Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 22:39:14 GMT -5
I am currently considering the W4S 7 channel - 3-500watt and 4-250 watt. Having an XPA-3 at 200 watts, I want a serious power upgrade for the front 3 channels and the XPA-2 while a great amp is not enough to meet my desires. I favor a slot configurable amp with 2 or 3 power options. As to a 7x140 watt amp, other than to enthusiasts here, I don't think it will sell well to the general public as so many consumer receivers have that "claimed" power rating. I went through the same thing. I sold my xpa-2 and bought 2 red dragon 1000 watt monos. I've now bought a D-sonic 7 x 500 modules. I figured that it's way cheaper to get all 500 watt modules now then to possible have to upgrade later. I was looking at Wyred4sound but one I found out the D-sonic and wyred are made by the same company, I save the $1000 and went with D-sonic. I've heard both and there is no difference in sound that I could hear. They are both just ICE ASP modules but wyred has some other stuff they claim makes it sound better but I dunno, not to me it didn't. The D-sonic sound the same as my red dragons too.
|
|
|
Post by RightinLA on Mar 13, 2012 22:55:13 GMT -5
I am currently considering the W4S 7 channel - 3-500watt and 4-250 watt. Having an XPA-3 at 200 watts, I want a serious power upgrade for the front 3 channels and the XPA-2 while a great amp is not enough to meet my desires. I favor a slot configurable amp with 2 or 3 power options. As to a 7x140 watt amp, other than to enthusiasts here, I don't think it will sell well to the general public as so many consumer receivers have that "claimed" power rating. I have the same consideration and agree with all those who are advocating modular digital amps whose outputs can be easily tailored to the user's requirements. In the new few years, I will definitely be moving to the more efficient and excellent performing digital amps. I hope Emotiva will be there as they were in the past with very competitive pricing.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Mar 14, 2012 0:30:26 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?? If you would be so kind to let me now your thoughts, I'd really appreciate it. Try to be serious! Thanks, Big Dan 7x140. No A 7 module system with different spec'ed module's for different needs. that was assembled to order. In a heartbeat if I needed one. The expandability and upgradability would suck us all into buying more power a module at a time. ;D
|
|
|
Post by autocrat on Mar 14, 2012 0:43:31 GMT -5
In my experience I have yet to hear an AVR meet or exceed the sonic quality of a well made separate amplifier. That's not to say they don't exist, but unless you have poor speakers or are deaf as a post I just haven't heard it... yet. Neither have I, and you couldn't reasonably expect an AVR to be better than a separate, but that wasn't my point!
|
|
|
Post by js19707 on Mar 14, 2012 1:48:23 GMT -5
i'm happy with my upa-7 but regret not buying the mps-1/2 when i had the chance.
power - seven x 200 balanced inputs - yes cost - $1500-$2000 would be great class - heard great things about the class h amps and i'm happy with my class a/b amp. i hear mostly good things about class d amps, and as long it is implemented well i don't think i'd really notice or care
|
|
|
Post by ausman on Mar 14, 2012 3:45:08 GMT -5
the problem going with a modular system I see having to make a case to hold the largest ampx7... which limits your width depth and height, actually height not so much..
$1600 would be the max I would pay for a 7 channel when factoring shipping say 200-350, looking at a combo of a xpa-2/5 excess of $550 making total of 2,150-2,250 with shipping.. cost is important.
I think emo had something there in the xpr-7 though may be not in a h class design..
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Mar 14, 2012 7:05:49 GMT -5
In my experience I have yet to hear an AVR meet or exceed the sonic quality of a well made separate amplifier. That's not to say they don't exist, but unless you have poor speakers or are deaf as a post I just haven't heard it... yet. Neither have I, and you couldn't reasonably expect an AVR to be better than a separate, but that wasn't my point! Your original post was concerning power ratings and how loud you can get your AVR to play. While I agree that the all-channels-driven spec isn't a real world scenario the ability to play your equipment at ear bleeding levels is only a real requirement for for the under 25 and college students. By way of comparison, my Sony AVR could be heard at my neighbor's house with all my doors and windows shut. But, regardless of what it would do with all channels driven, the quality of the sound was not what I have now. So, whether someone has 25 wpc or 250 wpc I feel the question should not be about how loud it will go but the quality of the sound when looking at a separate amp. But, if I missed the point of your post about power, separate amps, and AVRs I apologize. I simply assumed that you were making a case for quantity over quality.
|
|
FLcanuck
Emo VIPs
Kind of Blue ....EMO Blue!
