Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Reflections on the A1400-8 and other amps

Before getting into my views on why and how let me say right at the outset that this is one killer amp. I love amps and have owned many over the years and as I'm reminded from time to time have more than a few around the house.

One thing I'd like to get off my chest is this notion which is expressed far too often around here that a small power supply ie. as found in most receivers is all you really need to produce quality sound. I've posted my views on this perspective which IMO quite frankly is just plain disinformation. (I edited out another word I had for "disinformation" ) In general, I agree that the more efficient your speakers are, the smaller your room, the closer you sit to the speakers, or the lower volumes you listen to then the less power that you will need. However what I am concerned about is high quality sound and if that is the overriding objective there is no getting around having large reserves of power on standby in order to
reproduce peaks cleanly and avoid any nasties from clipping.

How much power is enough you ask? Much more than you think you need is my succinct answer. Let's take a look at some real life situations to put that into perspective so you can appreciate why our good friends at Axiom have devoted such effort and expense to developing the A1400-8.

Generally speaking in most rooms, most amps are not played beyond a few watts nominal at moderate listening levels. It is at peaks such as from loud transients that more power is demanded by the speaker. At higher listening levels which can easily occur on recordings with good dynamic range power amps can clip without a lot of power bandwidth in reserve. The key concept here is that a doubling of wattage is necessary for every 3db increase. So, if the speaker like the M80 is around 91db efficient at one watt, you hear around 81db at 4 metres away, whether your amp is rated at ten watts or 200 or 1400 watts. Now what happens if you play a classical piece with great dynamic range, typically where the dynamic peaks are 15db higher than that 90db average listening level, you require 32 watts above the average power required for that. Even with rock music which typically has lower dynamic range becasue of the hih compression used during recordings, the need for extra power remains since most rock/jazz fans enjoy listening at higher overall levels compared to classical music.

Now let's say you enjoy raising the volume up by say 8 watts when playing a good tune. Then to handle a 15db peak, you would require and additional 256 watts to handle it. If you had a 18db peak , you'd need 512 watts. This all assumes that the amp was fast enough to respond to these increased power demand otherwise you would get slew induced distortion which can be just as annoying as clipping distortion. Also keep in mind that the above example assumes a constant impedance. However the impedance of the speaker load is always changing so power demands will also be affected by such impedance swings. The other thing to keep in mind is that in many amps much of the energy is disippiated as heat so many of the watts produced are "lost". Also its important to note that the power demands of the speaker are rarely linear like in my simplified example which is another reason for a fast high power supply.

Ok I got that off my chest. So please don't post any comments like... gee I love my receiver and I don't see how a powerful fast separate amp like the a1400-8 can improve my sound.


After hearing and reading so much about the supposed attributes of this "uber" amp I have to admit to getting my usual feeling of healthy scepticism. You know, how it replaces a stack of monoblocs, just like the Bryston 7BSSTs except faster, dynamic power handling, how its able to allocate more power to whatever channel demands more. Is this the amp that can leap tall buildings in a single bound? So after many questions and hearing how good it was from a Floridian friend of mine who bought one, I finally was given one of the lab amps to audition six weeks ago. As it turns out Axiom can only produce two a day of these high quality hand-made amps so I patiently waited for one to become available.

Rather than install it into my HT where it is now, I spent several weeks with it in my stereo rig and went back and forth with by Bryston 4BSSTs and a tube McIntosh c2102 for good measure.



My initial impression when I added the a1400-8 and disconnected the 4bsst was that the amp had taken over my system. Everything sounded...well...effortless. The highs were more transparent and the bass seemed tighter. I also noticed I had to turn down the volume on my preamp because of the higher gain. The Axiom amp also never seemed to get warm to the touch meaning it was very efficient at not losing energy in the form of heat. My woofers seemed to be vibrating visibly faster. There also seemed to be more texture and detail to the sound. When I reinstalled the Bryston everything seemed a tad softer and the bass less tight which was very surprising seeing how the 4bsst delivers 500wpc at 4 ohms. The playing field got balanced when I added a second Bryston 4BSST and bridged each one in mono mode so in effect each Bryston was delivering 1000w per channel into each speaker. It seemed I had found an equivalent setup sonically: one a1400-8 or 2 Bryston 4BSSTs. Arguably the Bryston pair was more powerful seeing how the the 1400-8 was supposedly delivering 700wpc but a later conversation with Tom Cumberland clarified that view ie. if called upon the 1400-8 could deliver more output into each channel and indeed more than 1400watts, and perhaps more importantly the Axiom amp was indeed faster than the Brystons. The slew rate of the A1400-8 is estimated at >80V/microsec while the slew rate on the Bryston SST amp is closer to >60V/microsec. While that may not read like much it does translate into a much faster reponse time when power is required by say a loud bass peak. Net result: tighter bass and clearer highs. However to my ear, the two mon-bridged Brystons and the a1400-8 sounded the same. Too bad for me that my Bryston pair costs over twice as much as the Axiom amp.

