Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion What's New At Axiom Axiom Amplifiers: The Next Generation

I mentioned last month that we were pretty close on the new amplifiers and now it is time to introduce some details for everyone here. There will be three series of amplifiers available in 2 through 8 channels each. We have been calling these amp series the 1000, the 1250, and the 1500 around the lab as that represents the maximum output at the speaker output of each with all channels driven as established by their respective power supplies after all efficiency losses. No doubt you can expect a naming contest on these from Amie shortly.

First and foremost I would like to thank Andrew, our resident master of all things audio. These new amps are his brainchild and represent the culmination of over 2 years of work by Andrew on the designs. I cannot say enough about how impressed I and the whole Axiom team are with the results of his work on these projects. They are spectacular. But it goes far beyond the new amplifiers; Andrew’s on-going work on all the products at Axiom has been amazing and we’re so fortunate to have him with us. Improvements driven by Andrew are having a positive influence on our entire line-up of products. The innovation he is driving has added so much excitement and energy to both our products and the people working on them, and I’d like to thank him very much for his contributions. We are all looking forward to an exciting future with lots of both great new products and great improvements to our existing ones, with Andrew driving forward what we can accomplish.

These amps will be ready for shipping on July 20 though we will have a few available earlier for anyone who has purchased LFR1100s. They all come in the same chassis. It is a really heavy duty chassis made from 2mm steel with a 9mm aluminum face panel. The height is 3U for all of them. All these new amplifiers are Class-D amplification with massive analog power supplies and they are all north of 90% efficient at full power. This efficiency is an important benefit to our amps. A typical Class-AB design is around 50% efficient which means that ½ of the output from the transformer is wasted off in heat which is quite limiting to your overall output with all channels driven (given a single power cord on a regular 15amp circuit). The maximum you can extract from a typical wall plug is 1800 watts. Given a reasonably efficient and absolutely massive power supply you can end up with somewhere around 1650 watts available to the amplifiers. So at north of 90% efficiency you can easily achieve 1500 watts of total output (hence our 1500 series lab name). But at 50% efficiency you are limited to around 825 watts. That is a massive difference in a multi-channel amplifier. Below is a little chart that shows how the output power works for each of our amplifier series:



When considering what power is right for you it is important to keep in mind that in a typical home theatre system the power demands from the surround channels are much less than the front three so you will tend to have more power available where you need in the real world. A 7-channel amp utilized in a home theatre system will tend to act more like the 5-channel for power per channel as shown in the above chart.

As for the inputs available, the 1000 Series is RCA only. Both the 1250 Series and the 1500 Series have both RCA inputs and fully balanced XLR inputs. All the amplifiers can be powered with 100 volts, 120 volts, or 240 volts depending on what is available in your country. This is easily selectable inside the chassis but we will pre-set it at the factory for the country it is being shipped to.

As for the pricing I have created another chart below which shows the price of each model in its respective number of channels. We will also be doing a 2-tiered pre-order deal similar to what we did with the LFR1100.

Very exciting! Well done, congratulations and best wishes.

Everything Tom said!

Ian, is the styling of the amps similar to the styling of the DSP boxes?

Nice! Congrats on the new amps. Hope they work out well.

Sounds like you guys really hooked a big one with Andrew. And he likes beer, too!

He's, like, the perfect engineer.

Looking good. I can't wait to get one into my system along with the LFR1100s.

Ian, or Andrew, what is the rating of the power supply?

I also find it interesting that the rating for a typical wall outlet was included; this is something that i think often gets over looked.. With the 1500, would the recommendation be to have a dedicated breaker on the outlet that the 1500 would be plugged into? It might be prudent in older houses, where there are more outlets on fewer breakers..

Good luck with the new line of amps!

Exiting stuff. Congrats on the new product!

Congratulations Ian and Andrew on the new amps!

It's interesting how the outputs on 4ohm vs 8ohm average down to the same numbers as more and more channels are added.

I'm guessing the per channel power it limited by the output device, which can flow nearly twice as much into half the load. But the total power output of all channels is limited by the power supply.

Just curious, but were these designs completely fresh from Andrew Welker, or is at least a little of Tom Cumberland's work on the A1400-8 and A1400-2 informing the design of these new amp series?

CV, I doubt there's anything left of Tom Cumberland's designs in the new amplifier series. But Andrew is better qualified to answer that.

