|
|
Post by powxpa on Apr 6, 2013 16:23:25 GMT -5
I need some advices from you guys. I have xpa-2 current to drive a pair of energy veritas v6.3, but i'm selling it because it's big for my shelve. I'm thinking of getting a pair of xpa-100s, but also want to xpa-1Ls instead. ;D Is it worth it to spend addition $500 for a pair of xpa-1Ls instead of getting xpa-100s? or should I just get a bigger shelf for xpa-2? XMC-1 will be my pre/pro when it's out.   ? decision, decision thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Apr 6, 2013 17:50:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Apr 6, 2013 18:17:46 GMT -5
I think you might hear the "step down" in audio quality if you buy the XPA-100s. Then again, maybe not.
The XPA-1L are having a bumpy start but I think that all of the problems will be fixed shortly. You should notice a small increase in audio quality in class A/B mode and a different quality of sound in class A mode. If your running a dedicated two channel system I would recommend the -1L.
On the other hand the XMC-1 case is about the same size as the XPA-2's case so you may have to get another shelf anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Apr 6, 2013 18:21:40 GMT -5
I have xpa-2 current to drive a pair of energy veritas v6.3, but i'm selling it because it's big for my shelve. I'm thinking of getting a pair of xpa-100s, but also want to xpa-1Ls instead. ;D Is it worth it to spend addition $500 for a pair of xpa-1Ls instead of getting xpa-100s? or should I just get a bigger shelf for xpa-2? XMC-1 will be my pre/pro when it's out. ? decision, decision thanks! A stacked pair of XPA-100's or XPA-1L's will be slightly taller than your XPA-2. So why are you changing? .. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on Apr 6, 2013 23:58:44 GMT -5
Probably because he could put one on each shelf, rather than stacking them.
|
|
|
|
Post by powxpa on Apr 7, 2013 2:43:23 GMT -5
I'm planing not to stack them; either one on each shelf or side by side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 7:23:36 GMT -5
Your Veritas V6.3's were measured by Audioholics as a nominal 4 ohms impedance. With the 5.25" Kevlar mid and 2ea 6.5" Kevlar bass drivers they should be able to handle lots of power. The measured sensitivity was 90dB's and 3.5dB's below the published spec of 93.5dB's. Since you don't mention a sub I presume the XPA-2 is driving them full range in a stereo set up.
If your room is reasonably large and dead and you play on the loud side 500 watts per side is excellent for very dynamic peaks.
The XPA-2 is clearly a best buy at a list of $799 if you want to keep and get a larger shelf. Tested 500 watts into 4 ohms at about 0.1% on the AP machine.
The XPA-100 is $898/pair. Tested at 400 watts into 4 ohms at 0.33%.
The XPA-1L is $1398/pair. Tested at 553 watts into 4 ohms at 0.375%.
If you are very happy now with the sound I would stay with the XPA-2 to save money for whatever.
The big question of course is whether the mono blocks will give audibly better sound quality. Note that the two mono blocks were measured at about 0.33-0.375% THD versus 0.1% on the XPA-2. The higher THD is most likely inaudible but they would measure out at slightly less power at the same 0.1% as the XPA-2 (maybe in the 375 and 525 range). This would give the XPA-2 and XPA-1L a very slight increase in power over the XPA-100 (maybe 1-1.75dB's more output) and most likely not needed very often.
That question of SQ is debated here and other places both at max output/clipping and also at low to medium levels. Some feel the mono blocks have better sound. The latest question is of course about the class A portion of the XPA-1L.
Not sure if after all that talk if I can give you a definitive recommendation.
Because I tend to be a best bang for the buck guy I would go for keeping the lower priced XPA-2.
If I had to choose mostly on possible SQ I would go for the XPA-1L.
However, since I love to A/B products what I myself might do is order one only of the XPA-1L and do a direct A/B comparison between the XPA-2 and the XPA-1L. Then make a decision and return the new amp or buy a second one and sell the XPA-2. Too much work? Oh, but to me it sounds like lots of fun and great material for a good review.