As November went by I had the opportunity to listen to all sorts of different music and the conclusion above held up no matter if it was classical, jazz
, rock or other genres. I would add rap but I have had a hard time appreciating that music though my kids love to play it on my stereo rig.

To double check my impressions I lent the Axiom amp to a friend of mine for a few days of comparison. A shot of his system appears below. As you can see he is a big fan of McIntsh gear and power hungry Dynaudio speakers.



He too was sceptical that such a light amp could drive his speakers. I enjoyed watching the look on his face when we played a fast moving orchestral piece by Chabrier. He mentioned he had never seen his woofers move so quickly with as much detail. Now to be fair he had just sold his tube amps and this was the first real powerful solid state amp in his system. Still for a classical aficionado like him he was quite impressed with how well the a1400-8 handled the large dynamic swings. In a word he described it as a "superb" fast powerful amp. He way overestimated the cost of the amp by the way.

When I picked up the amp and before installing it in the HT I thought I would see how it compared to my tube McIntosh mc2102which does 100wpc. As expected it didn't have the lush midrange of the tube amp but then again it produced the low frequencies and detailed highs with ease compared to the Mac. Interestingly at high volume even though the Mac was likely clipping, I didn't find the "soft" clipping of the tubes objectionable compared to the clipping of an underpowered solid state amp. Needless to say I have never been able to clip the Axiom amp.

Currently the 1400-8 resides in my HT where it has replaced an Outlaw 770 7 channel amp with 300wpc. Everything seems more open and transparent with DVDs. When I recalibrated I had to lower the speaker levels by 3db. Sound effects and musical scores just seem livelier and more natural. I'll post some more comments and shots later about how it does with HT.

Hey, thanks for your write-up. I may have to get one!

Based on what I heard and similar first hand reports from two friends, that would be a terrific upgrade.

Very nice review, this should be put up on the A1400-8 page on the main Axiom page.

Mojo is going to have a hard time NOT getting this amp after this review!

Thanks for that kind comment Hutz. I have more to add but my day job requires attention right now.

Yes, John, thanks for the nice review. Robb, believe me I've thought long and hard about it. I just don't know what I'd do with all that power. I can see making use of it when everyone is out of the house but that wouldn't be too often and therefore I can't justify it. But anyone that listens to 4W nominal or more really ought to buy one of these.

Thanks John,

Not only was it a good review but other than what I already knew of the basic laws of wattage vs. db and clipping, it added a lot to my understanding of amp technology.

Thanks John, now I have to get one.....sometime.

Yep! I have a rebate coupon that expires end of January... It sounds more and more like I will myself be posting a review of A1400 at some point soon!

[I am still trying to rationalize this 18-month acceleration of my original plan, but don't tell myself!]

Well it would be a great addition to any system. The extra air and transparency it brings to any speakers is audible. Its remarkable what a large reserve of clean power does for sound quality at moderate listening levels and for any kind of volume it goes without saying how nice it is to keep distortion out of the mix.

So here is a shot where the A1400-8 currently sits: on top of the disconnected Outlaw 770.



I'm currently running 7 monitors around the HT which are well supplied with power from the big Outlaw amp, a clone of the Sherbourne 2100. I really didn't think there would be much difference. The Outlaw output per channel at 300wps is nearly double the rated requirement of my monitors. The test I used was to start at 15db below reference and replay the same scene while raising volume by 5db increments. I used the forest scene in House of Flying Daggers which has good dynamic range. I started to detect more clarity with the Axiom when I raised volume to -5db and higher. The swishing of leaves and bamboo spears hitting trees seemed more textured. When I played concert DVDs once again the difference was evident in the tight bass, kickdrum, cymbals and orchestra in the case of Andrea Bocelli's Statue of Liberty concert.

In action movies I had a tougher time discerning the difference. I don't know about you but explosions and falling bridges sound the same to me through the speakers...with subs its another story.