Cheers,
Alan

In the interest of cost-savings, would it be feasible to buy a 3-channel model for FL,C,FR and let my receiver drive the surrounds? Or would this result in a channel volume level mismatch at high volumes where the receiver's power ratings can't keep up with the Axiom?

Henry, the way I read Ian's chart is that Axiom will configure each amp with anywhere from 2 to 8 channels based on consumer preference. I don't think there would be any problem doing what you envision; your receiver would be able to adjust the levels accordingly.

From a basic technology standpoint, the building blocks of the amplifiers (Class D amplifiers strapped to a high current linear power supply) remain true to the earlier design. However, all of the individual elements are ground up designs, and this includes the way the amplifiers are assembled. Technology races on and there are new and far more sophisticated devices available today that were unheard of 6 years ago, and these are incorporated into all of the new amplifiers.

Henry66,

This is a really good idea. Not only do you end up with some real power where you need it across all the front channels, you will now be designating the entire power supply of your receiver to the surround channels. This will give them added power also since almost always the limiting factor in a receiver is not the power per channel but the overall power available as determined by the power supply.

Henry, many people do what your asking, should not be a problem as long as you calibrate all the speakers initially via SPL meter or other setup routine.

Does this design reroute unused power to the other channels needing the power, like Tom's design, that was a nice feature?

Thanks for the response, Andrew. Maybe you can go into further detail as the release approaches?

And I was wondering the same thing, Randy.

CV and Randy,

Yes it does work the same in that way.

It's great to see these questions answered on the forum!

I have another:

JP, can I borrow $2.000 and have a REALLY flexible payback plan?

Thanks, Ian!

My wife is going to divorce me............

Do all of the models have a subwoofer output in addition to the number of specified channels?

I would think the sub output would only be found on the preamp stage.

Felicitations on the new amps!

Andrew, I currently have a 3808. How much better will these amps sound ?

Oh, and will it sound better than my multicoloured tube amp? I can't tell a difference between my tube amp and my 3808 (unless I'm looking at the pretty colours), so I'm looking to add a little "colour" to my speakers using a modest looking amp.

Speaking of tube amps, my friend who's totally def really likes mine. He claims he can hear a difference. I'm confused, but I'm not questioning him. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't do sign because I can't move my fingers.

Our communication is very arduous and frustrating. He writes down what he thinks I'm going to say or ask, and upon eventually getting it right, he responds. Needless to say, he hasn't been over in a while. I tried calling him the other day to touch base, but after the phone rang a couple times, I couldn't hear anything. I'm going to stop at his place tomorrow to see how he's doing. His apartment complex has stairs, but thankfully I can reach the button to buzz his apartment.

Power,
I missed when you got a tube amp, please enlighten me with the details.

Hi Ian,

Thanks to you and Andrew for all the innovation lately! Could you perhaps take a good long summer vacation to give my bank account time to recover though?

Seriously, this does seem like a good option to power my LFRs. Will you be able to publish further specifications or measurements such as THD before the preorder window is over?

Thanks,

Mike

OK while we all wait for the official 'name the new amps' contest, how about an entirely unofficial contest to come up with the best 'unofficial' name for your favorite Axiom product. Who knows, maybe some will be used in the fine print of the upcoming product brochures?

Here is my first submission: LFR - Limited Funds Remaining.

I was just being goofy, dude.

As I've mentioned numerous times, I thought my RPA-1 sounded better than my 3801. But, being the realist that I am, my shear excitement of setting up a new separate amp could've caused this perceived improvement in sound; I'll never know.

We all try to justify superfluous purchases....

I thought you might be

No SWMBO no TWMBJ. I just check my bank account.

"Why, I can hardly hear it! You'd have to be deaf to hear that."
--Murray, Flight of the Concords--

I know that Ian said that it does act in this way, but I am not understanding how. From the table Ian gave on the first post, on the 1500 series amp, it says that with one channel driven there is 325 Watts into 8 Ohms. That figure remains pretty consistent as more channels are driven into the same load. The previous Axiom amp was able to dump all of the power supply, the whole 1500 Watts when one channel is driven. This seems like a different design that Tom's in this regard. Though with real world material, 325 Watts should be more than enough, for even the most demanding material.

The table shows continuous power output figures. This is power that you have available for any length of time that it might be required. What we have not stated is peak or instantaneous power ratings and this is where you are able to momentarily sink far more power into the load than the continuous numbers suggest. This is the power supply "steering" that you are thinking of from the A1400 and the new amplifiers all have this same capability.

