|
|
Post by nextlevel5 on Mar 30, 2016 17:56:50 GMT -5
Hi, This post is more directed to the Emo engineers. How does the sound quality on the gen 3 amps compare to the existing SA-250 amp or discontinued XPR ones? Being that the gen 3's have moved to class H topology does that mean they need specific modules to run correctly and if so which companies modules are they running? I can't wait to see them in person at Axpona next month. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Mar 30, 2016 19:02:19 GMT -5
Well - since its an Emotiva product it'll outdo all Emotiva amps prior. One thin veil after another thin veil lifted - as if by magic.
On a serious note --- I'd expect these new amps to be something very similar sounding to the MPS line which were also class 'H' amps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 30, 2016 19:04:20 GMT -5
The gen 3 power supply is class H. It's a modular switched mode power supply that's shared by the amp modules (cards). The modules are proprietary and made by Emotiva. They are class A/B topology using the same design that was used in the XPR series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 30, 2016 19:05:43 GMT -5
Well - since its an Emotiva product it'll outdo all Emotiva amps prior. One thin veil after another thin veil lifted - as if by magic. On a serious note --- I'd expect these new amps to be something very similar sounding to the MPS line which were also class 'H' amps. The XPR used class H power supplies too. Probably more like the XPR series. I've always wanted to get an MPS just for vintage fun. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Mar 30, 2016 19:20:48 GMT -5
I have to sympathize with KeithL on this one as there is no way to please everybody!!! |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Mar 30, 2016 20:00:28 GMT -5
Wait until Keith has to answer questions on Emo's tube line-up...
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Mar 31, 2016 1:48:00 GMT -5
Hi, This post is more directed to the Emo engineers. How does the sound quality on the gen 3 amps compare to the existing SA-250 amp or discontinued XPR ones? Being that the gen 3's have moved to class H topology does that mean they need specific modules to run correctly and if so which companies modules are they running? I can't wait to see them in person at Axpona next month. Thanks Please keep in mind that class H is not really an amplifier class. It refers to a power supply design. The outputs can be configured as 'A' or 'A/B' or even an entire new design utilizing a 'D' module. My GUESS, FWIW, would be a redesign of the power supply section of existing amps. The amplifier section would be redesigned only as much as needed to accomodate the multiple 'rail' aspect which is what distinguished 'H' power supplies. Don't forget, MOST of the time you are drawing little power. An amp could make use of maybe +-20 volt 'rails' to the amp. But when higher powers are called for during a peak or when you simply want to annoy the neighborhood, a HIGHER VOLTAGE rail will come into play. +-50 volts or maybe more. Trust the engineers to choose the proper voltages (more than 2 rails?) to accomplish design goals. My old Carver Cube used such a system and not to forget that OUTLAW uses this scheme in their nice little mononblock. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 31, 2016 15:59:10 GMT -5
Exactly.... the terms "module" and "Class H" can both be a bit confusing. If you look at an XPA Gen2 amp, or an XPR amp, there is a big common power supply that runs all the channels, and a single front panel circuit board, but each amplifier channel is a separate assembly (a circuit card mounted to a heat sink). In that sense, both of those amps are in fact "modular" - each channel is one "amp module". However, once an amp is "built" using a certain number of modules, it's actually somewhat complicated to "rebuild" it with more modules installed (things like the internal wiring harnesses are specific to a certain configuration). The big difference in the new XPA Gen3 amps is that they were designed from the ground up so that modules COULD be added after the initial build - essentially without taking the whole thing apart and building a new amp from the parts. In terms of what connects to what, the "Class H topology" is technically a description of how the amplifier output stage connects to the power supply. In order for the entire amp to operate in Class H mode, the power supply must be able to deliver the dual power supply rails necessary, and the individual amp modules must be designed to USE the dual rails provided by the power supply. (So, yes, in that sense, both the power supply and the amp modules are different in a Class H design.) In this case, we don't buy the modules from someone (like we or someone else might buy ICEpower modules); the amp modules are built for us, to spec, so they're "ours". However, in another sense, "Class H" is just Class A/B - with a few slightly more interesting power supply connections. (Even though extra parts