|
|
Post by powxpa on Feb 28, 2013 1:29:26 GMT -5
Does any one have both xpa 2 and xpa 200? How do xpa 200s compare to xpa 2s beside watts per channel? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 28, 2013 1:44:07 GMT -5
capacitance: XPA-2 45,000 (and people here find it plenty of power) vs xpa-200 with 90,000 capacitance
|
|
|
|
Post by jackfish on Feb 28, 2013 11:17:38 GMT -5
The XPA-2 has twelve 50V 15,000uF capacitors in a series/parallel configuration resulting in 45,000uF. The total effective power supply capacitance is ¼ what it would be if they were all wired in parallel, but still provides a potential of 100V storage to drive the rail voltage up high enough to meet rated power. Hence, you can't just compare effective capacitance. Rated power, RMS and peak, should take into account power reserves from the power supply. The XPA-2 also has a 1.2kVA toroidal transformer and 12 output devices per channel, while the XPA-200 has a 360VA toroidal transformer and 6 output devices per channel.
Edit: I corrected the XPA-200 output devices.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob80b on Feb 28, 2013 12:44:46 GMT -5
Apparently 6 output devices. emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ampreviews&thread=26180&page=1~1 week update:Oh, I wanted to share two technical details about this amplifier for anyone interested like I was. I e-mailed customer service last week about several things, and along with that I asked about the transformer size (VA) and the number of output devices per channel. - 360 VA transformer (which we now know)
- 6 output devices per channel (UPA-2 had 4 per channel)
If you're on the fence about this new amp, I highly recommend you give it a shot! Last, but certainly not least, I want to give a BIG THANKS to Lonnie and Co. for an awesome amplifier!  |
|
|
|
Post by rob80b on Feb 28, 2013 12:56:28 GMT -5
Also.
Sorry can’t give a direct comparison but I’ve recently added an XPA-200 to my roster and can attest that in my 10’ x 15’ room, regardless of source material and volume levels it easily matched my Bryston 4BSST (500watts at 4 0hms), comparable to the XPA-2, running a pair of Dynaudio Special 25s 88db/4ohm in finesse and audio quality.
Really comes down to room size and speaker efficiency and of course listening habits (I prefer reference levels ;D) but I found the XPA-200 rather special and it’s prodigious clean undistorted output defies its size.
|
|
|
|
Post by powxpa on Feb 28, 2013 23:01:29 GMT -5
thanks a lot every one for taking time to answer my questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Feb 28, 2013 23:40:12 GMT -5
Hi powxpa, Besides what has been mentioned already, the XPA-200 offers 29 dB gain (the XPA-2 is 32 dB). The -200 is also lighter and comes in a 2RU chassis. No fancy dancing meters, though.  I've owned a XPA-200 from the very first shipment back in September 2012. Completely satisfied here. Great sound quality and outstanding value. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 1, 2013 3:42:59 GMT -5
BTW, I have the UPA-2 which was the old version of the xpa-200 minus some upgrades before it was disctoninued. It's a fine amp very clear and it does drive my efficient tower speakers with 12 drivers total nicely. However, if I had to redo it all over, it would have been an xpa-2 without a doubt simply because if the upa-2 could do so well, what could its bigger brother do?
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 1, 2013 6:14:14 GMT -5
I don't know about the XPA-200 but I got my XPA-2 nearly 14 months ago to power my Canton Vento 890.2 DCs and, after all this time, I am still completely blown away.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 1, 2013 8:12:30 GMT -5
I ha d a UPA-2 for a short time and while it was a great little amp, my XPA-2 is an order of magnitude better. Lots more headroom and punch. But delicate when it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob80b on Mar 1, 2013 9:32:41 GMT -5
I ha d a UPA-2 for a short time and while it was a great little amp, my XPA-2 is an order of magnitude better. Lots more headroom and punch. But delicate when it needs to be. I believe that’s the thing, while the UPA-2 came in a close second to my Bryston 4BSST, the XPA-200 with its higher output into 4ohms at 240 watts, double the capacitance at 90,000 uF, 6 output transistors and slightly larger transformer, retained it’s composure regardless of the complexity of the source material and high volume levels, as I mentioned above it matched the 4BSST in my room even with a handicap of 260 watts/4ohms less than the Bryston. |
|
|
|
Post by rob80b on Mar 1, 2013 10:08:04 GMT -5
As the OP asked it would be interesting to get feedback from those who have compared the XPA-200 and XPA-2 directly.
Quite often years ago the smaller amps would general produce a sweeter sound due to less electronics but HT has pushed the consumer to larger amps to carry the demanding loads.
Also manufacturers of quality amps appear to be using higher quality outputs devices which behave better at higher volume levels so that distortion has been greatly reduced, especially at the top end of the audio spectrum, minimising the overall difference of the sound signature between the lower and higher wattage amps.
Larger rooms with inefficient speakers will always benefit from a bigger more robust amplifier, but how big that's the question?
|
|