Hi Mike,

I know that Ian, Amie, and Steve are all hard at work with creating the web pages for these new amplifiers. They will feature more in-depth specifications. Is there something specific that you'd like to know? The power ratings that Ian gave in his original post are at 1% THD+N.

Yes, but if there are two, three, or four channels driven then there is also 325 Watts continuous power available to each channel. When 5 channels are driven the number drops to 300 Watts available continuously to each channel, since there is only 1500 Watts that can be had out of the wall. My question is: If 1500 Watts can be split up between the channels so that there is approximately 300 Watts continuously given to each channel, then why can't there be 1500 Watts continuously given if there is only one channel driven? Or 750 Watts if only two channels are driven? Was this limited to 325 Watts continuous since there are some speakers that cannot handle more than than on a over a period of time, or am I missing something? I still don't really understand.

Continuous <> Peak.

Ok, I can see where you are having trouble. It's a little difficult because there are two factors at play here. On the one hand we have this large power supply that can supply lots of "power" to how ever many channels need it. On the other we have to look at the amplifiers themselves. By definition, an amplifier cannot swing or deliver more than the available DC power supply voltage to a load (speaker). Once we take losses, including the amplifier's efficiency, into account, the available voltage swing is reduced even further. It's this voltage swing that determines the maximum, continuous output power that the amplifier can deliver into a given load, assuming that we have unlimited current available. So, even though we might be able to deliver 1500 watts from the power supply, the amplifier is limited by the rail voltage.

Time for some quick math:

Let's assume P is power, V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. I'm going to leave the complex reactive speaker impedance out of the discussion and assume the load is purely resistive!

P = V x I
From Ohm's Law we know that I = V/R
Substituting this equation into the first equation we get:
P = (V x V)/R

In the A1500 we are running +/-85Vdc rails, which means the peak to peak voltage is 170Vdc. However, we can only swing voltage in one direction or the other at a given time. This means we need to use our peak voltage, which is 85Vdc. Power is usually, somewhat erroneously, specified in watts RMS, so we need to convert peak voltage into RMS voltage. To do this we multiply the peak voltage by the square root of 2 (0.707).

Therefore, Vrms = Vpeak x 0.707.
In the A1500 this gives 85 x 0.707 = 60.095 Vrms.

Going back to our original power equation, our maximum output power into 8ohms is:

P = (60.095 x 60.095)/8 = 451.23 watts

But wait a second, this assumes that the entire amplifier is 100% efficient, which it's not. We need to apply the approximate efficiency to the RMS voltage, and this is 90% in the A1500. This gives an actual RMS voltage swing of

V = 60.095 x 0.9 = 54.0855

Redoing our power calculation now gives:

P = (54.0855 x 54.0855)/8 = 365.66 watts

So this is the maximum single channel output power, no matter how much current is available from the power supply. Why does Ian's table state 325 watts for one channel? Because we're still in the preproduction stages of these designs and we wanted to be conservative until the final numbers are in.
I hope that was not too hard to follow and helps to clarify the continuous power ratings.

So one does wonder, then, how this would relate to the A1400-8's maximum single channel output power.

The same math applies to the A1400. I believe that the single channel continuous power rating of the A1400 was specified at 350 watts into 8 ohms.

OK, I couldn't remember the numbers.

Indeed after doing a little digging on the website (you guys don't take stuff down, do you?), it is indeed quoted at 350WPC into 8 ohms 1 channel driven.

Does the rail voltage remain constant regardless of load impedance?


I am under the impression, that amps which have power ratings that do not double as load impedance halves varies their rail voltage...If the rail voltage is held constant, then as the impedance halves the power output should double, infinitely in a theoretical situation.

Going off of Ians' chart the rail voltage that Andrew provided, the rail voltage remains constant until there are 3 channels driven at 100%, at which time the rail voltage reduces when a 4ohm load is present. At 3 channels driven @100%, the rail voltage should reduce to approximately 46Vrms or 77% of 60.095 Vrms. the 77% reduction in voltage is representative of the difference between 650W and 500W.

Do i have a correct conceptual understanding of how this works?

I'm curious to read more on what this statement entails, and what it means for real-world performance.

The rail voltage remains constant until we reach the maximum continuous current capability of the power supply, at which time the rail voltage will reduce or "sag". This is why the power output drops at a certain point when more channels are added. At that point the maximum rail voltage is no longer the limiting factor in output power, it's now the supply current and the subsequent drop in rail voltage. If we had an unlimited supply current available, the power output would keep doubling at each halving of the load impedance until we reach the current limits of the amplifier output stage, which has current limiting protection. On the A1500 this will not take place until you're down into sub-2ohm territory.

