|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Sept 19, 2012 13:03:25 GMT -5
Thanks hemster. ;D
I'm pretty excited to add yet another piece of Emo gear to my stash. I will get a couple of pics and post some feedback for the Lounge.
Now the waiting begins...
|
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 20, 2012 0:56:44 GMT -5
Thanks hemster. ;D I'm pretty excited to add yet another piece of Emo gear to my stash. I will get a couple of pics and post some feedback for the Lounge. Now the waiting begins... Looking forward to your review too. I also wonder if the instruction manual has the additional and corrected specs.  |
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Sept 26, 2012 5:45:37 GMT -5
Hi guys, Sorry to say that I've read your posts and noticed a couple of typo's on the spec's. My bad. I was pushing the team to get the units on the site on Friday afternoon, and frankly we should have taken an extra minute or two to make sure the detailed spec's we're 110% correct when transcribed. We'll get everything up to snuff on Monday morning. As you all know, these models are excellent performers. The big difference in the X and the Ultra series is that the X Series use the classic X Series gain block with balanced and unbalanced inputs, premium hardware, and of course, beefed up power supplies!! Cheers, Big Dan Hey Dan Is the specs on the website now updated? I have a little concern about the rating of the XPA-100 and XPA-200. I see that the XPA-100 is rated with 0,01% THD, and the XPA-200 with 1% THD. I hope that its a typo on the XPA-200 and that it should stand 0,01% ? I see the same specs in both the manual and AP test reports  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 26, 2012 10:30:30 GMT -5
I don't see any update to it so far. Also the SNR on the UPA-700 at around 50 db is still up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Sept 26, 2012 13:42:21 GMT -5
Hi guy's
Lonnie and Joe Sr. are testing all models specs. at the moment and they are being updated as completed. As a side note; we have found a small glitch in the big AP test system that is giving us erroneous S/N ratio readings. (worse than actual in most cases) We're having to do S/N manually to ensure 100% accuracy.
Sorry for any confusion. We should have everything corrected and updated by Friday.
It should be obvious to all that our amps spec. quite nicely and have no issues that should concern any of you. Sometimes, too much information is worse than none at all.
We're going to be like Rolls Royce in the old days...
Horsepower: Adequate.
Cheers,
Big Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Sept 26, 2012 14:44:04 GMT -5
Hi guy's Lonnie and Joe Sr. are testing all models specs. at the moment and they are being updated as completed. As a side note; we have found a small glitch in the big AP test system that is giving us erroneous S/N ratio readings. (worse than actual in most cases) We're having to do S/N manually to ensure 100% accuracy. Sorry for any confusion. We should have everything corrected and updated by Friday. It should be obvious to all that our amps spec. quite nicely and have no issues that should concern any of you. Sometimes, too much information is worse than none at all. We're going to be like Rolls Royce in the old days... Horsepower: Adequate. Cheers, Big Dan Dan I suspected that something like this was the problem. Is Audio Precision going to repair or replace the Tester? I hate to think that you would have to manually compute the SNR for all your gear from now forward. You are welcome to use my fingers and toes in a pinch. ;D ;D Thanks for promptly letting us know what was causing the anomaly with the AP Tester Data. As always, you are the best...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Sept 26, 2012 16:01:58 GMT -5
FYI, Just manually ran the UPA-700 and the S/N numbers stated on the web page are correct! It IS that quiet!  The AP test data for S/N is screwed up. We're in the process of correcting AP data. The message is this.. the amps are fine. Cheers, Big Dan |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 26, 2012 16:37:49 GMT -5
