Monolith 7x200 amp vs ... competition? (Looking for experienced amp advice)

Landmonster

Landmonster

Audioholic
No, it doesn't double it. It has the effect of quatrupling it!

Let's assume we have two 100 Watt power amps. We have a total of 200 Watts for the combined program material.
Taken from Rod Elliott's article on active bi-amplification. (By the way, Rod will be removing his site from the web early next year):

Imagine a sine wave signal of 100 Hz at an amplitude of 28V rms. For an 8 ohm load, this equates to 98W. The same amplitude at 1000 Hz will equal exactly the same power. Now add the two signals together, in the same way that signals add together in music. the RMS value does indicate that the power is only 3dB higher, but it is only when an oscilloscope is used that the true picture emerges: We wil now see a low-frequecy waveform, with a higher frequency waveform superimposed, the high frequency signal will be riding up and down the path of the low frequency signal. If we were to perform a calculation (or simply measure the combined signal with an oscilloscope), we will see that the peak amplitude has doubled and now has an effective rms value (most (all) meters will get this wrong -you really do need an oscilloscope) of 56 Volts (392 Watts /8 ohms) - four times the original power of each waveform individually.
What would happen if you used 2 of the 7 channels on the Monolith 7x, for example? Is it the same effect?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
No, it doesn't double it. It has the effect of quatrupling it!

Let's assume we have two 100 Watt power amps. We have a total of 200 Watts for the combined program material.
Taken from Rod Elliott's article on active bi-amplification. (By the way, Rod will be removing his site from the web early next year):

Imagine a sine wave signal of 100 Hz at an amplitude of 28V rms. For an 8 ohm load, this equates to 98W. The same amplitude at 1000 Hz will equal exactly the same power. Now add the two signals together, in the same way that signals add together in music. the RMS value does indicate that the power is only 3dB higher, but it is only when an oscilloscope is used that the true picture emerges: We wil now see a low-frequecy waveform, with a higher frequency waveform superimposed, the high frequency signal will be riding up and down the path of the low frequency signal. If we were to perform a calculation (or simply measure the combined signal with an oscilloscope), we will see that the peak amplitude has doubled and now has an effective rms value (most (all) meters will get this wrong -you really do need an oscilloscope) of 56 Volts (392 Watts /8 ohms) - four times the original power of each waveform individually.
Well, the example wasn't active bi-amping either....how about passive bi-amping as OP wants to do? Will review this bit on active bi-amping further, thanks....
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
One thing nobody has mentioned here is the Marantz 8807 amplifier.

I would be curious to know how it compares and sound quality and build quality to the monolith... but also whether 150 watts per channel would be enough to drive the Polk LSiM speakers
I assume you meant the MM8077. Based on my experience with the MM8003 that is essentially the same as the 8077 but has 8 channels, I would say it is an excellent power amp if it satisfies your power requirements.

It measured well too, by soundandvision.com

1573508715061.png


1573508749996.png


This graph shows that the MM8003’s left amplifier channel, with two channels driving 8-ohm loads at 1kHz, reached 0.1% distortion at 174.8 watts and 1% distortion at 192.5 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reached 0.1% distortion at 248.0 watts and 1% distortion at 289.1 watts.
With five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads, the amp reached 0.1% distortion at 127.1 watts and 1% distortion at 150.1 watts.
With eight channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads, the amp reached 0.1% distortion at 109.7 watts and 1% distortion at 122.3 watts. Under these conditions, the manufacturer’s stated distortion of 0.08 % was reached at 108.6 watts, which is considerably less than the 140Wpc specified by Marantz.

Read more at https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-av8003-preampprocessor-and-mm8003-multichannel-power-amplifier-measurements#uxtQsp7SaUdVHeWK.99
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
No, it doesn't double it. It has the effect of quatrupling it!