Posts: 362
|
Post by FLcanuck on Mar 14, 2012 10:55:17 GMT -5
7 x 140 watts - no. To me, a modular design makes the most sense when talking about a newly designed 7-channel amp. The perfect 7-channel amp (for me) would be something like a combination of the XPA-3 for the FL/FR/C and then a couple of UPA-2s (or slightly lower power output) for the surrounds/rears - plenty of power, but nothing that's overkill. Of course, if it were modular, you would have options to increase/decrease (well, no self-respecting audiophile would decrease) power to any of the channels. It would be a very versatile design, not to mention help those with upgradeitis and amp-envy. Possibly offer a couple of "standard" configurations to meet certain price points, and then offer complete customization. Maybe a basic option to meet the $999 price point and then another around $1499 that beefs up output to the front soundstage. I wouldn't care what class it was, as long as it continues the tradition of Emotiva sound quality, build quality, and value.
|
|
|
Post by michael1947 on Mar 14, 2012 11:29:23 GMT -5
I do not feel a new 7 channel amp is the way to go. To get a 7- 300 wpc amp you would need something close to a 2kv transformer and would likely exceed the 80% safety factor of most common 20 amp home circuits. It would weigh 100 pounds and be larger than the XPA-5 which now boarders on TOO LARGE. There are many many alternatives with multiple amps which keep the system changeable and adding to it's utility which will add to it's re-sale value. Just imagine what the shipping would be in 5 years to have one little $20 output transistor replaced. The most important factor to keep in mind when considering multiple smaller amps over one massive giant amp is that when using 2 or 3 small amps you get more pretty blue lights.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Mar 14, 2012 11:40:37 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. ... and an affordable class D (or other low power (consumption) topology) mono unit too IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ausman on Mar 14, 2012 12:17:24 GMT -5
a much as I would like a mono setup, i face the transport cost of 7 units so mono however great an option it isn't a viable solution at the present time..
|
|
|
Post by badronald on Mar 14, 2012 12:26:04 GMT -5
I know this is a bit off topic but how about a new statement amp to replace the XPA-1. Say Pure Class A to 300 watts??? I'm not knocking the XPA-1 as I love mine, just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Mar 14, 2012 13:01:51 GMT -5
Most of the guys here that answered this question are not going to be the average customer for a 7 channel amp in my opinion. You guys are way ahead of the curve on amp design and channel needs. This amp will sell in the thousands and most people buying it will want:
Compactness (Lighter) weight 140-160 "real watts" per channel.
Lets be honest, 140 wpc "real watts" per channel is a lot. And if it full bandwidth times 7, and stable into two ohm loads, MOST people looking at this amp will find it more the adequate. I had UPA-7 and returned it for an XPA-5, and to be honest I don't hear a night and day difference. That UPA-7 drove my theater as loud as I ever needed it to and the SQ was first rate..
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Mar 14, 2012 13:50:04 GMT -5
I had UPA-7 and returned it for an XPA-5, and to be honest I don't hear a night and day difference. That UPA-7 drove my theater as loud as I ever needed it to and the SQ was first rate.. I made a similar move - selling my UPA-7 and buying an XPA-2 & 5. For how I use them there is no difference. Granted either of the XPA amps will out-power the UPA-7 but how often do you play anything at 120db for more than a few seconds? Only to 'demo' how loud it plays clean and clear to my buddies - and thats something I no longer do as it screws with their hearing aids. ;D Playing music at normal levels is quite telling for any system. It either sounds good or it doesn't. IIRC the UPA-7 drives 2 channels into 4ohms to 185wpc? Seemed like more than enough for the 8.3s for how I play them. I may be selling the XPA-2 and getting a smaller 2 channel amp. Why oh why did I sell my Acurus? I love the idea of a seven channel amp with fixed or removable modules - 3x200w and 4x100w is plenty of power for my HT - and IMO for 99% of HT's. ICE class D or H or good old A/B. This could probably be done with a 1.2kva transformer. I can't get the meters on the XPA-2 to show the first few LEDs at normal levels. Its barely idling. Too bad the meters aren't logarithmic - they'd be mesmerizing accompanied by music.
|
|
|
Post by SoundChimp on Mar 14, 2012 15:11:14 GMT -5
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Emo already had a perfect 7 channel solution: the XPA5 plus either the UPA2 or the XPA2. The former for the movie enthusiast, the latter for the music enthusiast. Why they got rid of the UPA2 and replaced it with that toy 2 channel amp mystifies me.
