Are Monoblock s worth it?

Excellent choice, Gregm. On the shortened lengths of speaker cable, check out the current thread on lengths of speaker cables with monoblocs, there are some practical reasons to consider not going too short on the cables.

I experienced a "backwards step" when moving from a single less expensive stereo amp to far more expensive monoblocks. To top this off, i even tried going to more expensive yet 1/4 the length speaker cables ( same manufacturer and design ). When that didn't seem to help, i then tried using two of the same stereo amps that i was initially using set up as remotely situated monoblocks. No better. I'm about to try some new interconnects from preamp to amps, so i'm hoping this will help.

There are MANY technical reasons why shorter interconnects and longer speaker cables are the "technically most correct" method. I stated this a LONG time ago on AA and Jon Risch and others disagreed with me. Jon has since changed his stance on the subject. He now agrees that it is best to preserve the low level signal as best possible. As such, long interconnects can degrade the sonics and detail of a signal consisting of millivolt levels moreso than what a slightly longer run of speaker cable can do to a signal of infinitely higher power. This is primarily due to the low level signal suffering decay due to line loss, dielectric absorption, greater susceptability to RFI / EMI, etc... On top of this, most speakers are already quite reactive and already loaded with wires, inductors, caps, etc... What difference is adding a comparably short amount of wire going to make between the amp and speaker interface when there is already dozens and dozens of wire INSIDE the speaker to begin with ???

So far, my personal results have verified my previous statements about this subject. It has only cost me THOUSANDS of dollars to verify what i already new according to "theory".

I have yet to try sticking the mono-blocks back into the rack and going back to short interconnects / long speaker wire. If putting in the new long interconnects to feed the remotely situated power amps doesn't give me what i'm looking for, that's the next step.

I really DO think that monoblocks have advantages in terms of channel seperation and TYPICALLY increased power supplies, etc... but the way that they are implemented into our systems can negate most of the benefits.

Like the rest of you, i'm trying to work the bugs out of this system as i go along. Sean
>

Sean, interesting and logical: allow for length where the signal is strongest. The trick then is to keep the same IC & speaker cable and try placing the monos around the stereo's old whereabouts. Not easy, but feasible.
However, isn't there something about low voltage signals meeting w/ less resistance along the conductor? (Pls excuse the imprecise vocab).

Thank you, rcprince!

I've used a SL RG1 which is similiar to the Strato and currently using SL RG4 monobloc. With monobloc, I do get more power, better imaging, can use shorter speaker cable, etc. But, the biggest improvement though, is that each note just seems to flow more free and easier. It's more apparent when listening to dynamic instruments.

If you can afford it, go for the mono bloc. Otherwise, I would probably replace it with a better stereo amp such as RG1, as it might cost less.