is there an advantage to using monoblocks?

2»

Comments

  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 34,032
    edited July 2007
    Yup.

    a bit of an extreme example (I'll try to find a more realistic one, from a hi-fi amplifier)
    crossover-distortion.gif
    http://www.vintage-radio.com/repair-restore-information/transistor_output-stages1.html
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MacLeod
    MacLeod Posts: 14,358
    edited July 2007
    I like my relay race analogy better! :p
    polkaudio sound quality competitor since 2005
    MECA SQ Rookie of the Year 06 ~ MECA State Champ 06,07,08,11 ~ MECA World Finals 2nd place 06,07,08,09
    08 Car Audio Nationals 1st ~ 07 N Georgia Nationals 1st ~ 06 Carl Casper Nationals 1st ~ USACi 05 Southeast AutumnFest 1st

    polkaudio SR6500 --- polkaudio MM1040 x2 -- Pioneer P99 -- Rockford Fosgate P1000X5D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 28,804
    edited July 2007
    Klaus at Odyssey said (not exact quote)...

    But basically --- lets say a stereo amp will run at like 40% effeciency

    Mono Blocks would run at 100% --- thats what he basically explained...

    I guess when you go to having multiple power supplies and caps, its hard to compare...
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pearsall001
    pearsall001 Posts: 5,094
    edited July 2007
    I can see them now...mono blocks from McIntosh...MC501's to be exact. Would they sound better than what I'm running now? Who cares!!! They would just look so cool parked between my speakers. It's all about the WOW factor!!! :)
    "2 Channel & 11.2 HT "Two Channel:Magnepan LRSSchiit Audio Freya S - SS preConsonance Ref 50 - Tube preParasound HALO A21+ 2 channel ampBluesound NODE 2i streameriFi NEO iDSD DAC Oppo BDP-93KEF KC62 sub Home Theater:Full blown 11.2 set up.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Early B.
    Early B. Posts: 7,900
    edited July 2007
    Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »
    Klaus at Odyssey said (not exact quote)...

    But basically --- lets say a stereo amp will run at like 40% effeciency

    Mono Blocks would run at 100% --- thats what he basically explained...

    I guess when you go to having multiple power supplies and caps, its hard to compare...

    That doesn't make sense.

    Even if that's true, efficiency doesn't mean it sounds better. Class A amps are terribly inefficient, but...

    I'd love to participate in an A/B test with Klaus's Odyssey stereo vs. his monos. I'm guessing at normal listening levels, if there's a discernable difference, it's only a slight one.
    HT/2-channel Rig: Sony 50” LCD TV; Toshiba HD-A2 DVD player; Emotiva LMC-1 pre/pro; Rogue Audio M-120 monoblocks (modded); Placette RVC; Emotiva LPA-1 amp; Bada HD-22 tube CDP (modded); VMPS Tower II SE (fronts); DIY Clearwave Dynamic 4CC (center); Wharfedale Opus Tri-Surrounds (rear); and VMPS 215 sub

    "God grooves with tubes."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 28,804
    edited July 2007
    Well with a stereo Stratos Extreme vs Mono Blocks --

    Theres quite a difference in machiney... lol

    32 capacitors, 4 transformers vs 16 caps and 2 transformers...

    Thats quite a difference on its own... lol
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Early B.
    Early B. Posts: 7,900
    edited July 2007
    Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »
    Well with a stereo Stratos Extreme vs Mono Blocks --

    Theres quite a difference in machiney... lol

    32 capacitors, 4 transformers vs 16 caps and 2 transformers...

    Thats quite a difference on its own... lol

    Anothwer way to look at it is -- with monos, there's twice as many elements in the signal chain to f*ck up the sound.
    HT/2-channel Rig: Sony 50” LCD TV; Toshiba HD-A2 DVD player; Emotiva LMC-1 pre/pro; Rogue Audio M-120 monoblocks (modded); Placette RVC; Emotiva LPA-1 amp; Bada HD-22 tube CDP (modded); VMPS Tower II SE (fronts); DIY Clearwave Dynamic 4CC (center); Wharfedale Opus Tri-Surrounds (rear); and VMPS 215 sub

    "God grooves with tubes."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 28,804
    edited July 2007
    Eh possibly....

    But - Klaus uses small capacitor, quick charge and discharge and a very simplistic design...

    So while theres alot going on - theres not alot at the sametime...

    I always wanted Mono Blocks... Klaus was having some delay on parts - mine should be here around the end of July...

    woo hoo
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Systems
    Systems Posts: 14,873
    edited July 2007
    Early B. wrote: »
    That doesn't make sense.

