Mono blocks

aln · « **on:** 13 Mar 2008, 07:35 pm »

How about a Van Alstine Signature monoblock? One tube for input with two sets of binding posts.

Listens2tubes · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Mar 2008, 12:22 pm »

Just strap a pair of Ultimate 70's

and your all set

avahifi · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Mar 2008, 05:26 pm »

Or, if you want about a killowatt of power per channel, use two Ultra 550 amps along with our Ultra Bridge.

Works great! Doing that right now with my Salk HT3 speakers.

Frank

BrianM · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Mar 2008, 05:43 pm »

Quote from: avahifi on 14 Mar 2008, 05:26 pm

Or, if you want about a killowatt of power per channel, use two Ultra 550 amps along with our Ultra Bridge.

Works great! Doing that right now with my Salk HT3 speakers.

Frank

Having recently heard HT3s driven by one 550, I shudder to think...

aln · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Mar 2008, 08:21 pm »

It's not a matter of more power. I just believe that a signature mono amplifier using some of the ideas that you (Frank) brought up last year on this same topic would be a great idea. I'd be first in line to send my amp in for conversion and to buy another.

simon wagstaff · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Mar 2008, 01:31 pm »

Other way around it in my mind would be if you have a pair of speakers that can be bi--wired to set up the amps in a vertical bi-wire configuration. My current Infinities cannot be b-wired, and if I needed more volume from my u-70 I would switch my fronts to my Kef XQ-1s and get another u-70, I love that u-70!!

Brett Buck · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Mar 2008, 07:56 pm »

Quote from: aln on 14 Mar 2008, 08:21 pm

It's not a matter of more power. I just believe that a signature mono amplifier using some of the ideas that you (Frank) brought up last year on this same topic would be a great idea. I'd be first in line to send my amp in for conversion and to buy another.

You mean, cut an Ultra 550 in half, and end up having to add a power supply, switch, chassis, etc? It's going to be a lot more expensive, what is the advantage?

Brett

gjs_cds · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 Mar 2008, 11:46 pm »

The personal belief that two is (somehow) better than one.

Listens2tubes · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Mar 2008, 03:59 am »

Like my MkIV's being half a Stereo70.

A pair of Ultimate Four's would be sweet!

Listens2tubes · « **Reply #9 on:** 19 Mar 2008, 12:01 am »

Check out this version on Agon http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstube&1210879217 from the 1960"s

gjs_cds · « **Reply #10 on:** 19 Mar 2008, 01:29 am »

We may have a contender for the "poor speaker design" contest... (It doesn't make sense to me, anyway. Front ports and recessing the driver behind the lip of the enclosure just seems like two poor ideas in my book. Perhaps someone smarter than me can explain why these design "features" are actually a better solution to (non-front) *flared* port locations and flush-mounting the drivers with the front baffle.)

http://gon4.audiogon.com/i/c/f/1205718000.jpg

ricmon · « **Reply #11 on:** 21 Mar 2008, 05:23 pm »

Quote from: avahifi on 14 Mar 2008, 05:26 pm

Or, if you want about a killowatt of power per channel, use two Ultra 550 amps along with our Ultra Bridge.

Works great! Doing that right now with my Salk HT3 speakers.

Frank

Frank. I was wondering how two 550's run in a dual mono config would work. each amp driving left left and right right from the dual preamp out posts. This would not provide the power of the Ultra Bridge but would cost less. Are there any draw back to this approach?

Ric

ricmon · « **Reply #12 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 04:36 pm »

Quote from: ricmon on 21 Mar 2008, 05:23 pm

Quote from: avahifi on 14 Mar 2008, 05:26 pm
Or, if you want about a killowatt of power per channel, use two Ultra 550 amps along with our Ultra Bridge.

Works great! Doing that right now with my Salk HT3 speakers.

Frank

Frank. I was wondering how two 550's run in a dual mono config would work. each amp driving left left and right right from the dual preamp out posts. This would not provide the power of the Ultra Bridge but would cost less. Are there any draw back to this approach?

Ric

Frank the reason I asked such a question is that I have been thinking about 2 550's and the Ultra Bridge but can not afford to purchase both at the same time. So if I were to order a second amp can I use them in such a configuration to bi-amp the speakers until I can afford the bridge?

martyo · « **Reply #13 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 04:43 pm »

Hey Ricmon,

I know you're asking Frank but with one preamp you couldn't adjust the different output required for bass and highs. Make sense?

ricmon · « **Reply #14 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 04:47 pm »

Quote from: martyo on 25 Mar 2008, 04:43 pm

Hey Ricmon,

I know you're asking Frank but with one preamp you couldn't adjust the different output required for bass and highs. Make sense?

Why would I want to do that. I'm just talking about using both pre-amp outs , left left and right right. Since both amp are identical what levels need to set.

martyo · « **Reply #15 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 04:56 pm »

It's not the amps but the different amount of power required for the bass and highs in the speakers. Or maybe I'm not understanding. I'm thinking you're meaning to hook up one amp for the highs and one for the lows. I'm not aware of another way to do it, but that doesn't mean there isn't. I think that is why you need the bridge. I should probably just let Frank answer.

aln · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 05:07 pm »

If you have a bi-wire input on the speaker you would add one output of the amp to the woofer section and another for the midrange tweeter section. Vertical bi-amping is the normal term, with horizontal bi amping where one amplifier feeds the base section of each speaker and another amplifier feeding the midrange/tweeter section. i would favor vertical bi-amping in most cases, unless we had a mono-amp for each side. Then you feed one input and get two pairs of speaker taps for bi-wiring. Maybe we can get a switch on the power amp to change it to a mono block (one rca input goes to both pairs of outputs).

ricmon · « **Reply #17 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 05:53 pm »

Quote from: aln on 25 Mar 2008, 05:07 pm

If you have a bi-wire input on the speaker you would add one output of the amp to the woofer section and another for the midrange tweeter section. Vertical bi-amping is the normal term, with horizontal bi amping where one amplifier feeds the base section of each speaker and another amplifier feeding the midrange/tweeter section. i would favor vertical bi-amping in most cases, unless we had a mono-amp for each side. Then you feed one input and get two pairs of speaker taps for bi-wiring. Maybe we can get a switch on the power amp to change it to a mono block (one rca input goes to both pairs of outputs).

aln you've got it. It's vertical bi-amping that I am curious about. Can't see it doing any harm and maybe fun until a bridge is acquired.

Charles Calkins · « **Reply #18 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 06:02 pm »

Did Bi-amping and did mono amps. Did one stereo amp. Used Nad 218THX amps. Couldn't tell any difference. No matter which configuration I used all sounded the same to me.

Cheers
Charlie

aln · « **Reply #19 on:** 25 Mar 2008, 06:14 pm »

Vertical bi-amping is usually used so the one amp does not have to deliver all of the bass energy to both speakers. However, the issue becomes (in this example) the prospect of matching 4 12at7's for two amps. Which is why I would like to see a mono amp with just one input tube-then we just have to match 2. I know it's not impossible to match 4 tubes-but think 2 would be easier. Another area we have to look at is the quality of our AC feeding the amplifiers-if the wiring is not up to carrying the load, then there may not be much difference between a single amp or two. But with the right current capability we should have significant dynamic contrast improvements by using 2 amplifiers.