Considering amp change in 2ch system

[saru]

I recently took the plunge on a close-out sale for a demo pair of the gorgeous Sonus faber Olympica III floorstander at my local Magnolia store (it helped that my usual salesman accepted my gently used Venere 2.0 bookshelfs on trade).  Definitely a huge leap in sound quality for the 2ch system I've put together in my home office!  However, the XPA-200 that I've been using in this setup is rated at 240W max per channel into 4 ohms, while the Olympica's are rated from 50-300W into 4 ohms.  Since the room is pretty small (about 10' x 12' with 8' ceiling), I typically do not drive this system at high volumes, but I am still concerned about the possibility of clipping (and speaker damage) at those dynamic peaks.  So, that's got me thinking about changing my amp situation.

I'm considering the following options:

1. Take the XPA-1L amps from my home theater to replace the XPA-200
2. Get a XPA-2 Gen 3 to replace the XPA-200
3. Wait for the XPA-2m to come out and get that to replace the XPA-200
4. Suck it up with the XPA-200 and don't worry about it

Option 1:  If I swipe the monoblocks from the theater system, there'd be more than enough wattage to satisfy the Olympica's.  Plus, I'd also enjoy the benefits of the fully differential balanced topology and Class A power at lower volumes.  Then I could get a XPA-3 Gen 3 to take the place of the XPA-1Ls in the theater (and upgrade my center channel from its current connection on the XPA-5 Gen 2).  The downsides to this approach are: (a) the 2ch system is in a mostly-enclosed cabinet (the back is open), so the extra heat from the monoblocks is a concern; (b) the speaker cable posts on the XPA-1Ls are too far apart for the AQ Rocket 44 cables I use, so I'd have to send them into Audioquest to be modified or perform the surgery myself and void that product's warranty in the process; and (c) I've read in a few places that the XPA Gen 3 amps tend to sound better than the XPA-1Ls, so I may be making a SQ compromise with this option.

Option 2:  The XPA-2 Gen 3 would exceed the wattage needs of the speakers and run cooler than the XPA-1Ls, plus I wouldn't have to worry about the spacing of the cable posts.  And, the price is also nice!  But, as far as I can tell, the standard version of the XPA Gen 3 amps do not feature the fully differential balanced design, and they run in Class H rather than A/AB.  So, I'm not sure how much I would be shorting myself on SQ by going this path rather than taking the other options.

Option 3:  If I wait it out a bit longer and plunk down an extra $600, I could go for the XPA-2m instead.  While it seems to have everything going for it on paper, I know the extra 50W per channel compared to the XPA-2 Gen 3 wouldn't make a difference in my system, and I am unsure whether the fully differential topology alone would justify the upcharge for me (whereas in Option 1, the cost for that design is already sunk).

Option 4:  Leaving everything alone and just enjoying the music (while being mindful of the volume) would be the path of least resistance, and certainly the cheapest!

Thoughts and opinions are appreciated, as are hands-on ("ears-on"?) comparisons between the XPA-1L and XPA-2 Gen 3.  Thanks!

[garbulky]

Option 5: Considering your speakers are $10,000 speakers. I would get a pair of XPA-1 gen 2's. There is a difference in control and dynamics between the XPA-1 gen 2's and the XPA-1 L from my subjective listening observations. In fact, I also heard the same speaker with FOUR XPA-1 L's and it still couldn't control it as well as a pair of XPA-1 gen 2. Or get four XPA-1 gen 2's and bi amp that sucker. Either way would be great.

However ... there is a chance you won't hear any difference. If your experience so far has been that electronics make no difference at all to your sound, then the chances are high that you won't hear any difference. In that case either one of your choices would be better.

[saru]

Feb 20, 2017 12:13:49 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Option 5: Considering your speakers are $10,000 speakers. I would get a pair of XPA-1 gen 2's. There is a difference in control and dynamics between the XPA-1 gen 2's and the XPA-1 L from my subjective listening observations. In fact, I also heard the same speaker with FOUR XPA-1 L's and it still couldn't control it as well as a pair of XPA-1 gen 2. Or get four XPA-1 gen 2's and bi amp that sucker. Either way would be great.

However ... there is a chance you won't hear any difference. If your experience so far has been that electronics make no difference at all to your sound, then the chances are high that you won't hear any difference. In that case either one of your choices would be better.

I did think for a hot minute about the XPA-1 Gen 2, but there simply wouldn't be space in the cabinet for a pair of them (let alone four!), and I'm struggling with available square footage in the office as it is (the 2ch rig, several bookcases, my desk, etc).  Plus, if the XPA-2m is supposed to be the successor to XPA-1 Gen 2, then I'd probably lean that direction.

Though I don't have a lot of experience with different amps, the comparisons I have done (XPA-1L vs XPA-200 in the theater, XPA-200 vs my Denon AVR in the living room) have revealed subtle enough differences that I do feel the choice of electronics is important.  Before anyone asks, I do plan on hauling up the XPA-1Ls from downstairs to do a side-by-side comparison against the XPA-200 with the new speakers at some point -- I just need to set aside the time to do that, and to put together some new cables that would fit the posts on the monoblocks.