Taken from Rod Elliott's article on active bi-amplification. (By the way, Rod will be removing his site from the web early next year):

1.4 - Actual vs Effective Power
If we assume that our 100 Watt amplifiers will be handling exactly the same peak amplitudes with typical program input, then we have a total of 200 Watts for the combined program material. So, where does the magic come into this? This amp combination will sound (and measure) as if it were 400 Watts - twice as much 'effective' power as there is real power. This is a highly simplified explanation though, and you may or may not realise the full benefit depending on a great many factors. For this to make sense, we need to back track a little.
Imagine a sine wave signal of 100Hz at an amplitude of 28V RMS. For an 8 ohm load, this equates to about 100W (98 actually). The same amplitude at 1000Hz will be exactly the same power. Now add the two signals together, in the same way that signals add together in music. We are interested only in the peak amplitude, the RMS value indicates that the power is only 3dB higher, but it is only when an oscilloscope is used that the true picture emerges.
We will now see a low-frequency waveform, with a higher frequency waveform superimposed - the high frequency signal will be riding up and down the path of the low frequency signal. If we were to perform a calculation (or simply measure the combined signal with an oscilloscope), we will see that the peak amplitude has doubled. The effective RMS value (most multimeters will get this wrong unless they are true RMS types) is 40 Volts, and this would imply 200W. Although this is the real RMS voltage, it totally underestimates the amplifier power needed to reproduce it cleanly. An oscilloscope shows 80V peak for the same waveform, so the amplifier must be capable of passing an 80V peak signal - a 400W amplifier.
Are you kidding, or got it mixed up if something else?
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Are you kidding, or got it mixed up if something else?
So are you questioning Rod Elliott's reasoning?

EDIT: By the way, I updated Rod's text to reflect the current posted article at Post #20. Now, he is talking about a peak voltage of 80 Volts.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
So are you questioning Rod Elliott's reasoning?

EDIT: By the way, I updated Rod's text to reflect the current posted article at Post #20. Now, he is talking about a peak voltage of 80 Volts.
Here is a link to Rod Elliott's Article on Bi-amping:
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Well, the example wasn't active bi-amping either....how about passive bi-amping as OP wants to do? Will review this bit on active bi-amping further, thanks....
Elliott's article is about active bi-amping. There's reference to a link to his full article in the post just above this one.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Here is a link to Rod Elliott's Article on Bi-amping:
I never questioned Rod Elliot's but it was about what you said in post#20. You did not mention RE's article until you edited it, your were responding to HD, who linked Steve Munz article.

"No, it doesn't double it. It has the effect of quatrupling it! " If you were referring to bi-amp, and you seemed to be, that would not be true and I doubt Rod Elliot would have said something like that, though I will re-read that linked article of his (read it more than once in the past).

Biamp, traditionally mean using one amp for the bass drivers (or the bass an mid in some cases) and a second amp for the tweeter (or mid and tweeter in some cases). You were responding to @lovinthehd , and I am pretty sure that's the kind of passive biamp he was talking about.

Edit: Just finished reading it, no he never said anything about quadrupling the way he interpreted it before you edited your post that originally you might be just kidding around. Your edited post and the subsequent posts now would make more sense as you provided the link. He's talking about peak power, not average, and he also noted as follow:

"It must be explained here that the 3dB effective power increase is the absolute maximum that can be obtained. In most cases it will be less - I have examined sections of music where the power gain was less than 1dB, and it can be reasonably safely assumed that the real gain will lie somewhere between 1-2dB in most cases. The real figure depends a lot on the type of music, the actual crossover frequency, and the peak to average ratio of the two separated signals. Just this topic alone is sufficient for a complete article in its own right."

Also, 2X100 W amp for bi-amp gives a total of 200 W available as the article mentioned in the beginning. As such, it should be compared with a single 200 W amp, and in that sort of apple and apple comparison, there is no gain in average power output, but in the active biamp scheme you do gain the benefits that the article highlighted. The way it was written, sorry to say this, one does have to have a strong background in EE principles, for lesser chance of misinterpreting something or taking something out of context.

So 2X100 W in active biamp scheme, depending on the music contents/waveforms, you could have an "absolute" maximum of 400 W peak effect.

