|
Silver Member Username: GamerdudeOntario Canada Post Number: 506 Registered: Apr-06 | http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/7900.html This thing is pretty big "So powerful that it needs dual 15A breakers, this state-of-the-art behemoth takes no prisoners when it comes to turning your favorite soundtracks into life-changing experiences. This all new fully balanced power amplifier uses 24 output transistors per channel to deliver an astounding 7x300 watts per channel, all channnels driven! Our most advanced design ever." Specifications Power output: 300 watts RMS x 7 (all channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms from 20 Hz to 20 kHz with less than 0.05% total harmonic distortion). 450 watts RMS x 7 @ 4 ohms Signal to Noise: >120dB below rated FTCfull bandwidth power Power Bandwidth: 5 Hz - over 100 kHz (+0/-3 dB) Crosstalk: Greater than -100 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz Intermodulation Distortion: Less than .02% from 250mV to full rated FTC power Voltage gain: XLR 28dB, RCA 37dB. Slew rate: 50 Volts/microsecond Remote Trigger voltage: 3 - 24 volts DC Power requirements: 2x 115 V 50-60 Hz Power consumption: 2x 1,800 watts (maximum) Dimensions (W x H x D): 17.2 x 95 with feet x 19.5 (inches) Weight: 125 (lbs) it needs two! electrical sockets The price tag seems pretty cheap too. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10475 Registered: May-04 | . It doesn't require "two sockets". According to that blurb and the specs provided it needs two 15A breakers, which means two completely independent circuits with cabling run to two outlets from two 15A breakers (or one dual 15A breaker) in the service panel. Do you have two independent circuits in the same room that are close enough to each other that you can plug the amplifier into each one without an extension cord? If not, and, if the Outlaw information is correct and not just marketing, you will have to include the cost of installing another circuit and outlet into the cost of the amplifier. Any idea what that will add to the cost of the upgrade? . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7413 Registered: Dec-04 | Kitchen split. |
|
Silver Member Username: GamerdudeOntario Canada Post Number: 508 Registered: Apr-06 | I just kinda thought it needed two outlets from the two power inserts in the back on the pig. I dont plan on buying one at all just kinda thought it was HUGE and thought I'd share |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10484 Registered: May-04 | . Three hundred watts. Big?! This is BIG: http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/mcprod/shopdisplayproducts.asp?hid=1&id=14&cat=Power +Amplifiers&prodid=1115&product=MC2KW Matter of fact, that's pretty close to humongous considering each amp is only a monoblock. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Mike3Wiley, Tx USA Post Number: 400 Registered: May-06 | If anybody needs to have a volunteer to demo those MACs... |
|
Silver Member Username: GamerdudeOntario Canada Post Number: 509 Registered: Apr-06 | I supose to have a point Jan , I have seen those mono blocks before very impressive looking |
|
Silver Member Username: GamerdudeOntario Canada Post Number: 510 Registered: Apr-06 | Bryston has a 1000 mono block the 28B I think they need a bigger amp in there multi channle arra |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 86 Registered: Jan-07 | Not only does the Outlaw probably require some internal house rewiring, but it is possible that if you only have an older <=100 amp service to your house, THAT TOO will need an upgrade. This thing will kick out enough heat to make it necessary to upgrade your AirConditioning in warmer climates, too. The upside is smaller heating bills in the winter! |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 2176 Registered: Sep-04 | The thing that I think is being missed here is that the 7900 does what it does at a price of just $3499. Obviously there are bigger amps about, but a very apropos saying is that 'a good engineer can build for £1 what any fool can build for £100'. The numbers on that unit are really rather impressive. One wonders how it sounds, which has little to do with the numbers themselves... Regards, Frank. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10495 Registered: May-04 | . I don't think anything's being missed here, Frank. Yes, the numbers are impressive and, yes, the numbers actually mean little to nothing. Look at the cost! Not of the unit by itself but of the actual cost of ownership. Maybe you can afford that great deal on a '66 XKE; but can you afford the insurance and upkeep? Any fool can build something that is overpriced. So, is it then foolish to build an amplifier that requires such ancillary costs to own and operate? This appears to be more marketing driven than engineering desired. What speakers is this amplifier meant to drive? Something with 1/4% efficiency? Why do such speakers exist and who in their right mind would buy such a ridiculuous design? I know, someone who can. And the rest of the world be damned! I hear it everyday about 10 M.P.G. pick'em up trucks and watering a lawn in rainstorm in Texas. Rampant consumerism is how we all live. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 87 Registered: Jan-07 | Jan, finally something about which we have no Disagreement! I figger that it would cost at least 200$ for a new plug/circuit installed at my current location. An upgraded service to the house? at least a grand. Whole-house airconditioning? at least 2 grand... Hernia lifting it. Priceless. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7446 Registered: Dec-04 | If your home needs to be rewired to run 2 toasters at the same time, well... |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 89 Registered: Jan-07 | Nuck, it ain't that bad, I was making a point. I have a 100amp service and NO A/C. It rarely gets over 90f here....maybe 1 week/year. To get an amp like this which runs 30 amps at maximum draw, I would need to upgrade the house service and add AirConditioning. For those with similar homes, with an Electric cloths drier, it gets even worse. I wonder if 'code' here requires a service of 150amps for A/C equipped homes. If this amp required 220, not dual 110, it would make more sense. I suspect it would also make more sense to have an amp with HUGE power reserves for music dynamics rather than such gigantic RMS power, which unless your speakers are the mythical 1/4% efficient, you would have little or no use for. I would settle for 150RMS and 600 peak/short time period. What is that? 6db dynamic headroom? I remember early NAD's with huge headroom claims. Even though, 'too much is never enough', I will pass on this unit regarless of its sonic benefits. As an electrical aside/nightmare, I once lived in a house with knob and tube wiring.....There were 3 or 4 outlets in the entire house. When my dad came to visit, he recommended I 'move out right away'.......The place was a firetrap. And yes, 2 toasters were out of the question, you could barely run a clock radio and turn on the lights simultaniously. Let me know what kind of a dent this bad-boy makes in your electric bill! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7448 Registered: Dec-04 | I ain't touching this one Leo, LOL! I have a 200A service(house was electric heat), and need(use) a seperate circuit for the Classe amp. Another circuit will be used for the 2nd, so theres the same thing, ja? A nut-buster at 125lbs, to be sure. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10500 Registered: May-04 | . "I would settle for 150RMS and 600 peak/short time period. What is that? 6db dynamic headroom? I remember early NAD's with huge headroom claims." Yes, but that didn't make them good amplifiers. There are more than enough arguments for a well regulated power supply that produces what it is rated to pass and not much more for any length of time. As power supplies have improved and reserviors have grown larger over the last decade and one half, these claims of exhorbitant "peak instantaneous power" have gone the way of the old IEA peak power Magnavox console that managed 120 watts through a ten watt transformer. . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7451 Registered: Dec-04 | Jan what makes the 15 yr timeframe of sigifigance? Torroidal transformers? Materials? Brains? Some of those old beasties were Awfully heavy, aside from SQ, where do you feel the difference lies? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10508 Registered: May-04 | . "Jan what makes the 15 yr timeframe of sigifigance?" Phases of the moon. Audio goes through cycles, closely regulated power supplies are the current approach. This really just follows what has been a trend among the best manufacturers that has existed for quite a long time. I think everyone was a bit surprised when NAD touted their peak power numbers after all the work that just a few years before gone had into getting RMS specs established as the way to compare amplifiers on a more or less apples to apples basis. "Some of those old beasties were Awfully heavy, aside from SQ, where do you feel the difference lies?" What differences are we talking about? Things aren't built the way they once were. It costs money to ship stuff. If you're designing for a cost competitive market, this affects what you charge. A large part of why transistors were "competitive" against traditional US and British companies' tube based offerings was the lower shipping weight and cost. What would it have cost Sony to ship a few thousand tube based amplifiers from Japan to the US? They shipped solid state amplifiers with two less transformers and a smaller power supply transformer than the Fisher tubed receiver required and Sony and other Asian companies became competitive. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and with better on paper specs. What's not to like? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 90 Registered: Jan-07 | I don't know enough about design, but would suggest that all things being equal, 100RMS and Zero headroom could be equalled by 50RMS and 200watts headroom. I remember IPP which was a joke. RMS has a whole protocol for measurement, right? Preconditioning time @1/3 power and all the rest. All that needs to happen is another standard...... Short time-period power, measured in watts at 8ohms for say........200miliseconds. Not quite 'Instant' and definately not RMS......I'll let the brain trust work on this one. Music is fortunately NOT RMS in nature, except for the oddball who enjoys listening to sinewaves! I haven't done that since the '60's..... But, bottom line is that I have no conceivable need for over 2kw of output based on 3.5kw input! BUT, I asked a question in jest and I think it may actually need a serious answer? WHAT ABOUT running some of the real hi-power stuff off 220? I have a drier plug in my garage that I am told can run a small welder....should 'bout do it. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10510 Registered: May-04 | . "I don't know enough about design, but would suggest that all things being equal, 100RMS and Zero headroom could be equalled by 50RMS and 200watts headroom." Not exactly. Allowing the power supply to swing sufficient voltage to achieve higher instantaneous output isn't necessarily a good thing. High instantaneous voltage doesn't speak to the requirements of most real world loudspeakers which need current to work well. Manipulating numbers on paper will make the marketing folks happy but won't always result in better sound. 