Are Monoblock s worth it?

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
>

The only time "reduced" signal levels are "better" than high signal levels in terms of conductivity is when the wire has reached a point of saturation. At this point, the wire can't pass enough current and a voltage drop occurs. Otherwise, higher signal levels would always be more desirable. This is the "simple & understandable" version.

Think about our signal using this approach. The more signal that you have, the more that you can afford to "lose along the way". Since the vast majority of the "big" signal still makes it through unhampered, the results will be less noticeable.

On the other hand, if we have only a small amount of signal and some of that is "lost" for one reason or another, the results would be far more noticeable. This would be due to the fact that we had little ( if any ) to spare to begin with.

The same analogy can be followed all the way through the audio chain. If the source component does not reveal ALL of the recording to begin with, the other components CAN'T make up for it. They can only contribute their own losses or colourations to the signal. BUT, if the source does reveal everything, the BEST that the other components could do would be to preserve that same signal and amplify it. Since we WILL have signal degradation due to line loss and impedance mismatches coming out of any source component, it is best to preserve the "precious" low level signal as best possible and then take the losses once it is at a level of abundance coming out of the amplifier. Make sense ??? Sean
>