i have found that in audio many people talk in terms that are too technical and lack value for the normal consumer. so i ALWAYS try to explain things in a way that a normal person (not audio enthusiast) can understand, if that is a crime then so be it. without having used the 200s or 770 in a comparison, both of us are just giving opinions. if you asked 500 people who knew what they were talking about, whether they though mono amps per channel or a multichannel amp was better, i bet 450 of them AT LEAST would say monos. now that does not mean that EVERY multichannel amp would be inferior, and perhaps the 770 is not (it seems pretty stout from what i can find about it and from people's comments), but if i had to purchase 7 200s or 1 770 i would buy the 200s.
you shouldnt assume that people place their mono amps stacked in a rack on top of each other, one of the benefits (i have failed to mention) is that you can put a mono amp very close to your speaker (utilizing a longer ic run and a short speaker wire run). surely you can acknowledge that having a longer ic is more desirable than a longer speaker cable for obvious reasons. here is one thing that amuses me about people: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PRODUCT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT PRODUCT WOULD BE PERFECT FOR EVERYONE; some people realize this and others dont. i am kind of surprised that the outlaws didnt make the m200s decisively better than the 770, because when you look at other companies you see that most of them have superior mono amps, but sell multichannel amps as a more cost effective solution. i do like the 770s modular design and im sure it or either the m200s would be superb. if i had my choice in any situation i would pick monos every time (all things being equal).