|
Post by rockman85 on Jun 19, 2019 17:18:11 GMT -5
Just from a component standpoint, what is in the DRs that makes them $700 more expensive? I couldnt really tell from the product page / engineerese.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jun 19, 2019 17:27:32 GMT -5
Just from a component standpoint, what is in the DRs that makes them $700 more expensive? I couldnt really tell from the product page / engineerese. Balanced doublewide amp modules with about double the power.
|
|
|
Post by rockman85 on Jun 19, 2019 17:52:39 GMT -5
Just from a component standpoint, what is in the DRs that makes them $700 more expensive? I couldnt really tell from the product page / engineerese. Balanced doublewide amp modules with about double the power. So, is it like two monoblocks in a single box?
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Jun 19, 2019 18:01:23 GMT -5
Balanced doublewide amp modules with about double the power. So, is it like two monoblocks in a single box? That’s the concept, although they still share a single power supply. Technically at peak power a DR-1 (single channel) has about 100W more per channel than a DR-2 (both channels driven) and that is just due to power supply.
|
|
|
Post by rockman85 on Jun 19, 2019 18:08:52 GMT -5
Thanks guys!
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Jun 19, 2019 18:10:48 GMT -5
From the Wikipedia:
"Most audio products (recording, public address, etc.) provide differential balanced inputs and outputs, typically via XLR or TRS phone connectors. However, in most cases, a differential balanced input signal is internally converted to a single-ended signal via transformer or electronic amplifier. After internal processing, the single-ended signal is converted back to a differential balanced signal and fed to an output.
A small number of audio products have been designed with an entirely differential balanced signal path from input to output; the audio signal never unbalances. This design is achieved by providing identical (mirrored) internal signal paths for both the "non-inverting" and "inverting" audio signals. In critical applications, a 100% differential balanced circuit design can offer better signal integrity by avoiding the extra amplifier stages or transformers required for front-end unbalancing and back-end re-balancing. Fully balanced internal circuitry has been promoted as yielding 3 dB better dynamic range, though at increased cost over single-ended designs."
Most Emotiva products have balanced inputs and outputs. Only a special few keep the two separate signal paths once inside the device. The DR amps do just that. It receives two mirror imaged signals and instead of mixing it back down to a regular analog signal and then amplifying them. It keeps the two signals separate, amplifying them separately and not mixing them together until it gets to the speaker outputs.
|
|
|
Post by rockman85 on Jun 19, 2019 18:42:36 GMT -5
From the Wikipedia: "Most audio products (recording, public address, etc.) provide differential balanced inputs and outputs, typically via XLR or TRS phone connectors. However, in most cases, a differential balanced input signal is internally converted to a single-ended signal via transformer or electronic amplifier. After internal processing, the single-ended signal is converted back to a differential balanced signal and fed to an output. A small number of audio products have been designed with an entirely differential balanced signal path from input to output; the audio signal never unbalances. This design is achieved by providing identical (mirrored) internal signal paths for both the "non-inverting" and "inverting" audio signals. In critical applications, a 100% differential balanced circuit design can offer better signal integrity by avoiding the extra amplifier stages or transformers required for front-end unbalancing and back-end re-balancing. Fully balanced internal circuitry has been promoted as yielding 3 dB better dynamic range, though at increased cost over single-ended designs." Most Emotiva products have balanced inputs and outputs. Only a special few keep the two separate signal paths once inside the device. The DR amps do just that. It receives two mirror imaged signals and instead of mixing it back down to a regular analog signal and then amplifying them. It keeps the two signals separate, amplifying them separately and not mixing them together until it gets to the speaker outputs. This is great, I actually understood this : D
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 20, 2019 4:37:10 GMT -5
Also to add to that, the power supply is a different from the gen 3 to make it work properly with the architecture. Not sure in what way, but if I had to guess is that it has to provide for the lower impedance balanced amps see. 8 ohm speakers are seen as 4 ohm in balanced architecture and 4 ohms as two ohms.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 20, 2019 8:48:30 GMT -5
In terms of cost and complexity.... each channel on an XPA-DR is equivalent to two high-power channels on an XPA Gen3 and uses two amplifier modules.
A fully differential balanced amplifier has two amplifier channels operating in a bridge mode. In electronic terms, each of those two modules sees half of the impedance of the load.... So, in terms of load, when you connect an 8 Ohm speaker, each module sees 4 Ohms, and when you connect a 4 Ohm speaker, each module sees 2 Ohms. Because each module on the XPA-DR is expected to see a lower load, the power supply in the XPA-DR is configured to supply a lower rail voltage. It's basically the same power supply - but set differently.
