Marantz MM8077 or Monolith 7x200

VMPS-TIII

VMPS-TIII

Full Audioholic
Marantz MM8077 Amplifier
Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 108.9 watts
1% distortion at 116.8 watts
That's about 70% of the 150 watt claim when used with all seven channels. Very similar to the guarantee Denon makes with their receivers. Meanwhile, the Monolith 7x200 meets the quoted power levels with 2 channels or 7. That type of build is an entirely different class.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have owned the previous, the 8 channel MM8003 amp that measured a similar 109x8. And yes, it did look purty next to my Marantz AV7702mkii prepro and UD7007 4K universal player on my glass A/V rack. Later, when I got a BDI enclosed rack, those cosmetics didn't matter anymore.


Marantz MM8003 Amplifier

All channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 109.7 watts
1% distortion at 122.3 watts
There are something I would like to say about those numbers. First of all, I still own a MM8003, and I have the SMs. The MM8003 is almost the same as the MM8077 except they managed to jam one more power amp channel in the same box. The MM8077 shed one channel, add the round thingamajig in the front and somehow gain 0.1 kg in weight that could just be typo or measuring error.

The MM8003 measured better on the S&V bench in two channel output, almost as good as the AVR-4308CI:

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 174.8 watts
1% distortion at 192.5 watts

Two channels driven continuously into 4-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 248 watts
1% distortion at 289.1 watts

That is a huge difference, still not as good as the comparable AVR-4308CI that I also had owned, but it was almost as powerful as the Monolith 200W amps under two channel driven conditions.

So I suspect something happened when S&M did their measurements on the MM8077, or Marantz has done something to the protective system causing the seemingly lower output. It just doesn't make any sense for the 8077 to output worse than their AVRs in two channel driven conditions.

The results of the MM8003 is credible because it was consistent with comparable Denon/Marantz/Yamaha flagship AVRs.

The MM8003/MM8077 are light mainly due to their cooling system design that rely on a tunnel (therefore hollow) and fans, I email them about the transformer size because their specs looked fishy, they told me it was a 1200 VA rated transformer. That's pretty good for a 140W rated power amp.

Both models have 100,000 uF 71 V storage caps that are wired to be shared for all channels. That should be very good (comparable to the Monolith 200WX5) for short term dynamic outputs under 1,2,3..up to 5 channel driven conditions.
 
R

RickyT

Audioholic Intern
There are something I would like to say about those numbers. First of all, I still own a MM8003, and I have the SMs. The MM8003 is almost the same as the MM8077 except they managed to jam one more power amp channel in the same box. The MM8077 shed one channel, add the round thingamajig in the front and somehow gain 0.1 kg in weight that could just be typo or measuring error.

The MM8003 measured better on the S&V bench in two channel output, almost as good as the AVR-4308CI:

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 174.8 watts
1% distortion at 192.5 watts

Two channels driven continuously into 4-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 248 watts
1% distortion at 289.1 watts

That is a huge difference, still not as good as the comparable AVR-4308CI that I also had owned, but it was almost as powerful as the Monolith 200W amps under two channel driven conditions.

So I suspect something happened when S&M did their measurements on the MM8077, or Marantz has done something to the protective system causing the seemingly lower output. It just doesn't make any sense for the 8077 to output worse than their AVRs in two channel driven conditions.

The results of the MM8003 is credible because it was consistent with comparable Denon/Marantz/Yamaha flagship AVRs.

The MM8003/MM8077 are light mainly due to their cooling system design that rely on a tunnel (therefore hollow) and fans, I email them about the transformer size because their specs looked fishy, they told me it was a 1200 VA rated transformer. That's pretty good for a 140W rated power amp.

Both models have 100,000 uF 71 V storage caps that are wired to be shared for all channels. That should be very good (comparable to the Monolith 200WX5) for short term dynamic outputs under 1,2,3..up to 5 channel driven conditions.
Class A/B amps are ~ 50-65% efficient. 110x7 = 770 total watts. That's 64% efficiency for the 8077's 1200 VA transformer, which makes sense. Other amp brands would probably rate the 8077 (if they sold an amp with similar parts) all channels driven as 110x7, not 150x7.

The Monolith 200x7 reached it's 200 wpc rating somewhere between 0.1% and 1.0%.


Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 215.9 watts
1% distortion at 255.6 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 185.8 watts
1% distortion at 223.5 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 178.5 watts
1% distortion at 211.9 watts

According to AH, the two transformers add up to 2255 VA, which implies this amp stays within the 50-65% efficiency range (depending on which distortion number is used).

  • Toroidal Transformers: 2 (1,230VA and 1,025VA)
  • Total Capacitance:156,800µF (22,400µF per channel)
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
To be clear, I would hope no one here is arguing that the Marantz options are "more amp" than the Monolith option.
I suggested a Marantz option simply because if it were me, I like that:
1) the amp and AVR would match,
2) the Monolith is a bit of a bear to move around due to its weight (I have one),
3) my monolith has transformer hum which is loud enough for me to want to put it in a cabinet (door in front to block direct sound), anything I have encountered from D&M (or Yamaha or Onkyo for that matter) have been silent.
4) The Marantz option is more than enough for his purposes; given his speakers, 100W/channel is overkill!

