XPA-2 or XPA-200?

[jaycee]

I recently purchased a used pair of Vandersteen  3A Signatures. My current amp doesn't have the power to drive them and I'm thinking of either the XPA-2 or XPA-200. (I have both a USP-1 pre-amp and an Audible Illusions 2D which I swap out, depending). My budget is limited at this time which is why i'd prefer the 200. I know it will drive them ok, but wonder if it has enough power to drive them at high volume levels, and especially to power the bass - I mostly listen to large orchestral works and 60's, 70's, and 80's rock (go figure) at loud volumes. The speakers are in a 15 x 21 finished basement room with heavy carpeting on the floor. One thought I've had would be to go with a with a used Gen 1 XPA-2 to save some $.

Does anyone have experience with either of these amps driving vandersteens?
Would the xpa-200 have sufficient power to drive the speakers at high volumes?
Is there a significant difference sonically between the Gen 1 and Gen 2  versions of these amps?

Vandersteen recommends between 100 and 200 watts per channel for the 3A's. Efficiency is rated at 87 dB, 1 meter/2.83 volt input (on the website, the manual says 88 dB).

[creimes]

I would look for a used XPA-2, XPA-100's or even UPA-1's, here on the lounge in the Emporium thread or sites like Audiogon or even give Emotiva a call and ask about B-Stock or trade in's they might have available for sale.

Chad

[jaycee]

Thanks Chad, good ideas. BTW, re your recommending the 100 monoblocks (and probably others will recommend same); Vandersteen says (at least with regard to his speakers) you're much better off getting a (for example) 1000$ stereo amp as opposed to 2 500$ monoblocks.

[brubacca]

Obviously it's your money so let me spend it!

Seriously, The UPA-1 and XPA-100 are similar amps and are reportedly very good. As a "least expensive Option" they are quite good. The UPA-1 had a reputation for being a bit warm, which may match well with the USP-1. ToneAudio Magazine did a review of the USP-1/UPA-1 combo and it is a good read.

Next up would be the XPA-2, this seems to be the sweet spot for awesome performance in the lineup.

Lastly the UPA-1L as the more expensive of the options may get you a bit more than the XPA-2, but should also sound about as good as Emotiva gets. (I'm actually trying to figure out how to get a pair of XPA-1L or XPA-2 to try)

[vcautokid]

Which power amp are you using now? This will help in a recommendation. Of it helps, the XPA-2 is an amazing amp. Plenty of power to get the music done. The XPA-200 is good choice too, but would it be much better than your current amp now.

[jaycee]

I'm currently using a custom modified Dyna ST-70 (35 watts per side) which I really, really like. It worked well enough (barely) for my Vandy 2ci's but isn't cutting it with the 3A's.

[repeetavx]

Now for a different opinion.

Since Vandersteen says:

We began experimenting with bi-wiring back in the early '80s, an era when horizontal bi-amplification was considered the ultimate way to drive quality loudspeakers. (Horizontal bi-amplification used one amplifier to drive the low-frequency section of a speaker and a second amplifier to drive the high-frequency section.) We noted that speakers sounded better when bi-amplified by two amplifiers than when driven by a single amplifier. Surprisingly, this superior performance was evident even when the speakers were bi-amplified by two identical amplifiers at a low volume level and the amplifiers were each driven full-range without an electronic crossover.

The benefits of bi-wiring are most obvious in the midrange and treble. The low-current signal to the midrange and tweeter drivers does not have to travel on the same wire as the high-current woofer signal. The field fluctuations and signal regeneration of the high-current low-frequencies are prevented from distorting or masking the low-current high-frequencies. The back EMF (Electro-Mechanical Force) from the large woofer cannot affect the small-signal upper frequencies since they do not share the same wires.

The effects of bi-wiring are not subtle. The improvements are large enough that a bi-wire set of moderately priced cable will usually sound better than a single run of more expensive cable.

For a hundred dollars more, I would suggest two XPA-200s. That will give you twice the available power of just one XPA-200, and give you all the rewards that Vanderseen believes biamplification will give you.

[jaycee]

I may have misunderstood your email, but: I do bi-wire the Vandy's; ;your quote is about bi-wiring (single amp) not bi-amping. Vandersteen says, as I wrote in an earlier reply, you are better served by spending the same amount of money on a stereo amp than you would to by two mono's (eg: one 800$ stereo amp is better than two 400$ mono's). This may be just for his speakers, I don't know. But that's what he says.

[repeetavx]

Jun 5, 2015 10:53:28 GMT -5 jaycee said:

I may have misunderstood your email, but: I do bi-wire the Vandy's; ;your quote is about bi-wiring (single amp) not bi-amping. Vandersteen says, as I wrote in an earlier reply, you are better served by spending the same amount of money on a stereo amp than you would to by two mono's (eg: one 800$ stereo amp is better than two 400$ mono's). This may be just for his speakers, I don't know. But that's what he says.

In that case, I would recommend the XPA2. It has twice the output devices per channel than the XPA200, which means that it will control the speakers better.

[jaycee]

Folks seem to be pretty much on the XPA-2 side. From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, of an audible difference between the Gen 1 and Gen 2 with the major difference between the two being in the amount of Gain. Does anyone see any sonic reason to go with the Gen 2 over the Gen 1? I've seen some used Gen 1's on sale which would help with the cost.

[creimes]

Everyone's opinions will obviously be different but I myself have only noticed a difference between my UPA-200 compared to all the XPA ones I have owned, I have an XPA-5 and two XPA-100's and they sound identical as did my XPA-2 I once owned and also had an XPA-5 at the same time that I noticed no difference with, and my UPA-1's were awesome as well and I highly doubt in a blind test I would be able to tell them apart from my current XPA-100's I own, just my .02

Chad

PS. I also like to listen loud at times, aka Nine Inch Nails Blu-ray hahahaaha

[brubacca]

Supposedly Gen 2 has some power supply enhancement which lowers the noise floor. Not sure if anyone has really heard the difference in the real world. If you can afford Gen 1 go for it. If you want new get a Gen 2. With an actual Pre-Amp it should not make much of a difference.

[jaycee]

Thanks all! I'm going to obsess some more and then make a final decision.

[klinemj]

If you are worried about power and like to listen loud...which both seem are true, go for the xpa-2. Great amp.

Mark