Once again the 54lb A1400-8 did not heat up like the 103 lb Outlaw amp. I used to joke that the Outlaw 770 did double duty as a block heater on cold winter nights in the HT. A downside to using the Axiom amp is that I now need to buy a quiet block heater.

And at 93% power efficiency, it is also a very ecological move!

Somebody needs to run the numbers.

"If every audiophile in the world switched to the new Axiom amp, carbon emmissions would be reduced by X% worldwide."

You'd have a new green market!

This thread should come with a disclaimer warning. I just heard my wallet cry out in pain.

I seriously want to believe all those here who say that an inexpensive receiver is all you need to get the best out of the m60's for 2 channel music listening. This review makes me question my faith in that...

Problem is, I don't even think my receiver has pre-outs which would of course mean I'd have to buy a new processor as well as an amp.

I'm just going to back away slowly and pretend like I never saw this thread... nothing to see here...

The problem is you will have dreams about it.....

John,

All I can say is thanks!

You know my situation, and some day I hope I can get one of these amps. At least if I have to sell my Odyssey Mono's, they carry a 20yr tranferable warranty. Truely, I love my Odysseys, one big problem is I don't have much room in my AV opening, and I can only put one in there, as if stacked they get pretty hot. So, I keep one hidden back in the closet out of sight for now.

A black 1400 would look awesome next to my other equipment. I wish they would have a deal where you could pay 0% interest for 3 years. (hint, hint, Amie. )

John, excellent write up! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and philosophy on amps.



Oh, and Randy, that 3 year 0% thing is a bad idea.

Randy those Odessey monos are nice amps though they do run hot like many other amps. You know my views on having lots of clean power. No doubt in my mind that you'd experience higher quality sound in that big Portplex HT of yours with the Axiom amp running cool in the rack.

Thanks for the review and sharing your thoughts John, sounds like a killer component ... maybe one of these days!

Isn't the one common trait for all digital amps, regardless of make, is the much cooler running temps?

Thanks Rick. All class D amps run cooler than the other amp types. With the new digital technology in this amp its effeciency is right at the top of the heap.

Ok, so i AM going to say it.
The observations were all derived from an unbiased A/B blind test right?


And the skepticism rolls on...

Oh yeah. It was a 6 week listening test whereby I wore a blindfold all the time I was at home and threw blankets over all four amps so I couldn't tell which one I was plugging cables into. And you know that amp in the middle of my friends living room. He wasn't allowed to look at it for 5 days in order to make sure he couldn't hear the difference. And my pal in Florida, count him out because he's been listening and staring at his A1400-8 for six months.

So, would my audiobytes sound better through this amp?

Don't let it get to you John, there is always someone that thinks we never landed on the moon. Ok, back on topic.

Mine sound just fine through the amp that was designed for them.

If I had the money I'd drop some down on this amp right now ... our slow winter months is my 'dream' period, I'll be dreaming!

If ya do I want dibbs on that Rotel

You got it big guy, your name (Rotel) is written all over it.

I could biamp my M80s then

There ya go ... power is a good thing!

For anyone interested in more reading on how much power do you need here are a couple of interesting articles.

http://www.live-audio.com/studyhall/watts.html

http://www.crownaudio.com/amp_htm/amp_info/how_much_power.htm

Both authors recommend amps much higher than the power rating of the speakers to eliminate the likelihood of clipping during peaks. One thing I've noticed is that everyone likes to raise the volume on their equipment every once in a while. Me too, as long as I don't hear distortion.

Great articles, I'll add them to my website articles page.

John, Great review, before I sold my Aragon 2005 due to space restriction's I always thought having that extra power made a difference when listening to music and movies, even after purchasing a 4806 that has more than enough power for normal listening, but I could never explain it as eloquently as you have. I'm still kicking myself for not getting the Axiom amp at the discounted price when I had the chance twice. Perhaps next year

I guess it's the concept of diminishing returns that comes into play for me. My Axiom speakers cost just a little over 3gs a few months ago. My TV, which I purchased over four years ago, cost a little over 4g's (which if purchased today would only be about 2g's. Prices on 61" DLP's have dropped considerably!

My newest receiver cost about $250.00 and the sound is fantastic. I have read many reviews and debates over whether a "better" or more powerful amp makes for better sound. I think it is all personal preference and perception. I don't doubt that the A1400-8 could possibly make my M60's, VP150, QS8's and EP500 sound a little better. (I love Axiom by the way!) But is the difference really worth nearly 4g's??? I mean cm'on, it's still just a digital amplifier with some very good capabilities. Maybe if it had the pre-amp built in it would be worth it. I know that if I could even afford the thing that I would be hard pressed to justify the expense. Hopefully, those of you who have already shelled out the $$$$ are not just looking for an improvement in your sound quality in order to justify spending all that money on an amp.