(A lower rail voltage enables the amplifier to operate more efficiently into lower impedance loads.)
Also to add to that, the power supply is a different from the gen 3 to make it work properly with the architecture. Not sure in what way, but if I had to guess is that it has to provide for the lower impedance balanced amps see. 8 ohm speakers are seen as 4 ohm in balanced architecture and 4 ohms as two ohms.
|
|
|
Post by rockman85 on Oct 2, 2019 11:59:11 GMT -5
In terms of cost and complexity.... each channel on an XPA-DR is equivalent to two high-power channels on an XPA Gen3 and uses two amplifier modules.
A fully differential balanced amplifier has two amplifier channels operating in a bridge mode. In electronic terms, each of those two modules sees half of the impedance of the load.... So, in terms of load, when you connect an 8 Ohm speaker, each module sees 4 Ohms, and when you connect a 4 Ohm speaker, each module sees 2 Ohms. Because each module on the XPA-DR is expected to see a lower load, the power supply in the XPA-DR is configured to supply a lower rail voltage. It's basically the same power supply - but set differently.
(A lower rail voltage enables the amplifier to operate more efficiently into lower impedance loads.)
Also to add to that, the power supply is a different from the gen 3 to make it work properly with the architecture. Not sure in what way, but if I had to guess is that it has to provide for the lower impedance balanced amps see. 8 ohm speakers are seen as 4 ohm in balanced architecture and 4 ohms as two ohms. Thanks for the reply. I have a follow up question then about the monoblock versions. Since the HC-1 and DR-1 are by nature of their designs, completly and soley dedicated to one channel, are there differences between these two only in the power supply sizes? XPA-2 and DR-2 is kind of and apples and oranges situation. But monoblock to monoblock, are there any component quality differences aside from pure POWAA, I have 95db sensitive speakers, is there any benefit to the DR-1 vs the HC-1, I cant imagine I will want for power at this sensitivity. I currently own the A-300 and I never go anywhere near max power.
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 2, 2019 12:05:22 GMT -5
In terms of cost and complexity.... each channel on an XPA-DR is equivalent to two high-power channels on an XPA Gen3 and uses two amplifier modules. A fully differential balanced amplifier has two amplifier channels operating in a bridge mode. In electronic terms, each of those two modules sees half of the impedance of the load.... So, in terms of load, when you connect an 8 Ohm speaker, each module sees 4 Ohms, and when you connect a 4 Ohm speaker, each module sees 2 Ohms. Because each module on the XPA-DR is expected to see a lower load, the power supply in the XPA-DR is configured to supply a lower rail voltage. It's basically the same power supply - but set differently.
(A lower rail voltage enables the amplifier to operate more efficiently into lower impedance loads.)
Thanks for the reply. I have a follow up question then about the monoblock versions. Since the HC-1 and DR-1 are by nature of their designs, completly and soley dedicated to one channel, are there differences between these two only in the power supply sizes? XPA-2 and DR-2 is kind of and apples and oranges situation. But monoblock to monoblock, are there any component quality differences aside from pure POWAA, I have 95db sensitive speakers, is there any benefit to the DR-1 vs the HC-1, I cant imagine I will want for power at this sensitivity. I currently own the A-300 and I never go anywhere near max power. Like mentioned above, the DR amps are fully balanced / differential, the HC-1 isn’t. That said, I’d bet the HC-1’s would do a good job with your speakers.
|
|
|
Post by rockman85 on Oct 2, 2019 12:17:52 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. I have a follow up question then about the monoblock versions. Since the HC-1 and DR-1 are by nature of their designs, completly and soley dedicated to one channel, are there differences between these two only in the power supply sizes? XPA-2 and DR-2 is kind of and apples and oranges situation. But monoblock to monoblock, are there any component quality differences aside from pure POWAA, I have 95db sensitive speakers, is there any benefit to the DR-1 vs the HC-1, I cant imagine I will want for power at this sensitivity. I currently own the A-300 and I never go anywhere near max power. Like mentioned above, the DR amps are fully balanced / differential, the HC-1 isn’t. That said, I’d bet the HC-1’s would do a good job with your speakers. Isnt a monoblock fully balanced and differential by default? If its not, I quit. I dont understand engineering and I never will.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Oct 2, 2019 13:13:55 GMT -5
Like mentioned above, the DR amps are fully balanced / differential, the HC-1 isn’t. That said, I’d bet the HC-1’s would do a good job with your speakers. Isnt a monoblock fully balanced and differential by default? If its not, I quit. I dont understand engineering and I never will. no
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Oct 2, 2019 13:14:12 GMT -5
Like mentioned above, the DR amps are fully balanced / differential, the HC-1 isn’t. That said, I’d bet the HC-1’s would do a good job with your speakers. Isnt a monoblock fully balanced and differential by default? If its not, I quit. I dont understand engineering and I never will. The DR amps (if I am not mistaken) have basically two amps per channel (one on the positive side one on the negative side) making them truly balanced. The HC amp has a single amp module. It’s why the DR amps have twice the power versus the HC-1.
