Hi, I'm looking at getting a monoblock and before I choose one, I'd like to know if there is a noticable difference between how they'd sound?

All things equal (Sub and box correctly built and tuned etc etc) - would say an Alpine monoblock have a different sound output to an Audison monoblock or a Cadence one???

I was looking at the Audison but for me to spend nearly double the price of say an Alpine or Cadence equivalent, to me, it would mean the Audison has to sound that much better to be worth the money.

Now, I can understand how amps can make a difference when it comes to front stage, but for some reason, I don't feel its the same when it comes to sub bass. I dont know how 'doof doof' can sound different - quality wise.

Can someone please help justify things??

The "sound" of amps is always a vexed discussion.

Having said that, when I upgraded from a Kicker ZR bridged to the JL monoblock, the performance of my sub was greatly changed to the extent that I started checking things....didn't make sense that things should have been SO different.

Smmoother, tighter, faster, leaner.

IMO there's DEFINATELY a difference.... i've noticed it too, when upgrading amps, etc, however, power output was different, but they still sounded very "different"...... Hard to describe... Best idea is to buy from a place that'll let you test it in your setup first, or have the option to swap for something else if it doesn't do it for you!
Aaron

Yes there is.
The main thing is the dampening factor.
A high dampening factor will give a more controlled smooth sound.

Phil K

damping factor or power?

regardless, it's difficult, and probably a little naive, to judge an amp by only the specs. sure, you would expect power outputs from a monobloc to be very much realworld when it comes to driving subs compared with a bridged multichannel, but between different monoblocs of the same rated power, well, i don't have enough experience to say as i've only ever owned the one!

and so it seems, most people definitely notice an improvement going from a bridged multichannel to a monobloc. then they stick with it, and i don't know any people off the top of my head that end up changing their monoblocs!

bearing all that in mind, i can see where your Q stems from, for i personally don't see a lot of value, if watt for watt, monobloc A costs significantly more than monobloc B but offer the same power. except some definitely have better features that tend to relate to xovers/configuration, accessories and power supply.

so things like:
*steepness of LP filter
*presence of subsonic
*remote bass level controller
*stiffly regulated power supply
*bridgability between monoblocs
*build quality

in terms of what's available out there, most common and popular monoblocs are similarly priced within their categories. for example, the coustic and cadence range are similarly priced. the alpine amps are priced either side of the coustic 401DB/cadence Z1000 which is in keeping with the power outputs. and the audison LRx1.400 is priced higher than the alpine M500, but is also more powerful (plus 1ohm stable).

IMO, buy the best you can afford, with the power and features you need, and i don't think a cheaper monobloc is significantly inferior in performance, enough to be a major factor in the overall SQ.

Yes there is definitely a difference. This I also know from experience.

Don't ask us to tell you which one will be best though as that is a decision that you and only you will need to make based on a number of things.

The first step is to listen and take things from there.
One thing I will say is though, is that all the brands that you mention are known for quality and I don't think that you could pick a lemon by any means from the group.

Okay, well, the q is between monoblocs and not from a bridged amp or anything.

If I were to power subs the subs, I like to give them 200wrms each. So I would need a monobloc that would give 400wrms @ 2ohm.

The list of amps I gave were examples, I don't know each and every mono amp out there.

Problem is, I doubt I'd be able to listen to amps on my system, nor do I have the funds to buy each amp and decide which is best for me (Be nice tho).

So say I were to compare (Not deciding between these 2) a Coustic monobloc (Say it was $400) to a Audison LRx1.400 ($980 or so)...Say both gave 400wrms @ 2ohm and were fairly similar in specs. In terms of SQ, how much different will the 2 amps be???

This is sub bass quality we're talking about...so how much different can doof doof sound?

just a little bit off topic...but how you were saying Shiny that a monoblock will generally have more real world power over a bridged multichannel, so how does the Audison sRX 3 weigh up?

a single channel dedicated to the sub...so is it basically a 2 channel amp + a monoblock put together?
or is the performance less than just a monoblock when comparing against something like an Alpine m500 (if it the m500 had the same rated power output)?

(hope my question wasn't a bit confusing grammar wise hehe)

i think it is still a slight compromise. i presume the 3-channels share a single internal powersupply. if beefy enough, fine, otherwise it may impact on how much power is distributed to each channel; if the sub channel sucks all the power, the others may suffer or vice versa.

still, it will definitely be better than using a 4-channel amp in 3-channel mode (bridged for sub). although direct comparisons would be difficult where the SRx3's subchannel is stable to 2ohm (mono) unlike many bridged 4-channel amps of the same cost.

rattle: as you realise, comparing a coustic 401DB with an audison LRx1.400 involves more than just price, for the power outputs are different (1x400WRMS into 2ohm at 14.4V vs 1x660WRMS into 2ohm at 13.8V). so the audison is more powerful and should impact on sub performance if you were to use all the power.

however, if as you suggest you only require 200WRMS per sub, then it may be difficult to justify the added expense for the LRx if you won't use its full potential. in which case, using the audison to operate at up to 400WRMS is unlikely to sound better than the coustic; at least i personally couldn't justify the added cost except for cosmetics, build quality, and maybe street cred.

then again, you're also comparing a class D amp with a class AB. the more efficient amp may better suit your needs, so is another consideration in the complex equation.

if the coustic 801DB were available, then that would make the coustic significantly better value IMO. but i believe it's not available in australia.



[ March 18, 2003, 01:13: Message edited by: shiny_car ]