|
|
Post by roadrunner on Oct 14, 2012 3:48:31 GMT -5
roadrunner typed: "You and geebo are both correct. In the very early days Emotiva used to show the power output for all the combination of channels, but Lonnie found that there were individuals who would buy an XPA-5 with the intention of only powering 2-channels; and they would drive the amp at maximum levels far above what the amp what designed for. Then when the owner burned out the power module for those two channels they expected Emotiva to repair the amp under warranty.
So to avoid having to deal with those idiots burning up their amps thru miss use Emotiva stopped showing all the power output combos. The XPA-5 can be used to drive just 2 or 3 channels at the rated output for all channels driven. In other words, you can drive any number of channels on the XPA-5 at 200 W into 8 Ohms or 300 W into 4 Ohms; but do NOT expect to drive just 2 channels at 400 W into 8 Ohm or 500 W into 4 Ohms. As usual, it is the misbehavior of just a few that spoil it for the rest of us". But this makes no sense, because I've read NUMEROUS threads on this forum where a poster has asked if there's any problem, or danger in using (say) an XPA-5 to drive only 2, 3, or 4 speakers, or an XPA-3 to drive just 1 or 2 - and the answer is ALWAYS a resounding "NO PROBLEM". So if that was Lonnie's response, then I just don't understand I guess...because either the amp can drive less than the channels its designed for safely and without damage - or it can't. Apparently I did a piss poor job of explaining why there was a problem with using the XPA-5 to drive only two channels. As long as the user does not try to drive just those two channels for long periods of time at 500 W each there is no problem. The trouble is that the power modules in each blade were designed to safely handlle 200W to 300W. When the idiots purposely drove the power modules at 500W for hours at a time they would overheat and fail. The problem was they wanted the performance of the XPA-1 so they bought the XPA-5 with the intention of only ever driving just 2 channels -- their way of getting XPA-1 performance for one-third the price. There is no problem just using just 2 channels of the XPA-5 as long as you don't run each blade at double to triple their designed limits. Had they just ran just 2 channels at their designed output level (200W to 300W) there would have been no problem. Make sense? Would you buy a car having a 6 cyl engine rated at 200 horsepower at 6000 RPM and then pull the plugs on all but two cylinders and then rev the engine at 15000 RPM for hours at a time? Do you think it would damage the engine to do that? Hell yes it would. Its the same principle as what the idiots were doing when over-driving the two channels on the XPA-5. I am sorry I was not more eloquent in explaining why Lonnie stopped showing the power rating for all combinations of channel use. It was just to prevent making people think they could abuse the amp without damaging it -- just to save a few bucks. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 14, 2012 3:51:57 GMT -5
i.e hook up your speakers 2 or 5 ad enjoy at whatever level you want as likely you won't be overdriving it. Just don't have continous block parties. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2012 5:30:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Oct 14, 2012 12:33:32 GMT -5
LOL! Friends don't let friends listen to endless amounts of bad, loud Indie Rock music! ;D I could think of a few things that would make his eyes bleed, too. There are some wholesome images on the InterWebz.  |
|
|
|
Post by Decllan on Oct 14, 2012 17:56:06 GMT -5
Ouf of fear of possibly damaging amp long-term (even though I don't turn it up to 11), I hooked up the JBL's as surrounds.
It sounds great but I think 2 channel sound is preferable to 4 channels (no center, no sub) or the difference between boxes & diopole speakers is too much.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Oct 15, 2012 11:01:14 GMT -5
The specs also slightly changed for the XPA-5 after 2009.
