speakerfritz
Well-Known Member
I'm interested in the results from folks who have mono blocked their MC-2000 or MC-2102 using a bridge mode approach (not the parallel wired out put transformer approach).
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Mono blocking the MC-2000 vs MC-2102
- Thread starter speakerfritz
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
howiebrou
Super Member
So am I! Ryan???
Shane
Active Member
I have brigded my MC2102's before. You get a livelier more forward presentation ( I call brighter) but the bass is not as controlled or as deep.
parallel is better with any speakers that have low impedance somewhere in the bass region.
cheers
speakerfritz
Well-Known Member
"" You get a livelier more forward presentation ( I call brighter) but the bass is not as controlled or as deep.""
"" parallel is better with any speakers that have low impedance somewhere in the bass region. ""
Interesting on the brighter. I also read that there could be less dampening factor which may have something to do with the bass.
I spent some time today reading up on rationale of parallel vs traditional bridging. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. For lower impedance loads parallel is the solution. for high impedance loads bridged is. Below is a summary of what I got out of my reading today.
Normal Configured for stereo, it can power 2, 4, or 8-ohm loads.
In parallel mono configuration it pushes 1,2,or 4-ohm loads
In bridged mono device it drives 4, 8, or 16-ohm loads.
"" parallel is better with any speakers that have low impedance somewhere in the bass region. ""
Interesting on the brighter. I also read that there could be less dampening factor which may have something to do with the bass.
I spent some time today reading up on rationale of parallel vs traditional bridging. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. For lower impedance loads parallel is the solution. for high impedance loads bridged is. Below is a summary of what I got out of my reading today.
Normal Configured for stereo, it can power 2, 4, or 8-ohm loads.
In parallel mono configuration it pushes 1,2,or 4-ohm loads
In bridged mono device it drives 4, 8, or 16-ohm loads.
AudioClassics1
Super Member
Funny you mention that....I am setting up a pair in mono for a customer right now:thmbsp:
When the unit is set up in mono, it is in bridged mode. I just bench tested this and it is doing over 280 watts in mono!
I have listened to both the MC2102's and the MC2000's in mono. Both are great! The MC2000's have more attack and punch compared to the MC2102's. But understand...this is not saying that the MC2102's are bad...we are comparing two of the best sounding tube amps in my opinion. Bass response seems more intense as well.
When the unit is set up in mono, it is in bridged mode. I just bench tested this and it is doing over 280 watts in mono!
I have listened to both the MC2102's and the MC2000's in mono. Both are great! The MC2000's have more attack and punch compared to the MC2102's. But understand...this is not saying that the MC2102's are bad...we are comparing two of the best sounding tube amps in my opinion. Bass response seems more intense as well.
AudioClassics1
Super Member
We are using the B&W 802D's
speakerfritz
Well-Known Member
The MC-2102 has switches to enable either mon bridged or mono parallel, the MC-2000 does not....only way of bridging the MC-2000 is by using a crossover XLR cable on one of the channels along with a normal XLR cable on the other channel....any warranty implications for bridging the MC-2000.
dle_apowers
New Member
I, too, have tried running two 2102's in mono-mode - both in bridged and in parallel.
In my listening room and with the speakers that I was using at the time (Infinity IRS Sigma's), there was no noticeable differences between the two mono modes.
Technically, more sensitivity (twice the voltage swing for the same load) in bridge mode or more driving capability (twice the output current for the same load) in parallel mode.
I also did run the two amp's in full stereo mode, where I fed the lower and upper sections of the speakers separately with the L & R channels of each amplifier. Bass control is slightly better, but not too much (or a huge) of an improvement either.
After all, the damping factor is typical of tube output stages. Thus, the 2102's are not suitable for the big Sigma's. I sold one and keep one to run the upper sections, and haven't looked back... A moderately priced Yamaha MX-2000 amp handles the bass details and it blew away many other amps that I have owned.
Then, I went to a setup with the IRS Epsilon... Oh yeah! Nice, fast, low, and clean bass!!!
Happy listening!
In my listening room and with the speakers that I was using at the time (Infinity IRS Sigma's), there was no noticeable differences between the two mono modes.
Technically, more sensitivity (twice the voltage swing for the same load) in bridge mode or more driving capability (twice the output current for the same load) in parallel mode.
I also did run the two amp's in full stereo mode, where I fed the lower and upper sections of the speakers separately with the L & R channels of each amplifier. Bass control is slightly better, but not too much (or a huge) of an improvement either.
After all, the damping factor is typical of tube output stages. Thus, the 2102's are not suitable for the big Sigma's. I sold one and keep one to run the upper sections, and haven't looked back... A moderately priced Yamaha MX-2000 amp handles the bass details and it blew away many other amps that I have owned.
Then, I went to a setup with the IRS Epsilon... Oh yeah! Nice, fast, low, and clean bass!!!
Happy listening!
speakerfritz
Well-Known Member
I located a second MC-2000 so in a few weeks, I'll be able to do a side by side compare.
