|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 27, 2013 10:26:22 GMT -5
I think you may mean XPA-100....... Yes, you are correct. The XPA-100, sorry. We were testing/playing with XPA-1 Gen 2s yesterday so I had them on my mind. So how did you like the G2 XPA-1 ? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 27, 2013 11:14:54 GMT -5
garbulky,
So if I'm understanding your response correctly the XPA-100 is the successor to the UPA-1 with some differences "maybe". That suggest to me that you might think no changes were made to the XPA-100 beyond a name change. So basically you're saying the XPA-100 is not XPA series quality it's a UPA-1 rebadged. Furthermore you are stating the XPA-2 is a better amp because it's "faster". The UPA-2, and UPA-1 are "more musical" but not equal to the sound of the XPA-2. This almost sounds like a contradiction to me.
I used the link you provided and read the review of your comparison of the UPA-2 to the XPA-2 it seemed riddled with contradiction as well. Alas, it still wasn't a direct comparison of the XPA-100 to the XPA-2 or any other amp in the XPA series. None of the statements above have you listening directly to a XPA-100 unless I missed something.
So my question was is the XPA-100 the "black sheep" of the Emotiva amps ?
It seems to me that you feel the XPA-100 is not as good as the other XPA series amps. I'm sitting here trying to process that since you haven't shown any evidence that you have even listened to a XPA-100.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
My point is: This is the kind of response I see when a new member on the forum ask about the XPA-100 mono block amps. Like I said this has me wondering.
Maybe some of the other forum members who have been around for a while, and have an opinion will care to chime in.
By the way I'm not overlooking the two positive responses about the XPA-100 that's good, those I rarely see. I'm still planning to get the XPA-100. Hi jmasterj. I didn't realize you already have an xpa-100. At #300 another XPA-100 is a really good value. I don't think there is anything wrong with the XPA_100 or that they are the black sheep. If you buy them, you won't be dissapointed. Dan mentioned several times that he felt the old u-series was too close to the X-series of amps. However at the time, the x-series amps had large power supplies, lots of capacitance which made them different and were very heavy. But like knucklehead mentioned the UPA-1 uses an amp blade from the XPA-5. I won't go saying what is an x-series and what is not. I think that would be counter productive. But that is the history of the amplifiers. And I am very glad the old UPA-2 and UPA-1 are still around. They are good amps. My review does seem full of contradiction I agree. But that's because they are two different amplifiers with two different stregnths. As to your question, I have heard the UPA-1 as well directly. I've heard the XPA-2 and UPA-2 in my own home for a reasonably long time. I've owned the UPA-2 for years. I've heard the UPA-1 in a friend's home that I spend some time in listening to audio and directly compared it to XPA-2 and Crown A/B amps. However, it's not my environment. Anyway, the UPA-1 had a sound signature (and speed) that sounded exactly like my UPA-2. It was so obvious to me that it struck me within the first few seconds of hearing it. And don't get me wrong I like my UPA-2 because I own it. The UPA-1 will satisfy you if you were wondering. But... The XPA-2 is the better amp. It's faster. It's placement in the soundstage is more precise. When there is bass the XPA-2 "feels" like it has more power on tap. It's sound signature is different and this is where the "musicality" comes in for me. And let's be honest, that is an incredibly subjective thing. I liked the slower sound of the UPA-2 (and 1). It had a nice warm fullness in my home system that I liked. Everything sounded pretty good through it. This may help ease the contradiction. I'm not somebody who's after "neutrality" but somebody who is after what sounds good to my ears. Anyway, despite the UPA-2 (and 1) being the sound signature I preferred. They are not as good of an amplifier. The XPA-2 is on a different level. Some people may not think it is. But these have been my findings through my personal experience with all three amps. And they may well not be yours but I can only report on mine.  You will not be dissapointed with either amp. You really won't. But if you want to you can try them both out in your home to see what you think but you will be out shipping costs. Enjoy the journey! I'm sorry that was over my head. What are you saying? That you listened to the slew rate of the UPA-1, and the XPA-100 so you assume they are identical ? Or did someone ask a question about the slew rate that I missed. Don't worry about slew rates - or when someone claims one amp is faster than any other amp. Slew rates are not audible in an amp that is functioning properly. Its a measurement best left to o-scopes and other precision electronics - not with ears. Knucklehead. The slew rate may not be the reason that the amp sounds faster.... or it could be  There's also other things like a load of capacitance, a larger power supply and a different amplifier module that we could consider. They are different amplifiers in build. As for Gene's article, I think I'll let Lonnie - the guy who designs his amplifiers - debate it with Gene. I am not an engineer and I could easily be wrong on the reasons. Anyway, reading the quoted response ..... "Don't worry about slew rates - or when someone claims one amp is faster than any other amp. Slew rates are not audible " I'm not sure why you asked for my feedback which I spent time on. It seems like you already have made up your mind on fastness and subjective impressions. |
|
|
|
Post by jmasterj on Nov 27, 2013 15:15:27 GMT -5
This will probably be my last post on this subject because I believe the question has been answered to my satisfaction. I don't think there is anything wrong with the XPA-100s. I never did. I believe my question bore fruit though, because during the discussion I discovered that there are forum members that post an opinion about which piece of equipment is better, or sounds better to them, even if they have never personally heard them, that's bias. They won't hesitate posting those opinions to new forum members directing them towards, or away from certain other pieces of equipment even if the opinion is just pure speculation. Not an opinion based on a actual listening comparisons.