Here's a shortlist of the "big ones":

Lower distortion, particularly at low power outputs where the amplifier spends most of its time operating.

Higher efficiency.

Cooler idling temperature.

Better control of output stage switching = excellent long term reliability.

Extremely robust and instantaneous protection circuitry for major fault conditions.

Andrew, forgive a naive question, but is there such a thing as "speed" of the amp?

Way back when, I went from a NAD 2200PE to a receiver and felt something was missing. I can only describe it as missing some "liveness" that I was perceiving as a lack of transients...drums, cymbals, a "roughly" played and close-miked acoustic guitar.

I'm not sure if there was a "speed" issue, or it was a matter of having huge reserves for those very short attacks(?).

I used to read of damping factors, etc... which I don't see as much info on anymore.

Is there anything to this?

maybe you're talking about "rise time"...

Can't we keep this thread clean?

It's also known as slew rate, if that's not too dirty for you.

I guess there are several terms, such as slew rate and damping and rise time which are sometimes, and sometimes not, published.

I just don't know how important they are. Seems like Damping Factor used to be touted everywhere, and now, not so much.

I don't know if their importance has been found to be less than initially thought, or if it's just a matter of marketing, or what.

OK, I hear the groans from bringing up an amp discussion. But I've got a chance to ask someone who designs them.

Here's the real meat of it: JohnK always states that all amps are the same, assuming a flat frequency response. But are there other factors that can make an amp better than another other than FR?

I know the discussion has been beaten to death over the years, but I'm still trying to determine if that perceived difference 15 years ago was false (it certainly COULD have been, it was nowhere near an instantaneous switch!!) or if there are factors that come into play beyond a "flat frequency response".

My Denon AVR-3808CI has a built-in 130 watt internal amplifier for each speaker. I know not all AVR's are like the older Japan-built Denon's. Would adding one of these amp's make any difference in my case? Based on room size, the 1000 series would be what I need, but at 8 Ohms, the 125 watts this amp delivers is already below what the 3808 claims to supply.

I was wondering how many Watts the 1000 was in 8 ohms. It's 125. I think for my setup a 1000 series with 6 amps would be perfect. Maybe someday I can make that happen. My next upgrade would be 2, preferably 3 QS8's to complete a 6.1 system.

Not sure what color to go with though. All the other speakers are black, except the subwoofer, which is Cinnamon Beech. Perhaps Cinnamon Beech would be good for the QS8's also. No reason they have to be black.

Mark,

I doubt that the difference you heard from your NAD amp to other amps would be related to the speed, or slew rate. The slew rate difference in amplifiers is measured in micro seconds and is not likely to contain any audible difference. The power reserves you mentioned are very likely the reason though. NAD amps tended to be low continuous power with good head room and a nifty soft clipping circuit. This soft clipping circuit would keep the usual harshness associated with clipping to a minimum but you would still lose some of that “attack” we all like that comes from being able to actually cleanly reproduce the dynamic peak requested in the original source.

Bayne,

The difference you are wondering about really comes down to the power supply. Coincidently I wrote a little piece about this in our newsletter today. I suspected it would be a question many people would have. Receiver power is almost always rated at the RMS power per channel with one channel driven or with the remaining six channels running at 1/8 power. This means that 130 watts per channel is either 17 watts or 32 watts per channel with all channels driven. Beyond the weak all channels driven power receiver amplifiers are generally also hard limited at the max power rating, 130 watts in your case. This lack of dynamic head room means any required short burst of power above 130 watts will not be reproduced. In some ways quite similar to the type of problem Mark was commenting on.

Ian, thanks for the info. For some time I've been wondering if an amp would be beneficial for my system or just overkill. I'm going to be closely watching the developments here over the next few months. I still need to figure out how the 1000 would be incorporated into my set-up and what sort of cables would be best to connect it to my AVR. You may have just introduced me to my Christmas present to myself this year.

Mark, as Ian and Chris point out, what you were referring to is termed "slew rate". This is the rate at which the amplifier changes voltage level over time. The usual parameter is given in volts per micro second. When a frequency during music appears which is higher(faster)than the previous frequency or is louder, the amplifier has to supply more voltage because of the higher level and do it more quickly because of the higher frequency. This is needed to produce that note at the required level and with low distortion. Note that this has nothing to do with sharper transient response or a perceived "tighter, quicker" sound; it's just doing the frequency accurately with low distortion.