Excuse me while I put on my asbestos undies.

It all depends on your room size and listening habits, and also speaker efficiency. Axiom's amp has a huge market for power hungry speakers and large rooms (AKA Porterplex)

I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread...sonofabitch!!!!

Pandora's box?

Mike....layaway...

Thanks Rob... NO... Must resist... Must RE...SIST.... UUUUGGGGG!!!!

Y'know you shoulda ordered it while it was 25% off...what were you thinking?!?!?

OK Robb.... Go take a time out with Tom.

Mike is going to wait until the new Denon blows up ... next week.

Richard.... Go join your other smartassed siglings in Time-out! And I'm taking all your SRV CD's away for two weeks.

It will be nice when Mikey compares the Axiom amp to the Rotel

Be sure to post pics Mike ... pictures are good.

OK… You too Ricky. Go join the other brats and I’m locking the room with Bose Cubes all around out of reach and the Carpenters playing all day.

Dang Mike, that's right down Wid's alley ... I'd throw on some rap, that would really do him in. I bet it would sound great on that honkerin' Bose sub.

There is much going for receivers as an all in one box solution. I have several but they compromise sound quality in one way or another.

For people into fidelity, separates especially a quality amp offers an optimal way to get better performance from the rest of your gear.

I doubt the A1400-A is targeted at buyers of receivers since a receiver in essence represents a cheaper all in one box compromise. This amp will appeal to people who have gone or are thinking of upgrading to separates.

Based on its performance, it belongs in the same category of the big solid state amps by Krell, Classe, Bryston, McIntosh, and others. If you compare its pricing to those other high performance amps, the price of the Axiom amp looks pretty favourable. It doesn't make much sense to look at the A1400-8 as a product designed to compete with a cheap compromised receiver solution. This product is not for receiver consumers.

I look toward reveivers more as an alternative to a pre-amp which is where their cutting edge feature sets have an advantage. On more than one occasion I have used receiver pre-outs into a separate amp to by-pass the inferior amps found many receivers.

Then I shouldn't inform you it is only $334/mth or does that make it easier.

It's getting crowded here in "time out".

The Amp Envy is starting to get to me.

Okay, I do have a question about implementation of the PROCESSOR part of that equation, though.

I perceive that there are NOT many affordable, robust pre-amps being marketed, especially compared to the feature sets being delivered in even mid-priced receivers. The newer receivers regularly mentioned around here (Denon, Onkyo, others) are VERY full-featured processors that also happen to include an amplifier section in which we may or may not be interested.

Now, conventional upgrade path wisdom is that a person could use one of these full-featured receivers as a pre-pro with one of these wonderful amps. That makes sense to me. However, simply not using the amps in the receiver doesn't remove them from the receiver chassis. Typically, the physical separation of the processor from the amplifier is cited as an important component of cleaning up the signal path and hearing the angels' wings beat.

So, for you engineer types, does simply NOT USING the amplifier in the receiver meaningfully (audibly?) diminish the amount of electro-wavy interference introduced to the signal path, or is it really in fact necessary to get a dedicated, amplifier-free processor in order to reap the benefits of sonic bliss?

If somebody at least understands what I'm flailing around at, please chime in.

If someone actually says their A1400 amp somehow put them on the moon i'm really going to type alot.

Well considering it does power EIGHT channels as well...

It is my understanding that the Transformers, Powersupplies and such still cause issues in the AVR's pre/pro system, which is why it is recommended to go the seperate route. Now if you happen to have an AVR with preouts it will still let you use the extra power available in a seperate amp right away and then buy the seperate pre/pro later when they finally catch up with all the bells and whistles.

I don't have any preouts on my Denon so I am out of luck, any which way I look at it

Jason, I'm the same preoutless Denon boat as you are; I was just looking for some theoretical backup. Thanks!

Tom,

Do you get a better picture when you separate the LCD control printed circuit board from the LCD tuner printed circuit board in an LCD TV? It's total nonsense my friend. A well-designed integrated receiver cannot be audibly discriminated from well-designed separates when operated within spec. Heck, I "proved" that a crappy Sony 2W boombox couldn't be discriminated from my 90W+ Denon feeding my 80s when both were operated within the boombox's spec. Now of course if you put a shiny, smooth, Canadian beaver on top of one of the components...well...then all bets are off .

