2B,
Howdy JMAUSGP!
Interesting read, and I will give you that it doesn't take a ton of work or cash for that matter to upgrade to two channel amplification from multichannel amplification. But you may be missing the point, but then again maybe not.
At least in my instance, I never listen to two channel movies and I never listen to two channel music. My system does not do double duty, it only does multi-channel and this may be where we are starting to have a disconnect.
Only multi-channel? Hmmm, so before multi-channel came along you didn't listen to music, or are you saying you've chosen it exclusively because something about it draws you in to that type of presentation? Myself, I'm the opposite. I'm more interested in attempting to recreate a studio or bandstand presentation. Yes, I'm aware there are those who'd say multichannel is a more accurate presentation of a live event such as a concert setting. But for me, it never gets any better than a recreated stage event as could be heard at my local Jazz Alley venue. Each player performing from a certain location on the stage recreated in a like presentation within a 2 channel listening experience within my system. But hey, too each their own right.
And of course my reference to double duty is made in the context of real world budgetary constraints of the average individual. If cost's no object, but of course the sky's the limit!
I am so set in my ways that given the choice of stereo or nothing, I choose nothing.
Wow really!!! The truth is I haven't listened to stereo since I bought my first Dynaco Quad SCA-80Q in 1972, then Pioneer Quad QX-949, with the cool ocilliscope and then Citation 2.0 and 4.0 and now Modded McCormack MAP-1 for the 5.1 music system with CLXs and the Sony STR 5300ES for the big 7.2 HT which is all ML speakers btw. I also have a Sony STR 5200ES 7.2 system with MLs in the master bedroom. Yeah, I know, but when you have multichannel syndrome, well it's a disease.
MS...now perhaps I'm finally beginning to hear where you're coming from. Well, I don't subscribe to the type of listening you do, but I have to admit, you took me right down memory lane with the mention of Quad gear...It was '73 during the tail end of Vietnam...I'm 18, and having just taken up residence on the island of Guam thanks to the US Navy assigning me to the USS Ponchatoula AO148...the Ponch' as it later affectionately became to be known was going through a needed dry dock repair, so you had a entire ship of over 300 personnel in temporary barrack housing while our home at sea was receiving a facelift...and each barrack you'd enter you'd hear different styles of musical choices being played back over hi-end Quad receivers from Sansui, Pioneer and the like. Being that we were in close proximity to Japan where those were produced they could be had to a sailor for a song...or a seaman's monthly paycheck equivalent, which usually came first! Thx for that walk down memory land, for I'd not been inside that barracks in years.
Myself and Jonfo may be a minority since we love multi-channel and put so much effort into it but hey its what we like and I am a firm believer in to each his own.
I do believe that I can hear a difference in amps, and there is no doubt in my mind that you and others can too and it is for that reason itself that it is important in my system to have all channels driven by the same amp. That way there is no discernable difference between the front and the back channels.
That's a very strong argument that's definitely open to discussion. For instance, any MC processor worth consideration would possess speaker adjustment levels integrated in its design for the very purpose you suggest. You're obviously taking this in a direction I'm not yet aware of so I'll reserve further comment until I hear more Ahhhhh, so you can hear a difference in amplification, even in the context of an MC presentation. Very interesting indeed.
In my case, why would I want to have different amp on the front CLXs that sounds better/different from the amp that I have on the rear CLXs. You see that kind of messes with the experience, IMHO.
Oh boy, and I thought I had a disease. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh man...thx for reminding me why it was important that I got better grades in school. Geez sir, if I could afford CLX's to stage in the front, nor less the rear, then perhaps I'd not be having this discussion with you, for at this very moment I know where I'd be...cruising down the Med, or French Rivera, or even perhaps off the coast of Ukraine's Black Sea, cold blue umbrella'd drink in hand, listening to music through a pair of i-Phones!
BTW, I've actually done the Ukraine thing, and trust me, if you're an American male, going through midlife or whatever crisis, I highly recommend it! Ohhhhh man, I could tell you some stories, but hey that would be too off topic and perhaps could have me forever censored.
Now if you throw out the law of diminishing returns, yeah you can beat the Sunfire TGA 5400 or 7400 but at what cost? It all comes down to whether the cost justifies the perfomance, and even though I can spend alot on the amplification there is this little voice in my head that says, watch it she might find out how much you are spending on your audio addiction.
I hate to say it JMAUSGP, but you've just given me ammunition with the Mrs...see honey, I don't have a disease...here's this guy whose got more than the net worth of my entire system tied up in just his front two channels...your secrets safe with me.
But that is a whole different discussion......back on topic.
I did do a demo of a Simaudio Moon Titan against the Sunfire 5400, based on Tonepub's recommendation and I did note enough of a difference that I spent double the money of the TGA 5400 to get the Moon Titan. So I am not blind to the fact that it can be done, but again at what cost?
Tonepub sounds like a kewl guy. So JMAUSGP, it appears you're not so closed minded after all for you took the plunge and gave Tonepub's suggestion a try. However, given that your requirements differ from those having 2 channel as their primary listening objectives, which most need to fill, then the $1k investment I was suggesting that would be within the reach of an average budget could still be attainable and present a more harmonically rich presentation than the Sunfire perhaps could.
And when I talk Sunfire amps and Martin Logans ESLs I am not talking 200 watt per channel used $1K Sunfires but rather 400 watt per channel in to 8ohm amps.
