Five Monoblocks vs. One 5-Channel Amp


So, my quest for the $1,700 HT setup has escalated to the following setup. After listening to a bunch of speakers I chose the Phase Technologies V-12/ V-6/ V-Surround/ HV-1000 combo and the Outlaw 990 Pre-Amp processor.

Yes, I know that I am exceeding my budget by over 100%, but I guess that is just how audio purchases work ;-)

In any case, I am now trying to decide between the Outlaw Model 7500 5-channel Balanced Amplifier ($1,500) or getting 5 individual Model 2200 M-Block Amplifiers ($1,200).

Is there any distinct advantage to getting 5 mono blocks, provided that they will all be sitting in the AV rack and NOT directly besides the respective speaker they will be powering?

Thank you again for your help, I need it ;-)

I believe the Outlaw 200W. monoamp is of an operating class other than AB, that is, it uses 2 powersupplies and switches on the 2nd only when 'needed'. I have read that it sounds not quite as good as a normal Class-AB or especially as a Class-A amp. I'd go for one of the Outlaw multichannel amps.

Any particular reason you chose the balanced-input poweramp? In the opinion of many respected high-end-equipment designers, balanced circuitry is a waste of money. Of course, others disagree. I would AGAIN choose the 200WPC-times-SEVEN amp with RCAs; I believe it's just a little more than the $1500 amp you mention. One never knows when one may 'need' those extra 2 channels. :-)

Be sure to check Outlaw's 'B-stock'; last time I looked, those items were maybe 10% less expensive. I think my 770 was about 15% less, and it looked perfect when it arrived.
Provided the channel separation and power supplies are equivalently good then, as far as the sound goes, it makes really no difference monoblock or 5 channels....
Post removed 
Well, maybe the exactly-$300 for a balanced rather than the RCA-input amp is 'little' to you, but for me it's $300 thrown away. If there were substantial demonstrable benefits to balanced inputs for HOME-audio gear, 90% of high-end gear would have it, not the 10 or 20 or 30% that does. Okin, make your choice and spend as you please, but I know what I'd do. :-)
oh no man,,, you're in trouble now...youve been drawn in by the dark side...I've listened to the 7ch version in a ht set up..Really nice sound...
Go for the monoblocks. They look cooler. ;-)
Thank you all for your input. I guess there is no distinct advantages/ disadvantages to speak of. Since there is more points of failiure, i might just go with the more compact balanced version, rather than the mono-blocks.

And, Hammergjh, try explaining that cool factor thing to my wife..;-)

Thank you again!
Seems like a silly concern, but having just switched from 5 monoblocks to a 5-channel amp, I've noticed that it sure is nice having 4 more outlets than I did before : )
I'm with Hammergjh, .....monoblocs are where it's at.
Go for the monoblocks. No question about it.
Your speaker wires can now be much shorter if you can place the amps beside the speaker.
The balanced runs from your pre can handle longer runs then single ended runs without the hum or interference that rca leads would have.
You will find much better dynamics, seperation, depth etc with mono vs all in one amp.
In my home theater set up I use all monoblocks and I could not be any happier.
Again get the mono block you will be much happier.
I use three M-200's for the main LCR.I use to use B&K ST-140's.I find the M-200's sound great on music and movies.They are smooth and very clear.I think the big difference is the power reserve they have over my 105 watt per channel B&K's.

I am powering DIY mains I built from HT require more power and the M-200's give it up.I built three RS Centers for mains.

After watching Neal Young "Heart of gold" and Keb'Mo' "Sessions at W.54th" I'm convinced to continue my search and find four more for the four surround channels.

Good luck. KG