Monoblocks and pre or integrated pros and cons

[vinyljunky]

Just wondering about the pros and cons of monoblocks as against a good integrated

[Jimbo]

Monoblocks apparently have less cross talk. I have experimented with a few pairs of mono blocks and preferred a single stereo power amp.

[Lawrence001]

It's usually seen as higher cost and extra rack space vs potentially better sound from isolation and separate power supplies. I've never heard exactly the same circuits and power supplies in integrated and pre/monobloc form so can't verify whether it's that much better.

The one benefit I see is the ability to choose different pre and power amps eg. If you want valve/passive/stepped attenuator.

I currently use Monarchy Audio class A monoblocs in my second system and they are nice [emoji846]

[Stranraer]

I've been through the Croft range from integrated amp to pre / stereo amp and now pre with mono amps. Prior to that I did similar with Arcam. Each step up has given a more relaxed, transparent, revealing listen and obviously more grunt. For me there's no downside to the additional boxes.

[Barry]

Monoblocks do not have to share a power supply, and potentially have less crosstalk. But the cost/benefit ratio is small.

I use monoblocks (either Levinson ML2, Quad 510 or heavily modified Quad 405s) that are located as close as possible behind each speaker, and connected back to the preamp/sources using balanced line cables. In having the power amplifiers located close to the speakers, the speaker cables are short (< 1 metre, and potentially only about 30cm in length); which I believe is theoretically beneficial.

The only disadvantage for me is to have to switch on each monoblock separately - and remember to switch them off after any listening session.

Does all this result in a big sonic difference? No not really - it's more a case of achieving a theoretically better audio installation.

[Jimbo]

I suppose if you have huge speakers as you often see at the HiFi shows around the world then you need massive power to drive some of them and therefore mono blocks seem to be a better choice. Would be daft to drive a pair of bookshelf speakers with mono blocks as I doubt you would hear any benefit at all?

[Puffin]

In many situations the correlation between speaker size and sensitivity is a misnomer. In reality most of us with small to average sized listening rooms will use no more than a few watts and the willy waving set ups seen at shows is to perpetuate the myth that bigger is better and that the price tags are well justified.

Nelson Pass's range of First Watt amps are designed on the basis that the first watt to hit the speakers is the most important. I have made several Pass amps that give out 5 or 8 watts. When compared against my amps with power outputs from 50w to 125w to 200w they are not lacking in any dept and in most cases sound better probably because they are Class A.

I have made monoblocks and dual mono integrated amps. I can't say that monoblocks sound different to integrated simply because they do not share a power supply. It all depends on the circuit and synergy with the speakers.

[walpurgis]

Good post Rob :thumbsup:.

[Stranraer]

Would be daft to drive a pair of bookshelf speakers with mono blocks as I doubt you would hear any benefit at all?[/QUOTE]
Not exactly bookshelf but my Neats are standmounts that absolutely sing with the monoblocks. I didn't mention previously the improved seperation and imaging. A further improvement in this came when I put practicality to one side and pretty much moved them away from all walls and into the centre of the listening room. Right now I'm LOVING my hifi

[Puffin]

Good post Rob :thumbsup:.

Thanks Geoff. I have been having a little break from here but it's hard to stay away!

[walpurgis]

Thanks Geoff. I have been having a little break from here but it's hard to stay away!

I noticed you'd not been around mate.

[hifi_dave]

You have to be more specific. You can't compare a cheap pair of monos against a top of the range integrated because the monos will lose out and the other way round. Even when the prices are similar, some companies make better gear than others.

It's horses for courses.

[hifinutt]

one big advantage to monoblocks is they can be lighter to carry and accommodate . Thats why i like them

[Lawrence001]

one big advantage to monoblocks is they can be lighter to carry and accommodate . Thats why i like themMaybe Class D ones [emoji23]

[Macca]

one big advantage to monoblocks is they can be lighter to carry and accommodate . Thats why i like them

I think that's the only real advantage to them and why they came about in the first place.

Back when it was all valves and massive traffos you couldn't make an amp that was more than a few watts without it weighing a ton.

Even a 1980s Sanyo integrated doesn't have problems with crosstalk.

[Macca]

actually thinking about it, before stereo all amps were monoblocs so when that came in people needed an extra one so that's another reason why they came about.

[Barry]

actually thinking about it, before stereo all amps were monoblocs so when that came in people needed an extra one so that's another reason why they came about.

Just like the Quad II amplifier:

For mono it would have been a Quad QCII preamp with a single Quad II power amp (15W)

For stereo it would be a Quad 22 preamp with a pair of Quad II power amplifiers.

[Stranraer]

As someone who is almost OCD about trying to create distance between the various boxes to avoid what this layman would describe as "interference" I find it interesting that only one response here even mentions a perceived benefit in having individual boxes for each channel (once the signal's out of the source and the Pre-amp of course).
So now I'm wondering if I've identified a solution to a problem that doesn't exist ?

