To monoblock or not to monoblock McIntosh MC275's

The answer you don't want to hear is... there's only one way to find out!

I like mono-blocks and since you obviously like one MC275 I suspect you want another.  Am I right? :-)

I think it boils down to whether or not you really want mono's.  There will be an improvement, but probably not massive.  I'd guess 130% sounds about right.

There is nothing wrong with just wanting them for the coolness factor however.

90%
some amps sound worse strapped for mono
i would do same with a 240 but in my vintage system strapped 240 sounded worse
...... but... the only way to really know is do it.
you could of course do a mono test
some excellent mono recordings out there...

Monoblocks are cool in that you can place each amp right behind it’s own speaker, using long balanced interconnects and short speaker cables, the best way to hook things up, feel some people.

Thank you everyone. These are some good tips. However, someone offered me a really good price for the second one and apparently it was a MK V, not a MK IV, so I decided to sell it.

I strapped a pair of MC 275s onto some JBl 250 Pyramids thirty or so years ago. Didn't really help. 

FWIW, there is functionally zero difference between a series IV and a series V MC275.  Certainly not audible, but that's not a concern for you now anyway.

Increasing output by 3 dB (the smallest volume increase the human ear can normally discern) requires a doubling of power.  When bridged for mono, MC275 conservatively makes 150 W regardless of load, but as that translates to only 3 more dB, you likely won't get a big difference in output.

However, going dual monaural gets you essentially infinite channel separation at the amplification stage and more definition across frequency bandwidth.  That means better imaging and no two ways about it.

So, if you find a good condition series IV at a fair price, you can give the dual mono thing a shot to see if you like it.  Good luck & happy listening.

Nope

As a point of information, when the MC275 is operated in mono mode it is not bridged. The two channels are paralleled instead, which is different than bridging. And while I have no knowledge of how its sonics may compare between stereo mode and mono mode, the sonic downside that is commonly associated with bridged operation of an amp is not applicable to it.

Also, I believe that the human ear can potentially discern volume differences on the order of 1 db. I have seen it said by various reviewers over the years that to assure an A/B comparison between two components is valid levels should be matched to a small fraction of a db. And stepped volume controls on well designed preamps typically provide resolutions of considerably less than 3 db over at least most of their range.

Regards,
-- Al

almarg

As a point of information, when the MC275 is operated in mono mode it is not bridged. The two channels are paralleled instead, which is different than bridging ...

That's very interesting and new to me, Al. Thanks for sharing!

Do you know if any amplifier be used in parallel fashion? Are there any downsides to this mode of use?

As an aside, I've never been a fan of bridged operation, and think it's best to just get a more powerful amplifier.

I had two MC275 mk6's. For me their was a substantial improvement in sound quality from playing one in stereo and then trying two as mono's. I found even more improvement when I upgraded all 22 tubes. I compared them also to my MC601 mono's. For me the winning combination was the MC601's. I still have the MC601s. I don't play rock or any music very loud either. I do miss the orange glow of the MC275 mk6's with the LEDs off. The MC275 are beautiful speakers in my eye.

Mono blocks are way cool.  I think you'll enjoy the fact that you have them and whatever additional power overhead they provide.  Running in parallel according to Almarg would appear to a benign move, in terms of SQ.

Cleeds, the vintage Dynaco ST-70 is another amplifier that I recall has provisions for operation with the two channels paralleled. I’d imagine there are others, among tube amps that have output transformers.

It is of course physically possible to parallel the channels of any tube amp having an output transformer, by jumpering the appropriate output taps together and applying the same input to both channels via a y-adapter. I would not want to do that without a specific indication from the manufacturer that it is ok, however. One reason being that if a tube or something else were to cause a failure in one channel while the amp is operating the other channel would be attempting to put out a full power signal while that channel would be attempting to force their paralleled outputs to zero volts. Which of course may be unhealthy unless that possibility is specifically addressed in the design. And for that reason among others paralleling the channels of a solid state amp would be out of the question in nearly all cases, since the near zero output impedance of nearly all solid state amps would not provide any limiting of the resulting current flow. On the other hand, though, solid state amps can of course be designed such that they can be bridged.

