|
Post by garbulky on Aug 17, 2017 16:10:14 GMT -5
Hi kids, I think the BasX amplifiers are great! I'm really proud of them, and at their price points, they have no real competition. BTW, the output stage is a fully complementary, discrete darlington design and uses the same high speed, high current ON Semiconductor power devices as the XPA Series. Since we are talking about Darlington. It was discussed in a thread asking about it. Found here emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/50668/help-emo-amps-output-stageThis is Keith telling us it doesn't have it. I made the distinction of "classic" because lately some folks have taken to calling other similar topologies things like "pseudo Darlington". (Note that a triple Darlington is a classic Darlington with an extra transistor - so you can't have a triple Darlington unless you have a classic Darlington as part of it. ) No, none of our current amps use a triple Darlington output stage.[EDIT: Correction: I misspoke..... the XPA-1 Gen2 does still use a triple-Darlington, although comprised of separate transistors, and it is still current - at least for now. ] I'm also not sure which of our previous models used it; I'd have to look it up. While some design engineers have obsessions with using (or not usi /quote] That is correct..... neither the XPA Gen3 nor the BasX amps use a classic Darlington topology. So if I'm reading right, the new amps don't have the Darlington topology.
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Aug 17, 2017 16:23:48 GMT -5
I am using a $399 A300 with a pair of $4000 speakers and could not be happier
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 16:35:52 GMT -5
Hi kids, I think the BasX amplifiers are great! I'm really proud of them, and at their price points, they have no real competition. BTW, the output stage is a fully complementary, discrete darlington design and uses the same high speed, high current ON Semiconductor power devices as the XPA Series. Since we are talking about Darlington. It was discussed in a thread asking about it. Found here emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/50668/help-emo-amps-output-stageThis is Keith telling us it doesn't have it. I made the distinction of "classic" because lately some folks have taken to calling other similar topologies things like "pseudo Darlington". (Note that a triple Darlington is a classic Darlington with an extra transistor - so you can't have a triple Darlington unless you have a classic Darlington as part of it. ) No, none of our current amps use a triple Darlington output stage.[EDIT: Correction: I misspoke..... the XPA-1 Gen2 does still use a triple-Darlington, although comprised of separate transistors, and it is still current - at least for now. ] I'm also not sure which of our previous models used it; I'd have to look it up. While some design engineers have obsessions with using (or not usi /quote] Let me ask, is there any particular sonic impact or performance effect you are looking for from a topology employing a Darlington configuration of output devices? Or is this just buzzword compliance? What I mean is, why, in your words, does this matter? And if it's a question of who is more authoritative when a contradiction is discovered (congratulations), I'd say Dan. Do you want Keith and Dan to arm-wrestle?
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Aug 17, 2017 16:38:44 GMT -5
Well the key word is "scaled down". That could mean anything. Like we used the same resistor and one of the eight output devices on that blade per channel versus all of them. That's a difference. The point I'm making is it's hard to assume they are the same because what Rory says because the wording changes the meaning. If he chooses to be more specific then sure I'll accept it. But I can't change what I see. It's right there on the pictures. Two versus one. The two are not the same. If two became one ....something happened and that's all we know without specifics. Your exact question, before Rory mentioned they were "scaled down" was: "How are they XPA amps? I see one single blade sometimes for five channels." That has been answered - they can be identical circuitry, regardless of whether it's one board or 10. The "scaled down" was in reference to power targets. The XPA2 - G2 was somewhat different from the XPA3 - G2 because of their power targets, yet you aren't questioning how both of those "can be XPA amps". Same with the XPA1 vs. the XPA2. If the BasX sound different than the XPA G2, it's going to be similar to how within the XPA G2 models people claim they hear differences. It isn't going to be like UPA to XPA or XPA to XPR. That's why they sound so good.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Aug 17, 2017 16:42:47 GMT -5
Different layout, different form factor, different components. So what's similar? Layout and form factor don't affect the circuit. Different components can affect the circuit. The original point of dispute was layout based.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 17, 2017 17:06:50 GMT -5
