|
Post by pknaz on Feb 7, 2017 13:13:35 GMT -5
Transient response is more a function of the transducer and listening room than it is an amplifier. As mentioned in the video linked above, even moving your ears a fraction of an inch in an untreated room can cause dramatic fluctuations in both frequency response and transient response. We're talking as much as 20-30db in frequency response and milliseconds in transient response. As a comparison, a well designed amplifier will induce less than 0.01% to 0.005% distortion and less than microseconds of transient response. When you combine the fluctuations of two well designed amplifiers (minuscule by comparison) with the massive levels of distortion present in transducers (Comparatively speaking) and small room acoustics (rooms found in traditional residences), very few "specs" of the amplifier truly matter.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 7, 2017 13:24:43 GMT -5
Speed is not about who gets to the finish line first per se. This all starts way back in the early 80s as the big spec of day. Slew rate. Also Transient response. The rise time, and all that kind of stuff. It is not about what Amplifier is going to finish the song first. So when someone talks about how fast an amplifier is, if he/she really understands what they are talking about, mean usually rise time and transient response. So don't quite enroll your Amplifier quite yet in the race at the Nurburgring. Just as everything that can be heard can't be measured, everything that is measured can't be heard. It would be nice to know what actual measurables ARE associated with PRaT, if any. The 'science' part of measurment is always making progress. Things which couldn't be measured just a few years ago are now part of the measurement routine. And if you go back further, some current measurements were not considered practical to make.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 7, 2017 14:07:04 GMT -5
I have owned plenty of Emotiva amps and I have never noticed much of a difference between any of them. I have owned the UPA-1, UPA-2, UPA-200, XPA-1 Gen 1, XPA-1 Gen 2, XPA-2 Gen 1, XPA-2 Gen 2. Of course the higher powered amps have more headroom but if you are only listening at moderate levels you won't notice any difference. Biggest difference I found was going from Gen 1 to Gen 2. I like the higher gain structure (32db) of the Gen 1 amps over the (29db) gain of the Gen 2. I also found no difference at all between the supposed Class A and Class A/B of the XPA-1's as far as sound, a little hotter under Class A conditions. For my Gen 1 vs Gen 2 the main difference was that I had to get about three LED meter lights coming on while using the Gen 2 to match the same SPL and overall volume level of the Gen 1 with no lights on. That is why I have sold most of my Gen 2 gear. Tim Tim - you just don't have 'garbulkied' ears! It is no wonder you can't hear it. Garbulky has super ears - alas - the rest of us have regular ears. Yeah right! I've never thought of myself as having good hearing. That would be neat if I did though. Well maybe not on my wallet!
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Feb 7, 2017 16:14:26 GMT -5
You've made all sorts of claims in post after post claiming to hear all sort of differences between one amp and the next. Now you claim you don't have 'special' ears? So which is it? Inquiring minds want to know. Don't get me wrong - I read your posts - with much amusement.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 7, 2017 16:25:59 GMT -5
You've made all sorts of claims in post after post claiming to hear all sort of differences between one amp and the next. Now you claim you don't have 'special' ears? So which is it? Inquiring minds want to know. Don't get me wrong - I read your posts - with much amusement. Sixth sense.. He hears differences. And... he sees dead people.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 7, 2017 16:46:54 GMT -5
You've made all sorts of claims in post after post claiming to hear all sort of differences between one amp and the next. Now you claim you don't have 'special' ears? So which is it? Inquiring minds want to know. Don't get me wrong - I read your posts - with much amusement. Was that a real question or was it just more amusement for you? The answer to your question is both.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 7, 2017 21:01:14 GMT -5
I have found that the damping factor is not a bad indicator as to the speed (some might call it slam, punch, impact, etc) of an amplifier. Low damping factor (for example less than 10) power amplifiers always sound slow to me. That's regardless of room, speakers, sources, type of music or acoustics.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 7, 2017 23:46:13 GMT -5
I have found that the damping factor is not a bad indicator as to the speed (some might call it slam, punch, impact, etc) of an amplifier. Low damping factor (for example less than 10) power amplifiers always sound slow to me. That's regardless of room, speakers, sources, type of music or acoustics. Cheers Gary Given the state of current speakers, I suspect that is a true conclusion. But if you tried an amp with a DF of <10 with the right speaker, you'd say it was OK. Also? I'm glad you didn't mention some crazy value for DF like 500 or whatever. That is a BENCH value and really doesn't apply to the real world with speaker wire resistance and resistance of a crossover added in. Just for example, the ONE inductor in my Panels is 0.4 ohms DCR. I've seen pictures of some crossovers the size of an 8x11 sheet of paper with 4 inductors, and a half dozen power resistors and the balance Capacitors. How do you think you are going to get a DF much better than 20 or 30 out of That kind of arrangement? I've seen articles in 'the press' where the author claims a value of 20 (or was that 50?) is Plenty. A speaker with some crazy high Qt, like over 1.2 or so, will Never sound 'tight' but usually sounds bloated, to me, at least. I'm personally concerned whether an amp is 'rythmically right' or not. I can't think, off hand, of a Single SS amp with such a low DF, though McinTosh with Autoformers Might Qualify.
