|
|
Post by audiofile on Mar 16, 2013 19:49:39 GMT -5
I have been running my XPA-1's constantly since 8AM this morning, listening and listening and listening to a very eclectic selection of music, ranging from Glenn Alexander's haunting guitar whispering "the Belle Mahone" to Sade's bass shaking "Love Is Found" and everything in between, even a bit of "Death Magnetic" by Metallica.
Initially I turned them on to do a Sumiko "Master Set" to finish off my speaker placement but after an hour or so of tweaking the placement, I was done so I just settled in to listen...and have been listening ever since, making the little blue LED's spill across the face of the units like small blue waves attacking a black sand beach.
They are barely warm! I know a class A/B amp is a bit more efficient with it's transistors operating symmetrically with a little voltage always present on both sides of the positive and negative power rails but I expected that over time, and given the slightly abusive levels of listening I've been doing today, that they would at least be warm to hot. Not so!
Dang I love my XPA-1's!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Mar 17, 2013 7:33:03 GMT -5
I have been running my XPA-1's constantly since 8AM this morning, listening and listening and listening and given the slightly abusive levels of listening I've been doing today, that they would at least be warm to hot. Not so! It's really hard to "abuse" the XPA-1's. I doubt if you're even making them sweat. IDang I love my XPA-1's!!! I don't blame ya! |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Mar 17, 2013 7:55:25 GMT -5
Lot's of heatsink surface....  |
|
|
|
Post by audiofile on Mar 17, 2013 11:56:50 GMT -5
Well, this owner may not understand all the ins and outs of how these are engineered but I do sincerely appreciate the results!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 13:22:02 GMT -5
>> They'll do up to 10 watts in class A. I think I'm under 10 watts 99% of the time <<
But that didn't stop you from buying XPA-1s to drive 'em, good on ya! Look at the bright side, you have headroom you'll *never* use, kinda like buying a house with 18 ft. doorways - ya never know when a cave troll might come to visit! And that makes all of us feel much better...
-RW- After all, it's about how you feel - not how it performs, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 17, 2013 13:27:38 GMT -5
Mine run very cool, since my Tyler's have such a high sensitivity rating. They'll do up to 10 watts in class A. I think I'm under 10 watts 99% of the time ;D And it means that when you need the hundreds of watts for those peaks...... It'll be there. There is a reason we like the XPA-1. ;D Unlike 18ft doorways, the power is practical. |
|
|
|
Post by davidas6350 on Mar 17, 2013 13:35:48 GMT -5
My XPA-1s are driving 250w speakers (88db/1m/1w) in my 20x16x8 living room and some songs makes the LED meter dance to almost touching the red LEDs while still below reference volume. If I was using a 250w amps in the same setting, the amps would probably be clipping, so I'm glad I went with the XPA-1.
Granted that I rarely see the LEDs on my normal listening mood, but I'm happy the headroom is there when needed ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 13:49:14 GMT -5
>> And it means that when you need the hundreds of watts for those peaks...... It'll be there. <<
He'll NEVER need them. Look up "never" - it means, practically, not in your lifetime...
Tyler Acoustics PD-30 specs: 101 db 1 watt/1 meter.
Sooooo, let's look at how this performs real-world:
Watts Db
==== ===
1 101
2 104
4 107
8 110 (This is VERY loud)
16 113
32 116
64 119
128 122
256 125 (Threshold of pain, most people run screaming)
512 128 (This will kill small animals)
Level at which sustained exposure may result in hearing loss: 90-95 db.
Pain begins: 125 db.
Soooo, Kraemer's system will generate SPLs that may result in hearing loss, and he hasn't even used all of the 1st watt. And it will, essentially, cause his ears to bleed with 256 watts.
His speakers are rated, by the mfgr., at 4 ohms. The XPA-1 is rated, by Emo, at 1,000 watts RMS @ 4 ohm (0.1% THD).
Therefore, his system will generate ear-bleeding levels and *still* have 6db of headroom. But you can never have too much headroom, right?
Your Honor, I rest my case...