and circuitry are added, the circuit characteristics that "'define" the amplifier as "Class A/B" remain unchanged - and those are what mostly define how it sounds.) Please keep in mind that class H is not really an amplifier class. It refers to a power supply design. The outputs can be configured as 'A' or 'A/B' or even an entire new design utilizing a 'D' module. My GUESS, FWIW, would be a redesign of the power supply section of existing amps. The amplifier section would be redesigned only as much as needed to accomodate the multiple 'rail' aspect which is what distinguished 'H' power supplies. Don't forget, MOST of the time you are drawing little power. An amp could make use of maybe +-20 volt 'rails' to the amp. But when higher powers are called for during a peak or when you simply want to annoy the neighborhood, a HIGHER VOLTAGE rail will come into play. +-50 volts or maybe more. Trust the engineers to choose the proper voltages (more than 2 rails?) to accomplish design goals. My old Carver Cube used such a system and not to forget that OUTLAW uses this scheme in their nice little mononblock. |
|
|
|
Post by kroppork on Apr 1, 2016 13:10:46 GMT -5
From Emotivas point of view, for a 2 channel amp is the sound quality on the SA-250 still better than the Gen3? I know reviews will be coming soon but getting comparisons to the SA-250 is not always easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 1, 2016 13:52:04 GMT -5
Who 'ya gonna trust for reviews? I only Rarely see a 'bad' review. Most reviewers look for the 'good' in a product or are not going to give a REAL bad review, especially if they want to keep working in the field. Besides? What's 'better'? You might be an 'imaging' guy. I value transparency. You might like it loud, I might be a 'dynamics' guy (maybe Slam?) Instead? Ask yourself about your system goals. What do YOU value in music? Do you want 'double duty' for movies and other non-music stuff? The amp design state of the art is pretty highly developed. Unless you have a special speaker, like maybe electrostats or a very low sensitivity panel (Maggies, for example) or even some old Scintillas (Apogee 1 ohm!) most amps will perform well UNLESS CLIPPED. Some speakers are simply 'picky' about amps. Last Year I heard a pair of Emo MONOBLOCKS with a pair of 7000$ speakers. Not the '1' series, but the XPA-100 @about 350$ per. NOBODY complained of the 40 or so guys who sat thru the demo. OH! The amps the EMOs replaced? A 54,000$ PAIR of Constellation Monoblocks, one of which failed to work. Yes, 54 THOUSAND a pair. I could build a room addition to my HOUSE for that kind of coin. In my 'upgrade' cycle a few years ago, I briefly considered the SA-250. But, I'm putting ONE stereo amp behind each speaker and the lack of balanced 'in' was a deal breaker. (Long run to pre). I also considered a PAIR of the 1L behind each speaker, but the additional expense of another 20 amp circuit was THAT deal breaker. If the 'listening panel' which voiced the G3 amps did their job, you won't suffer with EITHER amp. |
|
|
|
Post by kroppork on Apr 1, 2016 16:27:22 GMT -5
Thanks for the response leonski, you may have convinced me to just buy 2x XPA-100  In answer to who am I going to trust, I guess I trust Emotiva well enough to give me a straight answer since I asked them here. So far it seems the general answer is unless I had very sensitive speakers I would not notice a difference between the SA-250 and Gen3. It is probably true that I could compare both and not be able to tell the difference or simply declare the more expensive to be better. That is why I wanted to know what "Emotiva" states as I am sure they have tested both far better than I could. I will never A/B test them nor believe I could do so correctly. I guess I want to know if spending the extra $220 means a better sounding Amp, and from there I can decide if it is worth $220 to believe I got something better even if I can't hear it. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 1, 2016 21:00:10 GMT -5
Quoted from Keith:
However, in another sense, "Class H" is just Class A/B - with a few slightly more interesting power supply connections. (Even though extra parts and circuitry are added, the circuit characteristics that "'define" the amplifier as "Class A/B" remain unchanged - and those are what mostly define how it sounds.)
Isn't that the crux of it?
I think one potential help by 'H' amps is to OVERALL, Plug to Speaker efficiency. A big amp with a 1000va transformer and normal usage, might have an A/B output stage of up to 50% efficiency. Add in the power supply and that will drop. Running a 25v rail at 80% of capacity with the 'overage' handled by the higher voltage rail means higher efficiency for the lower voltage rail…..which is MOST of the power needed MOST of the time.
A dual or triple rail 'switcher' should bump that enought to be MORE than worthwhile. Only fly in the ointment? Making the PS look enough like a resistor to the power company. These days, power companies are getting more sensitive to power factor.
