Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Mar 13, 2012 15:34:55 GMT -5
Hi all, So, I keep hearing that seven channel amps are desired...hmmm. We've had them before, but they were always soft sellers. Have things changed? If you needed a seven channel amp from Emotiva, what would be important to you... Power - Seven x ?? Balanced inputs ?? Cost - what price point is desired... be realistic!! Is class of operation important as long as it sounds great?? The only Emotiva 7-channel amp I knew, was the UPA-7. The others were before my "born again as an Emotifan" days... Thing with the UPA-7 was that it had by no means the appeal of the XPA-5, even if the price was similar. For people on a tight budget looking for power to release some weight of their mid-price AVR, the XPA-3 was/is a good buy. Not that many people have a pre-pro but got an AVR, so not all channels have to got an external amp. I know there are valid technical reasons why a XPA-7 is not possible, but something like that would be attractive. 7 x 250 Watts in a next-gen XPA series perhaps? A little, more affordable brother to the XPR-series, maybe a 1.8 to 2 KVA transformer (the XPA's use a 1.2 KVA, the XPR are 3 KVA) and only 4RU height, same as current XPA. XLR inputs: yes sir! Price: $1,250? For myself: I am biased towards an 11.2 set-up with DIY speakers in a HT. I got the subs made. The other speakers will be big, but very efficient @ 95dB/Watt (except the custom center which will be more like 90 dB). The Height and back surrounds are more normal designs, two-ways hanging from the ceiling. Here's the "normal" floor-stander, which I will use for Surround L/R and Width L/R, the main L/R are larger still (DTQWT-12) www.troelsgravesen.dk/JA8008_DTQWT.htmI calculated that 125 Watt/ch would be enough, but I'd like 200 Watt. The center could use 500 Watt. This means that with the current line-up from Emotiva, I would need: 1*XPA-5 for left side: main+height+width+surround+back surround 1*XPA-1 for center 1*XPA-5 for right side (ditto as left) Too bad you don't provide a pre-pro for that... And as you see in all honesty, a 7-channel amp would not help a lot (even if that way 7+2+2 ch amps combo is also appealing) I attached my own drawing of Troels Gravesen design of the DTQWT-12 One more thing! The axing of the XPR-7 was ofcourse very disappointing Be honoust, a pure marketing decision of you in favour of that other brand, not?
|
|
GS
Minor Hero
Posts: 33
|
Post by GS on Mar 13, 2012 15:46:28 GMT -5
Hi Dan, What do we have:UPA-1, XPA 1/2/3/5 and coming - XPR 1/2/5(high power) What we miss:(Cost effective) High power front(3 ch) in com-bi with low power 4 ch. (Flexible) Bridgeable amp 7ch. even to double F/R double power (Space-saving) (not everyone has space for example. 2 pairs of 8" amps) - Multichannel (4 or 5) in small format: 4"H - Mono blocks W 8,5" So Dan in my humble opinion: make it Really Additional and cost effective and Space limited Jerry
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Mar 13, 2012 15:57:32 GMT -5
Ditto for me as well. I enjoy my UPA-7 immensely and have no desire to part with it. To me it was a headscratcher as to why it didn't sell better than what it did. I think that many AVR owners looked at the specs for their AVR and the UPA-7 specs and decided there wasn't enough of a power increase to make buying the UPA-7 worthwhile. Too bad the AVR manufacturers aren't more honest with their published specs. The UPA-7 is clearly more powerful than any 7 channel AVR made - but the AVR specs muddy their figures. The UPA-7 delivers 125wpc all channels driven. Every AVR spec I've read shows either a single channel or at best 2 channels driven to achieve full power. Correct, a good proof for this is Yamaha: they made an AVR that I don't doubt it could do the provide figures (140 W/ch): the ZR-11 or what's it called. It weight was double that of the more affordable AVR's they sell, yet the power of the lesser siblings is also supposed to be 130/140 Watt/ch... Yeah right! Mind you, the price was something like 5K... Note that I absolutely love the bullet-proof way my RX-V2700 does it's job day in day out since 5 years No other device in my household is so free of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by eric84405 on Mar 13, 2012 16:04:54 GMT -5
Dan, Piggybacking off of what weird23 stated, I think a 7-channel bridgeable amp that is configurable to 5, 4, 3, 2 or channels would be great as you could bridge channels (hopefully with the flip of a switch) for more power if you werent using all 7 channels. This would be another Emotiva amp I would definitely add to my stable as I don't see an amp like that become obsolete. Eric
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Mar 13, 2012 16:31:20 GMT -5
This thread is so funny. Thats what you get when you ask a question here, 50 different answers and some of the answers aren't really even to the question asked :-)
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Mar 13, 2012 16:38:19 GMT -5
This thread is so funny. Thats what you get when you ask a question here, 50 different answers and some of the answers aren't really even to the question asked :-) And I'm not so sure it will help Dan either. Dave.
|
|
|
Post by ausman on Mar 13, 2012 16:41:28 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong though unlike the upa-7 which was targeted the avr market..
unless you're pricing on a xpa-2/5 combo I doubt i would go 7 channel looking at all given excess cost of shipping..