    Even if that's true, efficiency doesn't mean it sounds better. Class A amps are terribly inefficient, but...
    Yes,efficiency is determined by the amps class of operation(class A,B, AB, H D etc)not wether it is a mono or stereo unit.Class A is the least efficient and Class D the most with 80% + possible,but does it sound better than Class A?:D
    Testing
    Testing
    Testing
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unc2701
    unc2701 Posts: 3,587
    edited July 2007
    Early B. wrote: »
    Anothwer way to look at it is -- with monos, there's twice as many elements in the signal chain to f*ck up the sound.

    I agree that Sid's makin' no sense on the efficiency remarks, but with monoblocks, there's nothing more in the signal path. Zero. Overall the only additional parts vs a dual mono is another chassis; vs any other equivalent design, it'll only add another power supply.

    There's nothing magical about a monoblock, but it is one way to be sure that you've got independent power supplies.
    Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
    Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
    Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
    Backburner:Krell KAV-300i
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Early B.
    Early B. Posts: 7,900
    edited July 2007
    unc2701 wrote: »
    I agree that Sid's makin' no sense on the efficiency remarks, but with monoblocks, there's nothing more in the signal path. Zero. Overall the only additional parts vs a dual mono is another chassis; vs any other equivalent design, it'll only add another power supply.

    OK, but what percentage of 2-channel amps are actual dual mono amps?

    IMO, monoblocks should differ substantially from dual monos made by the same manufacturer. What's the point of getting monoblocks if you don't stuff the chassis with lots of extra capacitance, a larger transformer, etc. than a comparable dual mono amp?
    HT/2-channel Rig: Sony 50” LCD TV; Toshiba HD-A2 DVD player; Emotiva LMC-1 pre/pro; Rogue Audio M-120 monoblocks (modded); Placette RVC; Emotiva LPA-1 amp; Bada HD-22 tube CDP (modded); VMPS Tower II SE (fronts); DIY Clearwave Dynamic 4CC (center); Wharfedale Opus Tri-Surrounds (rear); and VMPS 215 sub

    "God grooves with tubes."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unc2701
    unc2701 Posts: 3,587
    edited July 2007
    I'm speaking purely in terms of definitions. What's the advantage of a monoblock? Nothin'. It just means one channel per chassis. In practice, it's a different story. Just about all amps should be dual mono in my opinion, but monoblock guarantees one power supply per channel. Most manufacturers make their top-of-the line designs monoblocks, so they've got this aura, but in reality, just about any pair of monoblocks could be stuffed in a single well laid out chassis. (I'm sure someone is going to post some kinda monster amp... fine, there are exceptions)

    As always you gotta put your ears on any given component and see what it does for you.
    Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
    Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
    Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
    Backburner:Krell KAV-300i
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mhardy6647
    mhardy6647 Posts: 34,032
    edited July 2007
    Most folks think that the stiffest possible power supply is best for hi-fi (not for a musical instrument/guitar amp, BTW). Separate power supplies is the best logical reason to use monoblock amps, as one channel's demands cannot cause "sag" in both. That said, harman/kardon, Kenwood and others long offered "dual power supplies" in even fairly modest single-chassis stereo gear, e.g., the venerable hk 430 receiver.

    EDIT: a photo of the innards of the "Twin Powered" hk630 is attached. Note the dual power transformers and profusion of P/S capacitors.

    A semilogical reason for monoblocks is that it eliminates crosstalk in the amplifier (although, of course, there could still be crosstalk in the analog source!).

    A quasilogical reason for monoblocks is that it permits the shortest possible signal path (cable run) for the high power signal... although this by necessity means a long cable (interconnect) run for the line-level signal. Is that better? :-)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Systems
    Systems Posts: 14,873
    edited July 2007
    Early B. wrote: »
    IMO, monoblocks should differ substantially from dual monos made by the same manufacturer. What's the point of getting monoblocks if you don't stuff the chassis with lots of extra capacitance, a larger transformer, etc. than a comparable dual mono amp?
    These are the main reasons manufacturers build dual mono blocks.They can put bigger power supplies in the mono unit but it does not make the signal path more complicated.It just means that the gain stages have more power supply potential to draw from.An example would be the Bryston 7BSST (600 watt) mono block and the 4BSST (300 watt) dual mono unit.They both have the same size chassis but the 7B has 160'000uf's of capacitance and one 750va transformer feeding one channel where as the 4B has 54,000uf of capacitance and dual 500va transformers.http://www.bryston.ca/7bsst_m.html http://www.bryston.ca/4bsst_m.html
    Testing
    Testing
    Testing
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter