|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 30, 2014 23:39:00 GMT -5
If I recall correctly the 400 to 450 wpc (2 channels driven) is the rating for 4 ohms and 275 watts is for 8 ohms.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Oct 31, 2014 1:09:57 GMT -5
XPA-5 5 channels - 8 ohm = 200 watts per channel 4 channels - 8 ohm = 230 watts per channel 3 channels - 8 ohm = 250 watts per channel 2 channels - 8 ohm = 275 watts per channel 1 channel - 8 ohm = 300 watts per channel 4 ohm rating: 5 channels - 4 ohm = 350 watts per channel 4 channels - 4 ohm = 375 watts per channel 3 channels - 4 ohm = 400 watts per channel 2 channels - 4 ohm = 450 watts per channel 1 channel - 4 ohms = 500 watts per channel yup!
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Nov 7, 2014 4:28:02 GMT -5
Ok, så the watts is fine, but are there anything in the build of the XPA-2 wich gives it a significant better audio-performance in stereo than the XPA-5? Im going back and forth between those two amps and cant make up my mind For now, it will be used With B&W 685 s2 speakers in stereo-mode, maybe a SVS SB-1000 will be added. I dont know if I ever will go for a full 5.1 home theater, but I have been thinking that if I go for a XPA-5 I have all options available without have to buy a new amp with more channels. The Music I listen to are in majority 90s/2000s Dance, trance and club tracks, some todays popmusic, and sometimes I put on Norah Jones/Katie Melua.. So an amp built for small jazz-nuances will not be necessary for me I guess.. But if an XPA-2 will give me much better soundquality than the XPA-5, then I have to consider it
|
|
|
Post by moko on Nov 7, 2014 6:44:34 GMT -5
Ok, så the watts is fine, but are there anything in the build of the XPA-2 wich gives it a significant better audio-performance in stereo than the XPA-5? Im going back and forth between those two amps and cant make up my mind For now, it will be used With B&W 685 s2 speakers in stereo-mode, maybe a SVS SB-1000 will be added. I dont know if I ever will go for a full 5.1 home theater, but I have been thinking that if I go for a XPA-5 I have all options available without have to buy a new amp with more channels. The Music I listen to are in majority 90s/2000s Dance, trance and club tracks, some todays popmusic, and sometimes I put on Norah Jones/Katie Melua.. So an amp built for small jazz-nuances will not be necessary for me I guess.. But if an XPA-2 will give me much better soundquality than the XPA-5, then I have to consider it the xpa-2 has 12 output devices per channel (total 24 in amp) compared to maybe 6 (iirc) per channel of xpa-5. afaik, with more output devices per channel in parallel configuration will produce lower output impedance. lower output impedance means greater damping factor or the ability to control speakers cone movements better. that's why some people called the xpa-2 a faster amp or more dynamic amp. it's the same reason people said that solid state amps are more dynamic compared to tube amps although the quantity of power also plays a major role here. although i have an xpa-2 and biased about this, i would recommend an xpa-5 IF you're going to go for 5 channel. the bigger damping factor won't be useful if you put high pass filter to your speakers and the sub handling the low frequency. you can also choose bigger (less AWG) and shorter speaker cables to increase the damping factor.
|
|
|
Post by brand on Nov 7, 2014 6:49:11 GMT -5
Hi, I own both the XPA 2 and 5 gen 2 and tested them a while back in stereo mode. Personally I can't hear a difference so I would go XPA 5 in your case. Even if you got an XPA 2 later on you can use the 5 for surrounds or even a second system.
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Nov 7, 2014 9:40:19 GMT -5
Thanks for answering Its not often I can afford purchasing audio-equipment, så therefore I see the XPA-5 as a safer buy even though I may never complete a HT-setup.. But I think maybe the NeXT generasjon of UMC-pre/pro tempts me to take the step, then I will have all the channels I need
|
|