[creimes]

The 1L's deserve to be in a 2ch setup

[repeetavx]

If you have the cash. Option 3!!!

[garbulky]

Feb 20, 2017 12:50:53 GMT -5 saru said:

Feb 20, 2017 12:13:49 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Option 5: Considering your speakers are $10,000 speakers. I would get a pair of XPA-1 gen 2's. There is a difference in control and dynamics between the XPA-1 gen 2's and the XPA-1 L from my subjective listening observations. In fact, I also heard the same speaker with FOUR XPA-1 L's and it still couldn't control it as well as a pair of XPA-1 gen 2. Or get four XPA-1 gen 2's and bi amp that sucker. Either way would be great.

However ... there is a chance you won't hear any difference. If your experience so far has been that electronics make no difference at all to your sound, then the chances are high that you won't hear any difference. In that case either one of your choices would be better.

I did think for a hot minute about the XPA-1 Gen 2, but there simply wouldn't be space in the cabinet for a pair of them (let alone four!), and I'm struggling with available square footage in the office as it is (the 2ch rig, several bookcases, my desk, etc).  Plus, if the XPA-2m is supposed to be the successor to XPA-1 Gen 2, then I'd probably lean that direction.

Though I don't have a lot of experience with different amps, the comparisons I have done (XPA-1L vs XPA-200 in the theater, XPA-200 vs my Denon AVR in the living room) have revealed subtle enough differences that I do feel the choice of electronics is important.  Before anyone asks, I do plan on hauling up the XPA-1Ls from downstairs to do a side-by-side comparison against the XPA-200 with the new speakers at some point -- I just need to set aside the time to do that, and to put together some new cables that would fit the posts on the monoblocks.

Yeah these are going to require some ventillation as their class A mode gets hot. The XPA-2m are not the "upgrade" from the XPA-1 gen 2 or sequel if you may. There are too many differences. I would put them in a different category.

The XPA-2 m are not monoblocks. They are fully balanced modules.
They use a switching power supply versus the torroid of the XPA-1.
They have less capacitance - though it is not told how much less as the capacitance figures numbers are not known.
More importantly they do not have 60 watts of class A per channel. 60 watts is not easy to get. The XPA-1 can do it. Nothing has been revealed about the class A capabilities of the XPA-2 m or any of the monoblocks. I doubt they have large amounts of class A.

I think the fully balanced modules should sound quite nice if Emotiva are making them. I haven't heard a bad amp from them yet. But I doubt I would choose it over their XPA-1 gen 2. I also heard the XPA-2 m is going to have a different power supply because of its fully balanced nature.


So out of curiosity why are you putting that superb speaker for your office rather than the main system?

[saru]

Feb 20, 2017 13:12:33 GMT -5 garbulky said:

So out of curiosity why are you putting that superb speaker for your office rather than the main system?

I don't do a whole lot of music listening in the theater room, and the Olympica III is designed more for that than home theater (though from reviews, I understand that it does very well in that application)... so I figured I should place them where I spend more time with music.  Plus I was also concerned about voice matching across the other speakers in the theater... while I took the plunge on these towers due to the deal I got, I am much more hesitant about replacing all my MartinLogan stuff with comparable SF gear.

But the main reason they are not downstairs right now:  I didn't want to haul them down the twisty stairs, decide I didn't like them there, and then have to haul them back up.  Laziness wins!

[novisnick]

Feb 20, 2017 12:58:36 GMT -5 creimes said:

The 1L's deserve to be in a 2ch setup

As soon as my house is back in order I plan to drive my KEF LS50's with a set of XPA-1L's, Can't wait to hear the outcome! 

Edit; Also consider the fact that the monoblocks are in "Da House"!!!!!

[roadwar]

The Gen 3 XPA-2m is supposedly rated at 550-600 watts per channel as opposed to the Gen 3 XPA-2 at 300 watts per channel. If they ever put the d*mn things on sale, I'm buying one to replace my XPA -1Ls.

[creimes]

I must have missed the boat somewhere but what is a XPA-2m ??

[garbulky]

Feb 20, 2017 14:10:23 GMT -5 creimes said:

I must have missed the boat somewhere but what is a XPA-2m ??

He's talking about the monoblock modules. Two of the fully balanced monoblocks

[Gary Cook]

Feb 20, 2017 13:50:39 GMT -5 novisnick said:

Feb 20, 2017 12:58:36 GMT -5 creimes said:

The 1L's deserve to be in a 2ch setup

As soon as my house is back in order I plan to drive my KEF LS50's with a set of XPA-1L's, Can't wait to hear the outcome! 
Edit; Also consider the fact that the monoblocks are in "Da House"!!!!!

I agree Nick, monoblocks rule, why is he even thinking about it, it should already be done, get them XPA-1L 's in there ASAP.

Cheers
Gary

[saru]

Feb 20, 2017 15:53:39 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

Feb 20, 2017 13:50:39 GMT -5 novisnick said:

As soon as my house is back in order I plan to drive my KEF LS50's with a set of XPA-1L's, Can't wait to hear the outcome! 
Edit; Also consider the fact that the monoblocks are in "Da House"!!!!!