I'm of the opinion if you're going to level match the impedence and wattage you becoming complacent in releasing an amp that is no better than what you see out of a a common avr setup..
yes i like a 2channel setup as much as the next guy though I wouldn't be buying something like usp-1 to handle that option with either a upa/xpa-2 or 2x xpa-1's.. as exampe..
for 7-channel I prefer to go the route of a 1 amp instead of 2..
I like the choice of bi-amp though not really a necessity im my opinion..
what ever you decide to do lonnie 1 thing i would like to see is support for 3,2 and 1 ohms ratings having this option in more important than anyhting that has been discussed as some speaker we use within our system will dip into and under 3 ohms this should be catered for..
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Mar 13, 2012 17:04:52 GMT -5
The UPA-7 (125 wpc) was a great amp that did not sell well. Why? If you are stopped at 5.1 surround system, and even has a separate stereo set up, then it was not for you. With either use, you are going to have 2 or 5 channels idling, just dissipating heat. You are best getting separate 2 & 5 channels amps. But why should your decision be good for everybody else?
Weight I don't think is legitimate issue. Many who make this complaint don't do the same about their floor standing speakers whether it is shipping or lifting. Source material is also another non-argument. There are quite a few 7.1 discrete movies, and even with 2.0 or 5.1 material, applying DPLIIx or DTS: Neo6 takes care of that. When last have anyone seen a current 5.1 AVR or pre/pro? Why not make the XMC-1 a 5.2 processor? The relatively few "audiophiles" who see 7.1 as unnecessary, cannot support volume production of any component. Emo has too think beyond just those on the forum to have a successful sale.
The reason I believe that the UPA-7 did not sell much is a perception issue. It seemed that the intent was for it to replace the anemic power section of AVRs. But for the uninitiated, on the surface it seemed not to have more power than most mid-fi Receivers. What would be the purpose for buying a 125 wpc amp to replace a 100 - 120wpc Receiver?
Therefore, for it to have the intended appeal, it had to boast much more power than the high-end Receivers which apparently range from 120 wpc - 150 wpc. It MUST provide the "apparent" capability of achieving high end results when combined with a modest receiver. 200wpc (Carver) seemed to be the limit for Receivers. Therefore, that needs to be the starting point for any 7 channel amp intended to replace the Receiver.
I use a UPA-7 in my theater with relatively sensitive book shelf speakers and the UPA-2 in a separate 2.1 rig. Do I "need" more power? No. But I never buy just what I need. I "want" powerful amps and powerful subs. Do I need 4 subs? Do I need a 330 BHP car to drive on the exceedingly flat roads in S. Florida? the idea that we should just buy what we need is an ideal. Not reality.
The modular design, the staggered output (more powerful RCL channels than the surrounds) or even sectional power (2) (5), are all great suggestions. But not having a powerful 7 channel amp in their line up, IMHO, is a serious mistake / oversight by Emo. My additional $0.02
|
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Mar 13, 2012 17:32:44 GMT -5
I see a lot of people saying that there is not much source material available for 7 channels currently. That doesn't seem to stop people from having 7 channels of amplifier power. There are quite a few out there that have the XPA-2 and XPA-5 combo or something else to give them more channels. I also continue to see people posting about 9 or 11 channel setups.
As far as the XPA-2/5 combo being poplular, I agree that it is the best way to go for 7 channels for various reasons, but I do believe that some bought this combo because it was the only way to get 7 channels with this amount of power. Not everyone will have the space for 2 amps and I am sure that some would have preferred a single amp if one was available.
For most the LPA-1 or UPA-7 would be a sufficient amp, but the X series continues to be a top seller. It seems like people buy power because they can. Bringing back something like the IPS is an interesting idea. I assume that it would be at a higher cost than something like an XPA-7. If people are willing to shell out the cash, it was a very well reviewed amp.
|
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Mar 13, 2012 17:35:44 GMT -5
Jamrock, you make a very good point about being a replacement for AVR's. While it is a great replacement for the amps in an AVR, people just see the numbers and figure there is no improvement. I think the bottom line is that there has to be a power increase in order for a 7 channel amp to become worth looking into and a good seller.