Hi Dan. Thanks for the response and keeping us in the loop. I figured there was something wonky going on there in the testing. I'm sure a lot of other members as well as I really do like having detailed figures that are not overblown. I actually bought your products based on that. Thanks for not being like other companies. Also thanks for that very nice 90,000 capacitance on the xpa-200! That's pretty darn nice. |
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 27, 2012 4:53:45 GMT -5
The updated specifications are posted and objective comparisons can be made between the new XPA-100 / 200 amps and their predecessors, the UPA-1 / 2. As of this post, the numbers in the product descriptions have not been updated, but the specification column and the owner’s manuals reflect the updated specifications. Now a comparison per the revised spec’s for XPA-100 / 200 posted…. Signal to Noise Ratio (into 8 ohms)XPA-100: > 89 dB at 1 watt (A-weighted), > 112 dB at rated power (A-weighted) UPA-1: >89db at 1 watt, >117db at Full Power: Conclusion: DRAW – 99% of listening is done closer to 1w rather than at full power
XPA-200: > 89 dB at 1 watt (A-weighted), > 110 dB at rated power (A-weighted) UPA-2: >93 dB at 1 watt, >107 db at full power Conclusion: Advantage UPA-2 – it is simply quieter at power levels where most listening takes placeTorodial Transformer Size (part of power supply)XPA-100 / 200: 360VA Heavy Duty Transformer UPA-1 / 2: 300VA Heavy Duty Transformer Conclusion: Advantage XPA-100 / 200 – transformers have a 20% increase in VA over the previous seriesSecondary Capacitance (part of power supply)XPA-100 – 60,000uF UPA-1 – 80,000uF Conclusion: I don't know! - the larger transformer of the XPA-100 most likely makes up (and then some) for the 20,000uF drop in secondary capacitance from the old to new unit
XPA-200 – 90,000uF UPA-2 – 40,000uF Advantage: XPA-200 – along with the larger transformer, this is a BIG improvement
Output Power in WattsXPA-100: 250w into 8 ohms & 400w into 4ohms*** UPA-1: 200w into 8 ohms & 350w into 4 ohms Advantage: XPA-100 – a 25% and 14.3% increase relative to the older unit *** The previous, erroneous specs gave the XPA-100 225w into 8 ohms and 360 into 4 ohms XPA-200: 150w into 8ohms & 240 into 4 ohms*** UPA-2: 125w into 8 ohms & 185 into 4 ohms*** Advantage: XPA-200*** The previous, erroneous specs gave the XPA-200 120w into 8 ohms
Comments: Per the revised specifications, the XPA-100 / 200 do appear to be superior to the amplifiers they replace. As tested, the XPA-100 is as clean, more powerful, and has higher quality connections than the UPA-1. The XPA-200 is more powerful, has more connection choices, and those connections are of higher quality than its predecessor. However, per the published revised specifications, the XPA-200’s noise floor appears to be higher than the UPA-2 near normal listening levels. In fact, with the listed >89 dB at 1 watt, the XPA-100 & 200 have the highest noise floors of any of the Emotiva amplifiers currently in production. This said, the >89dB at 1 watt specification is still impressive. Though this is likely to be imperceptible with most speakers and systems, those with high efficiency speakers may notice a difference in a comparison with other, less noisy amplifiers. This is to say there isn’t much difference.
Fact Checking the Salesman: As per "Big" Dan Laufman’s assertion that the power supplies were beefed up and the new amps were essentially the old amps “on steroids”..... XPA-200 is UPA-2 "on steroids": TRUE - The power supply is a blatant Barry Bonds level steroid use improvement over the power capability of the UPA-2. Check. ;D XPA-100 is UPA-1 "on steroids": UNDECIDED - The XPA-100's power supply performance specifications are fuzzier as the transformer size went up 60VA, but the secondary capacitance went down 20,000uF. I do not know how these relate to one another. Listed power output is increased 50w at both 8 and 4 ohms, so it has at least been on exercise and strengthening regime. It may be taking supplements too, but I don't know about steroids. My guess is the larger transformer more than makes up for the 20,000uF decrease in secondary capacitance. But I am just guessing... ....so I still have to ask the question "Why doesn't the XPA-100 have more capacitance than the UPA-1?"