This receiver centric mania is very strange to say the least. While I fully understand that in many cases it is the best economical alternative and it does usually represent the best alternative for new codecs and formats, to suggest receivers are on par with the acoustical performance of a powerful amp and well implemented pre-amp??

I'm not going to go over the problems with one box solutions again. They are relatively cheap and that is great. I own pioneer, HK, sherwood, and sansui receivers. They all serve a purpose but none of them are great reproducers of quality sound.

They all clip and distort but maybe I'm more sensitive to that than most people. One thing is for sure there is no way anyone with a receiver alone is maximising the performance of the great Axiom speakers like the M80s.

To some it may represent diminishing returns and that is understandable. But in the absense of budgetary considerations it seems rather foolish to ignore the inherent engineering, design and other problems created by not going with separate preamp and amp.

What I find interesting is that once people experience separates the rarely go back and the ones in denial have never used separate components. In any event the axiom amp is not meant to appeal to the "receiver is all you need" crowd. It is clearly aimed at a niche striving for higher quality sound and willing to pay more than receiver prices for the improved performance.

Not meaning to burst any bubbles as I'm sure that there are many applications where a good receiver works just fine. I just don't like to see things blurred. Better quality sound often requires paying up for arguably diminishing levels of performance.

And there is no denying the A1400-8 is a terrific breakthrough amp for those concerned about quality amps and separate components.

... "What I find interesting is that once people experience separates the rarely go back and the ones in denial have never used separate components." ...

And are often the most outspoken against using them.

John, seems to me one of the problems going with separates all the way is finding a good processor. I'm using an HK AVR635 as a processor via the Rotel 1080 amp for the 80s but am looking to upgrade somewhere in the not too distant future ... what would you suggest as a good (great!) processor?

As I've said somewhere else on these boards, anyone who is listening at 4W nominal, is kidding themselves if they use an integrated receiver. An A1400 is an absolute must! But, for someone like me, that listens at a half watt nominal the large majority of the time, separates would be a waste of money.

I think a lot of it has to do with the room and distance from the speakers. If the room is highly damped and you are sitting far back from your speakers (say, more than eight feet), you will need more than a half watt. Even in my relatively bright room, if I stand 15 feet back, I need to turn it way up and I'm sure (although I've never tested) that I could benefit from high power. But I sit 8 feet away. A watt nominal is darned plenty. As a matter of fact, if I turn it up too loud, my room dynamics blur the sound.

So far, the only empirical data I have is my boombox/Denon test. But I remain open to the idea of being proved wrong. I'm still waiting to get together with my buddy so that we can listen to his 300W into 4 Ohm Sansui through my 80s and compare to the Denon at the same SPL. And I also want to test using his Sansui massive pre-amp too. And then I want to take my 80s to his place (which is highly damped) and compare there too.

I've done an A/B test, long ago, with a Parasound Halo amp and our Onkyo 797 receiver.
The three people who tried the test could not tell any difference. We even used individual frequencies from an audio test disc aside from music.

Let's not confuse the really cheaper, lower end receivers that have limited power supplies and/or features which may restrict the sound quality they can produce, with some of the midrange receivers or higher that have at least quality components in them (e.g. HTIB 'receivers' vs. a $500 Denon).

I have a Cambridge Audio receiver in our main room at the moment (for its switching features mainly) but it doesn't have a 'direct' mode selection, only stereo or other DSPs (DD, DPL, etc.). Anyone who thinks that is a quality receiver would be correct, for its build quality, but sound quality it wouldn't compare to a separate amp and pre-amp combo solely because of the 'direct' mode to which i refer.
If someone didn't know that was a difference and did a subjective comparison, well then that's only one example of how these rumours of receivers vs. separates gets started, then snowballs.

As long as the audio signal is not engineered in the electronics by going through filters for a design reason, a receiver will play sound equal to an amp, preamp combo.
Any test of a frequency sweep with these equipment pieces should show a flat frequency response across the spectrum (power specific artefacts like clipping excluded). If they don't, you may as well be using tube amps since the electronics are then truly colouring the sound.

Tom did ask a good question, and I don't think we have answered it yet. [EDIT -- of course while I was typing this Chesseroo *did* start to answer it ;)]

If one of the "problems" of a receiver over separates is the fluctuating load from the power amplifier resulting in a less clean power supply to the pre-pro sections of the receiver, does that specific problem largely go away if the amplifier portion of the receiver is idle as a result of using an outboard power amp ? I think the answer is yes but I don't have any hard information on the relative contribution of the different "problems" to not-quite-audio-nirvana.