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Mar 13, 2012 17:54:49 GMT -5
Not sure i would need a 7 channel amp since your UPA-1 are just so great. But thinking of a one box cinema amp, I would definitely ask for for something like Rotel offers with ice power amps looking at around 250 Watts per channels. I think at 1000$ this would come to be very competitive. Also another criteria would be weight and standby power consumption. Think green!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,356
|
Post by DYohn on Mar 13, 2012 18:02:37 GMT -5
I think if the UPA-7 had been priced at $2500 or so and had a nicer finish on the front, and perhaps had balanced inputs, it would have sold considerably more units. Several friends of mine heard it, liked it, then asked what it cost and scoffed that it could be any good at that price. Audiosnobs, of course, but none the less... I told one of my "high end" friends that I paid $6500 for it and he said, "Wow, not bad for that clean sound quality and presence."
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Mar 13, 2012 18:07:24 GMT -5
When it comes to 'power' amps, they must have POWER. Even on this forum where many are supposed to be knowledgeable about things electronics, how many times do you see posts alleging that the more powerful amp 'sounds better' or make their speakers sound better? The joke is; their speakers come no where close to posing a reasonable challenge to the power output of the 300 wpc XPA-2, but they hear huge differences once they get that 500 wpc XPA-1 mono block. Power in amps, is a performance perception. The more, the better!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 18:08:18 GMT -5
Emo need a class D multi-channel amp. For the life of me I can understand why they don't use the nice ice modules and offer it in a nice case. They could make any sized amp from 1-7 channels noon prob.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,356
|
Post by DYohn on Mar 13, 2012 18:29:52 GMT -5
Emo need a class D multi-channel amp. For the life of me I can understand why they don't use the nice ice modules and offer it in a nice case. They could make any sized amp from 1-7 channels noon prob. Cost. Their volume would not likely be sufficient to drive ICE module prices down. There are other options, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 18:43:36 GMT -5
True but if they offered it in their pro line, I think it would do well. Ice module sales are up 500% over what they were 2 years ago. They gotta get in and get a slice of that cake!! lol
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,356
|
Post by DYohn on Mar 13, 2012 19:09:23 GMT -5
Last time I checked 400-watt ICE modules were running about $250 per channel. Then there's the power supply and soft start module costs, chassis, connectors, wire, labor, overhead... by the time you put together a 7-channel ICE amp using the modules they sell to the public you're up there a bit in total cost. Then double that or more to set sales price. Many companies use 6X cost to set their sales price. At least at that kind of price point the audiophools will think the amp worthy of their consideration.
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Mar 13, 2012 19:13:10 GMT -5
I think if the UPA-7 had been priced at $2500 or so and had a nicer finish on the front, and perhaps had balanced inputs, it would have sold considerably more units. Several friends of mine heard it, liked it, then asked what it cost and scoffed that it could be any good at that price. Audiosnobs, of course, but none the less... I told one of my "high end" friends that I paid $6500 for it and he said, "Wow, not bad for that clean sound quality and presence." Amazing how good a high $ amp sounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 19:54:39 GMT -5
Last time I checked 400-watt ICE modules were running about $250 per channel. Then there's the power supply and soft start module costs, chassis, connectors, wire, labor, overhead... by the time you put together a 7-channel ICE amp using the modules they sell to the public you're up there a bit in total cost. Then double that or more to set sales price. Many companies use 6X cost to set their sales price. At least at that kind of price point the audiophools will think the amp worthy of their consideration. No way. I can get the 1000asp modules for $250, the 500asp for $180 and the new asx2 for $185 and thats locally in Canada. No telling what a big company can get them for. The modules have their own power supply on board. Nothing more to do than a few connections. the soft start and everything else is already on the modules. You literally take the module, put in in a case and you're done. They are very turn key. The DIY kits on audiogon and ebay go for around $600 for 2 x asx2's and cases. I can get the exact same kit for $490 locally ( I have 1 on the way for my upstairs gear) Yes the amp will be more expensive than anything they currently offer but at the end of the day, there WAY more people buying more expensive gear than Emo stuff. If they could edge out Wyred4sound or D-sonic, they would have a sure fire winner. Most of the class D guys understand that as long as it's ICE, you can put money on the fact that it will sound great. They could also use any number of class D designs. It's just ICE is the most known of the class D stuff. Bash would also be well know for sub duty. IMO, It would kill them to offer something
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,356
|
Post by DYohn on Mar 13, 2012 19:58:39 GMT -5
Those prices are not for genuine B&O ICE modules, are they? More likely for some class-d knock-offs?
|
|