TWO more reasons for the insistent question: First, both the transformer size and the capacitance of the XPA-200 increased. Why only the transformer in the XPA-100? Why didn't the XPA-100 pump up its capacitance too? The second, is the presence of a thread on the discussion boards emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=amps&action=display&thread=25038 detailing a UPA-1 modification in which the capacitance was increased among other things, maximizing performance. In that thread it is noted that the limiting factor, the bottleneck of the design, was the 300VA transformer of the UPA-1. The XPA-100 has a 360VA transformer so, all things being equal, is the capacitance of the XPA-100 the bottleneck now? Comparing the pictures of the mod, the older UPA-1, and the XPA-100 there seems to be plenty of room for more capacitors. Is performance being left on the table with the XPA-100? This said, I do believe the XPA-100 is a better amplifier than the UPA-1, but it is not as dramatically so as the XPA-200 is over the UPA-2 in terms of power supply. Choices among other Emotiva Amps: The revised specification of 250w at 8 ohms and 400w at 4 ohms for the XPA-100 does blur the line between it and the upcoming 250w into 8 Ohm and 500w into 4 ohm XPA-1L a little bit. At $449 each, the XPA-100 is $250 less than a $699 XPA-1L. Granted, the XPA-1L is balanced and has class A endowments, but a stereo pair of XPA-100s will be $500 less than a pair of XPA-1Ls. Perhaps a more interesting question would be the choice between an $898 pair of XPA-100s and a $799 XPA-2. ;D ;D ;D ;D Reviews???: Now all we need are some subjective reviews of the new amplifiers. How do you like the one you own? Hmmm....maybe I'll test drive a couple of XPA-100s for a few weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Sept 27, 2012 8:45:25 GMT -5
The updated specifications are posted and objective comparisons can be made between the new XPA-100 / 200 amps and their predecessors, the UPA-1 / 2. As of this post, the numbers in the product descriptions have not been updated, but the specification column and the owner’s manuals reflect the updated specifications. Now a comparison per the revised spec’s for XPA-100 / 200 posted…. Signal to Noise Ratio (into 8 ohms)XPA-100: > 89 dB at 1 watt (A-weighted), > 112 dB at rated power (A-weighted) UPA-1: >89db at 1 watt, >117db at Full Power: Conclusion: DRAW – 99% of listening is done closer to 1w rather than at full power
XPA-200: > 89 dB at 1 watt (A-weighted), > 110 dB at rated power (A-weighted) UPA-2: >93 dB at 1 watt, >107 db at full power Conclusion: Advantage UPA-2 – it is simply quieter at power levels where most listening takes placeTorodial Transformer Size (part of power supply)XPA-100 / 200: 360VA Heavy Duty Transformer UPA-1 / 2: 300VA Heavy Duty Transformer Conclusion: Advantage XPA-100 / 200 – transformers have a 20% increase in VA over the previous seriesSecondary Capacitance (part of power supply)XPA-100 – 60,000uF UPA-1 – 80,000uF Conclusion: I don't know! - the larger transformer of the XPA-100 most likely makes up (and then some) for the 20,000uF drop in secondary capacitance from the old to new unit
XPA-200 – 90,000uF UPA-2 – 40,000uF Advantage: XPA-200 – along with the larger transformer, this is a BIG improvement
Output Power in WattsXPA-100: 250w into 8 ohms & 400w into 4ohms*** UPA-1: 200w into 8 ohms & 350w into 4 ohms Advantage: XPA-100 – a 25% and 14.3% increase relative to the older unit *** The previous, erroneous specs gave the XPA-100 225w into 8 ohms and 360 into 4 ohms XPA-200: 150w into 8ohms & 240 into 4 ohms*** UPA-2: 125w into 8 ohms & 185 into 4 ohms*** Advantage: XPA-200*** The previous, erroneous specs gave the XPA-200 120w into 8 ohms
Comments: Per the revised specifications, the XPA-100 / 200 do appear to be superior to the amplifiers they replace. As tested, the XPA-100 is as clean, more powerful, and has higher quality connections than the UPA-1. The XPA-200 is more powerful, has more connection choices, and those connections are of higher quality than its predecessor. However, per the published revised specifications, the XPA-200’s noise floor appears to be higher than the UPA-2 near normal listening levels. In fact, with the listed >89 dB at 1 watt, the XPA-100 & 200 have the highest noise floors of any of the Emotiva amplifiers currently in production. This said, the >89dB at 1 watt specification is still impressive. Though this is likely to be imperceptible with most speakers and systems, those with high efficiency speakers may notice a difference in a comparison with other, less noisy amplifiers. This is to say there isn’t much difference.