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 2, 2019 16:34:11 GMT -5
Like mentioned above, the DR amps are fully balanced / differential, the HC-1 isn’t. That said, I’d bet the HC-1’s would do a good job with your speakers. Isnt a monoblock fully balanced and differential by default? If its not, I quit. I dont understand engineering and I never will. Don’t worry about understanding the details. A mono block has the advantage of a single power supply — usually giving more continuous and peak power — and a single chassis that could be placed closer to the speaker it’s driving — allowing for shorter speaker wire. A balanced amp has the advantage of rejecting noise picked up along its signal path, and typically has lower distortion (which may not be audible). Also, all of the XPA G3 and HC amps have balanced inputs (XLR) — which can help keep cable connections quiet — but the amps aren’t balanced. All the DR amps are ‘fully balanced’, input to output. I know it can get confusing but we’ve all been through it. An unbalanced mono block with balanced inputs (like the HC-1) is a great choice, the DR-1 is the icing on the cake. Also see Keith’s explanation above.
|
|
|
Post by junchoon on Oct 10, 2019 5:11:31 GMT -5
Ah! Then I can understand why HC-1 is inferior to DR-1, and why it is cheaper
But on a side note Can some one explain the math to me how Emotiva priced their DR-1 to DR-3?
DR-1 is USD1499 DR-2 is USD1799 (+300) DR-3 is USD2199 (+400)
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by rickhayes on Oct 10, 2019 8:36:50 GMT -5
@ Rockman85.......I won't get into all the technical stuff as everyone else has that covered but.....If your username and your avatar are indicative of they way you listen to music......get the DR2......it's TOTALLY worth the extra $$!!
I speak from experience. I started with an XPA-2 GEN3 and it was a great little amp. When I upgraded to the the DR2 it was like night and day!! The power output is HUGE and the reserve is incredible!! I am VERY happy with the upgrade for sure!! Wish I would have just gotten the DR2 first!!
Hope this helps!!
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 10, 2019 10:58:53 GMT -5
Ah! Then I can understand why HC-1 is inferior to DR-1, and why it is cheaper But on a side note Can some one explain the math to me how Emotiva priced their DR-1 to DR-3? DR-1 is USD1499 DR-2 is USD1799 (+300) DR-3 is USD2199 (+400) Thanks I'm not sure what bit of it is confusing. Are you asking why the monoblock option is less expensive than the three channel balanced option? Or why the three channel balanced option is a $400 increase over the DR-2 (which was $300). If I had to guess the $100 increase over the two channel is because of the value - it's the first time Emotiva has offered a fully balanced three channel option which means you can use it across your fronts which means you can use it in a multichannel system - and if you have a 5.1 system you can have a fully balanced x series for $3700. Single chassis fully balanced multichannel amps are reasonably rare. I think the other realistically priced options are ATI amps (which are a lot more expensive) or the monoprice amp. If you want cheaper the PA-1 amplifier is a fully balanced monoblock and three of them can be got for $900 and they will still take up less space than the Emotiva DR-3.
|
|
|
Post by junchoon on Oct 10, 2019 22:52:31 GMT -5
Basically the Usd400 increase - the increase in price is not linear.
Not really sure if indeed the rarity becomes a selling/increase factor here
Hmm
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Oct 11, 2019 10:21:41 GMT -5
Basically the Usd400 increase - the increase in price is not linear. Not really sure if indeed the rarity becomes a selling/increase factor here Hmm Yeah the pricing is a little odd since they are built to order anyway (so it’s not like they keep a bunch of DR-3s sitting on the shelf). You would think if the 2 is $300 more for the extra blades then the 3 should also be $300 more.
|
|