Are Monoblock s worth it?


Would like your collective Wisdom on the subject of Monoblocks. I have a single Odyssey Stratos and the cost to convert to Mono's are not that much additional. However, I do not play my existing system at very high levels and almost never turn the volume beyond half-way (normally around 11:00). Is this an advisable upgrade? I know that I theoretically should have more dynamic headroom, but I do not know how this translates into real world listening.

System:

Maggie SMGa (soon to be Newform R645's in next week or so)
Morrison Elad pre-amp
Cambridge Audio CD500-SE

Musical taste - 50% Classical Symphonic, 30% Classical instrumental and 20% rock/pop
sibelius
Sean, interesting and logical: allow for length where the signal is strongest. The trick then is to keep the same IC & speaker cable and try placing the monos around the stereo's old whereabouts. Not easy, but feasible.
However, isn't there something about low voltage signals meeting w/ less resistance along the conductor? (Pls excuse the imprecise vocab).
I've used a SL RG1 which is similiar to the Strato and currently using SL RG4 monobloc. With monobloc, I do get more power, better imaging, can use shorter speaker cable, etc. But, the biggest improvement though, is that each note just seems to flow more free and easier. It's more apparent when listening to dynamic instruments.

If you can afford it, go for the mono bloc. Otherwise, I would probably replace it with a better stereo amp such as RG1, as it might cost less.
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
>
Thanks for all the great feedback!

As ususal with this forum, an initial question brings out an furthur inquiry.

It seems, from all the above, that 2 AMP's will definately have a beneficial impact. My new question is are there any advantages in going to a vertically BI-AMPed model (using 2 stereo AMP's) instead of just with a dedicated Mono block configuration?

It will cost me the same $'s to do both. The only difference is I would need to send my existing Amp in to be reconfigured for Mono's while I could just order a new Stereo Odyssey to Vertical Biamp.