Bryston mini mono blocks

Stu Pitt · « **Reply #20 on:** 17 Dec 2009, 04:43 am »

How about something like this?

I'm thinking about the size of a shoebox, maybe a little smaller. Choice of handles and sliver or black.

drummermitchell · « **Reply #21 on:** 17 Dec 2009, 02:12 pm »

Right on Stu,nice to be able to see it visually(for me just a bit wider than a shoe box),10"that's what I see.
I can see it in my mind's eye(in Black)maybe you could post one

.
Nice thing about them is they are more compact,same power as a 3 or 4B,
but in mono block fashion as people who are tight for space have alot more options without giving up on power,eye appeal and they are Squared

.
The 4Bsst+3Bsst are very popular amps as we see quite a number of people don't need the power of a 7, 14 or 28

.I know size can be a major factor for peoples space.

Uptown Audio · « **Reply #22 on:** 17 Dec 2009, 02:52 pm »

Quote from: vegasdave on 14 Dec 2009, 05:40 am

Quote from: Hififreak on 11 Dec 2009, 08:59 am
Quote from: drummermitchell on 10 Dec 2009, 10:40 pm
I do know you have the power pacs,but having that in a cabinet with a faceplate,to me would be quite nice I think.
Why not!

4Be mono's.

Is that for real? How long were those made?

I guess so. It looks like an early 4B-NRB in mono. That would be the forerunner to the 7B and place it prior to 1992 anyway.

As far as small monoblocks go, it doesn't make any sense to me. All Bryston amps have been dual mono since the NRB series in the late eighties and early nineties. So you are getting monoblocks with every Bryston "stereo" amp, whether it's an ST, SST, or SST2. It does make sense to use separate chassis when you reach the higher power points for reasons of size, weight, and heat dissipation. Otherwise, it is wasteful and just takes up more space.
-Bill

vegasdave · « **Reply #23 on:** 17 Dec 2009, 09:12 pm »

Ok, that's cool. I agree with the rest.

drummermitchell · « **Reply #24 on:** 18 Dec 2009, 02:37 am »

i'm sure there is a reason why Bryston didn't make lower powered monos.
These definately would be smaller than the 7s,28s even the 4bs+3s.
No sense

.

Stu Pitt · « **Reply #25 on:** 18 Dec 2009, 05:07 am »

Here's one in black for you drummer...

I'd prefer them in black too, but I used silver because it was a better photo. The available black pics are a bit harder to get to look right.

The reason why we want a small chassis Bryston mono has nothing to do with practicality or anything else like that. We just think they'd look cool.

I'd like a 100 watt mono in a mini chassis. I think they'd look cooler than the 2B. Not that the 2B looks bad at all by any means, and yes, I know its a dual mono yadda, yadda, yadda...

I also know its most likely never going to happen.

werd · « **Reply #26 on:** 18 Dec 2009, 08:57 am »

Quote from: drummermitchell on 18 Dec 2009, 02:37 am

i'm sure there is a reason why Bryston didn't make lower powered monos.
These definately would be smaller than the 7s,28s even the 4bs+3s.
No sense .

hey Drummer

With the first to last watt philosophy it put to rest the need for lower wattage amps. The 7B and 28B will drive any speaker at low volumes with all it's musicality intact. Of course there is the budget reasons that would motivate it but they want people buying their big mono models.

drummermitchell · « **Reply #27 on:** 18 Dec 2009, 02:21 pm »

Nice picture Stu,They do look COOL(especially in smaller systems)
To my eyes they look better than the powerpacs(but the PPs are for mounting)
True enough Werd,we like BIGGER also,especially in my mini room.

redbook · « **Reply #28 on:** 20 Dec 2009, 05:20 pm »

Yeh, I would like to see a 4b in a monoblock. The powerpacts squared and a nice C style faceplate. All the advantages plus a thing of beauty to see in my rack. I haven't gotten the 4bsst2 yet.......still using my good old ST version. I will wait to see if our Peterboruogh friends will consider this a viable notion(from a sales point of view) Maybe a suvey could be done by James?

rmurray · « **Reply #29 on:** 21 Dec 2009, 02:40 am »

I would like this choice as well

drummermitchell · « **Reply #30 on:** 21 Dec 2009, 02:56 am »

I'd be interested also in what James had to say,the +s and -s of such a beast,
OH OH pressure

.