-RW-
PS: This is *not* to besmirch Kraemer, he's a cool guy and a true artist! Rather, I am *trying* to educate the less-knowledgable Loungers about when "enough is enough". In Kraemer's setup, the Mini-X would generate over 113 db SPL and still have almost 6db of headroom. That is *extremely* LOUD, and should not be listened to for more than 5 minutes at a time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 17, 2013 13:54:00 GMT -5
-RW- PS: This is *not* to besmirch Kraemer, he's a cool guy and a true artist! Rather, I am *trying* to educate the less-knowledgable Loungers about when "enough is enough". In Kraemer's setup, the Mini-X would generate over 113 db SPL and still have almost 6db of headroom. That is *extremely* LOUD, and should not be listened to for more than 5 minutes at a time. Yeah, your crusade against amps more than 10W is getting old. I'll concede that I didn't realize that the Tylers were that efficient. However, You still don't understand peaks, so I guess it's time for me to give it a rest and give up. You still think that just because an amp can drive a speaker to 120db, that means that is being played at a sustained level.. when in reality it may be milliseconds, or a second. I hate to tell you but the OSHA recommendations are not about peaks. They're for SUSTAINED levels of minutes and HOURS. Not split second bursts. My apologies for polluting this thread with this age old argument. I'm just tired of your anti-big amp crusade. It's uninformed. There are plenty of places to educate yourself. I'd recommend starting with a book by Floyd Toole. Or perhaps here: www.axiomaudio.com/dynamicheadroomOr this site: myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.htmlI hate to tell you this, but 500W at 10 feet, with a 90db efficient speaker is only 107db. And a blistering 1000W gives you........ that's right folks. 3db more. If you want to hear a dynamic peak, say a piano at it's peak....... You need some power. Measure the peak. It won't be 8 hours. And that fraction of a second won't cause hearing damage the same way that classical music concerts don't. The funny thing is, if you talk to experts (by experts, I mean engineers, amp designers, speaker designers, pro audio engineers)...... They all say the same thing. I guess they're all wrong. The XPA-1 is a well designed amp. But part of why people like it so much is because of HEADROOM. But whatever, rlw. In the interest of not continuing the negativity on the lounge, I'll just agree to disagree. Emotiva will continue to sell large amps despite your feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by davidas6350 on Mar 17, 2013 13:56:39 GMT -5
Sooooo, let's look at how this performs real-world: Watts Db ==== === 1 101 2 104 4 107 8 110 (This is VERY loud) 16 113 32 116 64 119 128 122 256 125 (Threshold of pain, most people run screaming) 512 128 (This will kill small animals) No offense, and someone correct me if my assumptions are wrong, but I think that's ONLY true if you are at 1 meter on axis in front of your speaker sitting pefectly still, listening to 1Khz tone while wearing some kind of a sound absorption material and you're inside an anechoic chamber. Since most of us buy these audio gear to listen to different tones (music) in the comfy of our home, it's best to actually try them in your intended listening area. The point is, the published specs/ratings of amps and speakers follows a standard testing guidelines; and when used in the real world (i.e., listen to music at home) it will be a lot different. EDIT: See my Reply#7 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 14:07:13 GMT -5
David, you are correct. However, even if you deduct 6db from my output figures, you are still waaayyyy over the limits of practical listening. The reason I harp on this so much is because I constantly see Loungers advising other Loungers to "buy the bigger amp!!" when, in fact, they would be better served by buying a smaller amp and better speakers - or something along those lines.
This *constant* push to buy kilowatt amps is just plain stupid, IMHO. Somehow, someway, folks managed to have have very good-sounding systems back in the day when an 80 watts/ch. receiver was a BIG DOG.
I, too, have a pretty big amp, the XPA-5. And it is driving 89 db-efficient speakers. And I can honestly tell you that I usually run the system at 80-85 db SPL. This requires less than a watt. And, if I really crank it up, I'll use 15-20 watts. But by then, everyone around me is screaming "Turn it down!!"
The takeaway from this is to buy the right amp for your needs. And very rarely does *anyone* need a kilowatt of power. Your money would be much better spent buying better speakers or room treatments.
The novices *always* think you can throw wattage at a system to make it better. Rarely is this true...
-RW-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 14:12:26 GMT -5
Mine run very cool, since my Tyler's have such a high sensitivity rating. They'll do up to 10 watts in class A. I think I'm under 10 watts 99% of the time ;D The other 1% of the time is when he is listening to Pat Boone's Greatest Hits, like Tutti Frutti and he has it cranked way up! How did a guy that young get into Pat Boone. Maybe he heard his grandpa playing the 45 record of that groovy music. |
|
|
|
Post by davidas6350 on Mar 17, 2013 14:22:14 GMT -5
I, too, have a pretty big amp, the XPA-5. And it is driving 89 db-efficient speakers. And I can honestly tell you that I usually run the system at 80-85 db SPL. This requires less than a watt. And, if I really crank it up, I'll use 15-20 watts. Ok, maybe you can help me in the thread that I started about figuring out the "watts" actually being used. My method gave me an unexpected results. See this thread: emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=stupid&action=display&thread=29233So, how did you figured out exactly how much wattage is being use? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 14:56:09 GMT -5
I agree. I wish I had kept my references to the tests I have read where a they showed a dynamic music source playing along at 5-25 watts on the loud parts and suddenly huge peaks required 700 watts and in one case over 4000 watts. Unfortunately not enough of these are published. Rather many folks have their heads crammed full of 90-100dB sensitivity ratings and "do the math" and calculate the ear-bleeding levels. As some of us know the ear-bleeding levels are usually loud levels with distortion due to clipped signals from amps that have run out of gas for enormous peaks. Those who play mostly MP3 sources will not understand and don't need the headroom. Those who understand the enormous dynamic range of the 1812 Overture will understand. For example, and this is an estimate but not that far from reality. I recently looked at a test of a very well know speaker that was rated at 90dB's. Look at one of RW's charts in his posts and one sees 90dB's/one watt means approximately 100 watts at 110 decibels! OMG, with 100 watts you are already at 110dB's. Well the actual sensitivity tested was only 86dB's. Now that 110 decibels suddenly requires 256 watts! So let's take the speaker with the 86dB rating and move the listener back 12 feet. Now we have 74dB's with one watt. Now lets put on a high quality recording of 1812, which let's say has a dynamic range from 74dB's to 110dB's. That is not at all an exaggeration. Do the math and we now require 4096 watts to reach the 110 decibel level! So we have a speaker 12 feet way rated by a quality manufacturer at 90dB (which most folks take as gospel) and play a dynamic track that reaches 110 decibels on peaks and we see that we need 4096 watts! Of course we can manipulate the figures a little for two speakers or large or small room, on and on and get different figures but it still is a very large amount of power required. Is there any doubt of the huge amount of headroom needed for truly dynamic sources? |
|
|
|
Post by audiofile on Mar 17, 2013 16:22:54 GMT -5
This here uninformed and unwashed owner wanted more amp than the speakers required RMS and fortunately purchased sufficient headroom for those transient spikes that make music so dynamic.
