XPA-1-L thread

[dt]

Hi,

Has there been any official notification on the differences between the XPA-1L Gen 1 and Gen 2 or was it just a cosmetic update?

[rod]

I got mine days ago and very happy with it. I was hesitant to purchase it before because of heat issue as always stated in some of the threads. I don't mean to go against those who said that it really gets hotter as opposed to other emo amps, but I don't see that level of heat as a weakness of this amp. Its generated heat is the same as the other emo gears. As a matter of fact, I let my music play all night long till 6 AM and the heat temperature is still the same not unless I have a very thick skin that I can't feel the temperature.

[frenchyfranky]

dt If my memory is good, I think that they already used the new design PCB in the gen1, so the differences in gen2 must be only cosmetics but surely some one from Emo ( KeithL ) can confirm if something else inside has been changed.

[rod]

I called the emo first before I made my purchase last week and wad told that the only difference is just cosmetics...

[butchgo]

I got mine last week and they don't even say Gen 2 on them.
Just black trim plates.

[rod]

Nov 16, 2014 14:17:22 GMT -5 butchgo said:

I got mine last week and they don't even say Gen 2 on them.
Just black trim plates.

You are right.... And I don't think the emo forgot to write it on the front panel... Just like the ERC3, it does not say if it is gen 2 or still 1 but it has black trim though...

[Gary Cook]

There was no Gen1 ERC-3, the Gen-1 "versions" were ERC-1 and ERC-2.

Cheers
Gary

[dt]

If the only difference is the trim, it's too bad we don't have the option of ordering it with either the silver or the black.

[audiophill]

My erc-3 says gen 2 right under where it says erc-3 its small and in black print, same as xmc-1 it says gen 2 in black under xmc-1.

[plm]

Nov 17, 2014 4:34:38 GMT -5 dt said:

If the only difference is the trim, it's too bad we don't have the option of ordering it with either the silver or the black.

Lonnie told me that the Gen 2 has an improved layout on the PSU board, so is electrically quieter when measured in the lab. Sonically, don't expect any difference over the Gen 1.

That's why I bought a Gen 1 pair and will order the new style black trim when it comes in.

[rod]

Nov 17, 2014 8:13:31 GMT -5 audiophill said:

My erc-3 says gen 2 right under where it says erc-3 its small and in black print, same as xmc-1 it says gen 2 in black under xmc-1.

Yes, you are right. I just saw it under ERC-3 label on the lower left side of the frontal panel.

[orcrone]

Mar 13, 2013 21:39:55 GMT -5 deltadube said:

well to be a bit more clear paradigm recommend or suggest

amp power 15 watts up to 350 watts for the studio 100s but not to imput more
than 230 watts does not say at what ohm. but i assume 8 since they say its an 8 ohm speaker.. but im sure it dips to low 4s at times..

i do understand under power vs over powering your speaks which paradigm also recommends but to be careful.. i guess you have to do it slowly.. and listen ..
wish i knew when i was hitting 225 watts..

i got my xpa 3 wow very happy with it.. scared to turn it up.. think i might run out of
power .. i have my limiter set to -10 db.. one day like to try -9 or -8 but its only 200 watts
so how do you know when u run out of power.. speakers could burn out quick..

its pretty loud at -10 i like it sometimes.. couch is vibrating like crzy feels good LOL..
but being addictive personality i like MORE..

cheers..

I know this is an old post, but I thought I'd throw in some info after calling Paradigm. Paradigm lists the Studio 100's Suitable Amplifier Power Range as 15 (really?) to 350 watts and the Maximum Input Power as 230 watts. He claimed the latter spec means the speaker was subjected to a 230 watt continuous input (I don't know remember which frequencies) for 8 hours without damage.

[Gary Cook]

Dec 7, 2014 9:09:23 GMT -5 orcrone said:

I know this is an old post, but I thought I'd throw in some info after calling Paradigm. Paradigm lists the Studio 100's Suitable Amplifier Power Range as 15 (really?) to 350 watts and the Maximum Input Power as 230 watts. He claimed the latter spec means the speaker was subjected to a 230 watt continuous input (I don't know remember which frequencies) for 8 hours without damage.

Almost 20 years ago (late 90's) I tried a pair of Studio 100's (the original version) using a 25 WPC Class A amp, they sounded fantastic. I don't recall any volume lacking, not that I noticed anyway.


Cheers
Gary

[novisnick]

Dec 7, 2014 21:22:13 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

Dec 7, 2014 9:09:23 GMT -5 orcrone said:

I know this is an old post, but I thought I'd throw in some info after calling Paradigm. Paradigm lists the Studio 100's Suitable Amplifier Power Range as 15 (really?) to 350 watts and the Maximum Input Power as 230 watts. He claimed the latter spec means the speaker was subjected to a 230 watt continuous input (I don't know remember which frequencies) for 8 hours without damage.

Almost 20 years ago (late 90's) I tried a pair of Studio 100's (the original version) using a 25 WPC Class A amp, they sounded fantastic. I don't recall any volume lacking, not that I noticed anyway.


Cheers
Gary

There is no volume lacking, I promise you, though my cave is not huge by any measure.
Drive them with clean power and the sky is the limit. IMHO

[grigorianvlad]

Gentlemen (and ladies if there are any here), I am considering either getting a pair of XPA-1L's or an XPR-2. I know you are probably thinking what a stupid question. One has almost three times the power of the other one. But I am not after power. I am looking for better sound (audibly so). My AVR rarely goes over -40dB.
So, the XPA-1L's offer their advantages - separate power supplies, pure class A, etc. The XPR-2 is a reference line, so should be even better.
To reiterate, I am looking for a sonic difference, a difference you can actually here. Keeping all that in mind - which would you buy.

