|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Nov 17, 2014 18:55:51 GMT -5
Hi everyone, I just installed an XPA-3 into my two channel system. I've never owned any Emotiva gear but my interest has been piqued. Here are my thoughts on this amp.
Speakers are NHT 2.9s which are notoriously power hungry and have a nominal impedance of 6 ohms but under heavy loads that drops to 3.3 ohms. I have over the years bi amped them with parasound hca 3500, hca 1000a, carver tfm55x, and an AMC Weltronics 2100. For preamp I have a heavily modded musical fidelity X-PRE with an outboard power supply. Speaker cables are audioquest midnight for lows and audioquest bedrock for the midrange & highs. Interconnects are audiotruth emerald. Power cord is a sonic horizons daybreak.
The Emotiva XPA-3 is an extremely well built hefty amp. As a 3 channel I was concerned that it might not sound great on detailed two channel material but as a start I removed all of the other amps from the system and used the jumpers on the rear of the speakers. I connected the XPA-3 to the preamp and used a sony c222es sacd player.
My initial impression was the amp was very forward and detailed but almost to a fault. The bass was there and kind of full at moderate volumes but at lower volumes the highs were so forward they were almost abrasive. Midrange was very detailed and rich with layers but there was an inequity in the speaker's thirst for power between highs and lows. This inequity became smaller as the volume went up but I normally don't listen to music at crazy loud volumes so this wasn't going to work.
A few days later I had an audio epiphany. What about going back to biamping? Considering this amp was the newest in my system I tried it for the highs and mids and rotAted through an array of various amplifiers from the basement. The emotiva was still to forward on the highs and midrange disproportionately to the bass. Bass was just lacking. Yuck. A few days of this and I figured as a last resort time to try the last logical step. The XPA went to power the lows and I used the amc for the highs.
As soon as I turned on this combo and heard the first few seconds of "Shine on you crazy diamond" by pink Floyd I knew the XPA 3 was not going back. Bass was tighter, fuller and more controlled than I had ever heard through these speakers before! I've owned them since 1998 and have had at least 10 amp combos on them. These speakers sang like never before. The AMC Weltronics 2100 was airy, open spacious and warm. The bass was full authorTive and well balanced with the rest of the frequencies. The speakers disappeared into the music.
Since that night I have listened to hundreds of cd's with a smile on my face. Classical, jazz, rock and everything else. I smile when I hear that full rich sound that I've always chAsed for years.
I'm actually wondering if now I might want to upgrade to an XPA-2 for the lows and the class a monoblocks for the highs. Just wondering if anyone has any input or experience going from XPA 3 to XPR 2 to drive low frequencies. Either way, thanks everyone as I have been reading this forum all day and learning a lot.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 17, 2014 19:13:18 GMT -5
NHT 2.9's are notoriously sensitive to placement, especially with their angled baffles. The first thing I would suggest is trying different positions. I'm not a fan of using amplifier power in an attempt to overcome sub optimal positioning.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Nov 17, 2014 19:28:13 GMT -5
NHT 2.9's are notoriously sensitive to placement, especially with their angled baffles. The first thing I would suggest is trying different positions. I'm not a fan of using amplifier power in an attempt to overcome sub optimal positioning. Cheers Gary Hi gary. Just wondering if the position of the speakers before the introduction of the new amp was optimal, would adding the new amp warrant new speaker placement? I'm going to play around with that tonight. Thanks for the suggestion. Will let you know how it goes. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 17, 2014 20:47:32 GMT -5
In regards to specific frequency response, at the same volume, quite possibly. For example it is possible that a particular amp was say weak in the low frequencies such that it sounded balanced with certain speaker positioning ie; the position boosted the low frequencies. When that amp was replaced by one that was say not so weak in the low frequencies then it is likely that that the same position would overemphasise those frequencies. Conversely if an amp was strong in the mid and higher frequencies it would be possible to chose a location that reduced that emphasis. Replace it with a balanced amp and it would falsely appear weak in that frequency range.
Speaker positioning and room acoustics are very powerful tools and their effect shouldn't be underestimated. My experience with 11 Emotiva amplifiers to date has been that they are very balanced in their treatment of the various frequency ranges, they neither over or under emphasise.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Nov 17, 2014 21:01:32 GMT -5
In regards to specific frequency response, at the same volume, quite possibly. For example it is possible that a particular amp was say weak in the low frequencies such that it sounded balanced with certain speaker positioning ie; the position boosted the low frequencies. When that amp was replaced by one that was say not so weak in the low frequencies then it is likely that that the same position would overemphasise those frequencies. Conversely if an amp was strong in the mid and higher frequencies it would be possible to chose a location that reduced that emphasis. Replace it with a balanced amp and it would falsely appear weak in that frequency range. Speaker positioning and room acoustics are very powerful tools and their effect shouldn't be underestimated. Cheers Gary That makes perfect sense Gary. Looks like I might need to begin researching room acoustics and start from the beginning with placement. Thank you again. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 18, 2014 12:29:13 GMT -5
So when you just single amped it at first and mentioned the bass was lacking vs when you biamped it. It made me think you may have left the jumpers off between the terminals in the single amp setup. This would leave one of the sets of drivers - probably the woofers in your case without power.  |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Nov 18, 2014 12:49:42 GMT -5
I had an XPA-3 for 7 months, recently sold, and I agree with the thread starter's initial take on the amp's personality. Due to a bright room and personal taste, I found the amp to be a bit bright between 1,000k and 4000k which came across to glare and bright sound in female vocals and especially strings. I just do not believe all amps are truly flat and sound the same or do not color signal. I'm now using a borrowed Bryston and enjoying music more than I was with the XPA-3 but I have to return that so I'm dreading finding an affordable amp.
