genetics, woodworking machines and large bore rifles have taken their toll on my hearing. I'm now very careful when I'm around loud noises to protect my hearing.

I'd say for a low wall standard. you can't go anything below an LSi15 for music. I know that for $3000 I would likely get a better speaker than LSi15. But for the price, there is nothing that beats it. However, if you do go the sub route, I would definitely consider it. The SVS sub essentially makes the 8" woofers on the LSi's obsolete. The way I wired my system, a full range signal is being sent to the fronts and to the sub. Polk recommended that, but SVS didn't. SVS feared the "cascading" effect. I only wanted a sub that could go below 32hz (the LSi's limit) and really just support the sound. I have that now. For my townhome, the SVS sub is too much. In a house, it will shake every fixture you own, and that is hardly joking!!! LSi just happens to make a REALLY great satellite in the LSi9:

http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/specs/lsi9/

Ofcourse, if you were SERIOUS, you might consider this:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/index.html

the Orion. I can't because you need a lot of room for it.

I dunno about that. I listened to the Polks and they certainly didn't suck and perhaps they're perfectly fine. But for about the same money, I felt I got a much wider soundstage and better high frequency response from the Magnepans. :-) I don't listen to much chamber music, but I do listen to a lot of live jazz recordings and the Maggies + LFM-1 subwoofer + outlaw gear is working great for me.

Cheers,

I've actuallly never heard the Maggies, but I hear from people who really like theirs. I admit to being curious. I am going to look them up now. I am starting to get concerned that my source (in my sig) is severly lacking. About Jazz recordings, it really depends on what era we are talking. Most of them are studio. That's a controlled setting. I have several live recordings dating back many decades. Jazz recordings are likely the 2nd best way to test speaker abilities. People say vocals are best because human ears can more easily discern when they are being "colored" but the saxes, muted trumpets, and piano are better for me. Why? Their wave forms are going to be CRAZY. That's what I want as the benchmark for the midrange and tweeters of speakers. I also like to listen to music direct, if it is an option on a source player or pre/receiver, but the LSi's (though powered with seperates) never gives enough to the low end, or the recording engineers weren't very good.

I find the ‘open’ reproductive technology of speakers like the Magnepan and the Orion to be intriguing, but have listend to them only in environments that were too small, which I blame for the very disappointing sound I heard.

Loudspeakers that radiate both front and rear in basically opposite phase from each other would seem to be a contradiction. In an idealistic sense, who would ever think that would work? In the real world however, even a perfect speaker that would radiate sound in all directions perfectly in phase still exists in an environment where reflections and reverberations occur and arrive at the listener’s ears with a widely ranging mix of time delays. Even if the direct sound from the speaker is in phase, everything else is almost random. Place an opposing phase dipole acoustic radiator in the same reflective and reverberating environment and a curious thing happens. If the travel time of the reflections and reverberations from the rearward-radiating signal is large enough, the phase of the rearward sound, compared to the front-side sound, as it left the speaker is practically irrelevant. The ear-brain connection has already interpreted the front-side sound by the time most of the rearward sound has bounced and reached the listener. The rear-side sound, coming back with sufficient delay, adds to the feeling of spaciousness. A room large enough to allow for this may even ‘sound’ larger than it is.

But if the out-of-phase rearward sound is sent back toward the listener without sufficient delay in a room that is too small, or if the speakers are placed too near the walls, then significant amounts of some frequencies will be reinforced and others will suffer cancellation. This leads to what I call a ‘hollow’ sound where plenty of what should be there seems to be missing and some other things are over-emphasized – a cousin to the ‘boxy’ sound, this is the ‘open-air, hollow-box sound.’

While I appreciate the lauded reproduction of these types of loudspeaker, I’ve never had the environment available to make good use of them.

fascinating.

how would you rank "spaciousness" with "imaging."