A single 200 W amp without bi-amp will also get you 200 W average power output and 400 W peak power output and that would be always true, whereas in the active biamp using two 100 W amp, you only get the 400 W peak effects under certain conditions, and the article explained that quite clearly.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Well, the example wasn't active bi-amping either....how about passive bi-amping as OP wants to do? Will review this bit on active bi-amping further, thanks....
Passive bi-amping might be useful only when one of the amplifiers is not powerful enough to use with the woofer, or someone wants to avoid or reduce distortion on peak SPL.
Active bi-amping however has the advantage of using electronic crossovers which are more accurate for dividing frequencies than passive filters. Another plus for active filtering is that there is no power loss with series inductors found in passive crossovers. Of course, this power loss is mostly prominent with big value inductors found in crossovers at frequencies below 250 Hz, with the additional risk of reducing the amp's damping factor. With higher Qts woofers or subwoofers, that would result in poor transient response.
 
Last edited:
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
One thing nobody has mentioned here is the Marantz 8807 amplifier.
I would be curious to know how it compares and sound quality and build quality to the monolith... but also whether 150 watts per channel would be enough to drive the Polk LSiM speakers
I didn't mention as I would by new for me. Build wise I'm sure it's good and and yes it has enough to drive those polks.

Edit: I'm past the point of 100# amplifiers. I'd rather rack multiple 25# 2 channel amps then one beast. One of the McIntosh units I had was over 100# 2 channel that probably aided in me needing back surgery.
 
Last edited:
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
I have the Monolith 7. It has gobs of power and sounds just as good as others in its power range, as it should. All of the competent amp manufacturers have the same goal. There are far more differences in build quality, aesthetics and longevity than in the way they sound.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
It's like Déjà vu all over again!
o_O
Same basic question, same basic advice. :D

IIRC, those towers dip below 4 Ohms in the Low End, with a ridiculous Phase Angle at almost 45º (47, maybe?).

Put one good Monoblock on each front tower, like the Outlaw 2200. Or get a beefy stereo Amp like a Crown XLS1502, which is stable to 2-Ohms. (I like the idea of each of those towers having its own power supply, frankly.) If you really feel the need to Buy-Amp them, then do two XLS 1502, or 4 2200s.
Run the rest from your AVR. or start stacking the above amps.

2¢.

;)
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
It's like Déjà vu all over again!
o_O
Same basic question, same basic advice. :D

IIRC, those towers dip below 4 Ohms in the Low End, with a ridiculous Phase Angle at almost 45º (47, maybe?).

Put one good Monoblock on each front tower, like the Outlaw 2200. Or get a beefy stereo Amp like a Crown XLS1502, which is stable to 2-Ohms. (I like the idea of each of those towers having its own power supply, frankly.) If you really feel the need to Buy-Amp them, then do two XLS 1502, or 4 2200s.
Run the rest from your AVR. or start stacking the above amps.

2¢.

;)
Its 2.8 ohms at 66hz with a 32 degree angle. It is pretty reactive, but I doubt the ATI amps would have an issue, some AVRs definitely.

I'm pretty much convinced that I'm sticking with QSC cinema series for amps here on out. They don't break a sweat with the Salks, not that difficult to drive, full range with high spl.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
Its 2.8 ohms at 66hz with a 32 degree angle. It is pretty reactive, but I doubt the ATI amps would have an issue, some AVRs definitely.
Found: this is what I was recalling...

The LSiM707’s listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +1.05/–1.73 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz. The –3dB point is at 34 Hz, and the –6dB point is at 30 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 3.75 ohms at 66 Hz and a phase angle of –47.96 degrees at 83 Hz.

...still... rougher'n a cob with no butter! :eek:o_O:oops:

;)

Ya? What.:cool:
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Found: this is what I was recalling...



...still... rougher'n a cob with no butter! :eek:o_O:oops:

;)

Ya? What.:cool:
It's a good speaker till you get to the lower crossover, then it doesn't like to play easily. I've always been supportive of their upper line, but If it were me I'd rather do their stand mounts and subs, take out everything below 100hz. IMHO it would be easier to setup stereo subs with the stand mounts than full range the mains. Just my opinion with these specific speakers.
 