Well the key word is "scaled down". That could mean anything. Like we used the same resistor and one of the eight output devices on that blade per channel versus all of them. That's a difference. The point I'm making is it's hard to assume they are the same because what Rory says because the wording changes the meaning. If he chooses to be more specific then sure I'll accept it. But I can't change what I see. It's right there on the pictures. Two versus one. The two are not the same. If two became one ....something happened and that's all we know without specifics. Um, no. Your exact question, before Rory mentioned they were "scaled down" was: "How are they XPA amps? I see one single blade sometimes for five channels." That has been answered - they can be identical circuitry, regardless of whether it's one board or 10. Now rather than admit you are wrong because you now know that you can't confirm a circuit is different because the internals look different, you are backpeddling and are trying to take it sideways, by switching to "scaled down". The "scaled down" was in reference to power targets, which you conveniently are leaving out. The XPA2 - G2 was somewhat different from the XPA3 - G2 because of their power targets, yet you aren't questioning how both of those "can be XPA amps". Same with the XPA1 vs. the XPA2. If the BasX sound different than the XPA G2, it's going to be similar to how within the XPA G2 models people claim they hear differences. It isn't going to be like UPA to XPA or XPA to XPR. That's why they sound so good. I'm not admitting I'm wrong because I don't see anything saying I am. I hear "derived from XPA", "scaled down version", and "similar". That's not the same thing. I of course don't know the circuitry involved. But I do see there's one blade with a fan versus two blades. And nobody you are referring to has told me how two has become one is identical. And I don't think anybody claimed that they were either in layout just all on one board. You are assuming they are. The XPA-2 gen 2 is also different from the XPA-3. They are more similar to an XPA-1 gen 2 than the XPA-3. Let me ask, is there any particular sonic impact or performance effect you are looking for from a topology employing a Darlington configuration of output devices? Or is this just buzzword compliance? What I mean is, why, in your words, does this matter? And if it's a question of who is more authoritative when a contradiction is discovered (congratulations), I'd say Dan. Do you want Keith and Dan to arm-wrestle? No I have no beef in the Darlington configuration. That was emodarlington who I am assuming is even more confused now because he started a thread and people jumped down his throat when he wanted a specific nailed down. I think Dan and Keith must be great friends. They both seem like really nice guys. They've probably arm wrestled at some point. But why does this matter? Well in terms of life changing differences, not much at all. But...I would like some accuracy here. I notice beating around the bush and the vague speak of marketing. I'm not the one saying something contradictory. I'm the one pointing out an inconsistency here. It would be nice to know. Note I am a long time Emo fan. I am sometimes critical. Doesn't make me not a fan! P.S : I'm going to bow out now. The debate seems to have simply devolved to back and forth. I believe I have derailed a fan of the A-300's very nice review. I am glad he is happy. Happy listening!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,348
|
Post by DYohn on Aug 17, 2017 17:13:47 GMT -5
Different layout, different form factor, different components. So what's similar? Layout and form factor don't affect the circuit. Different components can affect the circuit. The original point of dispute was layout based. Different layout absolutely can affect circuit performance.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Aug 17, 2017 17:21:08 GMT -5
Hi kids, The BasX amplifiers are derived from the XPA circuit topology. They are signifigantly improved from the previous Ultra Series amplifiers. Noise, THD, and overall build quality are improved. All PCB's are now double sided FR-4 material. I think the BasX amplifiers are great! I'm really proud of them, and at their price points, they have no real competition. BTW, the output stage is a fully complementary, discrete darlington design and uses the same high speed, high current ON Semiconductor power devices as the XPA Series. The cooling fans RAREY operate. They are there primarily to pass CE and FTC heat soak preconditioning tests. They are also handy if the amps are mounted in an area without proper ventilation. During normal operation, you will not normally see them turn on. Happy listening, Big Dan Right you are, Dan Laufman ! Back in December when my daughter came by to pick up her BasX A-300, she hooked it up to my bedroom system (replacing the UPA-2 temporarily). It sounded much better than my old UPA-2! I asked if she wanted to trade me, but she said no.
|
|
|
BasX-A300
Aug 17, 2017 18:01:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Jim on Aug 17, 2017 18:01:29 GMT -5
Different layout, different form factor, different components. So what's similar? Layout and form factor don't affect the circuit. Different components can affect the circuit. The original point of dispute was layout based. Form factor is mostly determined by the circuit. And layout is hugely determined by the circuit. It's not a trivial decision. If the layout is different - an engineer weighed the pros and cons. And if the layout is very different - good chance the circuit is pretty different too. Otherwise, why bother to change it at all? Form follows function.