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Apr 7, 2013 21:18:19 GMT -5
sounds like a really good idea Chuckienut! ^^^^^^ order one xpa 1l when fixed up and a b test it..
cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Apr 7, 2013 21:23:35 GMT -5
just wanted to add i owned the energy 6.3 veritas.. i found on some music source they can across to bright for my ears.. im just a novice around here but save your money up and keep the xpa 2 and one day look to buy and emotiva bob carver tube pre amp
to help the high end brightness.. from what i read i think that could help out this type of speaker..
cheers
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Apr 7, 2013 23:08:25 GMT -5
I would say, based upon my experience, that the XPA-100 (formerly the UPA-1) would be more laid back and "mellow" compared to the XPA-2. (YMMV) I have not heard the XPA-1L yet, but based upon what the amp board looked like at Emofest (did not hear them) the XPA-1L will likely have a better sound in my system than the XPA-100 would (if I used them). Just my two cents.
Edit: changed to XPA-100. Thanks, Ricky!
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 7, 2013 23:35:41 GMT -5
I would say, based upon my experience, that the XPA-1 (formerly the UPA-1)... I think you meant to say the XPA-100 was formerly the UPA-1, and not "XPA-1" - correct?  The XPA-100 is not exactly the UPA-1, though but of the current Emo amps it is the closest. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Apr 7, 2013 23:47:51 GMT -5
I would say, based upon my experience, that the XPA-1 (formerly the UPA-1)... I think you meant to say the XPA-100 was formerly the UPA-1, and not "XPA-1" - correct? The XPA-100 is not exactly the UPA-1, though but of the current Emo amps it is the closest. You are correct on both counts. I will change my post above to say XPA-100. However, there were only minor upgrades to the XPA-100 and, IMO, still shares most of its hardware with the discontinued UPA-1. |
|
|
|
Post by powxpa on Apr 8, 2013 0:17:03 GMT -5
Deltadude,
Yes I think v6.3 sound kinda bring too. What do have to drive them?
..............
Thanks anyone for ur help. I think im going to wait for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Apr 8, 2013 7:08:10 GMT -5
I would say, based upon my experience, that the XPA- 100 (formerly the UPA-1) would be more laid back and "mellow" compared to the XPA-2. (YMMV) I have not heard the XPA-1L yet, but based upon what the amp board looked like at Emofest (did not hear them) the XPA-1L will likely have a better sound in my system than the XPA-100 would (if I used them). Just my two cents. Edit: changed to XPA-100. Thanks, Ricky!I had an XPA-2 and an XPA-100 in my system with no other changes. I'd agree the 100 is a little more laid back, the 2 is a bit more punchy. Not a great difference though. ... |
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on Apr 9, 2013 9:18:26 GMT -5
I would say, based upon my experience, that the XPA- 100 (formerly the UPA-1) would be more laid back and "mellow" compared to the XPA-2. (YMMV) I have not heard the XPA-1L yet, but based upon what the amp board looked like at Emofest (did not hear them) the XPA-1L will likely have a better sound in my system than the XPA-100 would (if I used them). Just my two cents. Edit: changed to XPA-100. Thanks, Ricky!I had an XPA-2 and an XPA-100 in my system with no other changes. I'd agree the 100 is a little more laid back, the 2 is a bit more punchy. Not a great difference though. ... I would like to elaborate on your experience with your setup. I currently have an XPA-3 powering my mains, and I will be adding either an XPA-2, dual 100s, or dual 1Ls. Given the issues and lack of review with the 1Ls, I am looking more toward the 100s now. When you say more punchy, was their a dynamic that got lost when going to the XPA-100? At the very minimum, I am looking to retain the awesome power I get with my XPA-3. |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Apr 9, 2013 18:01:26 GMT -5
I had an XPA-2 and an XPA-100 in my system with no other changes. I'd agree the 100 is a little more laid back, the 2 is a bit more punchy. Not a great difference though. ... I would like to elaborate on your experience with your setup. I currently have an XPA-3 powering my mains, and I will be adding either an XPA-2, dual 100s, or dual 1Ls. Given the issues and lack of review with the 1Ls, I am looking more toward the 100s now. When you say more punchy, was their a dynamic that got lost when going to the XPA-100? At the very minimum, I am looking to retain the awesome power I get with my XPA-3. First, depending on how quick you have to have the amps, I wouldn't give up on the XPA-1L. It's roll out has been a comedy of errors, although I'm sure Dan and Lonnie see no humor. I feel confident the amp will debut in a week or two with no flaws, and go on to become one of their premier amps. It's probably worth