I will say that I am extremely pleased to see all this attention being paid to big-ass power amplifiers again. I would argue that "effortless reserves of power" make the difference more than physical separation from the pre-pro stages (if Axiom made a receiver based on the 1400-8 I bet it would sound mighty fine), but I have always felt that a powerful, high quality power amp made a noticeable difference in the overall sound quality.

Having said that, I think we all agree that UP TO A POINT spending extra money on better speakers will deliver more "enjoyment for the dollar" than upgrading electronics. The question is where you go when you already have very good speakers, and in that case making sure you have enough clean power to drive the speakers through the peaks at the highest levels you play can make a real difference.

In the meantime I just don't crank the volume up so high and am perfectly happy with my receiver.

There is something to be said about the power requirements of transient requirements though.
Yes a few watts or less on average are used, but for those short burst of much larger energy requirements, the capabilities of a standalone amp can go much further than most receivers.
Power capacity, big reserves.

I once tested out a Coda amp. I was playing music, turned off the amp, left the rest of the system on playing music and the speakers took about 2-3 seconds to drain the remaining power from the amp reserves at the original volume.
I was quite impressed.

>>power specific artefacts like clipping excluded

I suspect the audible difference between receiver and separates would be almost entirely power related, ie when the system was running at or near the design limits, ie when the power supply voltage is starting to droop on the power peaks and when instantaneous peaks are either starting to clip the output stages of the power amp or are being limited by upstream circuitry. That's when the fun starts and the differences between two "ruler flat" designs start to appear... and where a design which simply has enough power reserves that you aren't *at* the limits yet can have a real advantage.

I like the way this discussion is shaping up. Not too much sniping from either party (if there are parties).

I'm really not sure what to think on this issue--sure, I use a receiver with my M80s (mainly because of economics and WAF), but I also don't really crank them at all. 75-80dB is quite loud for me (music-wise), and probably wouldn't happen when my wife was at home. What I've never really been able to determine is whether an external amp (much less one that I could afford) would improve the sound that I experience. Not that I'm likely to do anything about it at this point--I'd much rather be able to buy a house.

Sure, I agree in principle with what you're saying. But take my half Watt nominal case for example. I have 23dB of clean headroom from my 90W Denon at half Watt nominal. Even at 1 Watt, I have 21dB and at 2W I still have 18dB. Why would I need more? Now during the times when no one is home and I end up "cranking" it, I know I could use more than 90W especially on recordings that preserve dynamic range. So for those that have it turned up to 4W or so (Randy would be one because of his large, damped room), you NEED an A1400...or 2 .

Rick, as usual it depends what you are looking for. The latest Integra and Onkyo processor come loaded with the latest bells and whistles including the ability to decode TrueDD and HDMI1.3a. I'm thinking of upgrading to one of those mainly to get the audio bitstream directly from my Toshiba XA2. I also like the fact they use Burr-Brown DACs and the Reon chip for video. The internal circuitry and power supply are supposed to be very quiet with minimal RF indicating the designers have really paid attention to insulating interference and heat.
The latest NAD also comes with all the latest goodies but is more expensive. I believe the Integra 9.8 is the best choice for the money but its hard to find. The upcoming Sherwood processor is also looking good and it should be released in the next few months. We might be able to buy them through Axiom since they are the only online supplier.

At the moment, I'm using a 2 year old Arcam AVP700. Its a remarkably quiet preamp with analog inputs so I can process the latest formats in the HDDVD player. It has a simple HDMI video switcher with little upscaling capability which I don't use anyway.

There are long wait times for the Integra 9.8 processor and its Onkyo cousin so a great alternative would be a processor with analog inputs. There are many choices. Krell, Anthem, Rotel, are just a few which can be bought at great prices now since the don't have the latest decoders.

For stereo only duty I'm a big fan of tube McIntosh preamps like the C220 or the solid state C46. The Cary Audio preamps are also very nice. I'm currently using a C220 in my stereo. The list of excellent 2 channel pre-amps is a long one.

Yep, that's the problem in a nutshell. When you start cranking the 'ol volume control up your power requirements go up VERY fast.

Here's my dream product -- an "on demand" 1400-8, same idea as HP and others were promoting a year or two ago in the IT world. Start with a midrange receiver and an inexpensive 1400-8 with only two channels enabled. As your power requirements and/or budget permits, call Axiom with a credit card and have additional channels switched on.

Failing that, an 800-3 would still be mighty nice.

Richard,

Currently, there are no good alternatives for a true Pre amp that will handle HDMI audio and all the new codecs. What I mean by ‘true’, is one that does not incorporate a video processor of some sort into the data stream. If one were to go with a ‘true’ separate system, they would also use an external video processor.

Having said that, there are two Pre amps worth a serious look. The Integra 9.8 and its Onkyo Pro Sibling, the 885. Unfortunately, these two use a Reon video processing chip, and it’s been confirmed that the reon does alter the video stream, unless you completely bypass it, and when you do that, you loose the menu system.

Anthem’s AMV40 is another good choice, but it’s limited to HMDI 1.1 and it does not handle all the new codec’s…perfectly.

Cary Audio had a relatively new PrePro, the 11a, but….it must be used with their, soon to be released, stand alone video processor, the 11v. The 11v will have HDMI 1.3 and it will be the machine that decodes the new audio codec’s. After the 11v decodes them, it will send the unpacked PCM data to the 11a for further processing via its own proprietary, Cary audio Link cable. A weird and not so elegant solution….

So….In my opinion, the Denon 3808 is the best, most cost conscience choice for use with an external amp. That is why I went with it. It’s not too expensive, handles the new audio formats perfectly, have a GUI that works perfectly with any video stream, and the Video processor can be turned off….but yet you can still use the GUI.

That sums it up for right now, but I’m pretty sure that within 12 months, there will be numerous choices.

Oh, I almost forgot. McIntosh is in the HDMI / HD game now. They recently started shipping some very, very serious contenders. But in typical McIntosh fashion, don’t look if you don’t have about thirty grand.

Unfortunately its never quite that simple. There is much more to excellent amplification than power bandwidth. Risetime, slew rate, damping factor, intermodulation distortion, signal to noise and so forth all come into play. I have yet to see a receiver amp that compares favourable on all those points compared to a capable separate amp let alone address concerns regarding RF and the deleterious effects of heat on the circuit topology, noise and linearity.

Tube amps can be an exellent addition to any system. In the midrange in particular their additional harmonics are much closer to replicating the sound of musical instruments and voices than solid state amps. Most are as linear in term of frequency response as solid state amps.

When you have had time to properly assess separates and amps through long listening sessions please post your impressions.

Well, in their typical fashion, Bridgman and mdrew got closest to my intent. I guess it boils down to the marketing and product placement. If the Denon 3808 is the current shiznit for a processor, why doesn't Denon or somebody else come out with that package without the amplifier in it for less money? I find it hard to believe there is no market.

You couldn't sell it for LESS money. That would destroy the fabric of the universe. Separates have to cost more.

More, MORE, MORE !!!!

If by menu system you mean the OSD when changing volume, yes you lose that, but the setup menus are still accessible via HDMI output to your display regardless of whether the Reon is being bypassed or not. I use the 9.8 in this fashion and it works for me as I can see the current volume level on the unit's display directly in front of me. Mounting the 9.8 in a hidden location and bypassing the Reon would certainly leave one guessing at the current volume level.

Tom, people have been asking Denon for years to come out with a separate processor to no avail. Methinks margins are higher on receivers since processors can be matched with any other company's amp. But with Onkyo's new processor making such a splash at that low price point (see the excellent Secrets review) I believe its only a matter of time before Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz and others come out with their own prepros.

That article has a brief discussion of the advantages of processors over receivers sound quality but the part on THD or IMD is not significant between the Integra receivers and the 9.8. The main difference comes from the removal of heat and RF near the audio circuitry and the use of an amp with better rise time, slew rate, damping factor, bigger capacitors and more power. I've never owned Denons however I've used my H/K receiver as a processor on occasion. I did notice an improvement in dynamics and resolution with the bigger outboard amp, in this case the Outlaw 770.

That Integra 9,8 combined with the A1400-8 has me salivating.

Someone is having a party?
I think Ken is horribly confused....again.


All technical jargon which means little when any unit is played within its specs so yes, it is that simple.

A frequency response graph is what humans hear as measured by devices more accurate than the human ear. If a frequency sweep is measured as ruler flat, wherein do all your listed variables make any difference?
They don't, unless as i iterated to, there is something out of spec such as playing the unit too loud and into a clipping zone.


No comment.
A whole other can of worms.


I have many times in the past, years before you came onboard.
But thanks for playing.