I know every post we make is directly related to our own personal opinions about the subject matter. I believe I can give an opinion on the BADA DC-222 hybrid tube amp because I have listened to it. I believe I can give an opinion on the Yaqin MC30-L tube integrated amp because I'm listening to it in my current set up. I believe I can give my opinion on each piece of equipment that I've listened to. I can't, however, give my opinion on the XPA-100 mono block amps yet, because I have never heard them. That's not to say that I don't believe they will be great sounding amps. I do, that's why I'm investing in them.
I can only speak from my own experience, and give an opinion on what I've actually listened to. But that's me.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 27, 2013 15:59:30 GMT -5
This will probably be my last post on this subject because I believe the question has been answered to my satisfaction. I don't think there is anything wrong with the XPA-100s. I never did. I believe my question bore fruit though, because during the discussion I discovered that there are forum members that post an opinion about which piece of equipment is better, or sounds better to them, even if they have never personally heard them, that's bias. They won't hesitate posting those opinions to new forum members directing them towards, or away from certain other pieces of equipment even if the opinion is just pure speculation. Not an opinion based on a actual listening comparisons. I know every post we make is directly related to our own personal opinions about the subject matter. I believe I can give an opinion on the BADA DC-222 hybrid tube amp because I have listened to it. I believe I can give an opinion on the Yaqin MC30-L tube integrated amp because I'm listening to it in my current set up. I believe I can give my opinion on each piece of equipment that I've listened to. I can't, however, give my opinion on the XPA-100 mono block amps yet, because I have never heard them. That's not to say that I don't believe they will be great sounding amps. I do, that's why I'm investing in them. I can only speak from my own experience, and give an opinion on what I've actually listened to. But that's me. They are great sounding amps and you won't be displeased As for personal experience I'm not sure if you read my post but I have indeed heard them. I wish you as many years of enjoyment out of them as I get out of mine! What kind of DAC do you use? I found the DC-1 was a better upgrade than upgrading from the UPA-2 to the XPA-2. As in my UPA-2 sounded better through the DC-1 than using my XDA-1 plus USP-1 to the XPA_2. Since I feel the UPA-1 sounds very similar, you may benefit from a DC-1. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 5:48:45 GMT -5
As we approach the end of November, I'm growing more anxious each day. I'm hoping first that Emotiva will still have at least one XPA-100 mono block amp left for me to purchase next month, and second that the amp will still be on sale. I'd hate to be a week away only to see the dreaded "out of stock" when I try to check out. Having said that, now on to the questions. 1.) The Quick Reference Manual that came with the XPA-100 I purchased earlier this month states the XPA-100 is rated at 225 watts into 8 Ohms, 360 watts into 4 Ohms. However the Products page at the Emotiva website states it's rated at 250 watts into 8 Ohms, 400 watts into 4 Ohms. This is not a big difference nor a deal breaker for me. I'm just wondering which is correct? Why the discrepancy? 2.) This question stems from a personal observation here on the forum. Which may, or may not be correct. I'm wondering is the XPA-100 the "black sheep" of the Emotiva amp line up? The reason for this question is that I have noticed that whenever a new person on the forum ask which amp should they get and the XPA-100 is on their list. The person is almost always directed towards all the other amps in Emotiva's line up. This regardless of what the persons stated needs are or what their budget is. Is there a stigma on the XPA-100? Do forum members think that the XPA-100 is not a good amp? I plan to go through with my purchase of the XPA-100 regardless. I'm completely confident that the amps will fulfill my needs. Equally as important the sale price fits my budget. I was just wondering ? I've had my new pair of XPA-100s up for 8 days now - I left them turned on for a few days before playing. First impressions - utterly clean, clear, noiseless and very powerful, although at this early stage they do tend to SOMETIMES sound clinical and not as musical as my old NADs (2200s) BUT, this seems to be very much dependent on the quality of the source. Until I upgrade my pre to an XSP-1 I'm stilling running my old NAD 7100 analogue reciever, not the best combo but it's doing very well for