The required slew rate at any instant in time is given by 2 x pi x freq. x voltage(peak). For example, to reproduce 20,000Hz at 100 watts(i.e. 40V peak, 28V RMS for 100 watts into 8 ohms, since power equals voltage(RMS)squared/impedance)the slew rate would be about 6.28 x 20,000 x 40 = 5,240,000(in micro-volts)or a slew rate of 5.24 volts per second.

This number contrasts with numbers on the order of 50, 100 or even more which some amplifiers proclaim, and is unrealistically high as is, because no music recordings require full power at 20,000Hz. Many years ago Baxandall
tested LPs for maximum slew rate required and found that 0.5 volt per second was all that was needed. British amplifier designer Michael Renardson updated this work for CDs, as shown here and found a maximum requirement for 100 watts into 8 ohms of 2.5 volts per second(would be 5 volts per second for 400 watts). All receivers/amplifiers of a high fidelity standard handle a band width to 20KHz or more at full rated power, and slew rate isn't a problem with any of these units. Making it 10 or more times higher than required is of no audible benefit and may increase costs.

On the amp "sound" point, you've left out some requirements given beyond flat frequency response, e.g., inaudibly low noise and distortion, and should note holding other factors equal, particularly matching sound levels to within 0.1dB when running blind tests. The same point always has to be repeated: all an amplifier does is add more voltage, and all more voltage does is make the sound louder. If this would ever change it wouldn't be in audio forum discussions, but might be published in my AES journal and possibly lead to a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Just thought of a quick question: With a powered sub such as my EP500, you would not need to connect it to an external amp, is that correct?

Correct.

That is correct; the amp for that sub is already built in.

Thanks, John. Very informative!

I have a question about #2. Lower distortion at lower output levels. This and possibly in combination with other parameters in the amps design. My question is.

Have you found through either the development phase, comparisons to other amplification (like receivers which we all use) or just living with the product in your home testing different source material and more importantly different speakers, if this amp can provide sound quality benefits even at low to moderate listening levels?

I have a 4311CI rated at 140W per channel with 9 channels. Can it drive all 9 channels simultaneously at 140W, no, not even close. The detailed specs list 9 channels at 140W but right below that list is something they refer to as Dynamic Power and it lists 150W x 2 Channels. In reality 150W with two channels driven is what the amp can really do and in my experience just by looking at the size and weight of the transformer, I would believe that.

Actually with movies having a scene that would demand full volume out of all channels is quite rare I think. So even though the Denon specs are misleading, they could probably defend their claim.

Just about a month ago, I took an ancient Bryston 3B I had in storage and hooked it up to the Denon preamp out of the Front L/R to drive my M80s. This made a significant improvement for some movies. Two movies I can point out are Tron and Super 8. The train crash scene of Super 8 is awesome for testing; there are loud crashing sounds from all speakers. As the Denon no longer had to drive the M80s, it had significantly more power available for the center, surrounds and backs. Overall, adding the Bryston has made a noticible overall improvement.

It's funny; the new Axiom amps arrived just at the right time for me. My 25 year old Bryston (and yes I bought it almost new... sigh, I feel so old) is nice but is a power hog and although still sounds clean is based on technology close to 30 years old. So, after hearing the improvement an external amp makes when used with my fronts, I already have put in my pre order for a A1000.

This was very easy to follow, thank you for explaining this so well. I understand now.



Since the +/- 85Vdc rails seem to be a limiting factor in how much continuous power can be delivered to an one channel at a time, then why don't designers simply go with rails rated with a larger figure? For example if there were a +/- 170Vdc rail, then running the calculations would give approximately 1500 Watts for one channel. Is this a big added expense to the overall design, or just not possible because of some other reason? Or maybe that people don't need 1500 Watts continuous power delivered to one channel?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but am just trying to understand the basics of amplifier designs with my very limited knowledge.

Boltron, thanks for the reply. I was hoping to get some real-world, relatable advice like this from someone with a similar receiver. I'm starting to understand the advantages an amp would afford my system. After you get your 1000, please let us know your thoughts. I'd especially be intersted in how warm the unit gets.

It's not bringing up an amp discussion that's a problem, but why are you bringing it up in an amplifier thread ? That goes against forum conventions.

I'm angling for an opportunity to derail myself!

Speak up, Ken can't hear you!