The Monolith is undoubtedly a better value when it comes to power/$, and if the OP was asking about future-proofing or buying an amp that would be able to drive any speaker he might end up with, then the Monolith is a very good option (and better than the Marantz).

So, I think the debate going on here is more about "the best amp for the money" (Monolith) vs "the best amp for his needs" (arguably Marantz).

Honestly, if he isn't enamored by the Marantz matching his AVR, I think his best option is the Outlaw 5000x (they added XLR connections) for $750. It puts out 120W X 5 channels simultaneously, so is more powerful than the Marantz for $50 less and not a refurb ... but I,, personally, would pay the extra $50 for the matching Marantz.

120 watts RMS x 5(all channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms from 20Hz–20kHz with less than 0.03% THD
180 watts RMS x 5 ( into 4 ohms from 20Hz–20kHz with less than 0.05% THD
 
D

DrBimbo

Audiophyte
I always buy new or preferably factory refurbished equipment as it has a warranty if it ever fails. The only used equipment I would ever trust would be Bryston or McIntosh. Older equipment can suffer heartbreaking capacitor failure, transistor meltdown, transformer hum as the potting starts to deteriorate, dying tubes, weak solder joints or board issues.
 
mazersteven

mazersteven

Audioholic Spartan
Older equipment can suffer heartbreaking capacitor failure, transistor meltdown, transformer hum as the potting starts to deteriorate, dying tubes, weak solder joints or board issues.
That sounds like me Physically :oops:
 
VMPS-TIII

VMPS-TIII

Full Audioholic
I always buy new or preferably factory refurbished equipment as it has a warranty if it ever fails. The only used equipment I would ever trust would be Bryston or McIntosh. Older equipment can suffer heartbreaking capacitor failure, transistor meltdown, transformer hum as the potting starts to deteriorate, dying tubes, weak solder joints or board issues.
Never buy a used sump pump. You don't know what kind of sh*t your getting into. lol
:D
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Class A/B amps are ~ 50-65% efficient. 110x7 = 770 total watts. That's 64% efficiency for the 8077's 1200 VA transformer, which makes sense. Other amp brands would probably rate the 8077 (if they sold an amp with similar parts) all channels driven as 110x7, not 150x7.
50-65% is a good rule of thumb, but class AB amps efficiency often go higher than 65% at rated or higher load condition, More like in the high 70's. It also tends to do better with 4 ohm loads. The main point though is, amp manufacturers do based the transformer VA rating not for literally continuous load, but the so called "continuous" rating that could be for minutes, 20 minutes, or may be a few hours. Also, power transformers, even the small ones used in audio power amplifiers have excellent overload capacity. So a 1,200 VA rated Tx, could be by design, used in applications that have load demand of say 1,500 VA or even more for sustained short duration, e.g. 30 minutes so for audio applications you don't really need 1200 VA for 600 W rated amps.

The Monolith 200x7 reached it's 200 wpc rating somewhere between 0.1% and 1.0%.


Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 215.9 watts
1% distortion at 255.6 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 185.8 watts
1% distortion at 223.5 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 178.5 watts
1% distortion at 211.9 watts

According to AH, the two transformers add up to 2255 VA, which implies this amp stays within the 50-65% efficiency range (depending on which distortion number is used).

  • Toroidal Transformers: 2 (1,230VA and 1,025VA)
  • Total Capacitance:156,800µF (22,400µF per channel)
Actually this is a great example, one thing I like about Monolith amps, and I posted this more than once before on this topic, is that they are not shy on using larger transformers. If you look at Emotiva's class AB amps, the once seemingly very popular XPA-5, rated 200 WX5 specified a 1200 VA transformer, that's half that of Monolith's. Does it mean the XPA-5's efficiency is 83% for 8 ohm load and 125% for 4 ohm load, of course not. By the way, even using the Monolith example, if you use the 4 ohm rated load, the efficiency you calculated will also be significantly higher than the 50-65% number right?

The Emotiva example:

"XPA‐5
Number of Channels: 5

Topology: Fully Discrete, Dual Differential, High Current, Short Signal Path Class A/B

Power output (all channels driven):
300 watts RMS @ 4 ohm (0.1% THD)
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)

Transformer Size: 1,200VA

Secondary Capacitance: 60,000uF "


There are no shortages of similar examples that you can find on the internet. It just shows that we cannot based on published power output specs and/or even measured output figures to accurately estimate transformer size. I know you are very good at that, so if you take the time, you will agree with me on this.:) I rarely say this, but I will this time, i.e., been there done that,.. and having worked in the related heavy industry for many years, I know a little bit about power transformers with hands-on experience, from low voltage low va to high voltage high MVA ones so I thought I would share what I've learnt over the years.
 