its age. Anyway, right now I'm playing Jimmy Smith's' Back at the Chicken Shack', flac, 24/96 via Samsung laptop USB to NAD D1050 dac. , as this was recorded in about 1968 or 69 there seems to be the same lack of engaging dynamics that was there before the new amps - things are more 'forward and in my face now, clearer, but still, the bass is somewhere in the back ground and has little or no punch to it....however before that I had Sandor Veress's 'Four Transylvanian Dances - Dobbantus' by The Australian Chamber Orchestra, CD via the NAD dac again- amazing dynamics, punchy deep bass kick that comes in at around 1 min or so, warmth, precision and presence. Cranking up my old DUAl 505-2 turntable and ClearAudio cartridge finds gorgeous detail and engaging musicality of 1979's Junko trio playing 'Fly me to the Moon' - Switching to Moody Blues 'In Search of the Lost Chord', vinyl again, finds a dull channeling of sound that's been pretty much homogenized by whatever...Moving back to the flac files, something some would not even call music - Ryoji Ikeda's 'Test Patter' No 5 and 6'...these are clicks, pops, glitch, pink noise and deep bass tones, very abstract and utterly amazing - I was blown away - the 100s just grabbed this stuff and pounded me beautifully with clearly sepereated sounds that seem to have great 3D spatiality, I've only heard this detail from Ikeda's stuff via headphones before the 100s got hold of it. Keeping in mind that the NAD D 1050 adds a bit of warmth to things I tried vocals - Sarah McLachlan's "Bloom' has warmth but is also detached, distant and somehow not engaging at all - Julie London singing "Black Coffee' was velvet in the extreme while her band was just not really 'there somehow. Jamie Cullen on 'Gran Torino' was just totally 'in the room', loved it. I listen to a lot of electronic music but have a wide range in the collection which I'm revisiting now to test the 100s out. I am at this stage leaning towards the feeling that they do need a lot of burning in but it's hard to ultimately know as I will be upgrading the pre-amp and once I've taken the older analogue sound out of the loop (plus quite a few of its idiosyncrasies...) I may be in a better situation to judge if I have made the right choice. My 34 year old AR9s are hard to drive but when the XP-100s get going they do have amazing authority and grip - it' s just that they don't seem to be doing that all the time at present. My listening room is small apartment lounge-room and constrained by some furniture positioning that I have no control over (my wife's) so there are lots of things to consider re the sound at the end of the day... My decision really came down to budget - I would love a pair of XPR-1s but don't have the money (plus tax and duty to Australia is a killer) nor would I get the permissions to install a dedicated 20 amp circuit in my rented apartment, nor fit two in the lounge room without a divorce or floor strengthening :-) .A pair of XPA-1s would be my other choice but at present my budget won't meet those either - as for the XPA-1Ls, well my small apartment in tropical Queensland would soon melt methinks as would my power bill. I would rather get my XSP-1 in 2014 - looking forward to it! These monos really excite me - they are great amps, have a fabulous build quality and an intriguing sound quality that reveals surprises on a daily basis - really happy. I'll report back after New Year with my by then fully burned in 100s :-) |
|
|
|
Post by wflem007 on Dec 15, 2014 20:42:59 GMT -5
Guys
Can you point me to a link on the site for the XPA-100 Manual ?
I can't find my hard copy for some reason..........
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Tungx2 on Sept 28, 2015 18:24:05 GMT -5
Sorry to revive an old topic, but how is the Xpa-100 gen 2 when compared to xpa-1L gen 1? Assuming price difference is not too big?
BTW, this is just for surround speaker duties, the fronts have XPA-1 G2 and I'll be getting an xpa-1L G2 for the center later anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 29, 2015 10:26:33 GMT -5
Sorry to revive an old topic, but how is the Xpa-100 gen 2 when compared to xpa-1L gen 1? Assuming price difference is not too big? BTW, this is just for surround speaker duties, the fronts have XPA-1 G2 and I'll be getting an xpa-1L G2 for the center later anyways. I think it will do just fine for surround duties. Note that though the XPA-100 is listed as 29db gain, it is listed as 32 db gain on the AP test report. However that may be the test report for the gen 1 unit and gen 2 may indeed be 29db gain. I say this because the XPA-1 L and XPA-1 gen 2 are both 29 db gain. |
|
There's also other things like a load of capacitance, a larger power supply and a different amplifier module that we could consider. They are different amplifiers in build. 