|
|
Ref
Minor Hero
A baseline of Excellence
Posts: 74
|
Post by Ref on Mar 17, 2013 16:52:13 GMT -5
This here uninformed and unwashed owner wanted more amp than the speakers required RMS and fortunately purchased sufficient headroom for those transient spikes that make music so dynamic. +1  They run cool too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Mar 17, 2013 17:22:02 GMT -5
>> And it means that when you need the hundreds of watts for those peaks...... It'll be there. << He'll NEVER need them. Look up "never" - it means, practically, not in your lifetime... Yep. that's cause you know what speakers he'll own and the room he'll be playing them in for the rest of his "lifetime". -RW- PS: This is *not* to besmirch Kraemer, he's a cool guy and a true artist! Rather, I am *trying* to educate the less-knowledgable Loungers about when "enough is enough". In Kraemer's setup, the Mini-X would generate over 113 db SPL and still have almost 6db of headroom. That is *extremely* LOUD, and should not be listened to for more than 5 minutes at a time. No doubt. Sooooo, let's look at how this performs real-world: Watts Db ==== === 1 101 2 104 4 107 No offense, and someone correct me if my assumptions are wrong, but I think that's ONLY true if you are at 1 meter... The point is, the published specs/ratings of amps and speakers follows a standard testing guidelines; and when used in the real world (i.e., listen to music at home) it will be a lot different. Good point This *constant* push to buy kilowatt amps is just plain stupid, IMHO. -RW- Actually not quite so humble opinion. The novices *always* think you can throw wattage at a system to make it better. Rarely is this true... -RW- See what I mean? I agree. I wish I had kept my references to the tests I have read where a they showed a dynamic music source playing along at 5-25 watts on the loud parts and suddenly huge peaks required 700 watts and in one case over 4000 watts. Unfortunately not enough of these are published. Rather many folks have their heads crammed full of 90-100dB sensitivity ratings and "do the math" and calculate the ear-bleeding levels. As some of us know the ear-bleeding levels are usually loud levels with distortion due to clipped signals from amps that have run out of gas for enormous peaks. Those who play mostly MP3 sources will not understand and don't need the headroom. Those who understand the enormous dynamic range of the 1812 Overture will understand. For example, and this is an estimate but not that far from reality. I recently looked at a test of a very well know speaker that was rated at 90dB's. Look at one of RW's charts in his posts and one sees 90dB's/one watt means approximately 100 watts at 110 decibels! OMG, with 100 watts you are already at 110dB's. Well the actual sensitivity tested was only 86dB's. Now that 110 decibels suddenly requires 256 watts! So let's take the speaker with the 86dB rating and move the listener back 12 feet. Now we have 74dB's with one watt. Now lets put on a high quality recording of 1812, which let's say has a dynamic range from 74dB's to 110dB's. That is not at all an exaggeration. Do the math and we now require 4096 watts to reach the 110 decibel level! So we have a speaker 12 feet way rated by a quality manufacturer at 90dB (which most folks take as gospel) and play a dynamic track that reaches 110 decibels on peaks and we see that we need 4096 watts! Of course we can manipulate the figures a little for two speakers or large or small room, on and on and get different figures but it still is a very large amount of power required. Is there any doubt of the huge amount of headroom needed for truly dynamic sources? Obviously you must be a "novice". ... |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 17, 2013 20:03:58 GMT -5
Soo.... the weather has been cold, but we got some sun here today...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 20:06:54 GMT -5
Soo.... the weather has been cold, but we got some sun here today... It's going to snow here tomorrow. Few weeks till April and it was like 15 degrees this morning |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 17, 2013 20:10:47 GMT -5
It hit 69 the other day.... Now it's 20s! Craazy.
I'm looking forward to some warm weather..
|
|
