This is for Georgehifi especially but others can chime in.

Yes, George raises an excellent question.

Looking at the specs and descriptions of the stereo and mono versions of the Stratos Extreme, though, several things suggest to me that the mono version is not bridged, but instead parallels the two output stages and perhaps some of the other circuitry.

Specs which point to that conclusion include the 8 ohm power rating of the mono version being only slightly higher than the rating of the stereo version (a 4 ohm rating is not provided for either amp); both amps are described as stable into 2 ohms; the output current rating of the mono version is twice as great as for the stereo version (yes, I realize that output current ratings are usually meaningless, in part because how long that current can be supplied for is not defined); damping factor is much greater for the mono version than for the stereo version; input impedance is specified as being the same (22K) for both versions of the amp.

I note also that **both** versions have a statement saying "RCA & XLR (bridged) inputs." Not sure what the reference to bridged XLR inputs means.

In any event, while the sonics of many bridged amps can be expected to be significantly compromised driving the 4 ohm nominal impedance of the Dynaudio C-1 Platinum, this appears to be a different (and presumably better) situation.

Regards,
-- Al
   

Gdhal 1-11-2018
However, I must disagree with the rationale you offer for the removal of said posts. Consider what in my view is compelling evidence to the contrary. Any one of the words - including abbreviated words, acronyms and quotation - used in my post and that of Onhwy61 which could even remotely be viewed as expletive appear in numerous other posts throughout this forum.

Hi Hal,

What I can say is that every single time I have seen what are sometimes referred to as "four-letter words" in a post here, or lengthier words which include those four letters in the same sequence (as was the case in the two posts which were removed from this thread earlier today), the post has subsequently been removed. At least since the present forum format was introduced a few years ago.

While various acronyms and abbreviations which have a relation to those words seem to be allowed to stand, assuming the post has no other issues.

So I believe the suspicion I expressed in my previous post about the reason for the removal of the two earlier posts was correct.

Best regards,
-- Al

Regarding the two posts that were removed, I’m pretty certain that the reason for their removal had nothing to do with the thoughts they were intended to convey, but instead was because the first one contained an expletive, and the second one began by quoting the contents of the first one, including the expletive.

Following are expurgated versions of said posts, derived by utilizing Google’s cache, which I suspect will be acceptable to the moderators:

Onhwy61 1-11-2018
Whenever I hear that one component "KILLS", "DESTROYS" or otherwise "OBLITERATES" another component my BS detector goes off. Am I the only one? Others can chime in.

Gdhal 1-11-2018
No, you’re not the only one. Same here. Once a certain performance level is attained it just isn’t possible for one component to annihilate another. Often times its a matter of preference, not better or worse.

Edit:

But you certainly could find better or worse measurements, technical data and that sort of thing. But measurement data sometimes belies how a component may sound. Also, in this "hobby", the tendency is that the slightest incremental improvement can be hard to come by and pricey at that. So all of those verbs may simply be a variant of irrational exuberance.

BTW, my compliments to Gdhal for what I consider to be apt use at the end of his post of a phrase made famous in the 1990s by former Federal Reserve chairman Greenspan.

Regards,
-- Al