R

RickyT

Audioholic Intern
50-65% is a good rule of thumb, but class AB amps efficiency often go higher than 65% at rated or higher load condition, More like in the high 70's. It also tends to do better with 4 ohm loads. The main point though is, amp manufacturers do based the transformer VA rating not for literally continuous load, but the so called "continuous" rating that could be for minutes, 20 minutes, or may be a few hours. Also, power transformers, even the small ones used in audio power amplifiers have excellent overload capacity. So a 1,200 VA rated Tx, could be by design, used in applications that have load demand of say 1,500 VA or even more for sustained short duration, e.g. 30 minutes so for audio applications you don't really need 1200 VA for 600 W rated amps.



Actually this is a great example, one thing I like about Monolith amps, and I posted this more than once before on this topic, is that they are not shy on using larger transformers. If you look at Emotiva's class AB amps, the once seemingly very popular XPA-5, rated 200 WX5 specified a 1200 VA transformer, that's half that of Monolith's. Does it mean the XPA-5's efficiency is 83% for 8 ohm load and 125% for 4 ohm load, of course not. By the way, even using the Monolith example, if you use the 4 ohm rated load, the efficiency you calculated will also be significantly higher than the 50-65% number right?

The Emotiva example:

"XPA‐5
Number of Channels: 5

Topology: Fully Discrete, Dual Differential, High Current, Short Signal Path Class A/B

Power output (all channels driven):
300 watts RMS @ 4 ohm (0.1% THD)
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)

Transformer Size: 1,200VA

Secondary Capacitance: 60,000uF "


There are no shortages of similar examples that you can find on the internet. It just shows that we cannot based on published power output specs and/or even measured output figures to accurately estimate transformer size. I know you are very good at that, so if you take the time, you will agree with me on this.:) I rarely say this, but I will this time, i.e., been there done that,.. and having worked in the related heavy industry for many years, I know a little bit about power transformers with hands-on experience, from low voltage low va to high voltage high MVA ones so I thought I would share what I've learnt over the years.
Good EE info, as always! You and bigguyca are my favorite posts to read. What is your user name on AVS? The 50-65% seems like the "average" range I've read in lab tests at 8 ohms and 0.1% distortion going back 20 years (when the transformer size is stated, like in the AH reviews).

Would a specific Class A/B amp model's output also depend on how much class A bias it was designed for?
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
3) my monolith has transformer hum which is loud enough for me to want to put it in a cabinet (door in front to block direct sound), anything I have encountered from D&M (or Yamaha or Onkyo for that matter) have been silent.
Transformer hum? Really? I'll be the first to admit my hearing isn't what it used to be but I get right next to mine when I dust (often), and both of the ones I've had were/are dead silent! When I reach to the back of the shelf to get behind it my ears are only a couple of inches away.
 
P

pcosmic

Junior Audioholic
If you are a movie guy, knock yourself out with the Monolith
If you are a music guy and would like a bit more "refinement" from your amp, go with the Marantz.
 
C

Chocolatey MidsFan

Enthusiast
If you are a movie guy, knock yourself out with the Monolith
If you are a music guy and would like a bit more "refinement" from your amp, go with the Marantz.
Do you think that the Marantz will make the mid-range more Chocolatey due to the extra refinement ? :rolleyes:
 
mazersteven

mazersteven

Audioholic Spartan
Yo
If you are a movie guy, knock yourself out with the Monolith
If you are a music guy and would like a bit more "refinement" from your amp, go with the Marantz.
You're saying the Amps can tell what your playing???
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Transformer hum? Really? I'll be the first to admit my hearing isn't what it used to be but I get right next to mine when I dust (often), and both of the ones I've had were/are dead silent! When I reach to the back of the shelf to get behind it my ears are only a couple of inches away.
Mine must be defective or something!
Good to hear that is not common!
It is not horrible, but definitely there.

Gene also had a hum problem:
If you have dimmers in your house or the issue known as DC offset then the Monolith’s massive transformers may start to hum. They did in my case when the lights on my microwave were on and set to low. To be clear, this isn’t a design problem with the Monolith. To fix the humming, I plugged the Monolith into Emotiva’s CM2 AC line restoration and common mode filter system. This two-outlet receptacle is specially designed to eliminate DC offset issues without limiting current or dynamics.

I bought the same Emotiva filter system, but to no avail!
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Seriously, I have no life.
Mine must be defective or something!
Good to hear that is not common!
It is not horrible, but definitely there.

Gene also had a hum problem:


I bought the same Emotiva filter system, but to no avail!
Did you ever discuss that issue with Monolith/Monoprice?
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Did you ever discuss that issue with Monolith/Monoprice?
No, I bought it used, so did not pursue it, but I should at least call and see what they say. not sure if this has a transferable warranty or not, but a call to monoprice is probably the best way to find out!
 
P

Prodigy

Enthusiast
Thanks for all the info guys! This helps out a lot. I do know its overkill to use an amp with these speakers. I wanted to future proof my setup just incase I move on from the klipsch since i need an amp to power the 2 additional speakers anyway. I saw another good deal for an Outlaw 5000 for $400. I did get the Monolith 7x200 price down to $1050 though.
 

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