|
|
|
Post by rdperry12 on Aug 17, 2017 20:41:03 GMT -5
Just some input on this topic as far as the upa-200 and upa-2 are concerned. I too felt the internal design of the Upa-2 seemed more robust but in direct comparison of the two the only advantage I found on the upa was the gain adjustment when used with the usp-1 preamp which had a volume control that was a little hot. The xpa-200 though in my opinion is the amp to get in this rack size as it gives a very noticeable improvement in performance.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Aug 17, 2017 20:46:54 GMT -5
Different layout absolutely can affect circuit performance. Not between competent board designers. You give the same circuit to 2 different board designers who know they're stuff and they're going to come up with 2 different layouts - every time. Will you be able to hear a difference? Nope. Amp (and other electronic) manufacturers do board revision changes all the time within the same model line and people don't have a clue the boards were changed.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Aug 17, 2017 20:58:16 GMT -5
Form factor is mostly determined by the circuit. And layout is hugely determined by the circuit. It's not a trivial decision. If the layout is different - an engineer weighed the pros and cons. And if the layout is very different - good chance the circuit is pretty different too. Otherwise, why bother to change it at all? Form follows function. It's not that simple. Form factor has many more factors than just the circuit. Cost, board designer preference, board manufacturers technology capability, board manufacturer part suppliers, and so on. As for engineers - you give the same circuit to 2 board designers and they will both come up with 2 different layouts. It's the nature of PCB design tools. Each designer will have weighed the pros and cons and implemented differently but you wouldn't be able to measure or hear a difference if they were good. Many reasons to change a board design - changing board vendors, changing board part inventory, changing board technology - (i.e. low layer to multi-layer) just to name a few. My whole point is the argument they "can't" be XPA because of visual inspection is a crock. I would agree that typically if the layout is very different it is a good chance the circuit is different - until Emo tells you the circuit is very similar.
|
|
|
BasX-A300
Aug 17, 2017 21:29:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Jim on Aug 17, 2017 21:29:10 GMT -5
I agree with your argument about visual inspection being a crock. I don't disagree with you there.
I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing about anything. I think the word that we are interpreting differently is the use of "different". It's hard to quantify to what degree two things are "different" merely by a couple pictures.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,744
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 18, 2017 0:20:19 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I think you are all missing the obvious...topology, board layout, and choice of parts DO matter a LOT! In my long history of circuit board design, I discovered early on that if you put two parts - say, capacitors - right next to each other and they have philosophical differences, they will quickly start bickering about it over and over. The warmer the amp gets, the more heated their discussion. At some point, their mindless chatter rises above the noise floor and disrupts the music. In such cases, a board layout that places them very far apart from each does indeed dramatically reduce noise. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Aug 18, 2017 0:37:10 GMT -5
I do not know what you guys are talking about but a good double bullet point for the BasX amps would be this : Double sided FR4 circuit boards with plated-through holes – enable us to use short, optimized signal paths and minimize the need for point-to-point wiring. Your not going to hear noise with an Emotiva amp dudes. I would buy one in a heart beat if I did not already have one !
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Aug 18, 2017 6:47:47 GMT -5
Don't know about the circuitry on the BasX A 300. Just know it sounds wonderful! It is dead quite without a source but does have a faint pop in my speakers when turned on
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Aug 18, 2017 8:52:48 GMT -5
I agree with your argument about visual inspection being a crock. I don't disagree with you there. I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing about anything. I think the word that we are interpreting differently is the use of "different". It's hard to quantify to what degree two things are "different" merely by a couple pictures. I agree they are physically different, but how "circuitry" different can't be determined visually (size of the transformer, number of filter capacitors, number of output transistors, but that is about it), and so I prefer to believe Emo on what they said. It makes sense they are really lower powered G2's for a number of other reasons as well. And yes I caught Kline's humor
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 18, 2017 9:30:06 GMT -5
I agree with your argument about visual inspection being a crock. I don't disagree with you there. I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing about anything. I think the word that we are interpreting differently is the use of "different". It's hard to quantify to what degree two things are "different" merely by a couple pictures. I agree they are physically different, but how "circuitry" different can't be determined visually (size of the transformer, number of filter capacitors, number of output transistors, but that is about it), and so I prefer to believe Emo on what they said. It makes sense they are really lower powered G2's for a number of other reasons as well. And yes I caught Kline's humor Completely agree with you there.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 18, 2017 9:31:28 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I think you are all missing the obvious...topology, board layout, and choice of parts DO matter a LOT! In my long history of circuit board design, I discovered early on that if you put two parts - say, capacitors - right next to each other and they have philosophical differences, they will quickly start bickering about it over and over. The warmer the amp gets, the more heated their discussion. At some point, their mindless chatter rises above the noise floor and disrupts the music. In such cases, a board layout that places them very far apart from each does indeed dramatically reduce noise. Mark Hardy har har! That's borderline "dad" humor!
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 18, 2017 9:42:38 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I think you are all missing the obvious...topology, board layout, and choice of parts DO matter a LOT! In my long history of circuit board design, I discovered early on that if you put two parts - say, capacitors - right next to each other and they have philosophical differences, they will quickly start bickering about it over and over. The warmer the amp gets, the more heated their discussion. At some point, their mindless chatter rises above the noise floor and disrupts the music. In such cases, a board layout that places them very far apart from each does indeed dramatically reduce noise. Mark Maybe what is needed is a Lounge or other forum-type dedicated section on the circuit board layout?
|
|