I personally think, unless were talking about some massive powered mono's for a lowish sensitivity speaker systems, and you are running the speakers as "large" on the pre/pro, I say are really not where most should concentrate their intentions. I think the deminishing returns kicks in REAL FAST, and you don't get that much back. Could it improve? Sure, depending greatly on the associated speakers and application.
Since I'm a huge personal advocate of setting the vast majority of home audio passive speakers to "small", and letting powered subs handle the demanding bass, I double that statement!
I think most people would be served just fine, with superb potential results using either strong high/quality multi channels or 2/3 channel amp combos, etc. I think they do the jub superbly set up correctly. If you're thinking that you'regetting WORLDS OF IMPROVEMENT OVER THE SONIC SPECTRUM going mono's, think again. ESPECAILLY WITH MOVIE MIXES, the area's of potential improvement, for the most part, in most applications, are going to be small to negligable.
MAYBE do mono's, if you must, for your main 2 channels for music, and do a multi for the rest. I just don't see most people needing (it's all good though...whatever floats your boat) to go that extreme for such little payback. You'll get all they dyamic ability that's capable from most speaker systems by doing proper bass managment, possibly bi-amping large speakers when necessary improvments dictate there, and/or just use quality sounding higher end amp's through out. I think mono's make little difference in and of themselves one way or another.
I just don't think people should be goign out of their way to fiddle with "mono's" as the solution to "sonic excellence" from their HT system. Probably we're potentially, all things equal, talking small percentages of differnce, if any in most situations. But,I'm sure many would sware otherwise.
I think upgrading elseware would better serve. Concentrate on set up/acoustics, pre/pro selection, video/audio sources, cabling, power conditioning, tweaking/calibration, overall system matching, BASS MANAGEMENT, sub/seating/speaker placement(huge), etc. Get the best amp(s) you think makes LOGICAL sense, and makes the speakers do what they'r capable (within reason for HT, considering they should laregely be running only uperbass/mid/high's, etc).
I think I would be looking to "bi-amp" most full-range speakers that I was considering full range before powering with monoblocks. But that's me....just don't see the need mostly. The mono's would have to sound WAYYYYYYYY BETTER before I went there. But knock yourself out otherwise. I've heard all the big Krell mono dedicated HT's, driving massive Class A rated JM Utopias, Wilson SLAMMS, Dunlavy's, etc. And for the most part, I just don't find the improvements THAT PRESSING..even for the most ambitious set up's. There are other ways to skin the monkey if need be.
Good luck
Since I'm a huge personal advocate of setting the vast majority of home audio passive speakers to "small", and letting powered subs handle the demanding bass, I double that statement!
I think most people would be served just fine, with superb potential results using either strong high/quality multi channels or 2/3 channel amp combos, etc. I think they do the jub superbly set up correctly. If you're thinking that you'regetting WORLDS OF IMPROVEMENT OVER THE SONIC SPECTRUM going mono's, think again. ESPECAILLY WITH MOVIE MIXES, the area's of potential improvement, for the most part, in most applications, are going to be small to negligable.
MAYBE do mono's, if you must, for your main 2 channels for music, and do a multi for the rest. I just don't see most people needing (it's all good though...whatever floats your boat) to go that extreme for such little payback. You'll get all they dyamic ability that's capable from most speaker systems by doing proper bass managment, possibly bi-amping large speakers when necessary improvments dictate there, and/or just use quality sounding higher end amp's through out. I think mono's make little difference in and of themselves one way or another.
I just don't think people should be goign out of their way to fiddle with "mono's" as the solution to "sonic excellence" from their HT system. Probably we're potentially, all things equal, talking small percentages of differnce, if any in most situations. But,I'm sure many would sware otherwise.
I think upgrading elseware would better serve. Concentrate on set up/acoustics, pre/pro selection, video/audio sources, cabling, power conditioning, tweaking/calibration, overall system matching, BASS MANAGEMENT, sub/seating/speaker placement(huge), etc. Get the best amp(s) you think makes LOGICAL sense, and makes the speakers do what they'r capable (within reason for HT, considering they should laregely be running only uperbass/mid/high's, etc).
I think I would be looking to "bi-amp" most full-range speakers that I was considering full range before powering with monoblocks. But that's me....just don't see the need mostly. The mono's would have to sound WAYYYYYYYY BETTER before I went there. But knock yourself out otherwise. I've heard all the big Krell mono dedicated HT's, driving massive Class A rated JM Utopias, Wilson SLAMMS, Dunlavy's, etc. And for the most part, I just don't find the improvements THAT PRESSING..even for the most ambitious set up's. There are other ways to skin the monkey if need be.
Good luck