|
|
Post by mountainsideview on Jan 13, 2018 11:24:37 GMT -5
Hello. New to the forum. Just getting back into a decent HT set up.
Currently have a Denon X4400H powering the system. Kef Q950 mains (200 W), Kef Q650 center (150 W), Kef Q350 surrounds, 4 inceiling speaker (Russounds which I might replace 90W). Currently no subwoofer. I am looking at a pair of the SVS PB 2000 or Rythmik LVX 12. Room size is 14 W x 18 L x 8 H. Room is also open on the back to a pool table wet bar area of similar size.
Looking at recommendations for separate amplification. The Denon with all speakers driven is down to 105 watts/channel I believe. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. In 2 channel it put out 125 watts.
Definitely some more power would bring those speakers to life, especially the Q950's in 2 channel for music. Stuck between a 2 or 3 channel separate power amp. Any recommendations would be helpful.
Thanks
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Jan 13, 2018 11:30:37 GMT -5
What's your budget? Do you intend to keep the Denon as your pre-pro and to power some channels? What is powering the in-ceiling speakers now?
The obvious recommendation is to look at the XPA series, but knowing your budget would help.
|
|
|
|
Post by mountainsideview on Jan 13, 2018 11:34:18 GMT -5
What's your budget? Do you intend to keep the Denon as your pre-pro and to power some channels? What is powering the in-ceiling speakers now? The obvious recommendation is to look at the XPA series, but knowing your budget would help. Budget is around $1500. Going to keep the Denon as a pre pro and drive the rear and ceiling speakers. Denon is driving the ceiling speakers now. |
|
|
|
Post by mshump on Jan 13, 2018 11:43:52 GMT -5
I personally would go XPA series amp. Since the front 3 channels LCR are the most important for dialogue etc, I would go XPA-3 for them.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by mountainsideview on Jan 13, 2018 11:55:54 GMT -5
I personally would go XPA series amp. Since the front 3 channels LCR are the most important for dialogue etc, I would go XPA-3 for them. Mark At 275 watts per channel for that amp are there any concerns with too much power. Got some conflicting information when I talked to the salesperson I was dealing with where I picked up the Kefs. His opinion, that while clipping by driving speakers with underpowered amps was an issue that so was not running the amp at reference levels. Not sure if he knew what he was talking about as it doesn't align with my understanding of the issue. Wish I could remember exactly what he said. Something I believe with distortion levels at reference levels are not the same when played at lower volumes. That playing at less than reference levels would add significant distortion. I wasn't going to argue with him. |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Jan 13, 2018 12:07:22 GMT -5
I personally would go XPA series amp. Since the front 3 channels LCR are the most important for dialogue etc, I would go XPA-3 for them. Mark At 275 watts per channel for that amp are there any concerns with too much power. Got some conflicting information when I talked to the salesperson I was dealing with where I picked up the Kefs. His opinion, that while clipping by driving speakers with underpowered amps was an issue that so was not running the amp at reference levels. Not sure if he knew what he was talking about as it doesn't align with my understanding of the issue. Wish I could remember exactly what he said. Something I believe with distortion levels at reference levels are not the same when played at lower volumes. That playing at less than reference levels would add significant distortion. I wasn't going to argue with him. He's full of bullschiit. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Jan 13, 2018 12:20:11 GMT -5
I would suggest an XPA-3 or XPA-5 (to power the surrounds as well.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mshump on Jan 13, 2018 12:32:41 GMT -5
I personally would go XPA series amp. Since the front 3 channels LCR are the most important for dialogue etc, I would go XPA-3 for them. Mark At 275 watts per channel for that amp are there any concerns with too much power. Got some conflicting information when I talked to the salesperson I was dealing with where I picked up the Kefs. His opinion, that while clipping by driving speakers with underpowered amps was an issue that so was not running the amp at reference levels. Not sure if he knew what he was talking about as it doesn't align with my understanding of the issue. Wish I could remember exactly what he said. Something I believe with distortion levels at reference levels are not the same when played at lower volumes. That playing at less than reference levels would add significant distortion. I wasn't going to argue with him. Yes, too much power can damage the speakers, if you listen at normal levels there should be no issues. Having the headroom (extra power on reserve in the amp) is good for tough passages etc. Underpowering your speakers with a weak amp is more damaging to your speakers. Most receivers and pre-pros have a volume limiter or max volume setting in them. I have mine set up so that when I am not home and my Son decides to play music or watch a movie, I don't need to worry about coming home to blown speakers etc. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Jan 13, 2018 12:32:49 GMT -5
