Why use monoblocks?

[Count Arthur]

They look cool.

Yup.

I think there are some practical reasons too. Maybe not so much now, when you can build a 500 watt per channel class D amp in a compact chassis weighing well under 10kg. But back when everything was class A and AB, with large transformers and linear power supplies, high power meant a big, heavy amp and it's much easier to move around a two 30kg single channel amps than one 60kg two channel amp.

 

[Gibsonian]

Better channel separation, higher damping factor are two reasons that come to mind instantly.

 

[HalSF]

Because saying “monoblocks” sounds groovy.

 

[JustAnAudioLover]

Because saying “monoblocks” sounds groovy.

Maybe that's the best reason after all

 

[DVDdoug]

Better channel separation, higher damping factor are two reasons that come to mind instantly.

Do you know of any amps that have audible separation/crosstalk problems? I remember the vinyl days when channel separation from the cartridge was the weak link at about 20dB, and that was considered good enough.

If there's a damping factor improvement, that would presumably be from shorter speaker cables and there are usually no audible issues with that either.

 

[DonH56]

Better channel separation, higher damping factor are two reasons that come to mind instantly.

Better channel separation yes, if inaudible, but the same amplifier design will have the same damping factor (output impedance) whether one or 100 in a single box.

 

[Lambda]

Economy of Scale

Selling twice as much of a smaller unit makes them cheaper to make, and the manufacturer can iterate faster.

If the savings are passed down to the customer as another thing...


But comparing a Class D to a Class AB is apples to oranges.

 

[Mikig]

Undoubtedly the pre/power amplifier with monoblocks is a fascinating and in a certain way practical configuration.
The convenience today is that of being able to have a Pre section that you can update, with new technologies and features without having to touch the amplification part.
Although, it must be said, that with the new technologies you could have an integrated amplifier absolutely suitable for driving practically all the speakers with every feature.

Yesterday, to have good power and current you had to build oversized devices, with large power supplies. So it was more convenient to separate the pre section from the amplification section.
With also the possibility of “playing” with devices of different brands and characteristics. You could have more important performances and the possibility of positioning the amplifiers closer to the speakers.
A powerful integrated amplifier reached just over 100 W per channel on 8 ohms but they were already heavy and bulky machines.
But not powerful enough for truly difficult speakers. For those speakers you even used 4 monoblocks, think of the various versions of Infinity IRS.

Today, with a class D card, in just a few grams and a small space, you can get performance equivalent to the beasts of the Golden Era.

 

[egellings]

Good point. But having shorter speaker cables would mean having larger RCA cables, so what's the point?

It's easier to send a small signal than a high powered one, so using RCA's to cover the distance would make sense, if hum/noise pickup is not an issue, and the preamp is up to the task, as most are likely to be.

 

[egellings]

Because saying “monoblocks” sounds groovy.

...only when you play a turntable through them.

 

[Mart68]

Before stereo you had, say, a QUAD II mono and single ESL speaker.

Stereo comes in so rather than buy a stereo amp you get another mono amp (and another speaker).

I believe this is the origin and that they still exist is just a hangover from that time.

That they are easier to cart about than the same ironwork in one case is maybe why they have stuck around, added to making your top of the range amp as monoblocs gave them a USP over the lower amps in the range.

 

[Cbdb2]

There is an advantage, at the high power ones, thermals.
No matter the class.

??? Thats basic engineering in either case, pun intended. Put more heat sink on if heat is a prpblem.

 

[Cbdb2]

Better channel separation, higher damping factor are two reasons that come to mind instantly.

Do you listen in a room? Then less than -20db crosstalk dosnt matter. Damping factor? Hows that work when damping factor depends on feedback?

 

[Cbdb2]

As mentioned, the only reason to make mono blocks is to split the weight. And that reason has dissapeared.
That monoblocks are better is just audiophool nonsense.

 

[krabapple]

Reason: so you can call yourself a mono blockhead.

 

[Cbdb2]

Economy of Scale

Selling twice as much of a smaller unit makes them cheaper to make, and the manufacturer can iterate faster.

If the savings are passed down to the customer as another thing...


But comparing a Class D to a Class AB is apples to oranges.

No, you cant make two monos cheaper than one identical stereo.

 

[amirm]

My question is: why use monoblocks at all?

They look damn cool and manly!!!

 

[Overseas]

All that being said, I am confessing that I got a pair of 3e audio 480 mono kits, full of enthusiasm. After the enthusiasm, like those people jumping into water before remembering they cannot swim, I am contemplating them...looking for someone to assemble them. In this case, it was the combination price - power - measurement that made me buy.

 

[amirm]

Be honest, which looks cooler:

My two (vertical) monoblocks behind each speaker or the stereo one in the middle? Say the latter and you will get a two week ban....

 

[Deleted member 77012]

Because saying “monoblocks” sounds groovy.

I see ... Well – asking for a Multi-Channel friend of mine: To use them in combination with let’s say the Denon AVR-A1H, you may need nine of them, right?