As Tomcy6 noted earlier in the thread, paralleling the channels results in the load impedance that is nominally optimal for each output tap being cut in half, relative to stereo operation. The MC275 and ST-70 provide 16 ohm taps, so using those taps in parallel would presumably result in an optimal match for an 8 ohm speaker. But if an amp only provides 4 and 8 ohm taps, parallel operation would in effect only provide 2 and 4 ohm taps.

As can be seen in the specs for the MC275 parallel operation will double an amp’s rated power capability. While if a bridged amp is designed with sufficient robustness, in terms of its current capability and thermal management, it can potentially/theoretically result in the rated power capability increasing by as much as a factor of 4, since the output voltage provided across a load by a bridged amp would be doubled (relative to stereo operation) if the correspondingly increased current can be provided and sustained. (For a given load resistance power is proportional to the square of voltage, as you no doubt realize). As a practical matter, though, the increase in the power capability of an amp operated in bridged mode often falls significantly short of that factor of 4.

With respect to the sound quality of an amp operated with the channels paralleled, I’d imagine that a significant factor would be how closely the characteristics of the two channels match. Although I have no particular feel for how critical differences between channels that are typically encountered would tend to be.

Best regards,
-- Al

^^^^^^^^ Al, thanks so much for this clear explanation. Of course, I expect nothing less from you! But, neither do I take it for granted.

It does sound like the two channels of a stereo amplifier must be very closely matched for parallel operation to work well. Because we’re talking about tube amps, I wonder how practical that really is.

What's really odd about this is that, many moons ago, I had a Dynaco ST-70, but never knew it could do this. It's always nice to learn something new.

Thanks very much for the nice words, Cleeds. Regarding ...

It does sound like the two channels of a stereo amplifier must be very closely matched for parallel operation to work well. Because we’re talking about tube amps, I wonder how practical that really is.

... I suspect that in the particular case of the MC275 a factor that helps it avoid or minimize any sonic degradation when operated in parallel mono mode is that like many McIntosh amps it apparently uses a substantial amount of feedback. One indication of its liberal use of feedback being its specified damping factor (">22" for the Mk VI version), which is quite high for a tube amp.

In general, feedback will reduce the degree to which the behavior of an amplification channel is affected by variations in tube parameters, or variations in other circuit elements for that matter.

Best regards,
-- Al

@almarg :  Thanks for your input; always expert and most welcome.  For reference on SPL sensitivity, you may wish to see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/db.html#c4 where

"JND in Sound Intensity

A useful general reference is that the just noticeable difference in sound intensity for the human ear is about 1 decibel.

JND = 1 decibel
In fact, the use of the factor of 10 in the definition of the decibel is to create a unit which is about the least detectable change in sound intensity.

That having been established, it can be noted that there are some variations. The jnd is about 1 dB for soft sounds around 30-40 dB at low and midrange freqencies. It may drop to 1/3 to 1/2 a decibel for loud sounds.

Caution must be used in applying the "one decibel" criterion. It presumes that you are increasing the same sound by one decibel. If you were adding a sound outside the critical band of frequency from this sound, you would be exciting fresh nerve endings, and the one decibel rule can't be presumed to apply. This causes some concern about the perceptual encoding schemes used with modern digital recording which might eliminate some significant audible content by the use of a "one decibel" criterion for dropping content."

And http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/db.html#c5, where 

"Variations in Difference Threshold

[Note:  graph can't be pasted here; see link]

The above data are from Backus, suggesting that the JND in dB is less for more intense sounds. He is citing Harvey Fletcher's "Speech and Hearing in Communication"(1953),p146, as the actual data source. But you can do a test for yourself of pairs of tones that are stated to be 2dB different at the McGraw-Hill site. This site discusses "Weber's law", which states just the opposite of the implication of the above curves."

Academia hasn't reached a consensus on the point and I haven't tested the McGraw-Hill applet yet myself to see where I might fall on the scale.  Since music has far more tonal complexity than the scientific examples referenced, it's difficult to state what true JND might be for a given source material.  1 dB is correct for a single tone in a comparatively quiet environment and may well not be under other circumstances.

I can't recall now where the 3 dB value I noted above was cited, but I believe it may well have been based on Fechner's "Elements of Psychophysics" (quick reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_threshold_of_hearing) and the application of individual subject testing statistical analyses to it.  Possibly a mean or median with a tight standard deviation?  My coursework on it all was a long time ago.  It sure was bandied about with confidence at the audio store I worked at (Accoustat, Ariston, DCM, Dynavector, Hafler, H-K, RGR, Rogers, SME were the higher end lines during my time there).

