mono blocks for home theater?


I have always used various 5 channel amps in my home theater. It also doubles for 2 channel listening, 75% movies, 25% music. I now have a chance to purchase 3 mono blocks for the front and a 2 channel for the rear. I understand the benefit of mono blocks in two channel. I know everything is system dependent. Are there any pros or cons besides looking for extra outlets? Is it overkill? Will it improve movie soundtracks? Would I be better off upgrading elsewhere? Has anyone tried this and gone back to a 5 channel amp? Thanks to all who respond.
theaterhome
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
I keep reading over and over from members that theatre / movies do not need the care and attention to components that a dedicated two channel rig needs . This depends on a couple of important factors as far as I am concerned. First , what is your level of involvement and enjoyment in your own personal movie going experience? Recording engineers have improved dramatically over the years and there is some incredible work out there that a high end multichannel theatre can expose to someone dedicated to the ever improving movie experience . I for one am as interested in theatre as I am multichannel music presentation or two channel reproduction. I get different sensations from each but quite frankly do not put less effort or money into my theatre in relation to my main two channel rig. . Second would be that your theatre can double as an effective multichannel music system making the investment more critical . It is all in what you perceive as important to you. Going the monobloc route is simply another way to improve your soundfield which in turn will make movies and music better. That is essentially what it is all about.
Nope, nope, nope...to an extent, that is.
I could see the very best mono's giving some advantage POTENTIALLY in refinement of sound, all things equal. But considering bass managment, powered subs, more efficiency in amp/speaker combo do to bass managment, the only real areas of practical improvment for you money would be in overall sonic purity and such indeed...all things equal, again. Still, that said, we're talkign movies here! I have yet to hear any movie that has the refinement of a good music recording! Movies are mixed, and mixed, and processed, and scored, and over-dubbed, and voiced over, etc, etc! yes, they sound plenty detailed often, dynamic for sure, pretty clear mostly, with cool effects, stearing, and soundstage potentially. But, refinement is not the case, and things are generally more synthetic and manufactured! You consider the unavoidable "boxy dialoge" that is in the mix, faux effects, re-dubbs, edits, etc, and you just aren't getting some magical depth and refinement taht can be pinched out with the finnest music production/recordings!
I've beeen around high end audio for 20 years plus, worked in 6 audio stores as sales/install/custom, and been and avid 2 channel and HT junkie in as much. I have yet to hear some system on "mono's" that I thought was "the end all" for HT! Infact, I think certain much more important considerations are more pressing than finding the baddest amps you can to dive your home audio system...better speaker chioces for one. It's all good though.
I'm just saying that hearing large massive JM Grand Utopias, and Wilson SLAMMs and such on mono's wasn't any better than a well thought out high end system with multi's or stereo amps in general!
I think money's better spent delegated elsewere for most. Still, whatever floats your boat.
I recently acquired two Theta Enterprise monoblocks to power my Thiel CS3.6's, and a Theta Intrepid for the center and surrounds (still trying to decide if I'll use the extra 2 channels for zone 2, or move from 5.1 to 7.1). My reasoning for this approach is that I do my critical listening in 2-channel, and I want my soundstage and imaging to be as good as they can be, so monoblocks do deliver in these regards. I had considered either a 5-channel Dreadnaught II for the whole deal, or a 2-channel Dread for the mains, but once I heard my Thiels with the Enterprises, I was hooked. The multi-channel Thetas still had the "Theta sound", and were very balanced and nice sounding, but the imaging, detail, separation, and depth of soundstage couldn't match the monoblocks. That said, I find that when I listen to multi-channel music or movies, much of the refinement of the monoblocks is not as evident. If I were going to do multi-channel only, I probably would have gone with one or two Dreads, or a Dreadnaught/Intrepid. However, I do feel that monoblocks can interface well with a system that pulls duty as both a 2-channel and a HT setup.

Tom.