The Signature Series, yes I understand. Frankly their designs are not that different...well I should qualify that by saying to my ears their presentation sounds the same, but of course with the Sig series it's more of the same. It's too bad you didn't get to hear a Carver Lightstar Reference. All 77 of them produced were hand built, true dual mono amps within one chassis each with separate power supplies and each with it's own power up/off button much like the BAT VK500. Carver was on to something finally, unfortunately for them it became too little too late...77 of those are floating around out there somewhere, and for a product that sold new for $4k for a Carver 2 channel during the later 90's, they were actually worth it! Favorably reviewed against a T-200 at the time if I recall. The design of the Ref was based on the same design principles BC was working on before he sold Carver and started Sunfire. However, the Lightstar Ref's get plenty warm, so that tells you they were similar to Sunfire, but a different beast in the end.
I have tried the 200 channel Sunfire amps and you can tell a big difference in their sound versus the 400 watt models, at least driving Martin Logans. I think it is a headroom thing. They just keep doubling down to 1 ohm at 3200 watts a channel and they run cool in the cabinets.
Yes, those cool temps are definitely advantages to the breed. And there's something to be said for having spare room in an amplifier when matching it to a power hungry load. But frankly, ML's don't come much more difficult of a load to drive than CLS's, and I've driven them with ease and audible room to spare with a simple $1k used BAT VK200, which is only 200 wpc 4 ohms...it's not the wattage that's important to me...it's the quality of watts that's being presented to the load/speaker that's more important. Side Note, I used to have 125 watt class A Yamaha amps in the cabinets, but the wife kept asking me why she smelled wood burning. That gets old after a while, not to mention kind of scarey.
Ohhhhh man, was there a system fire extinguisher at the standby for that system? 
And if so I hope you padded it in foam to protect against unwanted resonance and vibrations Okay, so you learned something. Class A design is not designed to sit inside a cabinet setting. Cooler air needs to circulate around it to assist with heat dissipation from its heatsinks. Didn't that Yamaha have tremendous heat sinks to help it cool itself? Thank goodness the Mrs. had a discerning nose that forewarned you before you burned the house down. Remember to take her to dinner and thank her just because.
For the big 7.2 HT I have Stylos, Stage, Fresco i and subs driven by a Sunfire TGA7400, it does 99% movies and HDTV, with music only 1% of the time, but always multi-channel. It never runs out of steam and it runs cool as a cucumber. Life is good in your household. I wanna be you in my next life. CLX's in the rears, projected dancing bears in ballet ruffled skirts prancing along the ceiling to the beat of the music..okay, minus the bears! :ROFL:
As for the 5.1 music only system, its CLXs, Descent i and Stage (with the intent to sometime split a pair of used CLXs with Jonfo to swap out the Stage for an all CLX lineup) This is powered by a Simaudio Moon Titan, which replaced a Sunfire TGA 5400, because I could hear a difference and my brother needed the money more than the Titan. Like I said, sometimes you have to help a brother out, literally
What a standup guy. I'm with you...family first, end of discussion. But you ended up with Titan's on the cheap so that wasn't so bad. Are you serious? CLX's all around? Whew, talk about a Park Avenue of system's. Okay, it's obvious I'm way outa my league here in this discussion...let's have a do over...from the top...for US normal folk...If Jonfo wanted to it appears he has the skills and wherewithal to practically design his own CLX. The only thing that had me scratching my head is why he'd choose to power his creations with a SF product. And to that question you've just provided a possible answer: cool as a cucumber in a rack mount setting...yes, a SF is tough to beat given those constraints.
This is all run through a McCormack MAP-1 that was modded by Steve McCormack to bring it up to his Virtual Machine pre-amp standards. I like it because I can take any two channel source and through Steve's Ambience Retrieval Mode (ARM) I can turn it into a very close approximation of DVD Audio or SACD 5.1 surround sound. Kind of like stereo on steroids.
S on S...one has to like the sound of that. What does that contraption sound like?
In short, if you don't play pure two channel and you almost always play multi-channel then having the channels matched is a big priority and to do that without spending huge dollars and bumping up against the law of diminishing returns, the Sunfire multichannel 400 watt per channel amps are an easy decision, and I have found they are hard to beat without spending significant effort and AFC, Actaully fg Cash for those playing the home game. Can you go bigger and/or arguably better, heck yes, but at what cost?
Well, I'm still not buying the "channel matching" theory because the processor adjusts that. But all things being equal for HT performance I concede the SF is hard to beat for bang for buck presentation. I'd never go without 2 channel audio though. Give me a 180 gram pressing of Blue Train played back over an Oracle Delphi MKV TT with the right stylus and a pair of CLS's and frankly I'm done, for it doesn't get any better than that to my ears. But call me set in my ways of 2 channel listening...even SACD holds no interest for me. I'm more of a purist...not in a sense of being close minded...it has more to do with the fact as a hobbyist musician, music sounds more natural to my ear played back acoustically, versus through gadgetry and electronic gizmo's. A real piano trumps a digital one, no matter how good the digital source. Overtones are there that can't be created via electronics...same for basses...give me the real thing...although I applaud the pursuit of advancement in music. However, it seems to me the more we progress the further one can get away from the value and reward found in simplicity. Okay, kick me off this soapbox, I'm done.
You will note that I am not the most serious of posters here at MLC, yeah I have opinions like everyone else.....okay mine are a little more warped than most. But I also have several other hobbies/interests/passions/addictions and I have to split my time among all of them, which is getting harder and harder to do, anyways I do try to explain my positon now and then but since writing is not one of my strengths, it is kind of a crapshoot whether or not I explain myself well enough.
I'd beg to differ, your writing is exceptionally clear, well thought out, with solid reasoning, and it's easily understandable. Having multiple passions and obvious addictions is something else we share.
And that's my story and I am sticking to it?
