Page 1 of 1
Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:23 am
by KUBE
Would there be any noticeable difference in sound quality when comparing these different sets ups...
M100 running in normal stereo mode for front passive component speakers.
v
One pair of M50 (each one bridged) to run the same pair of passive component speakers.
ie bridged M50 for left channel, bridged M50 for right channel.
ps
Clearly by using a pair of M50 I would have more power and the option to use 4 channels (if I wanted to go active). But for now assume the question is based upon passive front end sound quality.
Thanks for any input...

Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:37 pm
by Kirghiz
Bridged (read mono) typically doesn't usually have the same frequency response as stereo operation. I'd go with the M100 myself.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:55 pm
by marko
using a pair of amps bridged does give you better channel separation though

M100 is a fine sounding amp though, you would not be disappointed with one of them on your front end!
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:59 pm
by Eric D
The bridged pair would have more distortion, but it is very unlikely it would be enough of a difference for you to actually hear. The additional power would not only allow it to play louder, but with more control over the speakers.
Also, the M50s have no major processing built in, so they would most likely have LESS distortion than the M100 because of this, but I don't have any real facts to back that statement up.
I know that personally I would use the pair of M50s any day over the single M100.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:58 pm
by wheelieking71
I have a TON of real world experience running bridged amps as a stereo pair.
I have done it with:
ADCOM 4402s, and 4302s
SoundStream D200s, D100s, REF300s, and ClassA 3.0s
LUNAR 50x2s
And even the very amps you mention!
As a matter of fact! There is a pair of M50s bridged in my shop right now running full-range on a pair of 6.5" bookshelf speakers.
The M50s powered by an ASTRON RS70 power-supply, walk all over my ADCOM GFA-555. In both power, and sonics.
Here is some very good advice: Try it! You WILL like it!
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:27 pm
by Eric D
wheelieking71 wrote:I have a TON of real world experience running bridged amps as a stereo pair.
I have done it with:
ADCOM 4402s, and 4302s
SoundStream D200s, D100s, REF300s, and ClassA 3.0s
LUNAR 50x2s
And even the very amps you mention!
As a matter of fact! There is a pair of M50s bridged in my shop right now running full-range on a pair of 6.5" bookshelf speakers.
The M50s powered by an ASTRON RS70 power-supply, walk all over my ADCOM GFA-555. In both power, and sonics.
Here is some very good advice: Try it! You WILL like it!
What do you think overall about the ADCOM GFA-555?
I have owned an ADCOM GFA-5400, and an ADCOM GFA-6000, and I did not care for either of them. The 6000 sounded better on its right and left main channels, but both really sounded harsh overall, and I found myself listening to my home stereo less and less with them in it. I replaced the last ADCOM with a Parasound HCA-1000A (still a budget amp by most any measure), and it sounded orders of magnitude better.
Some time this year I hope to have my home setup running off either a PG Outlaw, or a PG Reactor. I don't intend for it to be a permanent setup, but I want to see how much better my speakers might be off a PG amp in a room setup for sound.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:29 am
by wheelieking71
Eric,
I think the 555 is good. Not great. It is an old amp now. I think it was new in 1990 or 91 (I did not buy it new). I feel ADCOM's mobile amps sound magnitudes better than their home stuff.
My first piece of ADCOM home gear was a GTP-400 pre-amp. I thought it was phenomenal. I had an old ACURUS amp at that time (and nice Paradigm speakers). I think the ACURUS was a 100x2. It somehow came up missing during a move.
Since I liked the GTP-400 so much, I bought the 555 to replace the ACURUS. I was pretty disappointed. But, that was 20yrs ago. And I have not bought one single piece of home equipment (other than the receiver in our entertainment center) since then. When I want music at home, it always plays through 12v amps. I am sure there are 120v amps that are sonically far superior! But, I can't afford them. And what fun would that be? I enjoy playing with my silly 12v stuff! I think I own 16 old-school car audio amps. And I have less money in all 16 than the price of admission for one nice McIntosh home amp.
Sorry I didn't really have much pertinent info for your question. But, as big of an ADCOM car-audio fan as I am, not so much their home stuff based on my 555.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:54 am
by zeropoint0.5
i have very good results with using two 2 channel amps, one for left, one for the right...........
if you have all the amps already, just make a test setup and try it out..........
witch passive system do you have ???
you're question would be the same as, is a zx500 in stereo better then a zx450 used as 2 channel,
or what is better, a ms2125 or 2 ms275 one on each channel......
make the setup and listen to the results..........
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:56 am
by marko
I have always been curious about the Adcoms and the hype that comes with them especially the ones with separate power supplies, shame they are out of my league price wise..
out of all the amps I've owned both past and present my favourite sounding ones are still my Soundstream REF 10.0 and Picasso.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:51 am
by Eric D
A Soundstream Class A Picasso stereo bridged to a pair of very nice components is a hard combination to beat. I am not very confident of the long term reliability of those older Soundstream amps though, but they still sound great.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:41 am
by wheelieking71
The ADCOMs really are amazing. But, a little under-powered. That is why I started bridging them in pairs. And I honestly have not found anything better than a bridged pair of 4402s. That includes some really well regarded amps. Like:
BRAX X2000 (more power than I knew what to do with. just a little off in sonics)
Linear Power 2.2HV (meh, big whoopy)
PhoenixGold MS2125, MS275, ZX500 (the ZX was a big surprise! Super dynamic. Just little gritty for me. most excellent on sub-duty though!)
Helix (cant remember the model#)
TRU T03
McIntosh (don't remember the model, but it was a huge let-down, and the easiest amp-sale ever! I later thought there may have been an issue with it, and would like to try another some day)
SoundStream REF500 (several, phenomenal amps. The "S" and "SX" suck), ClassA 3.0s (bridged pairs), ClassA 6.0, D100II's (bridged pairs), and my second favorite amp-stage ever: bridged pair of D200II's.
I always end up back at the ADCOMs.
Re: Bridged v Stereo for SQ
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:58 am
by nutxo
Old eclipse amps bridge very well and sound great to my ears. Most of them are absolute bargains until you get to the big 2 channel and the class D's.
I don't do an RTA or anything but just go on what I like. There have been many I havent liked.