|
|
|
Post by pallpoul on Feb 7, 2017 23:56:47 GMT -5
I have heard both XPA-100 Gen-2 and XPA-2 Gen 3. To my humble ears, I preferred the XPA-2 Gen-3. My opinion again.
I just sold my 2 XPA-100 Gen-2 and now using the Xpa-2 Gen-3 with My Cornwall's III and I am loving it
|
|
abd1
Minor Hero
Posts: 29
|
Post by abd1 on Feb 12, 2017 17:57:53 GMT -5
I got to spend quite a few hours listening to my setup with the XPA-2. My setup is Aperion Audio Intimus 6T's for L/R and a 6C center, with Paradigm cinema speakers for surrounds, a Rythmik LVX12 sub, and Pioneer SC1323k receiver. I had been using 3 Emo XPA-100's for all 3 front channels but got a great offer on a Gen 1 XPA-2 so decided to give it a try. I have to say I am impressed. I've been listening primarily to 2-channel music and watched a couple of movies with it. Movie performance is about the same, at least not a noticeable difference. However, when listening to music I think the XPA-2 sounds more refined and seems to have better imaging and soundstage. My room is a bit challenging being 12x16 and the MLP is at the rear, so its long and narrow. I've struggled getting the speakers to "disappear" despite constant adjustments with the XPA-100's. For some reason the music floats around the room much better with the XPA-2. This is listening at fairly modest volume levels. Not sure if this is expectation bias or not, but I feel like the XPA-2 is performing better musically. I am going to continue to listen for another week or two and then switch back to the XPA-100's. I think at that point I'll really be able to tell if there's a difference, but so far I am impressed with the XPA-2.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 13, 2017 5:04:21 GMT -5
I got to spend quite a few hours listening to my setup with the XPA-2. My setup is Aperion Audio Intimus 6T's for L/R and a 6C center, with Paradigm cinema speakers for surrounds, a Rythmik LVX12 sub, and Pioneer SC1323k receiver. I had been using 3 Emo XPA-100's for all 3 front channels but got a great offer on a Gen 1 XPA-2 so decided to give it a try. I have to say I am impressed. I've been listening primarily to 2-channel music and watched a couple of movies with it. Movie performance is about the same, at least not a noticeable difference. However, when listening to music I think the XPA-2 sounds more refined and seems to have better imaging and soundstage. My room is a bit challenging being 12x16 and the MLP is at the rear, so its long and narrow. I've struggled getting the speakers to "disappear" despite constant adjustments with the XPA-100's. For some reason the music floats around the room much better with the XPA-2. This is listening at fairly modest volume levels. Not sure if this is expectation bias or not, but I feel like the XPA-2 is performing better musically. I am going to continue to listen for another week or two and then switch back to the XPA-100's. I think at that point I'll really be able to tell if there's a difference, but so far I am impressed with the XPA-2. Glad to hear you are enjoying the XPA-2! Also your speakers may benefit from some mild placement/ toe in adjustments with your new amp.
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Feb 13, 2017 7:37:21 GMT -5
If you hear a difference in the forest from one amp to the next is there a difference?
ANSWER-Yes there is a difference to you. And that's all that matters
Grasshopper snatch these turntable mats from my hands and tell me if there is a sonic difference between rubber and cork
|
|
abd1
Minor Hero
Posts: 29
|
Post by abd1 on Mar 2, 2017 17:24:23 GMT -5
I've been listening to XPA-2 for the last couple of weeks. Today I had a couple hours to myself so I switched back in the XPA-100's. I also compared one of Emotiva's new BasX line amps, the A500. This is a 5-channel amp that I just purchased because I also got an XMC-1 and needed something for the 4 rear channels. I hadn't used the A500 at all yet. I basically listened to 5 songs that I'm familiar with. I had the XPA-2 playing while I was getting things set up, but I wasn't listening to the playlist I set yet as I was going to listen to the XPA-2 last. All of the listening was done in pure direct mode 2.0, so no sub and no processing.
