Cleve Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 ---------------- On 6/10/2004 5:47:10 PM dbflash wrote: An integrated amp has two amps, one for your right speaker and one amp for your left speaker in the same unit. You would need a separate preamp for the above functions to work. The integrated amp is attached to your preamp using interconnect cables (IC). Everything else you've said is spot on, but the above is a bit confusing. The term 'INTEGRATED amplifier' generally refers to combination preamp/amp. To this unit you hook your input sources (tuner, turntable, tape deck, cd player, et al) No separate preamp is required. A stereo amplifier requires an external pre-amp. So does a 'monoblock' - it's just, simply put, a monophonic amplifier (single channel). The most awesome looking monoblocks I've yet to see are McIntosh's mighty MC-1201 twelve hundred watt(!) amplifier. That giant blue power meter is simply stunning - pictures don't do it justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Are those your McIntosh amplifiers, Jt? They are really great looking if they are....actually, they're really great looking if they're not! edit: but just to cover myself, here (but also because I really believe it!)... It's what's inside that matters. I'll bet those MCs sound as nice as they look, though. I've just got out my old Craftsman 6V6 pp amps (I just about forgot I had those things!)to fix up to try with the Klipschorns. They work, but one of the amps (these are mono amps)has a leaky filter cap. I've been looking around to find a decently priced NOS twist can type, just to maintain the look. I could actually just put a dummy cap up there, and use a modern electrolytic inside the amp. That would bug me, though, so I guess I'll keep looking. I've seen 6V6s used in guitar amps, but at least this will give me a flavor. I tried them last year with the LaScalas, but can't remember how they sounded, though. I think I was pleasantly suprised, though! They are very simple integrated amps, but are small and kind of neat-looking amps. Kiko chewed up one the pilot light bulbs, but that was easy enough to replace. Crazy little pooch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 ---------------- On 6/14/2004 8:38:42 PM mdeneen wrote: Functionally, any "thing" that can be achieved in mono blocks - be that a certain sound, a certain spec or a certain performance level CAN EASILY be done in(on) a stereo chassis. To divide this function into two chassis is "fashion" because it has no technical mandate. mdeneen ---------------- Glad to see you are using a finer brush here. What about size and manageability though? I think it may have some weight in the equation. It's not just fashion. Edit regarding your last post (just before this actual one): I'm a slow typer so we posted about at the same time... I was used from more "down to sound engineering" posts from you in the past. To say that you can make anything you want in a stereo box is OK as long as you also say the drawbacks that will come with it. To put anything other than stereo or integration as "fashion" is a little too broad for my taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablum Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 mr. mdeneen, I suggest you dont assume I was talking to you when I: a. Said dont believe everything you read in this forum b. Do some reading OUTSIDE this forum. I was answering the guy with the ORIGINAL question, suggesting HE DO some reading outside the narrow confines of this forum. The ONLY thing in that post referenced to you was the idea that monoblocks are a fashion statement, which is absurd and overblown. Most would not find it economically feasible weight wise or design wise to house ALL this one one chassis. This is not to mention the benefit of housing the amps nearer the speakers facilitating shorter hookup between amp and speaker. I would not pretend to instruct you on electrical matters even though you have flip flopped dramitically in here regarding parts, wire, feedback, and other matters. Lurking here and in the archives can be educational. edit: painful, dont ask mr, mdeneen what he said about "integrated" amps in the past by sheer definition. at that time, an integrated amp, by definition, was inferior to separates. Let's just pass the same mumbo jumbo that you can make an integrated amp with ALL the separate parts, each with a dedicated power supply and sepearate chassis compartments ad infinitum. This has also been done. Is it common? NO. But I do agree, and DID SAY, that monoblocks do not necessarily make an amp better. Which was missed again by mr. mdeneen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Pablum, what are your thoughts on the EICO HF-81, the Rega Planet, Moondogs, Wrights, and Cornwalls? Come on now, don't be shy. Also, you were asked the question: ***explain to me just what those "distinct reasons" are for separate "power supply and filtration"? (as though they are separate entities?) How about you start with how many transfomers are needed for an ideal amplifier.*** No cheating now, don't ask Jeff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Lurk.....man I have heard it all ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablum Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 The two year gang to the rescue. From 0-60 in 8 seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 It is quite hilarious to read a post from "Pablum," a guy who can't even solder, lecturing a guy who designs and builds amps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 ---------------- On 6/14/2004 9:14:07 PM pablum wrote: The two year gang to the rescue. From 0-60 in 8 seconds. ---------------- Yup 2 years and it only took us a few short months to figure you out ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Thebes, in case you haven't guessed, there are people who have designed and built all kinds of tube gear here. There also are people who have bought all kinds of tube gear here, and people who can talk about all tube gear here. Don't be shy about