Arcam P777 or Theta Intrepid


After weighing reviews, price, and designs, I have narrowed some multi-channel amp choices down to these two. I am looking used and spending @2500 tops, thus eliminating an Ayre V-6xe and Bryston 9BSST/SST2, which I was also considering. Also, I have a Bryston 2B-LP right not, and while I love its transients, bass, and control, I have always found it a bit harsh in the mids/uppers and really want to get away from that. I was considering an ATI amp, as well, but read some stuff that they might sound similar (It sucks not being able to listen to all this stuff myself!).

CAP has the Intrepid new for 1500, which seems like a stellar deal and to rank very high on the sound-for-money scale. Unfortunately, I cannot hear it locally and am going solely on reviews and having heard Ayre amps with a similar design (no global feedback and fully balanced). On paper, the Intrepid sounds like a truly hi-end design, perhaps just a little under powered, for a stupidly good price. I haven't heard the P777 either but have do currently have a C31 and CD36. I have heard Arcam amps in the past, only via their integrateds, and thought that they were not their strong suit, but this is obviously a much more powerful choice and dedicated design. I found them warm and nice but just not as detailed or spacious sounding. It also has the power and bi-amping my fronts capability advantage.

I will be running Vandersteen 2 Sigs, a VCC Sig, and VSMs in a 13x13x9 room. I also have a 2W to take some low end load off the 2s. I normally don't listen to movies all that loudly, honestly, and my focus is on music. I wanted to get some comments from people who might have heard both/either. Thanks!
jwseitz
It was a joke ofcourse, don't take it personal. Every amp has his own personal sound and the way the stage is build. What I did for some years wenn I worked in a shop. These days I only do consulting and presentations for some brands. I gave a demo with different amps to let people hear the difference between a 2-dimensional and a 3-dimensional sound. The most positive thing about it was that all people prefer depth and a 3-dimensional sound far over a 2-dimensional sound. So What is a 2-dimensional sound. Wenn there is no depth or maximun of 1 metre. Instruments and voices of a recording are almost on the same line. Wenn you use this recording and use stuff what can make a deep and wide stage you easilly can hear that the instuments are a lot different in depth. There is a better separation of all the parts of tehe recording. Wenn you also get a more sharp focussed image and instruments and voices will have the right proportion as in real music will become more intimate. At shows you often hear a wide and deep stage but with instruments and voices played too big in proportion. You need to solve this problem as well. Wenn you do many tests as I do you can easilly hear and understand all the differences in amps, sources, cables etc. Wenn you use the different properties/talents of all the tools in your system you can get a more what I call complete sound. How good a speaker can give a deep and wide stage has to do with the quality of the filters and the box were the spakers are put in. Crossover filter quality will a big influence how good the stage will be. For example I used the more expensive B&W spakers for over 8 years. The 800 Signature was the last one. B&W is an example pof a brand who is not the best in making crossover filters. My stage was not that deep. I wanted to go to a higher level in sound realism. So I sold the B&W and wanted a speaker who can give a wide and deep stage. With this you enojoy your music a lot more. Now you hear all the parts of the recording in your room. There are no speakers anymore. It is playing live infront of you.

I apologize for my bad writing. I have to admit that I do not read back what I write. I am a little lazy in this. You are right about this. It is as it is!
Even Arcam is a 2-dimensional brand, it is one of my favorite brands in there price range. I sold it a lot and I had a lot of fun with it. I love the sound and I met the people of Arcam. Very nice and dadicated people.
I just wanted to let people know that I was able to borrow a P38 from a local dealer in a test of Arcam amplification. If this is their best 2-channel amp, then I assume the quality of sound from the P777, although a different amp, I know, will be similar.

Honestly, I am really disappointed. I don't have many, if any, good things to say about it so far. The upper and lower ends of the spectrum are missing. It thus sounds midrange heavy and congested/compressed at that. Imaging is more vague and not as big. It does sound fairly flat. Control definitely took a step down, and vocals sound less real... The one positive is that it sounds a little less edgy than the Bryston, but that is, of course, because those frequencies are probably missing.

I have let it play for two days and will continue to break it in. Not impressed, though. We are talking about a comparison versus a Bryston 2B-LP. That amp's design is at least a decade old--before ST even. It's rated at 60W (tested at 75W on their sheet), cost @1000 new, and walked all over this P38 at 1600 new and 105W, with updated technology. I really don't think amplification is Arcam's game, at all, which is what led me to the Bryston amp years ago with the Arcam preamp and CD. Now, I wonder about their quality, though... I tested the highest end Adcom (GFA-something?) at the time and even a BP25 preamp and just found it too dry. I thought the Arcam/Bryston combo was nice.

I can borrow an Anthem amp from another dealer, which I might do, but I think I will end up with the Theta. I have heard nothing but good things about it, and the Ayre stuff (very similar design) sounds really good.
Arcam has a quite warm overwhole sound. This means the focus is more to the mid's. Bryston has a total different sound. It depends about your taste and speakers you use? Maybe it is not the best match. There is one important thing you should think about. I did a lot of testing in roomcorrection in the last 2 years. With Audessey Pro I reached a level which I never would be possible in sound. In stereo I also reached a level what is better than when I had the Pass Labs XP-20. ( I owned for 2 years) These days I use a subwoofer because I have a full stealth integration. I never liked subwoofers for stereo use. Because of Audessey pro I got the sound where I dreamed of. The focus and 3d image is stunning. I play about 4 metres behind the speakers. And about 1 metre beside the speakers. With the Pass Labs XP-20 my stage was less deep and wide. Wenn you use Audessey Dynamics and volume correctly the articulation of voices well be so much more open and easy to follow.