Regardless and getting back to the matter at hand, a pair of MC275s in mono will certainly improve image and definition notably.  SPL output perhaps not so much.  And as you go on to note, any 2 amps rigged for mono would have to be similar enough in amplification characteristics to be transparent L to R, which is less of an issue with the 275 (due to feedback) provided the tubes are relatively uniform in performance across both units.  Stereophile's review of the V (Kaplan) notes that there is only one difference between it and the IV (reviewed by Tellig):  Binding posts versus terminals.  Depending on the spade size selected, that might or might not be an issue.  Either way, it's not an issue for the OP as he's already sold his IV.  

I still feel the OP could give two 275s a shot if he likes the sound of the 275.  It's a nice amp regardless of generation and since he has the luxury of being able to wait until a good value on a series V pops up, two could be just the ticket for him.  That's the fun part of this hobby - fooling around with configurations for happy listening!

Thanks again for the expert and valuable input.

Yeah, I should have tried it on my system, and I was a bit silly not to even open the box because I wanted to keep its value. It's a McIntosh. It doesn't matter!
Luck has it that I may be able to get another MK IV and put an end to this and see for myself if it makes a difference. 
My XRT 28's are rate 1200 watts and sound great and pretty loud with only 75 WPC from a single MC275.
I'll post my impression if I get to test another MK IV. (or 5)

Effischer, thanks very much for the nice words, informative references, and good comments.  Interestingly, I took the "Weber's Law" test four times, using four different settings of the volume control on the computer.  On the low volume trials within each test my answers were MUCH better (averaging 85% correct) than on the high volume trials (averaging 30% correct).  So between the two conflicting references that are cited at the second link you provided, my results would indicate that the Weber's Law reference is the correct one.

Thanks again.  Best regards,
-- Al
 

Wondering if anyone has tried MC275’s in mono mode recently or general impressions of MC275’s in stereo mode?  Is the tube sound favorably compared to Primaluna 6 mono, 7 mono or evo series?

thanks

i've read the magazine 'stereo review' since the early 70's to their retirement. julian hersh said to increase volume by 3 decibals you need to triple your power. who is right here??

@g_nakamoto, for a given load impedance the ratio of two power levels is expressed in db by the following formula:

db = 10 x log(P1/P2)

where "log" is the base-10 logarithm.

From that it can be calculated that a 3 db increase corresponds to a doubling (not tripling) of power. Or more precisely, a doubling of power corresponds to an increase of 3.0103 db, which is usually rounded off to 3 db.

And a 3 db increase in the amount of power delivered to a speaker will result in a 3 db increase in the volume that is produced by that speaker, at a given distance, assuming that the speaker is not being driven so hard that "thermal compression" or other factors cause its behavior to become significantly non-linear.

Mr. Hirsch might also have referred at times to a commonly stated rule of thumb guideline that a **subjective** perception of "twice as loud" requires ten times as much power, which is an increase of 10 db.

I have no idea why or if he might have referred to a tripling of power.

Regards,
-- Al

My experience using the MC275 as monoblocks was that it was a little louder and a little more dynamic, but for my personal taste it wasn't worth it. While I love the tube sound, I use my system for hours at a time daily and I decided to go with SS. MC601's give my speakers a ton of power that fits more with mostly rock music that I listen too. Jazz was dreamy with the MC275 but I listen to it about 5%-10% of the time.

As for your original question about the benefits of mono blocs vs. stereo...
I found the advantages were precisely what I had hoped for... in fact they were even better than I had imagined they could be:
My experience with both tubed and SS mono blocs ( independently auditioned) was that monos consistently delivered a broader, deeper soundstage and within that stage were more tangibly located 3 dimensional performers/ instruments and the billowing sense of air and space around them. In other words... a far more realistic presentation and a pronounced step ahead in the holy grail we’re chasing: believability.
I have found this consistent with each and every brand of mono bloc amplifiers I have used including SS by Krell and Pass as well as tube amps by Conrad Johnson, VTL, and Tube Research Labs.
I find it hard to believe that “YMMV” (“Your Mileage May Vary” LOL) because the exact mentioned results have been so consistent across the board. 
Needless to say I highly recommend mono blocs whenever attainable based on my decades of experience comparing them with single stereo amplifiers. 
Happy Lissn’n