Landmonster

Landmonster

Audioholic
Alright so let's get back to the bi-amping question for a minute.

What is the consensus here, in layman's terms?

First, Is it worth it to buy a 7-channel amp for a 5-channel system, simply to bi-amp the front two towers? If not, I could save money and reduce complexity by buying a 5-channel amp.

Secondly, is there any inherent advantage or disadvantage in the Monolith 5x vs the Monolith 7x, that I may be unaware of?

Third bonus question: Can anyone comment on a Rotel 1095 vs a Monolith 5x?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Generally the passive bi-amping thing is "solved" by simply using a more powerful amp in the first place. I certainly wouldn't buy the wire for passive bi-amping let alone amp channels for it. Active bi-amping with a diy speaker project might be well worthwhile, tho.

I seem to remember you get as much power supply in the 5 as the 7 Monoliths but it's been a while....search for the review/thread here on Audioholics, think that's where I saw it. Getting the 7channels if eventually needed tho, it seems a slightly better deal than just the 5.

Have no idea about the Rotel other than it seems similarly spec'd but here's the AH review if you haven't seen it....https://www.audioholics.com/amplifier-reviews/rotel-rmb-1095
 
Landmonster

Landmonster

Audioholic
It's like Déjà vu all over again!
o_O
Same basic question, same basic advice. :D

IIRC, those towers dip below 4 Ohms in the Low End, with a ridiculous Phase Angle at almost 45º (47, maybe?).

Put one good Monoblock on each front tower, like the Outlaw 2200. Or get a beefy stereo Amp like a Crown XLS1502, which is stable to 2-Ohms. (I like the idea of each of those towers having its own power supply, frankly.) If you really feel the need to Buy-Amp them, then do two XLS 1502, or 4 2200s.
Run the rest from your AVR. or start stacking the above amps.

2¢.

;)
I know, bro. I know. I can't get a handle on the Wonderful & Wild World of Amplifiers! :oops:

I do know... however... that the Denon X4500 struggles to power 2x 707s, 1 706c, and 2x 705 towers though. :confused:

It did fine with 2 703s, and later with 2 703s and 1 706c. But connecting 4 towers and the 706c and playing back multi channel music just seems to strain it. It doesn't sound "effortless", and the receiver top gets hot to the touch.

I want a beast of an amp that man-handles all 5 o' these LSiMs!
 
Last edited:
Landmonster

Landmonster

Audioholic
Generally the passive bi-amping thing is "solved" by simply using a more powerful amp in the first place. I certainly wouldn't buy the wire for passive bi-amping let alone amp channels for it. Active bi-amping with a diy speaker project might be well worthwhile, tho.

I seem to remember you get as much power supply in the 5 as the 7 Monoliths but it's been a while....search for the review/thread here on Audioholics, think that's where I saw it. Getting the 7channels if eventually needed tho, it seems a slightly better deal than just the 5.

Have no idea about the Rotel other than it seems similarly spec'd but here's the AH review if you haven't seen it....https://www.audioholics.com/amplifier-reviews/rotel-rmb-1095
I can afford the Monolith 5 easier than the 7 at the moment. The 7 is $300 more, plus they charge more for shipping weight and tax on it too.

I'd be willing to go ahead and get it, except that Monoprice says they do not offer price-matching on coupon codes or Black Friday or Cyber Monday deals. With my luck, the amps would go on sale for 20% off or something for Black Friday, and I wouldn't be able to get it price matched.

Aside from that... yea... I have no need for the Monolith 7 if I am not attempting to bi-amp. It would only be nice for future compatibility, I guess.

Edit:

If 7 channel bi-amping is legitimate option, then I may further consider some other 7 channel amps like the Marantz 8077.

If the 7 channel bi-amping strategy is nonsense, then I may just keep looking at 200+ watt 5 channel amps. That brings up other contenders, like a used Rotel 1095, or something like that.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top