the wait... But getting back to the XPA-2/100 issue. The 2 sounds more powerful, quicker, punchier than the 100 with my speakers. The difference is subtle but shows itself on more dynamic music. I could live with XPA-100's, but the 2 is cheaper and a better amp in my opinion (but won't fit in my new rack). As far as your 3 goes, I've never heard one. But if it's similar to an XPA-5, and the 3 is using all three channels, both the 2 and 100 would be a bit better IMHO. Obviously I'm not one of those guys who thinks all amps sound the same. Power does more than add head room. How the power is produced creates the character of the amp. XPA-100, -1L, -2, -3, are all rated very close to each other in overall power, but how they make the power varies considerably. How big of a transformer? How much capacitance? How many output devices? Which class? Mono block? Balanced circuits? These things will produce different results on different speakers. You can make/buy a 400HP 4 cyl and a 400HP V8. They make "the same" HP. But the driving experience will be vastly different. It's about how they put the power to the ground, or in this case, how they control the speaker. Edit: If your talking multi-channel home theater, I'd go for the XPA-2 and never look back. XPR-2 if you feel like going crazy. I don't believe the nuances of class A power, monoblock design, or balanced circuits will be audible with everything that is going on in HT (same with tube power while we're on the subject). In that case, the VALUE of an XPA-2 is hard to beat! ... |
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Apr 9, 2013 23:51:59 GMT -5
Deltadude, Yes I think v6.3 sound kinda bring too. What do have to drive them? .............. Thanks anyone for ur help. I think im going to wait for awhile. well like i said im a learning novice.. i had my v6.3 hooked up to my denon 3313ci 125 wpc in stereo only.. i turn it up to high one day i guess and one started smoking.. so i was lucky i took em back to the store.. the base was real nice but that tweeter bugged me sometimes.. never heard them with an amp.. i bought paradigm studio 100s since still have my denon paired up with an xpa 3.. thats all i could afford after buying the speakers.. would like a bit more power on em.. have more head room for better sound the xpa 3 mad a massive improvement.. is sq.. like some mono blocks one day... i read in the tube threads a tube pre amp will mellow out those highs maybe.. tube pre amp with ss amp.. maybe emo have those for sale sooner or later.. guess its a long process to design and build ... xmc 1 been 4 yrs i heard.... cheapest option for you get a bigger shelf! cheers |
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Apr 10, 2013 0:05:48 GMT -5
I had an XPA-2 and an XPA-100 in my system with no other changes. I'd agree the 100 is a little more laid back, the 2 is a bit more punchy. Not a great difference though. ... I would like to elaborate on your experience with your setup. I currently have an XPA-3 powering my mains, and I will be adding either an XPA-2, dual 100s, or dual 1Ls. Given the issues and lack of review with the 1Ls, I am looking more toward the 100s now. When you say more punchy, was their a dynamic that got lost when going to the XPA-100? At the very minimum, I am looking to retain the awesome power I get with my XPA-3. i was looking to add mono blocks for the stereo but do lots of ht too.. i just have xpa 3 as well.. given the issues and the more reading i do.. like the pg review wow now i got to go xpr 1 s but maybe i could get buy with xpa 1s ... got to take control of da woofers eh.. but my budget says xpa 2... beer budget with triple x taste... cheers.. |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Apr 10, 2013 7:47:08 GMT -5
got to take control of da woofers eh.. but my budget says xpa 2... beer budget with triple x taste... cheers.. The XPA-2 is a fine amp at twice it's price. It's also one of the best values in audio IMHO. ... |
|
|
|
Post by ossif on Apr 10, 2013 11:03:12 GMT -5
I cannot really argue about the XPA-100, but I had the XPA-2 and the predecessor of the XPA-100, the UPA-1 in a side by side comparison. I ended selling the XPA-2 and keeping the UPA-1 of which today I run 5 of these amps in my 5.1 system. it is true that the XPA-2 as a little more punch in the lows, but on all other levels, the UPA-1 was better IMHO. More airy, more detailed and refined, somehow more audiophile. The mono block concept has its undeniable strength.
However the XPA-100 and UPA-1 are not identical even though it may seem so, especially the power supply has been affected of changes and probably other parts also.
On another note, it was argued by someone from Emotiva that it is probably very hard to notice if the XPA-1L amp plays in class A or class A/B. This reads to me that if there are any major advantages, they are probably to be found in the symmetrical design and the higher output.
|
|