Stereopal
Rick@Stereopal.com
My experience with Bridged vs Parallel config, on the MC2102 are the same as Shane's findings. I have 4 ohm power hungry speakers (Dynaudio Temptations).
W9TR
Super Member
Mc2102
I am running two MC2102's as monoblocks driving Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Grands. I have listened extensively to both parallel and bridged configurations over the last six months. The differnece is telling.
In bridge mode, the midrange is much clearer than in parallel mode. The image depth and height are better. Female vocals tend to sound better. Overall the sound is cleaner while maintaining detail - not an artificial smoothness. The bass may be slightly attenuated, but I can't tell if this is an artifact of the better midrange or if there is a slight attenuation.
In Parallel mode, the amps sound like a single 2102 in stereo. They do play louder and slightly cleaner than a single stereo 2102. The bass seems slightly better in terms of definition and extension. But overall there is not much difference.
So there is a bit of magic uncovered by running these amps bridged. I don't know the technical rationale for this, maybe some distortion cancellation or something, but the difference is substantial.
I am cheating a bit in that I have added ACI Sub-1's driven by a solid state amp and equalized with a BFD to augment only the lowest octave. I run the Beethoven's full range. From this I get the best of both worlds - great bass and a fantastic top end.
I am running two MC2102's as monoblocks driving Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Grands. I have listened extensively to both parallel and bridged configurations over the last six months. The differnece is telling.
In bridge mode, the midrange is much clearer than in parallel mode. The image depth and height are better. Female vocals tend to sound better. Overall the sound is cleaner while maintaining detail - not an artificial smoothness. The bass may be slightly attenuated, but I can't tell if this is an artifact of the better midrange or if there is a slight attenuation.
In Parallel mode, the amps sound like a single 2102 in stereo. They do play louder and slightly cleaner than a single stereo 2102. The bass seems slightly better in terms of definition and extension. But overall there is not much difference.
So there is a bit of magic uncovered by running these amps bridged. I don't know the technical rationale for this, maybe some distortion cancellation or something, but the difference is substantial.
I am cheating a bit in that I have added ACI Sub-1's driven by a solid state amp and equalized with a BFD to augment only the lowest octave. I run the Beethoven's full range. From this I get the best of both worlds - great bass and a fantastic top end.
Attachments
Can you judge the best available mono configuration without taking the speakers into consideration? Ralph Karsten, of Atma-Sphere's consistent refrain is the inferiority of speakers less than 8 ohms when driven by tube gear. The reason, as he sees it, is the poor quality of the 4 ohm tap of the output transformers. I'd like to point out that his designs are OTL (output transformer less) :scratch2:, but he seems quite sincere and usually does not shill for his designs. Anyway this made me wonder if the parallel config., which uses the 8 ohm tap (full transformer winding) for 4 ohm speaker loads, could be the reason some i.e. Shane and Stereopal have found that mode to work so well, better even than you have a right to expect by just doubling the power? 
twiiii
Lunatic Member
When I hear that there has been a change in the sound quality when going from the Stereo to mono configuration, then there is something wrong. Whether it sounds better to the listener or not. I used to run 240's, 275's 225's in both bridged and parallel and there was no difference in quality be they driving 8ohm Bozaks, 16 ohm EV or Altecs or 4 ohm AR's. Now I know tube amps don't like driving speakers with great impedance swings or dips and this could be an issue. But if your sure this is not an issue; then, if you are hearing a truly different tonal perspective then I have to say there is something wrong in Mudville. Is it possible you are changing the level of sound which might trigger something in your hearing or non linearities in the speakers? I know some speakers when they reach a certain plateau can shift the presentation, usually being drier? Is this what you are hearing? Even when I use to reconfigure SS amps like 2255's, 7200, 7300, 2500 and 2600. I never heard a tonal difference. Even old 2300's never changed going from stereo to mono. Time to get out the test equipment.
W9TR
Super Member
There are technically valid reasons why bridged mono in the 2102 sounds different (better) than stereo or the parallel mono configuration. When you operate the 2102 in bridged mode, two identical amplifiers are supplied the same input signal and run out of phase with each other. In this configuration all the odd order non-linearities are cancelled, leaving only the more psychoacoustically pleasant even order distortion. Also, since the signal voltsge is correlated and the noise is not, the effective snr is increased by 3 dB. This is an embodiment of the core principles of the quad balanced tube topology McIntosh uses in the MC 2301.
I have owned the 2102 and 2301, and the 2102 running mono bridged is very close to the 2301. It is a different (better) amp than when run in stereo or parallel mono.
Tom
I have owned the 2102 and 2301, and the 2102 running mono bridged is very close to the 2301. It is a different (better) amp than when run in stereo or parallel mono.
Tom
damacman
Resident Psycho
Tom, it really is hard to argue with this. I have found the very same thing with my MC2600s bridged when using the balanced inputs.
Well said.