I switched over to the A500 and started the list. Right away the music sounded thinner and less dynamic. I really wasn't expecting the A500 to be on par with the XPA-2 or XPA-100's, so I wasn't too surprised but I was a bit shocked by how easily noticed the sound difference was. I actually thought my sub had shut off and had to make sure it was still on. The issue though wasn't the low bass, but just the entire frequency range sounded a bit lifeless coming from the XPA series. The soundstage and imaging were flatter and not as detailed sounding. However, as I played through my list I began to enjoy this amp for what it is instead of what it isn't. Yes, it was an easy step down from the XPA series, but for what it is someone could easily power 5-channels with this amp and be very happy. Would I use it to replace an internal amp on a high quality receiver? Probably not as I don't think you would gain enough. However, if you were going with separates or need something for additional channels this is a great bargain. This will do very well with my surround channels for HT, so no complaints.
Moving on, I hooked up the XPA-100's and started the list again. Right away everything improved. The dynamics came alive. Mid-bass had impact and more definition. The center image was locked in and the imaging and soundstage became much more realistic and holographic. I hadn't used these amps for 3-4 weeks and I was really impressed again. One of my test tracks is Summertime from the Ray Brown Trio on the Bassics: The Best Of The Ray Brown Trio (1977-2000) album. This track is just over 7 minutes long. On the A500 it was enjoyable but I stopped it about 5 minutes in. Listening through the XPA-100's, I couldn't turn it off and listening to the entire track. The piano strikes were so lifelike in my room I got goosebumps. When the band really gets going at about the 5 minute mark it sounded like I was in the jazz club - infectious and fun. I could easily keep these amps plugged in and just box up the XPA-2 now, but I'm glad I didnt...
I quickly switched over to the XPA-2 and started the playlist. The first track I listen to is Bass & Drum Intro by Nils Lofgren from the Nils Lofgren Live album. Weird track name but great sounding demo track -- extremely dynamic and great soundstage. Anyway, when I first started listening with the XPA-2 I immediately thought I must have switched my sound mode because my sub obviously had kicked on. I was shocked to see that I was still in Pure Direct mode, with no sub active. There was so much more bass in the music with the XPA-2. It wasn't overpowering but it was more present, with a more defined low end and even more impact than the XPA-100's. Again, listening to the Summertime track the piano key strikes were even more present. I could feel the strikes as if I was sitting at the keyboard myself. Now, my speakers do play into the 30's on their own, but the add bass definition was tactile. I would say that the XPA-100's had a very, very slight advantage in imaging as I felt that the center image was more defined, but the soundstage was grander and more musical sounding with the XPA-2. This played out when listening to Amber Rubarth's Full Moon in Paris from her Sessions from the 17th Ward album. This is a wonderfully recorded acoustic album from inside a church with great imaging and subtle sounds from the environment that really give you a sensation of having a private concert at home. Her voice is front and center and pinpoint with the XPA-100's, where the XPA-2 had her voice occupying a little more space, but still right up front. However, the XPA-2 delivered more slightly more detail and had more of a surround effect even in 2-channel and was more musical by a hair.
Again, these differences were very subtle and I could have left either amp in my system and be happy. Other than the added bass from the XPA-2, I'm not sure I could pick out the difference in the amps in a blind test every time. However, I need to sell something to help offset the XMC-1 that's coming, so I've decided to post the XPA-100's. I'll probably put them up on Ebay in the next week or 2 if anyone's interested.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Mar 2, 2017 20:32:40 GMT -5
Revisit the A500 after 50 to 100 hours of play. You may notice an improvement.
|
|
abd1
Minor Hero
Posts: 29
|
Post by abd1 on Mar 3, 2017 11:30:26 GMT -5
Revisit the A500 after 50 to 100 hours of play. You may notice an improvement. Are you saying this because you think the amp needs break-in and may sound better? I did let it play for a bit and noticed that while it sounded very thin right away it started sounding better and better. Towards the end of my listening time with it I was impressed what you can get for the money for a solid 5-channel amp. I was only running 2 speakers on it so I know the WPC is reduced running 5 channels, but even during movies sound isn't usually coming out of 5 channels at once. I think I said that I really believe someone could easily use this to drive a 5-channel system and be very happy.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Mar 3, 2017 13:41:09 GMT -5
First, the amp puts out over 20% less per channel when running 5 channel than stereo. 110 x2 drops to 80x5. That's your power supply. I don't think that's actually very important since WHEN will you actually need the extra DB or so?
