3 Channel Power Amplifier

I'd love to see a 3 channel version of the Model 7500 in a shallower, lighter case, possibly using a single large toroid with the amplifier modules to either side, similar to the Anthem MCA 30, which is currently on my very short list. It seems to me that many who use AVRs would be interested in such an amp as an upgrade for their "front end", while continuing to use the receiver's amplification for their surround channels. Alternatively, many who use a dedicated pre/pro (I'm still waiting for the Model 978) might prefer to use separate amps for their mains and surrounds for other reasons and would gravitate to such a product.

I'm aware of the economical Model 2200 option, but don't want the clutter of multiple power cords, and am attracted by the 7500's fully differential design.

Gary,

That is a nice idea. However, here is the reality of the siutuation:

1. We would have to design a new chassis and commit to a minimum of hundreds a year. That is a major risk for a small market.

2. Why is it a small market? It turns out that recently AVR makers are dumping the pre-amp out jacks in all but their most expensive receivers. This is for cost savings in a competitive market and the receiver people don't think it is worth the effort in lower priced units (which ironically could most benefit from what you suggest)

Case in point: Marantz The replacement unit for the SR5005 (which has 7.1 pre out jacks) no longer has the jacks It offers only 2.0 out jacks. The least expensive Marantz receiver with 7.1 out is now $1200.

At Outlaw, we bought up the remaining stock of 5005's so we can (for a short while) offer a $500 HDMI 1.4 "processor. " A number of Outlaws have recognized this opportunity and have grabbed one to hook up to their 7 channel power amps. When those units are gone there will be no other units available that can deliver that performance for that price. We have informed our customers about this situation twice in the lasdt couple of months.

So there you have it -a long answer as to why we will not invest in what is otherwise a pretty good idea.

Peter

Thanks, Peter. Too bad, but I can certainly understand your reasoning. Your response suggests that it's an idea you might well have pursued before the current realities made it less attractive.