The transformer went from 1600VA to the current 1200VA.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Norseman on Oct 15, 2012 13:09:46 GMT -5
The specs also slightly changed for the XPA-5 after 2009. The transformer went from 1600VA to the current 1200VA. So,...early models of the XPA-5 have a larger transformer than the current version(?!). If so, I'd think the earlier models would then be sought after at a premium, no? |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Oct 15, 2012 13:50:06 GMT -5
The specs also slightly changed for the XPA-5 after 2009. The transformer went from 1600VA to the current 1200VA. So,...early models of the XPA-5 have a larger transformer than the current version(?!). If so, I'd think the earlier models would then be sought after at a premium, no? That is for the buyer and seller to work out. I'm sure many don't even know (or care) about this. After all the performance is identical for the specified application. 200x5 into 8ohms. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,851
Member is Online
|
Post by LCSeminole on Oct 15, 2012 14:17:43 GMT -5
I have an XPA-5 from the first production run that is sitting idle having been replaced by an XPR-5. I'll have to pop the hood and have a look see when I get off work. Must say I never heard that it had a bigger transformer when it first came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decllan on Oct 15, 2012 14:34:58 GMT -5
Does that mean the pre-2009 XPA-5 should be avoided for being more inefficient or does inefficiency translate to better cooling?
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Oct 15, 2012 14:43:21 GMT -5
Does that mean the pre-2009 XPA-5 should be avoided for being more inefficient or does inefficiency translate to better cooling? I don't think cooling is affected too much. AB designs draw power on demand. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Oct 15, 2012 14:44:09 GMT -5
I have an XPA-5 from the first production run that is sitting idle having been replaced by an XPR-5. I'll have to pop the hood and have a look see when I get off work. Must say I never heard that it had a bigger transformer when it first came out. The posts that discussed this change when it happened are long gone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 0:10:23 GMT -5
The xpa 5 was listed as having a 1.6va transformer at release but is was a misprint. I have had several xpa-5s and they all have had the 1.2va transformer as I checked to see if this was the case.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Oct 16, 2012 10:28:09 GMT -5
The xpa 5 was listed as having a 1.6va transformer at release but is was a misprint. I have had several xpa-5s and they all have had the 1.2va transformer as I checked to see if this was the case. That is what the missing threads started to discuss. The LPA has a 1.2VA transformer, and the original XPA-5 was thought to have a larger one than that. But as long as it meets specs, does it really matter? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 10:55:40 GMT -5
I actually have had 2 lpa-1s and they both only had 850va transformers in them so I think that was a misprint as well. you are right though as long as they meet specs it is not a hugh deal.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,851
Member is Online
|
Post by LCSeminole on Oct 16, 2012 11:16:00 GMT -5
The xpa 5 was listed as having a 1.6va transformer at release but is was a misprint. I have had several xpa-5s and they all have had the 1.2va transformer as I checked to see if this was the case. Thanks for clearing that up as I really must have missed that controversy. I did however open up my XPA-5 last night and sure enough, a 1.2va transformer. |
|
abhi
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 1
|
Post by abhi on Feb 7, 2013 10:10:46 GMT -5
The xpa 5 was listed as having a 1.6va transformer at release but is was a misprint. I have had several xpa-5s and they all have had the 1.2va transformer as I checked to see if this was the case. That is what the missing threads started to discuss. The LPA has a 1.2VA transformer, and the original XPA-5 was thought to have a larger one than that. But as long as it meets specs, does it really matter? It seems like the older version did have better specs. The archive link also has the old user manual from previous generation which specifies 250wpc all channel driven on page24. web.archive.org/web/20090205150352/http://emotiva.com/manuals/XPA-5%20Amplifier%20Manual_Final_v1pt06.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 12:38:51 GMT -5
That link results in a document that is terribly written. It claims to be a manual for the XPA-5, but then the Table of Contents is for the LPA-7. WTF? Looks like they started with an LPA-7 manual, made some changes to make it an XPA-5 manual, and didn't proofread it very much.
As mentioned, the specifications section claims 250 watts/ch. into 8 ohms and *440* watts/ch. into 4 ohms. Additionally, the input impedance figures were dramatically higher than the current specs. 47k ohms for the unbalanced vs 33k ohms for current specs.
I saved it to my hard drive just for grins...
-RW-
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,487
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 7, 2013 12:40:14 GMT -5
The power of the XPA-5 is limited only by your imagination. Dream it and it will be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 12:45:42 GMT -5
Cool!! Must be an un-documented feature. Now my XPA-5 kicks ass on the XPR-5, and I saved $1100 - schweet!
-RW-
|
|