[Jimbo]

I think really the main reasons for going for mono blocks is usually around their potential to supply more power. From my own experience with the Croft 7R monos, comparing them to the single Croft 7 power amp I did not feel their was a significant advantage. The only improvement was the regulation in the 7R power amps . As far as power was concerned I heard no difference in performance or ability to drive the super efficient speakers I use.

BUT a friend of mine who used a very powerful Chord stereo power amp moved his system to a bigger room with very large 801 D4 speakers and needed much more power to drive them in a larger space and decided to use mono blocks. To be fair I heard the speakers with the single stereo power amp and then the mono blocks and I did prefer them with the mono blocks as they sounded effortless and had more impact in the larger space.

[hifinutt]

Maybe Class D ones [emoji23]

no my F5 clones are very light and easy to carry

[Lawrence001]

no my F5 clones are very light and easy to carryReally, I thought they'd have massive heatsinks.

[Enossification]

Monoblocks apparently have less cross talk. I have experimented with a few pairs of mono blocks and preferred a single stereo power amp.

Me too :thumbsup:

[Floyddroid]

Good post

[vinyljunky]

From what I can gather from all the responses it sounds like all I'm gonna get from monoblocks and a pre is the extra cost of the extra cables needed I had denon monblocks a few years ago and wasn't blown away and it was a faf to get a pre to mate with them for synergy

[Swann36]

I have a pair of Cyrus Mono Xs and must agree that when I had some KEF LS50s relatively tough to drive I heard the benefit compared to a Cyrus integrated however now I use Klipsch Quartets or Tannoy Berkeleys I’m certain I don’t really benefit much from having 150 -1500 watts on tap for each speaker

[Barry]

From what I can gather from all the responses it sounds like all I'm gonna get from monoblocks and a pre is the extra cost of the extra cables needed I had denon monblocks a few years ago and wasn't blown away and it was a faf to get a pre to mate with them for synergy

I did say the cost/benefit ratio would be low.

In my case, the monoblocks are located behind each speaker, which being electrostatic need a mains supply. When I had a dedicated ring main installed solely for my audio setup, there was a double socket for the speaker and amp on each side, so the equipment mains cabling is short. The amps are connected back to the preamp and sources, near my listening position, using balanced line cables, which was also installed along with the ring main, so under the floorboards and carpet and thus out of sight.

[Macca]

I have a pair of Cyrus Mono Xs and must agree that when I had some KEF LS50s relatively tough to drive I heard the benefit compared to a Cyrus integrated however now I use Klipsch Quartets or Tannoy Berkeleys I’m certain I don’t really benefit much from having 150 -1500 watts on tap for each speaker

It's not so much the number of watts but the amplifiers ability to maintain voltage into low impedance loads.

[Clive197]

I used to many years ago run a pr. Cyrus monoblocks but found no useful advantage over a stereo power amp. I currently run a pre/power combo which sounds significantly better than any integrated I’ve heard.

[Macca]

I used to many years ago run a pr. Cyrus monoblocks but found no useful advantage over a stereo power amp. I currently run a pre/power combo which sounds significantly better than any integrated I’ve heard.

Bryston, very tasty.

[Enossification]

It's not so much the number of watts but the amplifiers ability to maintain voltage into low impedance loads.

:thumbsup:

For what it's worth, I think a big, gutsy amp would be better. I just love that effortless bass.

[Lawrence001]

Depends on what that means. I've found that some gutsy amps can sound relatively thin in the bass if you're used to a less grippy amp with some overhang in the bass department. It's a more accurate neutral definition though.

[Macca]

Depends on what that means. I've found that some gutsy amps can sound relatively thin in the bass if you're used to a less grippy amp with some overhang in the bass department. It's a more accurate neutral definition though.

if someone likes a bit of bloom in the bass that's true - but it can also affect the rest of the frequency spectrum and that's not so great for sound quality. Depends on both the speakers and amplifier though so it's very much a case by case basis.

There was a system at last years NW show, big multi-way floorstanders driven by some big valve monoblocs and it had that bloom in the bass, personally I couldn't live with that it would annoy me constantly.

Another one at the Wam show - PMC with single ended valve amps - just didn't work for me at all. Match the amp to the speakers, people!

[hifinutt]

Really, I thought they'd have massive heatsinks.

fairly massive but they cant weigh more than 10kg i would have thought . thats why i like monoblocks . i am on the hunt at some point for cool running class AB monoblocks that are light . similar to tron convergence Joe does 2 types but no one seems to know much about them !!!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134521165863?hash=item1f52161827:g:becAAOSwh1NjQph U

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134521170607?hash=item1f52162aaf:g:00AAAOSwZzRgIDH a

[Pete The Cat]

A long while back I tried out using a stock pair of Quad 405s with each running one channel only. The soundstage broadened by a couple of feet either side of the speakers compared with a single 405 in standard stereo mode and it really was an obvious difference. I took it that this was due to there being no crosstalk. Of course, amp design has moved on over the decades but it was enough to help influence my final destination with the Avondale monoblocks that I've used for the last decade.

Pete