Really? The problem with your view here is that you presume linear FR is all that matters to what we perceive as good quality sound . It would follow from your statement that all amps will sound the same when driven within their limits (big qualifier but let's set that aside for a moment).

The other list of variables above have a significant impact on sound and that is where a side by side comparison comes in handy. It used to be that THD and IMD were distinguishing factors but these days most any name amp has respectable distortion numbers below clipping. Check the signal to noise ratios, quieter amps help us hear the micro-dynamics and nuances. Rise time and slew rate measure time, important to how tight bass sounds...some amps do sound tighter than others and again that comes out in a side by side comparison. Damping factor not important, huh? The designer better match that spec right if he wants good control of the drivers. In addition, size and number of capacitors also effect things. This isn't meant as an all encompassing list but it really isn't as simple as linear response within spec. Geez if it was that simple any old beat up pro amp or small receiver amp would do the job.

Yes and subject of perhaps a different thread. I have tube amps as well. When properly setup they can sound wonderful. Besides the pleasant sounding second order harmonics the tubes generate, tube amps don't "hard clip", they let you down easily so you get less of that aweful distortion when you max out the amp. There are other features which aren't as good as SS amps.



Always appreciate another perspective especially when it doesn't contain sweeping generalizations. One thing about audio, there are few absolutes.

So now that Axiom produces an amp, where have all the amps-don't-matter crowd gone? I'd expect them to be out in force on this thread, especially when someone has the audacity to conjecture that they can tell a blindfolded difference between amps! <--note the wink, guys!

My friend and I were discussing the cost effectiveness of the A1400-8 and we don't see the value at almost 4 grand. Clearly this amp is for the very few.

Don't get me wrong, it's a sweet unit, but as Peter says, all amps sound the same, I can buy a 200watt 7 channel amp from Outlaw for about half the price. With 200 watts or Outlaw power, I get lots of headroom in my 4000 cubic room. More than I will ever need. I would be surprised if anyone could hear a difference between the Outlaw and the Axiom. And it surely it wouldn't be a 2 grand difference.

I am surprised and disappointed at the price point that Axiom has chosen for this unit. Axiom is a company that develops high quality audio components (speakers) for a price that mortals can afford (even their top speaker, the M80, is affordable by most). I hope this is not a trend for the future from this company.

It would have been nice to see a 5 channel unit for around the 2 grand mark for those of us still using 5.1 with no plans to upgrade.

I know never is a long time, but I probably won’t ever have one of these in my HT room at that price point.

I have the Outlaw 770 and the A1400-A sitting one on top of the other in my HT right now. I have gone back and forth and the A1400-A is more revealing, with more transparent highs and slightly tighter bass. The more relevant comparison is not the Outlaw but the Bryston amps from a performance perspective . If you check the price of any of the Bryston larger SST series amps you would conclude that the A1400-A is well priced.

I don't think $500 per amp is a bad price, actually pretty cheap, especially for a Class D amp with this much power reserve.

John, since you have both, what is the speed (rise time) of the Outlaw 770? The A1400 is rated (in its manual) at an impressive 8 microseconds to reach 500W. That surpasses 96Khz sampling rate.

I guess it is a question of; is the increased sound transparancy and detail worth the extra 2 grand. Only each individual can answer that question.

I still would like to see a cheaper 5 channel version.

Paul

Price for amps is like price for any audio equipment. It depends on the quality of what you are buying compared to other similar components. For this much quality you would pay nearly twice as much to buy the comparable Bryston/Krell/McIntosh amp. Having lived with this amp for a while I'd say price looks fair to me. I'd like some comparisons if anyone has an amp in this price range that produces this much clean fast power and its unique ability to transfer energy to any channel. For sure receiver users won't pay up for it but that's no surprise, but others who like top separates will check it out.

Isn't this the market they are going for, not those of us that only dream we have that kind of money for one component.

Eric, a lot of manufacturers don't release the rise time data because its more definitive than slew rate which some manufactuers can fudge. Axiom's rise time is very high at 8 microsseconds to reach 500W. Also keep in mind not many amps can reach 500w. So the fallback is slew rate which is much lower at 50v/microsec in the Outlaw 770.

Er... just to clarify... "very high at 8 micro" is negative, suggesting that it is commonly UNDER 8 microsec. Was that what you meant or was it the other way around?

Actually, they are very consistent. Most (if not all) of their products is anywhere from 30-60% of the price of their competitor for an equivalent product. With the capabilities of this product (working out of a single 15A circuit), it IS less or around half the price of those McIntosh and all products .