I wasn't going to argue with him. Wise. Here's how power works. Let's take your center channel rated at 150 watts. That rating is for continuous power. That means that if you sent the speaker a constant signal, like white noise, and turned it up to a steady 150 watt level. That it would hold that power, dissipating it continuously, for weeks on end. Of course you couldn't stand being in the same room with it, and maybe not in the same house with it for any amount of time. Music is mostly lower level signals with pulses of dynamics. If the amp can't supply the power to reproduce the pulses, it does the best it can, but the signal becomes "distorted". A couple of years ago I stood behind my speakers with a ride cymbal, and tapped along with the beat while my Mother and my girlfriend used my stereo remote to adjust the volume until my acoustic instrument blended into the recorded mix. I then listened to the music at the level that they chose and was surprised that it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be. I would guess the average output to be around ten to fifteen watts. But that was average output. The snare hits and recorded cymbals were probably pushing 60 to 80 watts every time they appeared. So lets say you put a 1000 watt amp driving a 100 watt speaker. Can you turn the volume up enough so that the speaker gets too hot and literally catches on fire? Yes. On the other hand, you could use this set-up for years, listening to music at normal volumes, and the transient peaks generated by the music wouldn't exceed the speakers ability to absorb it safely. Just don't get drunk and throw a party  |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Jan 13, 2018 12:35:11 GMT -5
BasX Series
|
|
|
|
Post by Soup on Jan 13, 2018 12:51:43 GMT -5
I wasn't going to argue with him. Wise. Here's how power works. Let's take your center channel rated at 150 watts. That rating is for continuous power. That means that if you sent the speaker a constant signal, like white noise, and turned it up to a steady 150 watt level. That it would hold that power, dissipating it continuously, for weeks on end. Of course you couldn't stand being in the same room with it, and maybe not in the same house with it for any amount of time. Music is mostly lower level signals with pulses of dynamics. If the amp can't supply the power to reproduce the pulses, it does the best it can, but the signal becomes "distorted". A couple of years ago I stood behind my speakers with a ride cymbal, and tapped along with the beat while my Mother and my girlfriend used my stereo remote to adjust the volume until my acoustic instrument blended into the recorded mix. I then listened to the music at the level that they chose and was surprised that it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be. I would guess the average output to be around ten to fifteen watts. But that was average output. The snare hits and recorded cymbals were probably pushing 60 to 80 watts every time they appeared. So lets say you put a 1000 watt amp driving a 100 watt speaker. Can you turn the volume up enough so that the speaker gets too hot and literally catches on fire? Yes. On the other hand, you could use this set-up for years, listening to music at normal volumes, and the transient peaks generated by the music wouldn't exceed the speakers ability to absorb it safely. Just don't get drunk and throw a party I disagree. Definitely get drunk and have a party. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 13, 2018 16:55:04 GMT -5
I wasn't going to argue with him. Wise. Here's how power works. Let's take your center channel rated at 150 watts. That rating is for continuous power. That means that if you sent the speaker a constant signal, like white noise, and turned it up to a steady 150 watt level. That it would hold that power, dissipating it continuously, for weeks on end. Of course you couldn't stand being in the same room with it, and maybe not in the same house with it for any amount of time. Music is mostly lower level signals with pulses of dynamics. If the amp can't supply the power to reproduce the pulses, it does the best it can, but the signal becomes "distorted". A couple of years ago I stood behind my speakers with a ride cymbal, and tapped along with the beat while my Mother and my girlfriend used my stereo remote to adjust the volume until my acoustic instrument blended into the recorded mix. I then listened to the music at the level that they chose and was surprised that it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be. I would guess the average output to be around ten to fifteen watts. But that was average output. The snare hits and recorded cymbals were probably pushing 60 to 80 watts every time they appeared. So lets say you put a 1000 watt amp driving a 100 watt speaker. Can you turn the volume up enough so that the speaker gets too hot and literally catches on fire? Yes. On the other hand, you could use this set-up for years, listening to music at normal volumes, and the transient peaks generated by the music wouldn't exceed the speakers ability to absorb it safely. Just don't get drunk and throw a party Reasonable answer with ONE major hangup. Few speaker manufacturers state which of the 3 power standards they use to 'rate' their speakers. Best bet is to use your EARS and also keep in mind that as speakers warm, and warm they DO, their electrical characteristics change, and not for the better. Most speakers, larger than bookshelves, should be able to handle 10 watt continuous with 100 watt peaks for <10% or so of the time. That's a 10db 'crest factor' For 20db crest? it REALLY adds up fast and is beyond most amps capacity to run 10 continuous with such a crest factor.. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Jan 13, 2018 18:12:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 13, 2018 19:33:07 GMT -5
yeah theres a lot if value in those used amps
|
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Jan 24, 2018 12:56:04 GMT -5
If you put a lot of weight on 2 channel music performance I’d recommend using a stereo amp. They almost always are more beefy than multichannel amps and having more physical space inside the amp to space out and isolate components is a legitimate plus.
