b&k st 1400 or b&k st 125.2

Bdgregory, thanks for the helpful input! I never even thought about how the b&k was going to match up with the classe even though that should have been something to think about. I'm thinking that the b&k might be a warmer, sweeter sound which I was actually excited about so I could compare a different amp in my system and see if I liked it better than the classe. Hmm, now you've got me thinking though.

Another question for you is why would you recommend that I don't bridge the classe?

Anyways, thanks again for the help! I appreciate it!

the reason not to bridge is sonics. I don't understand the technical issues, but was told by 2 manufactures that amps designed for 2 channels are optimized for 2. When you bridge them they won't sound as good. So unless you need the power and you're not concerned about sound (eg - driving a subwoofer), run it as a single channel. For many designs, a 2 channel amp running only 1 channel will produce more power than rated due to the fact that the idled channel is not placing demand on the power supply.

Hmmm, interesting. I'll research this some more! Thanks!

if you already have the amp, you can just try it too. I have and found in all cases I preferred "single stereo" (even though I always have this nagging thought that I have a channel going to waste!)

I did try it. I could only listen to one channel as I only have one amp but it sounded way better bridged. So much so that I want another ca-150 to run my center channel during movies and then in bridged mode for two channel listening. I was just curious if you were thinking that bridging an amp was bad for it because of impedence and heating issues etc. What's your take? Thanks by the way!