[garbulky]

Dec 19, 2014 16:58:21 GMT -5 grigorianvlad said:

Gentlemen (and ladies if there are any here), I am considering either getting a pair of XPA-1L's or an XPR-2. I know you are probably thinking what a stupid question. One has almost three times the power of the other one. But I am not after power. I am looking for better sound (audibly so). My AVR rarely goes over -40dB.
So, the XPA-1L's offer their advantages - separate power supplies, pure class A, etc. The XPR-2 is a reference line, so should be even better.
To reiterate, I am looking for a sonic difference, a difference you can actually here. Keeping all that in mind - which would you buy.

I've heard both. They both sound best with a dedicated pre-amp and can really shine when driven by a good DAC.
They were both part of a setup that was the best sound I have ever heard.
It was
Oppo 105 to XSP-1 (Made a VERY nice difference here) to XPA-1 L's (and also tried XPR-2) to axiom m80 V4 speakers with a power sound XV15 subwoofer.
ATS acoustic room treatments.
Large room.
Since I didn't get to directly A/B I will refrain from pronouncing a winner. But the truth is... there was no really clear winner. What there was was two different sound signatures.
The XPR-2 sounded most like a old generation UPA-2 (or XPA-200) in sound.
The XPA-1 L's were most similar to the XPA-5 sound signature you have.
Now note, I didn't say sound quality, I said sound signature. Also the differences weren't huge by any means.

The XPR-2's were slightly laid back mainly in the treble. I remember when I heard them, I described it as being a "sopisticated" sound whatever that means, that's what it felt like. It had a bit of warmth and maybe the tiniest bit of fuzz in the sound which actually made it sound nice. It's main stregnth was a 3 dimensional body to instruments. And the fact that even though it was laid back, it was obvious that there was a TON of power behind it. When power was called for it just did it. Like a laid back giant.

The XPA-1 L's has that "neutral" feel to the sound of the XPA-5. Some people may go so far as to call it not quite as warm as the XPR-2 or maybe a bit leaner would be a bit more correct. But....make no mistake this is not some sort of feather weight brash cold amp. Like I mentioned there was no winner here and the differences were slight. If I had to guess it's treble was less laidback than the XPR-2 or at least didn't feel laid back. And when the dynamics came, it was able to push it more "in your face" whikle the XPR-2 definitely pushed dynamics but there was the last bit of "brashness" that it politely didn't do. Sort of like it just wouldn't be right to sound like that I don't know. Now these are very nitpicky comments on the sound and they were both really excellent amps.
I really think what it comes down to is do you like the XPA-5 sound because that's prettty much what you'll get from the XPA-1 L (Maybe slightly better), or do you like a more warm laid back relaxed sound as that's what you get from the XPR-2.

Also there are the looks to consider. Some people love the look of the reference series while some prefer the XPA gen 2 styling. Personally I think the gen 2 styling is just gorgeous while the XPR-2's looks are just too different for me to be drawn to it but maybe you may prefer the look of the reference line.

The XPA-1 L has been in my dream system. But honestly when it comes down to it, I may just go for an XPR-2 but only because that's my slight preference. I liked that warm laid back sound as it is very similar to the UPA-2. But the XPA-1 L was very nice as well and I would be just as happy with it!

Also you may be interested to know that it feels somewhat like the XPR-2 has some decent class A power reserves as it tends to run pretty warm.

[seppo]

Dec 19, 2014 16:58:21 GMT -5 grigorianvlad said:

Gentlemen (and ladies if there are any here), I am considering either getting a pair of XPA-1L's or an XPR-2. I know you are probably thinking what a stupid question. One has almost three times the power of the other one. But I am not after power. I am looking for better sound (audibly so). My AVR rarely goes over -40dB.
So, the XPA-1L's offer their advantages - separate power supplies, pure class A, etc. The XPR-2 is a reference line, so should be even better.
To reiterate, I am looking for a sonic difference, a difference you can actually here. Keeping all that in mind - which would you buy.

Check out also the new SA-250 (clean 400 wpc at 4 Ohm). Emotiva claims that its their best sounding amp at the moment, "nothing that they have at the moment can touch it" according to the podcast. It was designed to be the flagship model for a new high-end studio amp series. See the two SA-250 threads for more details.

Anyways, I got one, and have been very happy. Drives my 3 Ohm Infinity RS-IIs effortlessly, and sounds fantastic
 

[todcp]

Dec 7, 2014 21:22:13 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

Dec 7, 2014 9:09:23 GMT -5 orcrone said:

I know this is an old post, but I thought I'd throw in some info after calling Paradigm. Paradigm lists the Studio 100's Suitable Amplifier Power Range as 15 (really?) to 350 watts and the Maximum Input Power as 230 watts. He claimed the latter spec means the speaker was subjected to a 230 watt continuous input (I don't know remember which frequencies) for 8 hours without damage.

Almost 20 years ago (late 90's) I tried a pair of Studio 100's (the original version) using a 25 WPC Class A amp, they sounded fantastic. I don't recall any volume lacking, not that I noticed anyway.


Cheers
Gary

[todcp]

I have Paradigm Studio 100v4. They did not reach their sound potential with 125 wpc. With my dual XPA-1L they are superb. A Paradigm tech told me they are best with at least 200 Wpc.
When I bought them used I had to repair damage done by the prior owner trying to run them at volume with a 50 wpc NAD receiver?

[eugenechng]

I have a pair of XPA-1L with XSP1 preamp, and I am planning to purchase a pair of B&W CM10. Does anyone have experience with this setup and is the sound good ?