• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

To monoblock or not to monoblock

alex-z said:
Assuming the amp designer is competent, modern units do not suffer crosstalk problems when sharing a power supply and chassis. It is a good thing that multiple channels share a power supply, when one channel is lightly loaded, another can draw extra current.

Some people are correctly stating that monoblocks allow closer co-location of the speakers and amplification, reducing line noise and signal loss. However, the logical conclusion of this thinking is just integrating the amplification into the speaker itself.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The reason I personally hoard monoblocks is the flexibility and utility. And to me a stereo amp that is bridgeable and stable at reasonably low impedances is a monoblock, with the flexibility of stereo capability. Which is why I want to hoard some Benchmark AHB2's.
 
Okay guys, my left side speakers, with the monos on the shelf behind.
Proving that, I don't actually need them, as you generally describe best practice!
In fact, they will stay in use for as long as they continue to work.
Thank you for all of the comments!
IMG_20221117_101713.jpg
 
DavidEdwinAston said:
While I appreciate that on ASR, powered speakers are considered the ultimate answer, I just wondered if there is still a useful purpose for mono power amps, compared to stereo, in the situation where either is a possibility? (ie my own situation!)
Click to expand...

Yes of course. The performance of mono blocks are usually better than stereo counterparts. However it's not because they are mono blocks. It's because of their design. Mono blocks are usually reserved for flagship models so they are designed differently from a stereo power amp. These beasts are mostly over engineered that could literally take almost anything thrown at them.

Btw, I am talking about monoblocks from companies like Krell. Their FPB and Evo monoblocks are among the most powerful amps in the industry back then.

btw, not all stereo power amps are stereo. Some are essentially dual mono blocks in a single chassis.

Having said that, it depends alot on your application and speakers... They do not magically improve your speakers. I would say they don't improve anything because the best power amps are designed to be extreme neutral "straight wire gains".
 
Last edited:
dorakeg said:
Yes of course. The performance of mono blocks are usually better than stereo counterparts. However it's not because they are mono blocks. It's because of their design. Mono blocks are usually reserved for flagship models so they are designed differently from a stereo power amp. These beasts are mostly over engineered that could literally take almost anything thrown at them.

Btw, I am talking about monoblocks from companies like Krell. Their FPB and Evo monoblocks are among the most powerful amps in the industry back then.

btw, not all stereo power amps are stereo. Some are essentially dual mono blocks in a single chassis.

Having said that, it depends alot on your application and speakers... They do not magically improve your speakers. I would say they don't improve anything because the best power amps are designed to be extreme neutral "straight wire gains".
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the famous Peter Walker quote! Hopefully apt for my Quad mono's!
 
alex-z said:
Assuming the amp designer is competent, modern units do not suffer crosstalk problems when sharing a power supply and chassis. It is a good thing that multiple channels share a power supply, when one channel is lightly loaded, another can draw extra current.

Some people are correctly stating that monoblocks allow closer co-location of the speakers and amplification, reducing line noise and signal loss. However, the logical conclusion of this thinking is just integrating the amplification into the speaker itself.
Click to expand...
True. Honestly, at the price premium for monoblocks you can afford to run some mighty hefty twisted pair to the speakers, if you're worried about loss or DF.
 
I like monoblocks. I know it's strictly a fetish. Kind of like my proclivity for Ohno continuous cast copper and balanced cables.

Martin
 
Martin said:
I like monoblocks. I know it's strictly a fetish. Kind of like my proclivity for Ohno continuous cast copper and balanced cables.

Martin
Click to expand...
Sure, it's a hobby, and we all have our quirks.
 
I remember Douglas Self, the amp designer, mentioned in a book that a stereo amp crosstalk spec better than 20dB is all that's necessary vs monobloc amps, and that you'll just pay more for the duplication of parts needed.....
 
