# Multi Channel Amp



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

I'm setting up a home theater. There seems to be a limited number of better multi channel amps. I am currently leaning toward an ATI 6007. I have not heard it as yet, but I will and when I do this will determine if it stays on list.
My question is any recommendations for multi channel amp.
Any feedback on the ATI 6007. Looking for more up to date info.


----------



## vidiot33 (Dec 12, 2013)

Hi: Don't have specific experience with that particular model, but ATI has a well-deserved reputation for making quality amps. The best value in amps, in my opinion ( and many others who have used them), is Emotiva.


----------



## tcarcio (Jun 27, 2007)

Hi PB. I don't have experience with the ATI but I am sure someone here does. I can say that Emotiva amps seem to be a good choice at a reasonable price so it may be something else to consider. https://emotiva.com/

Vidiot 33 beat me to it.....:T


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

Given your apparent budget - look at Emotiva, NAD, Rotel, Marantz, Yamaha, Parasound, B&K, Anthem.


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Could also consider used. I picked up a couple of very nice used amps for very reasonable prices.


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

never say never


----------



## Goozoo (Jun 19, 2014)

Having had many different surround amps those in your budget range would be a used Anthem or Emotiva XPR line. The Anthem line is the most transparent and accurate, but Emotiva gear is equally robust.


----------



## WLDock (Dec 19, 2009)

While this level of amp is out of my league it does raise an interesting question. Which will offer the most performance, the $8K multi-channel ATI or somethinmg like four Emotiva XPR-2 amps? Trying both setups would be the only way to know. Its only money! :spend: LOL!


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

That doesn't say much for ATI if that were there case. I suspect there is a difference.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

I have a Pioneer SC-25 and I use the mains of the amp to feed the tweets. I use the pre-outs to feed a Yamaha surround amp that has 6 channel in and use those outputs to feed the lows. The Yamaha is more than adequate to power the lower frequencies and the setup gives me the ability to tri-amp and bi-amp the fronts and get more power overall. There are several older power amp models out there that can take separate channel inputs. Its a simple solution that doesn't break the bank.


----------



## WLDock (Dec 19, 2009)

Pilot B said:


> That doesn't say much for ATI if that were there case. I suspect there is a difference.


How would one really know? Look at it this way. The 6000 series is the best that ATI has to offer ...and the the multi channel design has to stuff a lot into a limited space. ATI is known as making pro quality gear and this line is not exactly affordable.. Two 20 Amp lines! Whew! now that's some current capability!









Emotiva on the other hand is one of the value leaders in the market. The XPA is their attempt at a high end offering. Their two channel is $2376 cheaper than the ATI 2 ch.









So it comes down to several two channel amps vs. a multi-channel. Maybe a 2 ch vs. 2 ch battle in a dedicated hi end 2 channel system might reveal the real truth? However, in a dedicated home theater system playing movies how would the four 2 channels fair against the multi channel?

Its one of those questions that can only be answered by actually comparing things. Also, Emotiva was just thrown out there...maybe there are other good performing 2 ch amps that might fit the bill also? Either way, the ATI sounds like an absolutely amazing amp that many would love to have. The Emotiva is equally amazing in what they offer in the XPR for the price. The specs for both lines are off the charts! Many would love amps like this in our systems. However, some don't agree that Emotiva belongs in the discussion. 

I myself would love to have the money and time to answer this one! Would throw some other brands in the mix also to let the ears decide.


----------



## Insearchof (Oct 21, 2014)

Can't say I've heard the ATI amps but have heard some of the Emotiva stuff and it's quite good for the money.
Also, for the money, certain pro audio amps can be hard to beat.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Unless you are going to use a stand alone pre/pro, chances are any AVR that has preouts for external amplification will also have built-in amplifiers that have plentiful output power.
If you are going to use the front end of an AVR at least give it a chance before wasting money on unnecessary amps.
If the AVR is unsatisfactory on its own amps can always be added later.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

In my case I wanted to bi-amp and tri-amp my speakers. The additional 6 channel amp cost me under 300$ and suited my purpose. Why do you need a multi-channel amp?