I also think stereo amps often times sound subjectively better than there multichannel counterparts.
For example xpa2 (gen 1 or 2) > than xpa5 or xpa3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 24, 2018 18:57:01 GMT -5
If you put a lot of weight on 2 channel music performance I’d recommend using a stereo amp. They almost always are more beefy than multichannel amps and having more physical space inside the amp to space out and isolate components is a legitimate plus. I also think stereo amps often times sound subjectively better than there multichannel counterparts. For example xpa2 (gen 1 or 2) > than xpa5 or xpa3. I had an XPA-2 and XPA-3 combo which, for space saving reasons, I changed to a XPA-5 and I really couldn't tell the difference, even for stereo 2.1 music. With two channels driven the XPA-5 puts out 275 watts (into 8 ohms) which is an insignificant amount less than the XPA-2's 300 watts. As for separation, if I use Channels 1 and 5 on the XPA-5 (for stereo) then there is more "spacing" between the channels than using the side by sides in the XPA-2.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Jan 24, 2018 19:56:48 GMT -5
If you put a lot of weight on 2 channel music performance I’d recommend using a stereo amp. They almost always are more beefy than multichannel amps and having more physical space inside the amp to space out and isolate components is a legitimate plus. I also think stereo amps often times sound subjectively better than there multichannel counterparts. For example xpa2 (gen 1 or 2) > than xpa5 or xpa3. I had an XPA-2 and XPA-3 combo which, for space saving reasons, I changed to a XPA-5 and I really couldn't tell the difference, even for stereo 2.1 music. With two channels driven the XPA-5 puts out 275 watts (into 8 ohms) which is an insignificant amount less than the XPA-2's 300 watts. As for separation, if I use Channels 1 and 5 on the XPA-5 (for stereo) then there is more "spacing" between the channels than using the side by sides in the XPA-2. Cheers Gary It’s more than just spacing between channels, it’s being able to better isolate the transformer, input stage and internal wiring. More space for bigger heat sinks ect. The shared PS design Emotiva uses on the XPA line certainly goes a long way toward leveling the playing field though, particularly in the case of the XPA5 given it has the same transformer as the 1 and 2. I’m not convinced it COMPLETELY levels the playing field, especially at lower impedences but It’s possible. I can’t comment on 2 channels of the xpa5 vs the xpa2, but I can say confidently one channel on the xpa5 does NOT equal the XPA1 (not that anyone would expect it to). |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 24, 2018 23:49:01 GMT -5
I had an XPA-2 and XPA-3 combo which, for space saving reasons, I changed to a XPA-5 and I really couldn't tell the difference, even for stereo 2.1 music. With two channels driven the XPA-5 puts out 275 watts (into 8 ohms) which is an insignificant amount less than the XPA-2's 300 watts. As for separation, if I use Channels 1 and 5 on the XPA-5 (for stereo) then there is more "spacing" between the channels than using the side by sides in the XPA-2. It’s more than just spacing between channels, it’s being able to better isolate the transformer If we use say Channel 1 and Channel 5 in an XPA-5 then both of the boards are further away from the transformer (mounted front and centre) than Channel 1 or 2 in an XPA-2 (mounted dead centre of the chassis). Each channel in the XPA-5 has its own input stage, so the Channel 1 input stage is no closer to the Channel 5 input stage than the inputs stages in Channel 1 and 2 in an XPA-2. The internal wiring is really only for the power supply, as the inputs and output from each channel are located on that channel's board (ie; no other "wiring"). The XPA-5 power supply is located at the front, so the wiring run to the boards for each channel is very short. The XPA-2 power supply is located in the centre, so the wiring run to the boards for each channel is equally as short. The XPA-2 definitely has longer heat sinks, located down each side of the case. But having owned both I can't say that the XPA-5 runs any hotter ie; both have adequate heat sinks. Provided no overheating there wouldn't be any sound quality difference due to heat sink differences. Looking at them, it's obvious to me that Lonnie and the guys have done a great job optimising the internal layouts so as to minimise any interference issues. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Jan 25, 2018 8:30:48 GMT -5