Fact Checking the Salesman: As per "Big" Dan Laufman’s assertion that the power supplies were beefed up and the new amps were essentially the old amps “on steroids”..... XPA-200 is UPA-2 "on steroids": TRUE - The power supply is a blatant Barry Bonds level steroid use improvement over the power capability of the UPA-2. Check. ;D XPA-100 is UPA-1 "on steroids": UNDECIDED - The XPA-100's power supply performance specifications are fuzzier as the transformer size went up 60VA, but the secondary capacitance went down 20,000uF. I do not know how these relate to one another. Listed power output is increased 50w at both 8 and 4 ohms, so it has at least been on exercise and strengthening regime. It may be taking supplements too, but I don't know about steroids. My guess is the larger transformer more than makes up for the 20,000uF decrease in secondary capacitance. But I am just guessing... ....so I still have to ask the question "Why doesn't the XPA-100 have more capacitance than the UPA-1?"
TWO more reasons for the insistent question: First, both the transformer size and the capacitance of the XPA-200 increased. Why only the transformer in the XPA-100? Why didn't the XPA-100 pump up its capacitance too? The second, is the presence of a thread on the discussion boards emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=amps&action=display&thread=25038 detailing a UPA-1 modification in which the capacitance was increased among other things, maximizing performance. In that thread it is noted that the limiting factor, the bottleneck of the design, was the 300VA transformer of the UPA-1. The XPA-100 has a 360VA transformer so, all things being equal, is the capacitance of the XPA-100 the bottleneck now? Comparing the pictures of the mod, the older UPA-1, and the XPA-100 there seems to be plenty of room for more capacitors. Is performance being left on the table with the XPA-100? This said, I do believe the XPA-100 is a better amplifier than the UPA-1, but it is not as dramatically so as the XPA-200 is over the UPA-2 in terms of power supply. Choices among other Emotiva Amps: The revised specification of 250w at 8 ohms and 400w at 4 ohms for the XPA-100 does blur the line between it and the upcoming 250w into 8 Ohm and 500w into 4 ohm XPA-1L a little bit. At $449 each, the XPA-100 is $250 less than a $699 XPA-1L. Granted, the XPA-1L is balanced and has class A endowments, but a stereo pair of XPA-100s will be $500 less than a pair of XPA-1Ls. Perhaps a more interesting question would be the choice between an $898 pair of XPA-100s and a $799 XPA-2. ;D ;D ;D ;D Reviews???: Now all we need are some subjective reviews of the new amplifiers. How do you like the one you own? Hmmm....maybe I'll test drive a couple of XPA-100s for a few weeks. Thanks for the job! Nice The only thing I want to mention is that the XPA-100 and 200 power ratings is reached with 1% THD, and the UPA-1 and UPA-2 ratings was reached with 0,1% THD. But I dont know how much difference it makes.. Anyone knows? |
|
|
|
Post by tieftoener on Sept 27, 2012 10:08:23 GMT -5
I just want to chime in here...
Yes, transformers, capacitance, and SN specs are important... but a major difference between the XPA-100/200 and UPA-100/200 keeps being missed, overlooked, or perhaps misunderstood.
The XPA-100/200 use the X-series gain stage, which is notably different than the U-series gain stage. For this reason alone, there is going to be a big difference in sound quality over the XPA-100 over the old UPA-1 (or the revised UPA-100), even though the power supply and SNR are similar.
As pointed out earlier... specs are important to get a baseline understanding of performance, but the bottom line is: how does it sound? Things like transients, soundstage, tightness of low end, clarity and smoothness of midrange, etc...
There's no doubt that the UPA-1 was a phenomenal bang-for-buck, especially at the closeout price of $299; the XPA-100 coming in at $449 is also going to be amazing bang-for-buck.
The XPA-200 is a great intermediate between the UPA-200 and XPA-2: you get the upgraded gain stage with the XPA-200 and then the next step is more raw power with the XPA-2.