sq225917 said:
What about monoblocks that are internally [are] bridged stereo amps already?
Click to expand...
What about a 5-channel powerAmp that cannot be bridged at all?
My ClassD Rotel 5-channel powerAmp IS such a beast. :(
I am not certain if this is a characteristic of the ClassD designs.
About every year, I swap the stereo I/Os from Channels1-2 and connect them to Channels4-5.:mad:
 
pseudoid said:
What about a 5-channel powerAmp that cannot be bridged at all?
My ClassD Rotel 5-channel powerAmp IS such a beast. :(
I am not certain if this is a characteristic of the ClassD designs.
About every year, I swap the stereo I/Os from Channels1-2 and connect them to Channels4-5.:mad:
Click to expand...
I gave up on high-channel-count amps after my old 5-channel Proceed broke for the third time. I think those Proceeds were not very reliable, but it did highlight my one issue with multi-channel amps, one bad channel takes out the entire bank of amps. And since I'm not much of a home-theater person, and after my fourth AVR receiver broke (or overheated, gosh they run hot even with outboard amplification...), I just went back to stereo TV and I'm fine. If I was big into home theater, then I would probably be looking for good multi-channel amps to fit that application. But I'm not and a 5-channel amp is a bit of an aardvark for me, and the cost savings isn't that great since the Brystons I have were basically no different cost than the same equivalent stereo amp, and I got fifteen of those Marantz MA-500 monoblocks for dirt cheap at an estate sale. It does suck that manufacturers tend to demand such a premium price for monoblocks, I think it is the snake-oil aura they have, I just find they are really practical.
 
I use monoblocks - CJ Premier 12 tube monoblocks. But it isn't on the assumption that mono-blocks are inherently better than stereo amps. It's just that these provided the power I wanted, from the company I preferred, and similarly powerful stereo tube amps were more rare back in the 90's when I bought the amps.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a stereo amp. It would take up less room. But I like how these ones work and don't have much motivation to seek others.
 
Monoblocks are better because they cost more. Anything that costs more is better in the audio world, because when you spend an extra few k, music sounds better, especially with tubes. Tube monoblocks are the best because they're so expensive.

As others have pointed out, the only reasons for monoblocks are to avoid crosstalk, which a quality multi-channel amp won't have a problem with, and to locate your amps in specific places.

The primary purpose of monoblocks, however, is to give audio companies higher margins.
 
beefkabob said:
Monoblocks are better because they cost more. Anything that costs more is better in the audio world, because when you spend an extra few k, music sounds better, especially with tubes. Tube monoblocks are the best because they're so expensive.

As others have pointed out, the only reasons for monoblocks are to avoid crosstalk, which a quality multi-channel amp won't have a problem with, and to locate your amps in specific places.

The primary purpose of monoblocks, however, is to give audio companies higher margins.
Click to expand...
Interesting point beef. My Platinums could have cost me £5000, if new. I think the current 909 stereo was £1200. With 30 watts a channel less power. In the event, I paid £3000 for a demo pair.
If there is a next time out, I will be content with an ASR recommendation
 
DavidEdwinAston said:
If there is a next time out, I will be content with an ASR recommendation
Click to expand...
www.audiosciencereview.com

Outlaw 2220 Review (Monoblock Amplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Outlaw 2220 single channel amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $399. The look is simple but elegant in its slim form factor. I like that it is just heavy enough to give you confidence but not so much that you can't lift...
www.audiosciencereview.com www.audiosciencereview.com
 
beefkabob said:
Monoblocks are better because they cost more. Anything that costs more is better in the audio world, because when you spend an extra few k, music sounds better, especially with tubes. Tube monoblocks are the best because they're so expensive.
Click to expand...
MattHooper said:
CJ Premier 12 tube monoblocks. But it isn't on the assumption that mono-blocks are inherently better than stereo amps.
Click to expand...
@beefkabob, there are exceptions to your statements, even in jest. :facepalm:
Because those Conrad Johnson monoblocks are just a special breed but for special circumstances. I'm jealous.:facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

amirm
  • Poll
Topping B200 Monoblock Amplifier Review
50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
130K
mikela
M
K
  • Locked
warning: price increase ahead
7 8 9
Replies
177
Views
9K
Gary_G
Gary_G
Connor1a
Speaker Cable Length vs RCA Cable Length - How to Optimize
Replies
8
Views
1K
Speedskater
Speedskater
O
NCx500 or 1ET6525SA with Denon AVC-X3800H
Replies
12
Views
1K
oshelby
O
V
Purifi 1ET9040BA vs AGD GAN vs Class A/AB
2 3
Replies
40
Views
15K
mocenigo
M
Back
Top Bottom