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #31 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 03:30 pm »

HI folks,
A Mini chassis may looks beautiful to wifes taste etc... But it will add cost to Bryston made new boxes.
I wish you consider an large chassis allow more space between the parts (Transformer, transistors) that made a better cooling and signal/noise ratio, this last very important to music details.
Regards

srb · « **Reply #32 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 03:57 pm »

Quote from: FULLRANGEMAN on 23 Dec 2009, 03:30 pm

I wish you consider an large chassis allow more space between the parts (Transformer, transistors) that made a better cooling and signal/noise ratio, this last very important to music details.

Well you can't go any wider than a standard 19" rack mount, so you could only make it deeper and taller, but then they wouldn't fit on may people's equipment shelves.

I suspect that the performance of the Bryston amps are just fine as they are.

Steve

drummermitchell · « **Reply #33 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 04:15 pm »

nice to be able to pick things apart to see why it is not practicle.
I just see the powerpacs idea in a chassis that's smaller than the norm,even though the powerpacs have a specific application.I do see the powerpacs are not Squared as yet,wattages are 60,120,300.
Fullrangeman,bigger chassis like a 28,I did consider+did her

.
Hmm,that last half a sentence doesn't sound quite right.

srb · « **Reply #34 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 04:22 pm »

Actually I could see the lower wattage model's mini (half width?) case as viable product for those that want to place a smaller monoblock right next to the speaker (without bolting on a PowerPac) or to power a center channel.

Also, some of those potential customers that like the Bel Canto form factor, but would actually prefer analog amplification.

Steve

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #35 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 04:35 pm »

Quote from: drummermitchell on 23 Dec 2009, 04:15 pm

nice to be able to pick things apart to see why it is not practicle.
I just see the powerpacs idea in a chassis that's smaller than the norm,even though the powerpacs have a specific application.I do see the powerpacs are not Squared as yet,wattages are 60,120,300.
Fullrangeman,bigger chassis like a 28,I did consider+did her .
Hmm,that last half a sentence doesn't sound quite right.

HI,
I love the Big 14/28 big boxes. for my personal taste I would prefer a monoblock 2B and 3B in a 7B size chassis (looks good).
I afraid the 14/28B chassis have too much cooling capacity for an 2B/3B monoblock.
Regards

James Tanner · « **Reply #36 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 04:57 pm »

Quote from: FULLRANGEMAN on 23 Dec 2009, 04:35 pm

Quote from: drummermitchell on 23 Dec 2009, 04:15 pm
nice to be able to pick things apart to see why it is not practicle.
I just see the powerpacs idea in a chassis that's smaller than the norm,even though the powerpacs have a specific application.I do see the powerpacs are not Squared as yet,wattages are 60,120,300.
Fullrangeman,bigger chassis like a 28,I did consider+did her .
Hmm,that last half a sentence doesn't sound quite right.
HI,
I love the Big 14/28 big boxes. for my personal taste I would prefer a monoblock 2B and 3B in a 7B size chassis (looks good).
I afraid the 14/28B chassis have too much cooling capacity for an 2B/3B monoblock.
Regards

Hi - you mean 1 channel with 100 watts and the other with say 200 watts in the same chassis?

james

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #37 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 05:03 pm »

Since we are dreaming, I would like to add: a 2B/3B monoblock would fit nicely in a 14/48B chassis If they was Class A output!!
Just a idea...

gaderson · « **Reply #38 on:** 23 Dec 2009, 09:43 pm »

Maybe just make a single channel chassis that would hold either a 9B module or a larger one that could hold a 6B module, 150 W or 300 W into 8 Ohms, but, the power supply would really need to be shoehorned in.
I've been looking at monoblocks as they would be easier to add to my current 9B to get 7.1, but, with the narrow form factor so they would fit between my GB1s and my Salamander twin rack. The PowerPacs are a bit too wide to fit on the back of my GB1s

.

CDinsmore · « **Reply #39 on:** 27 Dec 2009, 08:38 pm »

I've been wishing for a more cosmetically pleasing version of the power pacs for quite some time for the simple reason of getting the amp as close as possible to each speaker in my 5.1 system, thus minimizing the loudspeaker cable length. The power pacs would do the trick, but they aren't very attractive.