I too feel the more difficult comparison would be between a pair of XPA-100s and an XPA-2. I suspect the dual mono approach would edge out the XPA-2, but perhaps not.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 27, 2012 12:33:49 GMT -5
Oh man, I hope the 1% THD is another typo. I expect a better rating. I know they mentioned before that 1% THD is what other competitiors rate it at, but I disagree. Why conform to them and which competitors? The audiophile crowd or at least me doesn't think 1% THD is boastworthy . I think 0.1% THD or 0.01% THD is a much more impressive figure and I'm sure those amps can do it. Please don't shortchange them out of laziness or conformity to poorer competing products that rate that way out of necessity . These guys don't do it: www.wyred4sound.com/141527/html/page.htmland neither should emo IMO because emo does not need to . |
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Sept 27, 2012 12:56:44 GMT -5
Oh man, I hope the 1% THD is another typo. I expect a better rating. I know they mentioned before that 1% THD is what other competitiors rate it at, but I disagree. Why conform to them and which competitors? The audiophile crowd or at least me doesn't think 1% THD is boastworthy . I think 0.1% THD or 0.01% THD is a much more impressive figure and I'm sure those amps can do it. Please don't shortchange them out of laziness or conformity to poorer competing products that rate that way out of necessity . These guys don't do it: www.wyred4sound.com/141527/html/page.htmland neither should emo IMO because emo does not need to . Hey garbulky Im afraid the 1% THD is correct. Before the pages was updated yesterday - the XPA-200 was rated at 1% THD and the XPA-100 at 0,1% THD. NOW both are rated at 1% THD - so I believe that is whats correct.. |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff 
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 27, 2012 13:13:29 GMT -5
Oh man, I hope the 1% THD is another typo. I expect a better rating. I know they mentioned before that 1% THD is what other competitiors rate it at, but I disagree. Why conform to them and which competitors? The audiophile crowd or at least me doesn't think 1% THD is boastworthy . I think 0.1% THD or 0.01% THD is a much more impressive figure and I'm sure those amps can do it. Please don't shortchange them out of laziness or conformity to poorer competing products that rate that way out of necessity . These guys don't do it: www.wyred4sound.com/141527/html/page.htmland neither should emo IMO because emo does not need to . I think there is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the THD and rated power vs. actual THD of hte amp. The actual THD for any of our amplifiers is well below .1% usually in the .0X range. That is within the rated output power the actual and real THD is extremely low. 1% is an industry standard for power measurements and not the THD you hear when you are listening to the amp. Think of it like this. Lets say you have a car engine and the red line of that engine is 7000RPM. Below 7000RPM there is no vibration from the engine. When you hit 7000 RPM the engine starts to vibrate and the higher you go the more vibration you get. An amplifier is much like this in that below its rated output (like red line on a car) the THD is very low. When you hit maximum Rated output (the point at the onset of clipping) the THD will start to raise. The harder you drive the amplifier above this point the THD will continue to go up. It could go as high as 20% or more (if the protection circuits would allow this). Since it is not possible for the human ear to detect 1% THD, that became the industry standard for power measurements as that is considered to be the onset of clipping or maximum unclipped output. Just because the power spec is rated at 1%, that does not mean that is the THD of the amp. Far from it, within the power spec the actual THD is much, much less and why it is listed as seperate spec. Hope this helps. Lonnie |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Sept 27, 2012 13:18:11 GMT -5
Oh man, I hope the 1% THD is another typo. I expect a better rating. I know they mentioned before that 1% THD is what other competitiors rate it at, but I disagree. Why conform to them and which competitors? The audiophile crowd or at least me doesn't think 1% THD is boastworthy . I think 0.1% THD or 0.01% THD is a much more impressive figure and I'm sure those amps can do it. Please don't shortchange them out of laziness or conformity to poorer competing products that rate that way out of necessity . These guys don't do it: www.wyred4sound.com/141527/html/page.htmland neither should emo IMO because emo does not need to . I think there is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the THD and rated power vs. actual THD of hte amp. The actual THD for any of our amplifiers is well below .1% usually in the .0X range. That is within the rated output power the actual and real THD is extremely low. 1% is an industry standard for power measurements and not the THD you hear when you are plying the amp. This of it like this. Lets say you have a car engine and the red