|
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Nov 18, 2014 13:26:09 GMT -5
So when you just single amped it at first and mentioned the bass was lacking vs when you biamped it. It made me think you may have left the jumpers off between the terminals in the single amp setup. This would leave one of the sets of drivers - probably the woofers in your case without power. When I single amped the XPA-3 to the speakers I used the jumpers. The bass became present And more full at louder volumes but in general the sonic characteristic I experienced was a harsh And grainy exaggerated mids and highs. In the biAmp testing running the same amp to drive the highs I had the same results. When I used it strictly on the low end - Perfect. Just according to my listening preferences and ear of course. |
|
|
|
Post by moko on Nov 18, 2014 14:28:28 GMT -5
i wouldn't surprised if an amp is warm/bright sounding. every amp has its sonic charasteristic. but if the bass is lacking at low volume, usually there are 3 possibilities : 1. the amp doesn't have enough power. (not an issue here, those are all high power amps) 2. the digital volume control is still used. (also not an issue here. i don't see any volume control in cd player) 3. the drivers especially the woofers have high mechanical loss (low Qms). it's not a surprise due to soft cone made from polypropylene. the measurements from stereophile said there appears to be a slight lack of energy in the two octaves between 50Hz and 200Hz and there is a smooth rising trend apparent on-axis from the midrange to 12kHz or so, broken by some extra energy in the low treble. so probably that's explain the characteristic of the speakers. glad to see you found the perfect combination  |
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Nov 18, 2014 18:08:57 GMT -5
Thanks Moko! Exactly the right combo for my system, environment and personal preferences.
Agreed. The speakers are the main culprits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Nov 18, 2014 19:54:10 GMT -5
Funny, all the XPA amps are of the exact same design and circuit topology, but people claim that amps with different amounts of channels sound different..  |
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Nov 18, 2014 21:40:13 GMT -5
Funny, all the XPA amps are of the exact same design and circuit topology, but people claim that amps with different amounts of channels sound different.. Porscheguy, I was under the impression that the XPA-3 was a very different circuit topology than the XPA-2. I've been considering making an upgrade. With all 3 channels driven its power is rated at 200 watts @ 8 ohms With two channels driven it's power is rated at 250 watts @ 8 ohms With one channel driven its power is rated at 300 watts @ 8 ohms. The XPA-2 is designed very different from what I've read. If I'm incorrect, I apologize in advance but am new to Emotiva products. |
|
|
|
Post by wiskers on Nov 18, 2014 22:07:01 GMT -5
I have 2 Xpa100's, xpa3, xpa200 and they all sound the same to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Nov 18, 2014 22:16:57 GMT -5
Funny, all the XPA amps are of the exact same design and circuit topology, but people claim that amps with different amounts of channels sound different.. Porscheguy, I was under the impression that the XPA-3 was a very different circuit topology than the XPA-2. I've been considering making an upgrade. With all 3 channels driven its power is rated at 200 watts @ 8 ohms With two channels driven it's power is rated at 250 watts @ 8 ohms With one channel driven its power is rated at 300 watts @ 8 ohms. The XPA-2 is designed very different from what I've read. If I'm incorrect, I apologize in advance but am new to Emotiva products. The power ratings are different, but the design is the same. The XPR amps use a hybrid class H design in the voltage rails but ultimately they are class AB as well... I think all Emotiva amps sound the same meaning neutral and quiet as most well made power amps do.. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Nov 19, 2014 1:03:53 GMT -5
I had an XPA-3 for 7 months, recently sold, and I agree with the thread starter's initial take on the amp's personality. Due to a bright room and personal taste, I found the amp to be a bit bright between 1,000k and 4000k which came across to glare and bright sound in female vocals and especially strings. I just do not believe all amps are truly flat and sound the same or do not color signal. I'm now using a borrowed Bryston and enjoying music more than I was with the XPA-3 but I have to return that so I'm dreading finding an affordable amp. Sounds like you need a pair of UPA-1's  |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Nov 19, 2014 8:47:08 GMT -5
Hopefully, I can find that pair of UPA-1's.
I was considering the UPA-500 but it's no longer available from what I can tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Nov 19, 2014 11:11:37 GMT -5
Hopefully, I can find that pair of UPA-1's. I was considering the UPA-500 but it's no longer available from what I can tell. For some reason I remember my UPA-1's being a tad less fatiguing with my RX6 towers compared to my XPA-5, the UPA-1's are the things I miss the most and wish I would have kept |
|
|
|
Post by broncsrule21 on Nov 19, 2014 11:34:25 GMT -5
Funny, all the XPA amps are of the exact same design and circuit topology, but people claim that amps with different amounts of channels sound different.. Many people over the years have claimed the an XPA-2 has added more "slam" over their XPA-3 or 5....placebo?? Just wondering. |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Nov 19, 2014 11:52:58 GMT -5
Funny, all the XPA amps are of the exact same design and circuit topology, but people claim that amps with different amounts of channels sound different.. Many people over the years have claimed the an XPA-2 has added more "slam" over their XPA-3 or 5....placebo?? Just wondering. From the XPA-5 as a stereo amp thread: the xpa-2 has 12 output devices per channel (total 24 in amp) compared to the 6 per channel of the xpa-5/xpa-3. 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. Emotiva amps all have the same characteristic sound. But I wouldn't call the: 6 output devices per channel of the XPA-3/XPA-5/UPA-1 (XPA-100) 12 output devices per channel of the XPA-2 16 output devices per channel of the XPA-1L divided to 8 per pathway 24 output devices per channel of the XPA-1 divided to 12 per pathway the same topology, as some would. I believe that the different output devices provide subtle differences depending on the speaker loads that they are driving. |
|
|
|
Post by moko on Nov 19, 2014 16:54:55 GMT -5
|
|