I agree Nick, monoblocks rule, why is he even thinking about it, it should already be done, get them XPA-1L 's in there ASAP.

Cheers
Gary

I was about to reply, "because I don't want to leave my theater system in a lurch", but I suppose I can stick the XPA-200 in for the front LR until I can acquire the true replacement.  There's still the speaker post width to contend with in the 2ch, though.

I wonder if Mrs. Saru would notice the amp downgrade the next time we sat down for a movie..? 

[creimes]

I owned the XPA-1L and XPA-5 Gen2 at the same time and noticed no difference between the two for movies, more fo music and even then the difference was so slight it really didn't matter to me a whole bunch, that's why I suggested the 1L's for dedicated 2ch setup. I would use the XPA-5 for the main speakers in the theater and the XPA-200 for the remaining 2 channels but that's just my opinion, do what sounds best to your ears

For me the only difference in amps that where I could mostly tell them apart were going from the XPA to UPA series or vice versa

Chad

[creimes]

Feb 20, 2017 15:48:39 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Feb 20, 2017 14:10:23 GMT -5 creimes said:

I must have missed the boat somewhere but what is a XPA-2m ??

He's talking about the monoblock modules. Two of the fully balanced monoblocks

Cool, haven't payed much attention to the new stuff

[garbulky]

Feb 20, 2017 16:40:39 GMT -5 creimes said:

Feb 20, 2017 15:48:39 GMT -5 garbulky said:

He's talking about the monoblock modules. Two of the fully balanced monoblocks

Cool, haven't payed much attention to the new stuff

They seem pretty cool. Lots of power! I think there's a thread somewhere here where they have pictures and descriptions.

[leonski]

Speakers don't have watts.
At least 3 different methods exist for calculating speaker 'maximum input power'.

What are you really worried about?

[saru]

Feb 20, 2017 18:01:57 GMT -5 leonski said:

Speakers don't have watts.
At least 3 different methods exist for calculating speaker 'maximum input power'.

What are you really worried about?

Forgive my shorthand.  From the spec list on SF's site, under "Suggested Amplifier Power Output", my speakers are rated "50W - 300W, without clipping".  So, I am looking to change out the XPA-200 with a solution that outputs 300+ W to reduce the possibility of clipping.

[saru]

Feb 20, 2017 16:40:11 GMT -5 creimes said:

I owned the XPA-1L and XPA-5 Gen2 at the same time and noticed no difference between the two for movies, more fo music and even then the difference was so slight it really didn't matter to me a whole bunch, that's why I suggested the 1L's for dedicated 2ch setup. I would use the XPA-5 for the main speakers in the theater and the XPA-200 for the remaining 2 channels but that's just my opinion, do what sounds best to your ears

For me the only difference in amps that where I could mostly tell them apart were going from the XPA to UPA series or vice versa

Chad

You're right, that is probably the better option.  Though it would still have to be a stop-gap until I get a more powerful amp for the front LR.  Reason being, those speakers (MartinLogan Motion 60XT) have a recommended amplifier power rating of 20-400W per channel with an impedance of 4 ohms, while my XPA-5 maxes out at 300W per channel into 4 ohms (which, I recall, is the reason I got the XPA-1Ls in the first place).  But, judging from Emotiva's product page details, it looks like the XPA Gen 3 amps would cover me just fine if I went with a XPA-2 or XPA-3 to drive my primary speakers in the theater.

[creimes]

Feb 20, 2017 18:28:33 GMT -5 saru said:

Feb 20, 2017 16:40:11 GMT -5 creimes said:

I owned the XPA-1L and XPA-5 Gen2 at the same time and noticed no difference between the two for movies, more fo music and even then the difference was so slight it really didn't matter to me a whole bunch, that's why I suggested the 1L's for dedicated 2ch setup. I would use the XPA-5 for the main speakers in the theater and the XPA-200 for the remaining 2 channels but that's just my opinion, do what sounds best to your ears

For me the only difference in amps that where I could mostly tell them apart were going from the XPA to UPA series or vice versa

Chad

You're right, that is probably the better option.  Though it would still have to be a stop-gap until I get a more powerful amp for the front LR.  Reason being, those speakers (MartinLogan Motion 60XT) have a recommended amplifier power rating of 20-400W per channel with an impedance of 4 ohms, while my XPA-5 maxes out at 300W per channel into 4 ohms (which, I recall, is the reason I got the XPA-1Ls in the first place).  But, judging from Emotiva's product page details, it looks like the XPA Gen 3 amps would cover me just fine if I went with a XPA-2 or XPA-3 to drive my primary speakers in the theater.

I doubt you would be hitting anywhere near the max output of the XPA-5, I know I can't say much running the PA 7-350 amp lol as it's a beast but an amp isn't all just about it's power rating as it is the quality of the power as in comparing your XPA-5 to the internal amp of an average receiver, I run the Chane A5rx-c for LCR and there was a speaker shootout a few years back and if I remember correctly they had a very hard time picking out a difference between your Martin Logans and my Chanes, I'll be very happy for a long long time with my amp haha.

Chad