|
|
Post by kybourbon on Apr 10, 2017 19:40:18 GMT -5
Please tell me why the newest Gen 3 is better than the previous Gen 1/2. I'd like to learn and see what others have to say.
Full disclosure: I own a Xpa-2 Gen 1 and Xpa-3 gen 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 10, 2017 19:48:10 GMT -5
what do you think?
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,088
|
Post by klinemj on Apr 10, 2017 19:55:36 GMT -5
Please tell me why the newest Gen 3 is better than the previous Gen 1/2. I'd like to learn and see what others have to say. Full disclosure: I own a Xpa-2 Gen 1 and Xpa-3 gen 3. Well...duh...because it is! Oh...you want more. OK...so, not having heard them but having read quite a bit...it borrows aspects of the beloved but gigantic, heavy, and pricey to ship XPR series and puts them in lighter, more shipping efficient case thanks to the new light weight power supply. That's all I got... Mark |
|
|
|
Post by kybourbon on Apr 10, 2017 20:33:41 GMT -5
I haven't hooked my Gen 3 up to my Ascend Sierra-2 yet... they are powering my L/C/R in dedicated theater. I need to do it though to see the differences. |
|
|
|
Post by teaman on Apr 10, 2017 20:41:16 GMT -5
I haven't heard nor owned the Gen 3 but I own both Gen 1 and Gen 2 XPA amps and I prefer by quite a margin the Gen 1 due to the higher gain. The power in both series is fine but at higher volumes I prefer the 1st Gen, the Gen 2 sound like they are struggling a bit to keep up and the front LED meters dance quite a bit on the Gen 2, where the Gen 1 barely move. I feel this way with the XPA-1, XPA-2 and XPA-5 across the board.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by beardedalbatross on Apr 10, 2017 21:28:05 GMT -5
I haven't hooked my Gen 3 up to my Ascend Sierra-2 yet... they are powering my L/C/R in dedicated theater. I need to do it though to see the differences. I'd love to own a pair of those Ascend Sierra Sierra 2's sometime. My in-reach endgame is a choice between those and the LS50. What are your theater speakers if you don't mind me asking? |
|
|
|
Post by kybourbon on Apr 10, 2017 22:09:28 GMT -5
I haven't hooked my Gen 3 up to my Ascend Sierra-2 yet... they are powering my L/C/R in dedicated theater. I need to do it though to see the differences. I'd love to own a pair of those Ascend Sierra Sierra 2's sometime. My in-reach endgame is a choice between those and the LS50. What are your theater speakers if you don't mind me asking? Don't mind at all. In the front I have 3 in walls in the theater as it has to be kid friendly (for now) although I'll add towers in there at a later date once the kids get older. I have 3 Definitive Technology UIW RLS II up front. |
|
|
|
Post by kybourbon on Apr 19, 2017 8:50:07 GMT -5
Anyone else have any thoughts? I thought this topic would generate some discussion!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 19, 2017 9:07:06 GMT -5
If you don't have any Godzilla genes in your ancestry - the XPA Gen3 is about 30-35 pounds lighter.
(They're also a little bit more efficient - especially at moderate power levels.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Apr 19, 2017 12:31:26 GMT -5
KeithL , Lonnie , I'm curious, I assume that you guys spend quite a bit of time listening to your own amplifiers and those of the "competition". As I noted recently on my "build"/listening experiences of the Hypex nCore NC400 Monoblock Kits, I was frankly surprised that I could hear any differences between two reasonably well executed Solid-State Amplifier implementations. We didn't have enough time to do extensive back-and-forth listening in order to determine "which was better" at {x}, but they definitely sounded different. Do you guys have any thoughts on this topic? And yes, I know that you don't want to get trapped into saying that one Emotiva Amplifier is better/worse than another. And probably aren't too interested in getting into a spitting war with people regarding various competing products. But, if you do hear differences, what do you tend to hear? The "Audiophile Press" is so full of flowery language that says nothing specific, it's hard to actually tell what's being described. And, if you do hear differences, are they of the category of "better", "worse", or "merely different"? What aspects of Amplifier design would you attribute such differences? Bruno Putzeys of Hypex/nCore fame is a huge advocate of Negative Feedback to more accurately handle the "straight wire with gain" view of an Amplifier. Meanwhile, Nelson Pass eschews all forms of Negative Feedback, apparently substituting massive overbuilt designs to stay in the "comfort zone" of the Amplifier. And finally, back to subjects which are probably near and dear to your own hearts, how does all of the above inform your own design efforts? Obviously there's an element of "efficiently spent resources" given Emotiva's Rethink High-End™ product design philosophy, so expenses which produce fewer/smaller benefits are relegated to the more expensive product offerings. But how do you prioritize these issues in your Amplifier designs? Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by kybourbon on Apr 19, 2017 13:29:51 GMT -5