asking questions - just mind the cow patties alongside as you get some of the answers you are looking for. Mark et al, some of our answers are a little on the basic side. If Thebes starts out at the entry level to midrange price point, odds are he will see the run of the mill options with standard design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Pablum = something trite, insipid, insignificant A dictionary is a wonderful thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I like the Thesaurus too. blah, bland, bromidic, clichéd, common, conventional, corn, corn-fed, cornball, corny, dull, everyday, flat, hackneyed, ho-hum, hokey, hokum, humdrum, insipid, no place, nothing, nowhere, old hat, ordinary, pedestrian, platitudinous, square, stale, stereotyped, stock, stupid, tired, tripe, trite, unimaginative, unoriginal, vapid, watery, wishy-washy, zero. If 'Pablum' is really Kelly (and I really don't care one way or the other), then the words I'm sure he was thinking of when he picked the alias are: bland dull old hat stale stupid tired tripe unimaginative unoriginal zero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 Dave I appreciate yor comments and I'm fully prepared to put up with a little "Sturm" to get to the "Drang". Pablum, your right in one respect. Advice given on this Forum is not coming from on high. There are other sources of knowledge. In my bookmarks are links to Audio Asylum, Audio Review.com, Audio Karma, and about a half a dozen others. Anyone reading my posts and threads knows I make absolutely no claims to technical expertise, I'm a learner more then a teacher. I also appreciate when strongly held views are debated whether audio, politics or even the weather, there's going to be some birckbacks flying and that's not necessarily bad. When I was in college I would often toss out a controversial statement just to rile the professor. It was done not to annoy but to draw him/her out of their rote delivery and get them to really engage the subject at hand. By doing this I was able to tap into their knowledge, learn a lot and often get them to remember why they became teachers in the first place. However, guy, even though I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suspect you like controversy a little bit more then the give and take of a good earnest debate. Think about it. Medeneen is one of my numerous hero's on this site. A guy who probably thinks in wave sines, yet, capable and willing to "dumb it down" so the rest of us can learn. Anything this fellow says is fully worth our consideration. Finally to the rest of the respodents. Couldn't be better. I posted this thread cause I truly didn't know a damn thing about monoblocs. I was also sure after a thread search that nobody had asked the basic questions about monos, and I'm sorta sure I'm not the only one on this forum to be ignorant in this regard. Thought I was finished didn't you. Not without a shamless plug for some upcoming threads I'm working on: Review of 12 cd's recommended by Forum Members; 70's and 80's receiver/ams Shootout (7 specimens from the golden age of the stereo wars) the ultra super secret forum wide thread, and my personal favorite: The Underwear Thread Redux! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nice to see more bickering. I don't care who Pablum is. I don't care if you say something nice, just say something new. Everyday, the same pablum story... whoever he is I wish he would change his handle because 'pablum' leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Anyhoo, monoblocks, integrateds, who cares. Why argue about them? Whats the point, you are not going to change anyones opinion. The definitive statement is monoblocks do provide the opportunity for vendors to charge you more money for them. I was most pleased to read and must quote Craig. One would have to look far and wide for a person designing and selling monoblock amps who would volunteer this information. "To this day when I get done rebuilding a great integrated amp and fire it up I look up at my $4000 worth of separates and wonder how I ever let myself get sucked into this but somehow there is just no turning back Trust me they are not 8 times better by any stretch of the imagination. The true value in audio still lies in used integrated amps even though the cost have risen by a huge amount." THAT is someone you can trust when he gives you advice about audio equipment... or you might just think he is cheap. Draw your own conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Anarchist, the best stereo I ever had was my first - because it was all about listening to the music. I've spent ten times what I had on my first stereo chasing after the 15% improvement between what I had in 1975 and what I have now. That doesn't count all the stuff I bought in the twenty some years between. At least my current stereo will be going to junior en toto, so hopefully he won't decide to go on a similar sojourn. And if you ever have to choose between cheap and good, get the cheapest good you can afford! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_Shomaker Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 SheltieDave you have a PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Actually there is at least ONE thing that monoblocks can do that cannot, ever, be incorporated into a single chassis stereo amplifier. You can place each amp closer to its speaker, thus reducing the length of the speaker cables (at the expense of longer interconnects). If you're using really, really expensive speaker cables, this can make a big difference. If you're using, uh, not really really expensive speaker cables but think that cables can have an impact on the sound, then it would seem that you would agree that using shorter cables is better than using longer cables. If you think interconnects have a bigger impact on the sound than speaker cables, this would be a disadvantage. If you don't think wire makes any difference at all, then I guess this won't make any difference at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.