It’s more than just spacing between channels, it’s being able to better isolate the transformer If we use say Channel 1 and Channel 5 in an XPA-5 then both of the boards are further away from the transformer (mounted front and centre) than Channel 1 or 2 in an XPA-2 (mounted dead centre of the chassis). Each channel in the XPA-5 has its own input stage, so the Channel 1 input stage is no closer to the Channel 5 input stage than the inputs stages in Channel 1 and 2 in an XPA-2. The internal wiring is really only for the power supply, as the inputs and output from each channel are located on that channel's board (ie; no other "wiring"). The XPA-5 power supply is located at the front, so the wiring run to the boards for each channel is very short. The XPA-2 power supply is located in the centre, so the wiring run to the boards for each channel is equally as short. The XPA-2 definitely has longer heat sinks, located down each side of the case. But having owned both I can't say that the XPA-5 runs any hotter ie; both have adequate heat sinks. Provided no overheating there wouldn't be any sound quality difference due to heat sink differences. Looking at them, it's obvious to me that Lonnie and the guys have done a great job optimising the internal layouts so as to minimise any interference issues. Cheers Gary To each there own! As much as I wanted to be I was never happy with the xpa5 for 2 channel. Also, it would be very odd if the crew at Emotiva couldn’t capitalize AT ALL on the inherent advantages of a two channel amp compared to a 5 channel amp with the same size case, transformer and basically budget. With only $99 to work with on those 3 addition channels they would have had to been REALLY lazy with the xpa2 design to not get ANYTHING extra out of it. Another thing to keep in mind is the XPA3 is not the same as the 2 and 5. The 5 May hold its own with the 2 in 2 channel but the 3 absolutely will not. Like I said before, in the case of most Emotiva amps, because they use a shared PS, It may be very close, but not all multichannel amps use one shared PS. Many multi channel amps use independent supplies (or more often independent windings), and in many cases mono and stereo amps will have more robust PS than the multichannel amps in the same line (per channel). With Emotiva it may be close, but with many brands it won’t. Something for the OP to keep in mind At the end of the day everybody hears things differently and that’s the nature of the hobby. This is just what I hear. Enjoy the journey OP! Anything mentioned in this thread will be a step up from your AVR. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Jan 25, 2018 10:11:11 GMT -5
I can agree we all have different outcomes or views on amps, for myself owning the XPA-5 in both gens, an XPA-3, XPA-2 and my now PA 7-350 I have noticed zero difference in any of them regardless how many channels I am using, my speakers have been Monitor Audio silver series and my Chane A5rx-c's. I did however notice a difference in sound signature in the UPA series from the XPA series, I have owned the UPA-500, UPA-200 and UPA-1's, and one interesting thing is when I had my USP-1 I actually preferred using the UPA-500 to the UPA-1's for 2ch music. Chad If we use say Channel 1 and Channel 5 in an XPA-5 then both of the boards are further away from the transformer (mounted front and centre) than Channel 1 or 2 in an XPA-2 (mounted dead centre of the chassis). Each channel in the XPA-5 has its own input stage, so the Channel 1 input stage is no closer to the Channel 5 input stage than the inputs stages in Channel 1 and 2 in an XPA-2. The internal wiring is really only for the power supply, as the inputs and output from each channel are located on that channel's board (ie; no other "wiring"). The XPA-5 power supply is located at the front, so the wiring run to the boards for each channel is very short. The XPA-2 power supply is located in the centre, so the wiring run to the boards for each channel is equally as short. The XPA-2 definitely has longer heat sinks, located down each side of the case. But having owned both I can't say that the XPA-5 runs any hotter ie; both have adequate heat sinks. Provided no overheating there wouldn't be any sound quality difference due to heat sink differences. Looking at them, it's obvious to me that Lonnie and the guys have done a great job optimising the internal layouts so as to minimise any interference issues. Cheers Gary To each there own! As much as I wanted to be I was never happy with the xpa5 for 2 channel. Also, it would be very odd if the crew at Emotiva couldn’t capitalize AT ALL on the inherent advantages of a two channel amp compared to a 5 channel amp with the same size case, transformer and basically budget. With only $99 to work with on those 3 addition channels they would have had to been REALLY lazy with the xpa2 design to not get ANYTHING extra out of it. Another thing to keep in mind is the XPA3 is not the same as the 2 and 5. The 5 May hold its own with the 2 in 2 channel but the 3 absolutely will not. Like I said before, in the case of most Emotiva amps, because they use a shared PS, It may be very close, but a shared PS is NOT the norm in the industry. In general most multi channel amps use independent supplies, or at least independent windings, and in most cases the mono and stereo amps will have more robust PS than the multichannel amps in the same line (per channel). With Emotiva it may be close, but with many brands it won’t. Something for the OP to keep in mind At the end of the day everybody hears things differently and that’s the nature of the hobby. This is just what I hear. Enjoy the journey OP! |
|
