There is no dial. The relay sits behind the hole. It was just a feature of the box type my friend chose.

Outlaw M200 Monos.

My test CD is Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits. Plenty of bass, mid and treble.

The M200s seem to drive the 80's with more punch and tightness. If I switch between pure direct and stereo, the sub cuts in. Switching back and forth the 80s, bass response becomes more like the EP500. Not as deep but just as clear and defined and musical as the sub.

Switching the banana plugs between the receiver and the amps, I listened to the same cd while watching the clock to get the same time frames for both. The amp seems to have a cleaner sound very similiar to the differences between the 60's and to 80's. A cleaner, clearer sound.

Then I crank it up. 95dB to me is real loud. The bass response of the 80's is almost unbelievable. For CD music you'd never need the sub. The highs are crystal clear. Chimes used in some numbers ring very clear. Clearer than the receiver.

I used the SPL meter to check channel levels and did not have to adjust after set-up. I bought Outlaw PCA cables and I like the locking mechanism.

The 3rd mono will be here next week for the center channel.

I am very pleased with my HT setup so far. I think the monos will be a good addition.

IMHO,

Bug

In reply to:

---

I am very pleased with my HT setup so far. I think the monos will be a good addition.

IMHO,

Bug

---

Good, now maybe this thread won't be pounded into the ground anymore.

Mike, you shouldn't be worrying about a problem that almost certainly isn't going to exist for you. Your 1015, if in good condition and set up properly, has more than enough power for your M60s. Relax.

I humbly appreciate the BUG's test results. So yes..time to end this thread.

Now lets talk BUG SQUASHING.

Bernard, the link you referred to is here , a copy of the Stereo Review amplifier blind listening test that infuriated some audiophiles, but also opened the eyes of others who didn't have their heads in the sand. Among the more notable results was that a $12,000 pair of tube amps that were correctly designed(i.e. they didn't have a flawed "tube sound")were indistinguishable from the $220 Pioneer receiver. Also notable at the end of the article are the usual before-test comments about the "sound" of the various units, which of course disappeared when the listeners had to trust their ears in the blind sessions. One of the "believers" quoted at the end of the blind test(but before being shown his apparent 7/16 result)still thought that he had heard clear differences. The sincerity of these beliefs shouldn't be questioned, but it's also clear that there's no factual basis for them.

That's a good article John.

If that article were more popular, it'd serve as pretty good PR for Pioneer.

So it's all im my head!

So be it!

Thanks John!!! Yes, that is the article!!!!!

Anyone who is familiar with the scientific method ought to agree that it was a very good test. Perhaps not perfect, but a very good test!!!

The big surprise to me was that folks could NOT tell the difference between a tube and solid state amps. I have often wondered if the human ear could really tell the difference between a string of even harmonics and a string of odd harmonics. Guess that the answer is NO!!

Which sort of gets up back to the subject of this thread.

1. Can people "really" tell the difference between amps?

2. Do the specs "really" indicate how the amps will perform in a variety of music tastes?

3. Do the receivers/ amps "really" meet the specs?

Just something for everyone to think about.