Nick B,

I can’t believe I may have just found someone looking for more power than even I would consider enough. At some point the power per channel is out of the range of being of any sort of limitation. Using a 3-channel 1500 series amp to power the three front channels (M80s and a VP180) you would have 700 watts of power available to each them with a total shared power of 1500 watts available (a separate 4-channel amp could be used for the surrounds). This may be getting close to all anyone would need but don’t quote me on that.

I notice now that in my previous reply, although I correctly defined slew rate in terms of volts per microsecond, in the examples I typed "second". The numbers are correct, but the time unit should of course be microseconds(millionths of a second).

Hi, I'm new to the Axiom forum but have been receiving the newsletter. I met all of you briefly at Le Salon Son et Image in Montreal this year.
I'm glad to see the amps are available before the fall. I own an Anthem MRX 700rated at 120 watts 2 channels driven and 90 watts 5 channels driven from 20hz to 20khz at 0.1% distortion @ 8 ohms. Also have speakers with built in powered subs.

Always been interested in buying one of your power amps, now is my chance. I was looking at the 1000 series 3 channel amp or the 1250 series 3 channel amp. Is there an upgrade option if I decide to go 5 channels later? Like listening to movies at realistic levels same with music. Is an upgrade really needed. Room is average size.

Was even thinking about changing the power cord on the MRX 700???
Thoughts and ideas would be appreciated. Thanks, enjoyed catching up on some forum topics.

Welcome!

I don't think you're going to find much support around here for esoteric power cords.

That Anthem amp is a fantastic piece. If you're really looking for an upgrade, I'd suggest getting the 3-channel Axiom 1250 or 1500 and keeping the Anthem for the other channels.

Thanks for comment tomtuttle. I feel the same about power cords but thought I'd ask.

Hello Wawaron! Is that as in Wawa Ron? In which case double hello! Welcome to the boards!

Amie, what is "Wawa Ron", never heard of that?

Wawa being my favourite place to stop on the drive from my house to Calgary (okay, second favourite after Brent's house, naturally!) and Ron being Ron, I think!

Wawaron - it's true Amie stops ay my place here in the Sault which is always a delight and then leaves early just to get to Wawa- she loves it there, big city girl and all?

So, back to the new amps. I'm seriously considering the new Axiom amps. And, of course, would want to take advantage of the early order savings. I would be interested in learning the difference between the new Axioms on the others around using the Ice Power modules? How doe they differ? How are they better?
Time is running short on this decision :-)

Hi Amie, You have the first part right as in Wawa. JB in French a wawaron is a male bull frog. I do live in Wawa and am male so wawaron. Next time in town let me know we can go for coffee at the best restaurant in Wawa which happens to be outside of Wawa, the Kinniwabi Pines. Best coffee and meals around.

JAR5197,

The ICE amp module is also a switching amp and will share those high efficiencies for converting wall current to power at the speaker. But when we originally looked into the possibility of using the ICE amp modules they came with their own switching power supply as part of each module. We found this limiting to one of our main design parameters of having a massive analog power supply available to all of the channels. Beyond this show stopper, there were also the limitations of the module itself. Though it would be easy to implement for sure, we really wanted more control over every aspect of the amp design, which designing from the ground up gave us.

Thanks Ian,
One more question. The specs show the units are 19 inches wide. Most audeo equipment is 17 inches. Is the 19 wide correct?

I use Axiom bulk speaker wire and love it. With one of these amps, would I need to upgrade to one of those fancy uber-expensive, vacuum sealed, phaser-proof cables?

JAR5197

I am glad you asked this. The 19" is an error. Steve is going to fix that now. The front panel is 17.75" wide and the chassis is 17.5" wide so it will fit in a standard rack.

Bayne,

The 12 gauge Axiom bulk cable will be perfect for the job.

Thanks, Ian. I thought so, ts was just something one of the 'experts' at BB said right before I chuckled. I was never going to be talked into those high-priced cables, but thought I should check.

My wife and I are going to Antartica in January, so I've got to wait a bit until I can order a 1000 series amp. Sigh.

I just got an email back from Brent (CS) and he said the 19 inch width was correct. If it is 19, I can't get it in my cabinet. It is is the 17+, it will work. Please verify one more time for me.

Also, is Today the last day of the pre-order pricing? Or is it tomorrow?

Sorry for being such a pain. Thanks

JAR5197,

The amps are 17.75" wide for the face panel and 17.5" wide for the chassis. I have let Brent know we changed the spec on the site as well. The last day for the first level of the pre-order pricing is tomorrow. No problem with all the questions, I am sure they are a big help to everyone reading this.