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

Good idea.


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

I believe in the near future there will be a market for Av processors. Just processor no amps. They change so rapidly. Current processors have a self life of only 18 months max. After that something newer big better is out. Most people will get a longer period of time out of their unit. By three years you have a relic.
So my thinking is spend your money on the back end e.g.:speakers & amps, possibly cables ( this one is minefield). Your looking to processor, projector,blu-ray player to turn over more commonly.
The future is 4K.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

Its really about input. 4K may be the future. Blu ray video is good. Audio may not be so good. SACD is good. DTS is good. Great only really happens when all the ducks are lined up. A fast computer on the input is really the way to go. There are no limits with a fast CPU and DAC. Keeping components separate is not consumer friendly. Its hard enough for many to hook up 6 or 7 or 9 speakers (never mind ATMOS!). It all makes me want to go back to my tube amp and turntable and maybe a nice floral arrangement centrepiece to look at. Its not easy.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I don't see AV processors becoming mainstream (affordable) compared to AVRs at all.
I think Marantz is the last mass market manufacturer to keep a processor in the lineup.


----------



## vidiot33 (Dec 12, 2013)

Yamaha also has a stand alone processor, but both the Marantz and the Yamaha costs far more than their top of the line receivers. Here's to hoping we see more affordable processors in the near future.


----------



## WLDock (Dec 19, 2009)

Here is how I see it.

Separates have always been a company's more expensive top offering in technology, design, construction, etc.

Companies like Emotiva for example built their business on affordable separates. However, so far their Pre/Pro have not been cutting edge and some of their amps don't impress many in the small Audiophile community. Of course their customers don't agree.

One has to draw the line and define where you stand. 

If one is willing to spend $8K on a seven channel amp, how much are you willing to spend on a preamp? There are $8K-$20K preamps out there! or will a $5k, $2.5K, or $539 preamp be good enough? Garbage in Garbage out right? Why mate a $539 preamp with an $8K amp?

So, the lesson is.....if one wants to chase the A/V game and have the latest and greatest features EVERY year, it will cost! 

1) Don't spend money on a top amp if the cheap receiver or Pre/Pro you plan to use to drive it does not have the needed signal and resolution that a top Pre/Pro would have.

2) Don't buy a top amp and Pre/Pro just to sell the Pre/Pro in two years at a huge loss because you want the latest features. Chances are you are going to want another expensive top Pre/Pro?

Do find a middle road where PRICE, PERFORMANCE, and UPGRADE path makes fiscal sense. 
- Some will spend $2.5K on a Pre/Pro and $8K on a 7 ch amp. $10.5K
- Some will spend $5K on a Pre/Pro and $1.5K on a 7 ch amp. $6.5K
- Some will spend $2.5k on a Pre/Pro and $2.5K on a 7 ch amp. $5K
- Some will spend $1K on a receiver and $1.5K on a 7 ch amp. $2.5K

Which system performs the best? Which system is the better value? Which system is cheaper to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

Do what makes sense to YOU and YOUR budget! If saving money and 4K are important to you....don't JUMP on the bandwagon right away. Keep what you have for a year or so more and let the market develop.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

I have a Yamaha HTR-5640 with 6 channels at 75 watts per channel I use for my lows (about a 100$) . I have an Integra 7.1 in the closet (has a "funky" channel) that can push 250W into 6 channels (about 200$) You can get integrated amps used these days for next to nothing. If you don't mind a little more heat and power consumption the old amps can blow some of these new D-class amps away in specs. I don't use any of the decoding features. I do use some of the EQ features to remove the higher frequencies. I just use the amp portion.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

istvan said:


> I have a Yamaha HTR-5640 with 6 channels at 75 watts per channel.....I have an Integra 7.1 in the closet (has a "funky" channel) that can push 250W into 6 channels


The only issues with using a reciver for a multi channel amp is that they do not output anywhere near their rated output driving all channels. you can usually drop those numbers by about 40%


> the old amps can blow some of these new D-class amps away in specs.