KeithL , Lonnie , I'm curious, I assume that you guys spend quite a bit of time listening to your own amplifiers and those of the "competition". As I noted recently on my "build"/listening experiences of the Hypex nCore NC400 Monoblock Kits, I was frankly surprised that I could hear any differences between two reasonably well executed Solid-State Amplifier implementations. We didn't have enough time to do extensive back-and-forth listening in order to determine "which was better" at {x}, but they definitely sounded different. Do you guys have any thoughts on this topic? And yes, I know that you don't want to get trapped into saying that one Emotiva Amplifier is better/worse than another. And probably aren't too interested in getting into a spitting war with people regarding various competing products. But, if you do hear differences, what do you tend to hear? The "Audiophile Press" is so full of flowery language that says nothing specific, it's hard to actually tell what's being described. And, if you do hear differences, are they of the category of "better", "worse", or "merely different"? What aspects of Amplifier design would you attribute such differences? Bruno Putzeys of Hypex/nCore fame is a huge advocate of Negative Feedback to more accurately handle the "straight wire with gain" view of an Amplifier. Meanwhile, Nelson Pass eschews all forms of Negative Feedback, apparently substituting massive overbuilt designs to stay in the "comfort zone" of the Amplifier. And finally, back to subjects which are probably near and dear to your own hearts, how does all of the above inform your own design efforts? Obviously there's an element of "efficiently spent resources" given Emotiva's Rethink High-End™ product design philosophy, so expenses which produce fewer/smaller benefits are relegated to the more expensive product offerings. But how do you prioritize these issues in your Amplifier designs? Casey Yes! Yes! Yes! This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to have. Popcorn ready!!! |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 19, 2017 15:08:33 GMT -5
There are in fact tiny audible differences between most amplifiers - even well designed ones. The XPA Gen3 amps have a switch mode power supply (SMPS) as compared to the linear power supply in the XPA Gen1 and XPA Gen2. The new SMPS is regulated, which means that it delivers a more stable voltage to run the amplifiers. The XPA Gen1 and XPA Gen2 amps had linear power supplies and regular Class A/B output sections. The XPA Gen3 amps also have a Class A/B output section, but they have the soft switch Class H power supply topology from our XPR amps. (The amplifier modules from the XPA Gen3 amps are basically an updated and slightly smaller version of the amp modules in the XPR series.) So, yes, comparing the two, they are a tiny bit different, and I guess I would give the win in sound quality to the new Gen3 - but I wouldn't bet money I could tell them apart. If anything, the Gen3's sound more like XPRs. (But, in practical terms, the new Gen3's are a lot easier to lift, and a little bit more efficient.... and the chassis is modular so you can add channels later....) The argument about negative feedback has basically been done and won a long time ago. Virtually every modern amplifier over a few watts has at least some NFB... and virtually everyone agrees that, WHEN DONE CORRECTLY, it has a huge upside and not much downside. (As far as I know even Nelson Pass uses it on everything except his little flea-watt amps. Class D amps are a much more complicated subject........) KeithL , Lonnie , I'm curious, I assume that you guys spend quite a bit of time listening to your own amplifiers and those of the "competition". As I noted recently on my "build"/listening experiences of the Hypex nCore NC400 Monoblock Kits, I was frankly surprised that I could hear any differences between two reasonably well executed Solid-State Amplifier implementations. We didn't have enough time to do extensive back-and-forth listening in order to determine "which was better" at {x}, but they definitely sounded different. Do you guys have any thoughts on this topic? And yes, I know that you don't want to get trapped into saying that one Emotiva Amplifier is better/worse than another. And probably aren't too interested in getting into a spitting war with people regarding various competing products. But, if you do hear differences, what do you tend to hear? The "Audiophile Press" is so full of flowery language that says nothing specific, it's hard to actually tell what's being described. And, if you do hear differences, are they of the category of "better", "worse", or "merely different"? What aspects of Amplifier design would you attribute such differences? Bruno Putzeys of Hypex/nCore fame is a huge advocate of Negative Feedback to more accurately handle the "straight wire with gain" view of an Amplifier. Meanwhile, Nelson Pass eschews all forms of Negative Feedback, apparently substituting massive overbuilt designs to stay in the "comfort zone" of the Amplifier. And finally, back to subjects which are probably near and dear to your own hearts, how does all of the above inform your own design efforts? Obviously there's an element of "efficiently spent resources" given Emotiva's Rethink High-End™ product design philosophy, so expenses which produce fewer/smaller benefits are relegated to the more expensive product offerings. But how do you prioritize these issues in your Amplifier designs? Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Apr 19, 2017 15:43:55 GMT -5
On the subject of Negative Feedback, Bruno Putzeys is a fan of a _*LOT*_ of Negative Feedback and has written and interviewed about this extensively[1,2,3,4]. From [3] he is quoted as saying: In any case, I take it from your response KeithL that you're a fan of Negative Feedback and that Emotiva Amplifiers employ it in their designs. Casey [1] EDN Network, July 2013, Negative feedback in audio amplifiers: Why there is no such thing as too much, Part 1[2] EDN Network, August 2013, Negative feedback in audio amplifiers: Why there is no such thing as too much, Part 2[3] SoundStage!Ultra, March 2014, Searching for the Extreme: Bruno Putzeys of Mola-Mola, Hypex, and Grimm Audio — Part 1[4] SoundStage!Ultra, April 2014, Searching for the Extreme: Bruno Putzeys of Mola-Mola, Hypex, and Grimm Audio — Part 2 |
|
