not that i have compared the 770 and 200s, but ill try to explain it for you. ac power comes from the wall and gets converted into dc power which in turn powers the amps (watered down version). so the idea of mono amps is this: you have one input, one power supply, and one transformer doing one thing: amplifing the input signal and outputting it. the idea of most multichannel amps is this: you have several inputs (all need routing), you have one power supply, and you have a couple of transformers or just one big one (power gets split to each channel). a multichannel amp has to pull more from one outlet (which is not as good as pulling from several, particularly if you have seperate circuits for each) because it only has one ac voltage input. a multichannel amp then has to convert that larger amount into dc and split it to different amp modules (in a good setup like the 770) or possibly split the output at the end. in a multichannel amp you have many things going on at one time, all impacting each other, for example if one amp module is slightly inferior to the others if may need more power than the others and lower the total output of all the other channels. crosstalk between different components inside all doing different things can interfere with the signal and amplification itself. HEAT is more prevalent because of larger components that are needed to supply each channel with power. a one channel amp has it easy, it only has to make power for one amp module so it can have smaller components, it doesnt have any other things going on inside of it other than input, amplification, and output. it is a much smoother stream than having to be ganged together and then split apart where flucuations in any one thing can influence the others.
having said that this is assuming that the mono amp is equal quality to the multichannel. also if one mono amp fails it is easy to replace. the 770 is modular based so it is easier to replace one part of it, but you still are out the whole amp while it is being fixed.
most electronics benefit from a dedicated application and suffer when many things depend on each other. is that enough or would you like more?
which would be stronger/more efficient/better? one engine that could make 100hp at 7000rpm divided to your four wheels or 4 engines that could make 25hp at 1000rpm each powering one wheel only. which would last longer? which would require less gas to run? what happens when one of the 25hp engines fails... you still have 3 others working at 75hp, but if that 100hp fails you are gonna be walking...

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited April 05, 2004).]