220VAC is once again going to make the marketing folks happy while not succeeding at anything beneficial to real world performance. However, I have to say I find the idea of megawatt amplifiers all too much. Building higher and higher powered amplifiers to deal with stagnation in the efficiency of loudspeakers is idiocy in my mind. If the designers would turn their attention to making an efficient speaker that doesn't sound like the current crop of efficient speakers, there would be no need for high powered amplifiers. As Paul Klispch said, "What the world needs is a good five watt amplifier." . |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 92 Registered: Jan-07 | Curiousity compels me to ask:: Are there very good examples of both design approaches? Hi headroom / loose voltage regulation VS Lo headroom / Stiff power supply Is there any advantage to either approach when dumping into some of the nuttier speaker loads? PS:: a local retailer has a pair of Klispch Corner Horns....NFS, but sound terrific. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10512 Registered: May-04 | . Most modern high end amplifiers have a stiff power supply with little headroom. But the tradition goes back to the fifties and sixties with high end companies such as McIntosh and Marantz (when Marantz was a top flight company). Any audio amplifier is no more than a modulated power supply and most dedicated high end engineers realize the benefits of having more power supply than the amplifier will ever need. Classic examples of loosely regulated power supplies are, to me, the Dynaco Stereo 70 tube amp and all of the Phase Linear (knick-named Flame Linear) amplifiers and the 1970's Marantz receivers and amplifiers. What has changed in the last two decades is the availability to a designer of higher quality power supply parts, particularly capacitors which allow for more stages of regulation within a smaller chassis. Digital has brought with it advantages that are seen in some high end designs which reflect a movement toward stiffer power supplies with more stages of regulation and better resulting sound quality and (hopefully) longevity of components. Unfortunately, with digital the advances in other areas of circuitry move faster than the changes in power supply technology. But even the inexpensive T amps show the benefit of good power supply design and regulation. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 93 Registered: Jan-07 | I saw BOTH of the Phase Linear amps back in the early 70's. '73, methinks. They were being demo'd with the Bose 901's, unfortunately. The 700 was too much, but the 400 was 'just rite'........ I think Phase Linear was Bob Carver's first foray into consumer electronics. How do these guys compare with modern stuff? Especially compare with the Adcom GFA555, a Nelson Pass design. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10517 Registered: May-04 | . I don't know what you mean by "compare". Everything mentioned was a successful product and/or company, so I assume they all had, and probably all still have, devotees. I own McIntosh. |
|
Bronze Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 94 Registered: Jan-07 | Jan, this is a tough one, but by 'compare', I mean that if you were to A/B older equipment against brand-new latest, would you at some point prefer the older stuff? This goes to the heart of 'progress' VS 'preference' I think that some of what passes today as progress is just current preference. You can measure an automobiles performance, much like an amps. But with modern measurements and techniques, you can get a VERY complete on-paper profile of a car. While amps are very measureable, too, there are still a number of imponderables. AND, when combined with real world loads, like your much maligned 1/4% efficient, highly (fill in blank) inductive/reactive/capacitive/ lo impedence loads it gets even worse. Isolating a component is difficult, 'cause at some point you are going to want to hook it up and LISTEN to it!!! At least automobiles can all be run over the same route with the same drivers. That being said, it is probably futile to reduce such complexities as (amps or autos) to a series of numbers. .................................................. BTW, the '66 XKE is one of the most beautiful autos EVER, just take out the electical system and replace with BOSCH or DELCO..... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10521 Registered: May-04 | . "I mean that if you were to A/B older equipment against brand-new latest, would you at some point prefer the older stuff?" You are asking specifically if I would prefer the "old stuff". My McIntosh tube amps were built in 1962. I have owned them for the last 22 years. In many ways they are as good as I have heard. . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7468 Registered: Dec-04 | But new 'stuff' will beat out old 'stuff'. Usually, yes. Because new 'stuff' is counting on new source material. Count in Vinyl, then all bets are off. The new TT's are better than the old, but in margins. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 10522 Registered: May-04 | . The new turntables are certainly more expensive than the old ever were. |
|
Silver Member Username: Mike3Wiley, Tx USA Post Number: 410 Registered: May-06 | Refurbished Carver M-4.0t by Roland Barr, it would be inappropriately expensive to try and replace this with "new stuff". |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7473 Registered: Dec-04 | Define 'inappropriately expensive'. |
|
New member Username: Joe11eePost Number: 2 Registered: May-07 | Thanks for uploading this, it gave me something to read on my lunch break. DVD Software http://www.hotdvdtools.com |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 7475 Registered: Dec-04 | Thanks for dropping by to spam us on your lunch break, Joe. |