When I bought my Magnepans, it took a couple hours for the sound to settle. I attribute image shifts and other weirdness to the Crossover Capacitors 'forming'.
Since you may be testing with channels 1,2 of your new A500, RETEST using channels 3,4 which had presumably not been used yet. If the pattern repeats with what you described as 'thin' sound than you may actually be experiencing Break In. If it sounds fine right from the git? You may have accomodated yourself to the new presentation 'in software'. That being the space between your ears! Or maybe the caps, once energized, formed and you are on to business?
Breakin is one of those controversial areas. A 'Third Rail', if you will. I won't make a pronouncement 'cause I don't KNOW. Only what I've observed and not much at that.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 3, 2017 14:29:03 GMT -5
Before you sell the XPA-100's have you tried placing them next to their respective speaker using long interconnects (preferably XLR) and as short as possible speaker cables? This is one of the advantages of monoblocks.
I didn't notice whether or not you were using a Gen 2 or Gen 1 XPA-2, as there is a gain difference at 29db versus 32db. If you left the volume in same position then that may well be the reason for the performance difference. When swapping amps I have learnt to always balance the SPL's because even 1db difference can be noticed in perceived sound quality. Especially things like detail and staging as well as the obvious punch.
Cheers Gary
|
|
abd1
Minor Hero
Posts: 29
|
Post by abd1 on Mar 3, 2017 16:48:34 GMT -5
Before you sell the XPA-100's have you tried placing them next to their respective speaker using long interconnects (preferably XLR) and as short as possible speaker cables? This is one of the advantages of monoblocks. I didn't notice whether or not you were using a Gen 2 or Gen 1 XPA-2, as there is a gain difference at 29db versus 32db. If you left the volume in same position then that may well be the reason for the performance difference. When swapping amps I have learnt to always balance the SPL's because even 1db difference can be noticed in perceived sound quality. Especially things like detail and staging as well as the obvious punch. Cheers Gary Good points.... I can't move the amps however as I'm limited on space a bit and with 4 kids using the room as their primary "lounge" I don't want amps sitting around on the floor. The speakers are only about 6-7 feet or less from the amps, so not that far. I believe the XPA-2 is a Gen 1. It has the silver bars on the side which I believe were on the Gen 1's, but not totally sure. I got it used and the original owner said he had it for about 3 years, so I'm pretty sure it's Gen 1.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 4, 2017 2:55:45 GMT -5
Before you sell the XPA-100's have you tried placing them next to their respective speaker using long interconnects (preferably XLR) and as short as possible speaker cables? This is one of the advantages of monoblocks. I didn't notice whether or not you were using a Gen 2 or Gen 1 XPA-2, as there is a gain difference at 29db versus 32db. If you left the volume in same position then that may well be the reason for the performance difference. When swapping amps I have learnt to always balance the SPL's because even 1db difference can be noticed in perceived sound quality. Especially things like detail and staging as well as the obvious punch. Good points.... I can't move the amps however as I'm limited on space a bit and with 4 kids using the room as their primary "lounge" I don't want amps sitting around on the floor. The speakers are only about 6-7 feet or less from the amps, so not that far. I believe the XPA-2 is a Gen 1. It has the silver bars on the side which I believe were on the Gen 1's, but not totally sure. I got it used and the original owner said he had it for about 3 years, so I'm pretty sure it's Gen 1. That'll be the difference then, 3db of additional gain sounds a lot better in almost every way. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 4, 2017 10:18:56 GMT -5
Good points.... I can't move the amps however as I'm limited on space a bit and with 4 kids using the room as their primary "lounge" I don't want amps sitting around on the floor. The speakers are only about 6-7 feet or less from the amps, so not that far. I believe the XPA-2 is a Gen 1. It has the silver bars on the side which I believe were on the Gen 1's, but not totally sure. I got it used and the original owner said he had it for about 3 years, so I'm pretty sure it's Gen 1. That'll be the difference then, 3db of additional gain sounds a lot better in almost every way. Cheers Gary He didn't mention that he was playing on the same volume setting. If that's the case the 3 db gain shouldn't make a large difference.
|
|