|
|
|
Post by sharkman on Mar 14, 2012 16:20:35 GMT -5
Most of the guys here that answered this question are not going to be the average customer for a 7 channel amp in my opinion. You guys are way ahead of the curve on amp design and channel needs. This amp will sell in the thousands and most people buying it will want: Compactness (Lighter) weight 140-160 "real watts" per channel. Lets be honest, 140 wpc "real watts" per channel is a lot. And if it full bandwidth times 7, and stable into two ohm loads, MOST people looking at this amp will find it more the adequate. I had UPA-7 and returned it for an XPA-5, and to be honest I don't hear a night and day difference. That UPA-7 drove my theater as loud as I ever needed it to and the SQ was first rate.. +1 big time! An amp that is 2 ohm stable with better crosstalk, S/N and THD numbers than the Xpa line could be called the UPR line.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Mar 14, 2012 16:27:39 GMT -5
Most of the guys here that answered this question are not going to be the average customer for a 7 channel amp in my opinion. You guys are way ahead of the curve on amp design and channel needs. This amp will sell in the thousands and most people buying it will want: Compactness (Lighter) weight 140-160 "real watts" per channel. Lets be honest, 140 wpc "real watts" per channel is a lot. And if it full bandwidth times 7, and stable into two ohm loads, MOST people looking at this amp will find it more the adequate. I had UPA-7 and returned it for an XPA-5, and to be honest I don't hear a night and day difference. That UPA-7 drove my theater as loud as I ever needed it to and the SQ was first rate.. I disagree with you in 1 area: The power rating. If a 7 x 125wpc failed to grab the attention of the market, I don't see that an increase of a mere 15 wpc (0.12dB) will be any better. If Emotiva was making this amp for the audiophiles on this forum only, then it 'might' work. I say might because obviously, some audiophiles members seem to argue contrary to their own decision. I don't understand how a person can be using an XPA-2/XPA-5 combo and argue against a powerful 7 channel amp. Do the surround channels use less power when hooked up to a 5 channel amp than a 7 channel one? But I digress. Emotiva cannot market this amp just to forum audiophiles. That market is insufficient for them to make such an amp at a 'reasonable cost' The vast majority of buyers are going to be AVR owners and the custom installation market. Audiophiles will me the minority group. Therefore, it is imperative that there is THE PERCEPTION of a real improvement over the current Receiver offerings. Non-auudiophiles look at power rating as THE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR. You are not going to convince many owners whose Receivers are rated at 100 wpc to substitute it with an amp rated at 140 wpc (0.35dB). I think that the minimum of at least doubling the power rating is a good start. I am assuming that the power rating for the average high-end receiver is about 125 wpc. Therefore, the 7 channel substitute has to be about 250 wpc. That said, this 7 channel amp will not be an A/B type for size and weight considerations. Emo will have to go D or H type. For those sensitive about power wasting, the amp can have a switch to activate 2 or 7 channels only. And with a D or H type, I don't think that would be even needed because they are so efficient. At the end of the day, perception is far more powerful than the actual. If I believe that I am getting a desired value from a product, quite likely I'm going to buy that product. Do surround channels need 250 or more wpc? No. Most front R/L towers don't need that either. But we don't consider surround needs when we but a power amp or a Receiver. Audiophiles may, but the vast majority of the buying public don't. They look at perceived performance only. My $0.04 ;D
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,268
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Mar 14, 2012 16:45:43 GMT -5
^+1.
If a 7*125 Watt UPA-7 didn't sell well, how would a 7*140 Watt amp do significantly better? And yes I know a 7*140 Watt AVR is in reality a 7*65 Watt.
I have to advocate for at least 200 Watt/channel! Start with the XPR and try to make it smaller, like with a 1,800 VA instead of 3,000 VA. Just my thought.
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Mar 14, 2012 17:18:06 GMT -5
I think part of the reason that the UPA-7 failed was because it had no companion piece. If you remember the UMC-1 had just come out and was plagued issues and availability. I think if you going to sell a solid 7 channel amp, you need the processor to go with it.
With a 3D, totally updated, firmwared tested UMC-1, the new seven chan has someone to play with. Even the XMC-1 can work here...
Hey, pick any power rating you like. 140, 160, 180, it doesn't matter because it won't make any real difference in SQ or performance....
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Mar 14, 2012 17:25:52 GMT -5
Most of the guys here that answered this question are not going to be the average customer for a 7 channel amp in my opinion. You guys are way ahead of the curve on amp design and channel needs. This amp will sell in the thousands and most people buying it will want: Compactness (Lighter) weight 140-160 "real watts" per channel. Lets be honest, 140 wpc "real watts" per channel is a lot. And if it full bandwidth times 7, and stable into two ohm loads, MOST people looking at this amp will find it more the adequate. I had UPA-7 and returned it for an XPA-5, and to be honest I don't hear a night and day difference. That UPA-7 drove my theater as loud as I ever needed it to and the SQ was first rate.. I am assuming that the power rating for the average high-end receiver is about 125 wpc. Therefore, the 7 channel substitute has to be about 250 wpc. I think you're 100% wrong. I would never buy a 7 channel 250 watt amp because it would weigh 150lbs and it still is no substitute for mono blocs.. I'll bet no one is buying this behemoth... hometheaterreview.com/outlaw-model-7900-seven-channel-amplifier-reviewed/
|
|