Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 15, 2012 11:08:18 GMT -5
XPA-200: 90,000 uF of storage capacitance UPA-200: 40,000 uF of storage capacitance. This means the XPA-200 can respond faster to the demands of the music program. You can compare this with the small amount of power that's stored in our muscles. It lets you react fast, like when you put your hand on a hot object. But for a longer effort (like carrying an Emo amp to your rack) the blood will have to transport energy to the muscle. That is to be compared to the power ratings. weight: 31lb (XPA-200) vs 24 lb (UPA-200) Always a good thing to check the weight. The new nine-amp Denon AVR 4520 weighs only 16 kg. No way is it producing the 150 Watt @ 8 ohm they specced. XPA-200 is just a more audiophile amp. Never mind the power ratings. Not very important. XPA-2 has only 45 000 uF.. Does this mean that XPA-200 is a better amp since it is "quicker"? Can the difference be that the XPA-2 has bigger caps that are "slower" than the ones in the XPA-200? Enlarging the secondary capacitance is to make an amp better without making it bigger. XPA-2 doesn't need it to meet it's goals. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 19, 2012 5:47:05 GMT -5
I am surprised the XPA-200 doesn't get more attention.
1/ It's a great choice if the speakers are more or less efficient
2/ It's affordable @ $499
3/ It's compact, only 2RU height
4/ It's secundary capacitance (= instantly avalable power storage) is more than double the value of the UPA-200 (90K vs 40K uF) and this was the key feature why the UPA-1 was praised so much despite it having less power than the XPA-2.
5/ XLR inputs avalable
What's not to like? The SNR being only 82 dB @ 1 Watt? That will be inaudible.
For all the reasons mentioned, I will probably add two to my setup with RMC-1 and XPR-5 for 9.3. Hopefully, I can add three if the RMC-1 is 11.2 (Hey, I can dream!). Surrounds don't need the same power of the fronts. The Height and Width probably even less, even if the room is very big.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosanity on May 25, 2013 20:29:29 GMT -5
- Bigger power supply - watts increased by max 25 watts in 4 ohms, how much bigger can it actually be? The power supply is only very slightly bigger: 360VA versus 350VA. That's less than 3% difference. It seems like the XPA is about better build quality and a lot more dynamic headroom. The much bigger capacitive reserves and better heatsinking should allow more dynamic power. In terms of steady state power, the difference seems almost negligible. |
|
|
|
Post by prefabfan on Jul 15, 2013 20:13:12 GMT -5
Just quick thumbs up for the XPA-200. I have both amps and the UPS -200 does fine for rear speakers in HT; the XPA 200 is fully audiophile quality, beefier in every way. I belie it could run Maggie 1.6s quite well (have not tried, I have JBL 4430s which can run on 10 wpc). That bass guitar has all the energy the recording possesses. There is a MARKED improvement in sound stepping up from the UPA, which could not quite control my 15" woofers. The XPA has them in a headlock. it is truly an audiophile amp. Black trim would be the only improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jul 15, 2013 22:14:10 GMT -5
XPA-200: 90,000 uF of storage capacitance UPA-200: 40,000 uF of storage capacitance. This means the XPA-200 can respond faster to the demands of the music program. You can compare this with the small amount of power that's stored in our muscles. It lets you react fast, like when you put your hand on a hot object. But for a longer effort (like carrying an Emo amp to your rack) the blood will have to transport energy to the muscle. That is to be compared to the power ratings. weight: 31lb (XPA-200) vs 24 lb (UPA-200) Always a good thing to check the weight. The new nine-amp Denon AVR 4520 weighs only 16 kg. No way is it producing the 150 Watt @ 8 ohm they specced. XPA-200 is just a more audiophile amp. Never mind the power ratings. Not very important. XPA-2 has only 45 000 uF.. Does this mean that XPA-200 is a better amp since it is "quicker"? Can the difference be that the XPA-2 has bigger caps that are "slower" than the ones in the XPA-200? The transformer on the XPA-2 is a lot bigger than the one in the xpa-200 so it does not need so much capacitance to reach its specs... |
|
|
|
Post by johnkenn on Aug 9, 2013 15:02:06 GMT -5
Is the Xpa-200 powerful enough for ProAc Studio 100's? Can decide on the 2 or 200...
|
|