While some 'd' amp sellers 'brag' out 'theoretical 100% efficiency', we all know that is rubbish. And drops to the 80s when considering the ONLY true measure of efficiency, which is PLUG to SPEAKER.
|
|
|
|
Post by benbvan on May 18, 2016 11:36:57 GMT -5
Hello all, new here to the forum and Emotiva itself. I'm not a huge forum poster though I do spend time reading them. I just pulled the trigger yesterday and ordered the gen 3 amp in 2 channel configuration. I have a question for anyone running this with a mid to higher end avr... specifically Denon avr-x4200w. Has anyone found for themselves that you are having a problem getting full power from the amp with 1.2v rms output? I'm just guessing that this could be the case for this receiver as that is the best info I have on it. Could possibly be higher output. If anyone has information on twitter I would greatly appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on May 19, 2016 7:13:14 GMT -5
Your denon will output more than 1.2v. You'll easily get 2v before clipping which is more than enough to drive this amplifier to full power.
I forget what the 1.2v spec is meant for but it is not full rms output.
I owned an x4000 previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by benbvan on May 19, 2016 11:26:13 GMT -5
Thank you Dwaleke
|
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on May 19, 2016 15:32:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by benbvan on May 19, 2016 18:33:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sme on May 25, 2016 14:35:27 GMT -5
My Denon 3313CI puts out slightly more than 4V rms on its unbalanced pre-outs. I have also seen users of many newer Marantz models indicate the same. In all probability, these capabilities are similar throughout all of their offerings and probably have been similar for a long time. If this is better than the industry standard, then allow me to praise Denon for getting this right. One thing they don't do, however, is document how to maximize use of the internal headroom. If using bass management in the Denon, the sub trim must be set all the way down to the minimum of -12 dB to ensure no clipping ever occurs with a 7.1 channel soundtrack played back at master volume "0". This assumes no additional processing such as Audyssey. I wish more products offered more volts on their line outputs like this, as well as better internal gain structures. I personally think it's a stretch to argue that one pre-amp or processor sounds better than another because of its "superior analog signal path" or whatever. These evaluations are often limited to low level listening with "hifi" equipment that lacks any real dynamic capability. Even in very capable setups, the speaker and room are contributing the majority of the distortion. However, it seems many pre-amp/processor products have flaws in the digital signal path and/or gain structure that substantially limit the usable dynamic range or sometimes mangle the signal completely under certain circumstances. These issues become much more apparent and can be a major headache when using equipment with more dynamic capability. To give an example, The Oppo BDP-105 (and likely other models) has severely flawed bass-management logic. See this forum post for more info. In a nut-shell, Oppo only provided enough digital headroom in the post bass-management subwoofer channel for the content in the LFE channel alone. With bass management, however, it's possible for much more bass to be mixed into the subwoofer channel, up to 10 dB more, in fact. If the combined signal is great enough it will clip within the digital processing of the Oppo, and this will happen regardless of the master volume setting in the Oppo or anything downstream. This has been demonstrated to occur with multiple examples of real-world content. When the issue was brought to Oppo's attention, their first response was to insist they were doing things right and that providing the extra headroom would result in an unacceptable compromise in sound quality. Finally, Oppo issued a firmware to "correct" the problem, which did indeed increase the subwoofer channel headroom by 5 dB, but not enough to pass all real-world content cleanly. I guess they are still worried about "degrading sound quality"? This is silly. I don't know what kind of DSP they are using, but most provide 32-bit float or 48-bit fixed of precision. Either way, the quantization noise floor in such systems is vanishingly low, but gross clipping of real-world content is acceptable as a compromise? Totally lame. Anyways, this just goes to show that in the world of audio, a lot of people still don't really "get" digital or how to do it right. You see no shortage of marketing for "32-bit" DACs whose sound is supposedly superior to a 24-bit DAC. Do you know how much dynamic range 24-bits gets you? 145 dB. So if your content has peaks of 125 dB (like say, an accurate recording of a live space shuttle launch at safe viewing distance), the quantization noise floor is at -20 dB. Never mind that most of the sound that gets you to 125 dB is subwoofer content that needs way less dynamic range anyway. That's not all. I've also read arguments from loudness war proponents who say that mastering the music as loud as possible maximizes the sound quality by using the available bits as efficiently as possible. Really? Anyway, forgive the rant, but I'm just shocked at how much incompetence there is out there in the implementation of digital signal pathways. I hope someday the audio press gets the hint and starts looking at the stuff that really matters to sound quality but which few consumers are aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by benbvan on May 25, 2016 22:35:22 GMT -5
Is anyone bi-wiring their speaker with xpa amps? Just fired up my RTi a7 towers for the first time today, bi-amped from my Denon Avr x4200w... they are SO power hungry! Much less output than the TSx series I upgraded from. Weird since they are 1db less sensitive. Anyone else run RTi series speakers?
|
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on May 25, 2016 23:16:31 GMT -5
I have RTI A9s and they love power. Love it.
|
|