line of that engine is 7000RPM. Below 7000RPM there is no vibration from the engine. When you hit 7000 RPM the engine starts to vibrate and the higher you push go the more vibration you get. An amplifier is much like this in that below its rated output (like red line on a car) the THD is very low. When you hit maximum Rated output (the point at the onset of clipping) the THD will start to raise. The more you drive the amplifier above this point the THD will continue to go up. It could go as high as 20% or more (if the protection circuits would allow this). Since it is not possible for the human ear to detect 1% THD, that became the industry standard for power measurements as that is considered to be the onset of clipping or maximum unclipped output. Just because the power spec is rated at 1%, that does not mean that is the THD of the amp. Far from it, within the power spec the actual THD is much, much less and why it is listed as seperate spec. Hope this helps. Lonnie Thanks for that explanation, Lonnie. I have wondered about that a time or two... |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 27, 2012 13:35:44 GMT -5
Oh man, I hope the 1% THD is another typo. I expect a better rating. I know they mentioned before that 1% THD is what other competitiors rate it at, but I disagree. Why conform to them and which competitors? The audiophile crowd or at least me doesn't think 1% THD is boastworthy . I think 0.1% THD or 0.01% THD is a much more impressive figure and I'm sure those amps can do it. Please don't shortchange them out of laziness or conformity to poorer competing products that rate that way out of necessity . These guys don't do it: www.wyred4sound.com/141527/html/page.htmland neither should emo IMO because emo does not need to . I think there is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the THD and rated power vs. actual THD of hte amp. The actual THD for any of our amplifiers is well below .1% usually in the .0X range. That is within the rated output power the actual and real THD is extremely low. 1% is an industry standard for power measurements and not the THD you hear when you are listening to the amp. Think of it like this. Lets say you have a car engine and the red line of that engine is 7000RPM. Below 7000RPM there is no vibration from the engine. When you hit 7000 RPM the engine starts to vibrate and the higher you go the more vibration you get. An amplifier is much like this in that below its rated output (like red line on a car) the THD is very low. When you hit maximum Rated output (the point at the onset of clipping) the THD will start to raise. The harder you drive the amplifier above this point the THD will continue to go up. It could go as high as 20% or more (if the protection circuits would allow this). Since it is not possible for the human ear to detect 1% THD, that became the industry standard for power measurements as that is considered to be the onset of clipping or maximum unclipped output. Just because the power spec is rated at 1%, that does not mean that is the THD of the amp. Far from it, within the power spec the actual THD is much, much less and why it is listed as seperate spec. Hope this helps. Lonnie But what about all the golden ears in this forum that can hear THD of .00000000000001%? Huh? Please address that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Sept 27, 2012 13:37:45 GMT -5
Thank you, Lonnie, for the clarification. I had a feeling that was the case, but you conveyed much better than I would have done. However, if I am correctly understanding the other recent posts, I think their concern is with "image" rather than actual performance. For new customers (not members in this thread) without the background or understanding of what Lonnie just said, they might think the Emo amps were poorer quality (based on specific figures) compared to the competition. In any case, I am still enjoying my XPA-200. |
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 27, 2012 14:22:31 GMT -5
I think there is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the THD and rated power vs. actual THD of hte amp. The actual THD for any of our amplifiers is well below .1% usually in the .0X range. That is within the rated output power the actual and real THD is extremely low. 1% is an industry standard for power measurements and not the THD you hear when you are listening to the amp. Think of it like this. Lets say you have a car engine and the red line of that engine is 7000RPM. Below 7000RPM there is no vibration from the engine. When you hit 7000 RPM the engine starts to vibrate and the higher you go the more vibration you get. An amplifier is much like this in that below its rated output (like red line on a car) the THD is very low. When you hit maximum Rated output (the point at the onset of clipping) the THD will start to raise. The harder you drive the amplifier above this point the THD will continue to go up. It could go as high as 20% or more (if the protection circuits would allow this). Since it is not possible for the human ear to detect 1% THD, that became the industry standard for power measurements as that is considered