Not really, Class D amps are very efficient and can usually come very close to driving what they say they do. the issue is some say they dont like the sound you get from the digital amps.
Lower end receivers dont do well in bench tests but I know of many mid to high end ones that will do just fine.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

Not sure what you mean by drop that by 40%??? The Yamaha and Onkyo have discrete (separate) amp stages for each channel. They both have inputs for every channel and amplify those inputs through separate amplifiers each rated for total power. There are very well designed D amps out there for sure. The quality in the sound is largely dependant on precise engineering. The old A/B amps or mosfet amps do consume more power for sure but its much easier to achieve excellent audio without the alchemy involved in digital systems. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1274731


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

istvan said:


> Not sure what you mean by drop that by 40%??? The Yamaha and Onkyo have discrete (separate) amp stages for each channel. They both have inputs for every channel and amplify those inputs through separate amplifiers each rated for total power.


This has been discussed here to great length but to put it simple, receivers have small power supplies and they simply can not supply enough current to power all the amps at the same time and thus you get distortion when driving them hard. 
Dedicated amps do not have this limitation and dont suffer from the same issue.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

Which really comes down to .. How much power do you need ? Since I am bi-amping and tri-amping. I can effectively and economically divide my power requirements over many amps, and conquer. So my if my primary amp delivers (low ball) 50 watts into the tweet and my secondary amp does 50 into the mid and 50 into low. Then don't I get effectively get at least 150watts per channel ? Anyhow this is my way of doing things. Its economical but it requires that you design your own system from the bottom up. I am still not sure what reason for a multi-amped system from Pilot B is in this thread. I am into active crossovering (patent pending  ) and Its the only way I can afford it.


----------



## Glen B (Jun 11, 2013)

istvan said:


> Since I am bi-amping and tri-amping. I can effectively and economically divide my power requirements over many amps, and conquer. So my if my primary amp delivers (low ball) 50 watts into the tweet and my secondary amp does 50 into the mid and 50 into low. Then don't I get effectively get at least 150watts per channel ?


No, no and no. That is not how it works when you bi-amp/tri-amp. The watts don't add up like that. You're still getting 50 watts into the lows, 50 watts into the mids, and 50 watts into the highs.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

Yes of course I am. My example is a bit crude but my point is not. 100 watts of treble and 100 watts of bass are not in the same realm of human perception. 100 watts of treble is very very loud whereas a 100 watts of bass may not be. You must take into account the division of power vs frequency. In the real world it certainly won't add up to 150 watts BUT (and its a big but) distribution of frequencies does amount to an overall greater SPL. http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Glen B said:


> No, no and no. That is not how it works when you bi-amp/tri-amp. The watts don't add up like that. You're still getting 50 watts into the lows, 50 watts into the mids, and 50 watts into the highs.


Are you saying that operating tri-amped with 50 watts per driver is no different than “mono-amped” with a single 50-watt amp?

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

Anybody heard the Simaudio titan?


----------



## Talley (Dec 8, 2010)

I just picked up a Krell Showcase 7 channel amp for $1800. Not sure what your budget is but you can find em for 1700-2200.

This thing sold for 6,000 new. I find it to be a bargain now. Will let you know what I think when it arrives.


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

Some time has passed. I would like to hear from anyone who actually owns a 6000 series amp from ATI


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I have the ATI AT1506. Great reliable product.

Bought sometime around 2001 or 2002, mine has been used and abused every day, never had a problem and still going strong. It is not used just occasionally during special theater time, it is used in my living room for all regular tv viewing, movie viewing, and music listening. Every minute that I am at home, it is on.

It is 6 channel, 150 watts/channel with bridging capability. I have always used it bridged (450 watts/channel) for my front 3 speakers.

Review of AT1506:
http://www.wwsp.com/ati/audiovideoshopper.htm

Hopefully someone will share experience with the 6000 series.


----------



## Pilot B (Aug 25, 2014)

Yes someone with 6000 series experiance would be great.
Thanks for the reply


----------