to be the onset of clipping or maximum unclipped output. Just because the power spec is rated at 1%, that does not mean that is the THD of the amp. Far from it, within the power spec the actual THD is much, much less and why it is listed as seperate spec. Hope this helps. Lonnie Thanks for the clarification RE: THD, Lonnie. It is the best analogy and explanation I have ever heard about the THD specs's correct interpretation. Frankly, most modern amplifiers of any quality do have very acceptable THD levels well below what is audible to the human ear. Based on my experience with Emotiva amps, I own four, THD is a non-issue. That said, and the specification that caught the eyes of the of the board members was the SNR, and in some instances and to some people, that noise floor does matter. The previous erroneous specifications raised red flags as they were so out of line for what has become the expectation for Emotiva amplifiers. Glad to see that it was due to systematic error and calibration of the test equipment, not the designer's loss of MOJO. |
|
|
|
Post by wrinklemash on Sept 27, 2012 14:45:09 GMT -5
I just want to chime in here... Yes, transformers, capacitance, and SN specs are important... but a major difference between the XPA-100/200 and UPA-100/200 keeps being missed, overlooked, or perhaps misunderstood. The XPA-100/200 use the X-series gain stage, which is notably different than the U-series gain stage. For this reason alone, there is going to be a big difference in sound quality over the XPA-100 over the old UPA-1 (or the revised UPA-100), even though the power supply and SNR are similar. As pointed out earlier... specs are important to get a baseline understanding of performance, but the bottom line is: how does it sound? Things like transients, soundstage, tightness of low end, clarity and smoothness of midrange, etc... There's no doubt that the UPA-1 was a phenomenal bang-for-buck, especially at the closeout price of $299; the XPA-100 coming in at $449 is also going to be amazing bang-for-buck. The XPA-200 is a great intermediate between the UPA-200 and XPA-2: you get the upgraded gain stage with the XPA-200 and then the next step is more raw power with the XPA-2. I too feel the more difficult comparison would be between a pair of XPA-100s and an XPA-2. I suspect the dual mono approach would edge out the XPA-2, but perhaps not. I agree with most everything being said here, but I was commenting with the understanding that the UPA-1 did have an "X" series gain stage. I thought it was a single channel of a XPA-3 or XPA-5, with a 300VA & 80,000uF power supply. Its gain structure is 32dB just like all the other "X" series amplifiers. Is my assumption wrong? Older posts seem to indicate that my assumption is correct. If I am wrong and the gain structure is improved significantly over the UPA-1, the XPA-100 does represent a better value than one might believe it to be. Also, I know we are splitting hairs here... |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 27, 2012 15:00:57 GMT -5
I disagree Lonnie. First I would like to mention, that I do appreciate the additional THD+N spec where they mention that it is below 0.02% That does help reduce the confusion. It also makes my argument a lot less potent ;D
Anyway, onto my reasons:
It sounds like inflating power output figures when it's not necessary. It really isn't. Your amps have lots of power already even when rated at the lower THD figure.
The only reason for doing the 1% is so that you can post larger wattage numbers. Time and again, emotiva has mentioned conservative rating numbers.
When I see THD at rated power is 0.1% then I know at least to my amateur knowledge that this amp will perform incredibly well no matter how much I push it at what it's stated at very cleanly.
Now, it would be yes it does 400 watts with THD about as good as an AVR but somewhere within the power range, not quite sure where maybe its 399 watts, maybe it's 300 watts. maybe it's 120 watts , it measures unbelievably well. How useful is that? Not as much as THD at rated power...
I noticed the mention of inaudibility only comes into play when the ratings are not as impressive. You don't hear somebody telling each other my amp does 0.01% THD with 90,000 capacitance but it doesn't really matter and I don't care because there's no real difference in amps. I should have gone with my AVR as I don't actually blow the house away with volume and it sounds the same you know. Of course not.
Anyway, it's about not relaxing emotiva standards. You've done it this long, why change now? No need to confuse newer customers. Your amps have tons of power. A quick visit to the forum will convince most new people that doubt that. How would they be confused if you say THD at rated power? They won't. They will see an amazing number at a very good power output and know exactly what they are getting and be very pleased when it arrives.
Anyway, thanks for all the amazing work that you do. I look around and I still haven't found other companies that offer the bang for the buck that you do at these entry level prices into high end.
|
|
The AP test data for S/N is screwed up.
