|
|
Post by teaman on Dec 20, 2017 14:41:42 GMT -5
You can't necessarily take the same components and just cram them into a smaller chasis. Err, the OP asked about a 2 channel specific case. At a minimum you could reduce the chassis by the width of the unused 5 bays, which would be a smaller chassis. Obviously Emo wouldn't be thrilled with having to maintain multiple chassis' over their current Model T assembly line approach, but maybe if enough customers ask.. And emoticon - MG was poking fun at other threads revolving around the perennial delayed HDMI/Atmos boards. I agree with you, also since the newer smaller chassis would be dedicated to single blade or two blade only would likely reduce costs from the huge unused full sized chassis. If the cost were lower to produce them, they might sell more. Just like the first time I mentioned this when Dan introduced the modular amps this is going nowhere. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,092
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 20, 2017 18:09:16 GMT -5
If the smaller chassis could be in common with something else to keep inventory/spare parts down, then - maybe cost could come down. But, given a nice computer case cost $40-$100...I don't think folks will be saving a lot of $.
That does bring up an idea...for those wanting XPA Gen 3 parts in a smaller box - built it yourself! I had a blast building my Hypex cases. Go for it!
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by emoticon on Dec 20, 2017 18:23:35 GMT -5
But with the upgradability aspect, you can't really reduce the size and still deliver upgradability. Reading my OP again would perhaps help. I am not suggesting Emo remove the upgrade option with the current chassis. I am suggest Emo make a new chassis that is 2-channel only so its smaller. As rbk said above, if enough people ask... |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 20, 2017 19:45:04 GMT -5
But with the upgradability aspect, you can't really reduce the size and still deliver upgradability. Reading my OP again would perhaps help. I am not suggesting Emo remove the upgrade option with the current chassis. I am suggest Emo make a new chassis that is 2-channel only so its smaller. As rbk said above, if enough people ask... Yeah, I get that. I think it's about the economies of scale. I doubt they'd make a smaller one. Check out the Schiit Vidar. It's solid state, class AB, has a non-switching power supply and can be run as monoblocks or a stereo amp. More importantly much smaller. 100w@8, 200w @ 4 ohms, (Monoblocks 400 w).  The DC-1 monoblocks called the PA-1 I believe are going to be even smaller. They will be class D ICE modules which are pretty well regarded in the market. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 20, 2017 21:20:20 GMT -5
Check out the Schiit Vidar. It's solid state, class AB, has a non-switching power supply and can be run as monoblocks or a stereo amp. More importantly much smaller. 100w@8, 200w @ 4 ohms, (Monoblocks 400 w). I wonder if that Schiit is unstable bridged into 4 ohms like the XPA-2 was (since they don't supply a rating)? Would love to audition one of those with efficient speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by emoticon on Dec 20, 2017 23:05:17 GMT -5
Check out the Schiit Vidar. It's solid state, class AB, has a non-switching power supply and can be run as monoblocks or a stereo amp. More importantly much smaller. 100w@8, 200w @ 4 ohms, (Monoblocks 400 w). I wonder if that Schiit is unstable bridged into 4 ohms like the XPA-2 was (since they don't supply a rating)? Would love to audition one of those with efficient speakers. Someone (I think ComputerAudiophile) was saying this is not an issue for normal to loud levels and you have to push it to ear-splitting levels to get it unstable. |
|
|
|
Post by jlafrenz on Dec 21, 2017 0:52:22 GMT -5
You can't necessarily take the same components and just cram them into a smaller chasis. Err, the OP asked about a 2 channel specific case. At a minimum you could reduce the chassis by the width of the unused 5 bays, which would be a smaller chassis. Obviously Emo wouldn't be thrilled with having to maintain multiple chassis' over their current Model T assembly line approach, but maybe if enough customers ask.. And emoticon - MG was poking fun at other threads revolving around the perennial delayed HDMI/Atmos boards. My comment was based upon the fact that the OP has an XPA-2 currently. The guts of that particular amp couldn't necessarily be fit into a smaller chasis. Something would have to give in this situation and that would be the performance of the amp in order to fit it into a smaller chasis. This is unless it was a different class amp, but that wasn't where I was originally going with my original post. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Dec 21, 2017 7:21:28 GMT -5
They’ve made amps like the SA-250 that were premium products and shorter than the XPA series; they were well regarded, but may not have sold all that well. So a ‘unique’ 2-channel format isn’t new or unheard of, but they’ve decided on a standardized chassis size for reasons mentioned before. If they knew they’d sell enough of them I’m sure they’d make something like that again, but they can’t be everything to everyone, and there’s a lot of pressure to focus on processors now.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,092
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 21, 2017 7:23:04 GMT -5
Err, the OP asked about a 2 channel specific case. At a minimum you could reduce the chassis by the width of the unused 5 bays, which would be a smaller chassis. Obviously Emo wouldn't be thrilled with having to maintain multiple chassis' over their current Model T assembly line approach, but maybe if enough customers ask.. And emoticon - MG was poking fun at other threads revolving around the perennial delayed HDMI/Atmos boards. My comment was based upon the fact that the OP has an XPA-2 currently. The guts of that particular amp couldn't necessarily be fit into a smaller chasis. Something would have to give in this situation and that would be the performance of the amp in order to fit it into a smaller chasis. This is unless it was a different class amp, but that wasn't where I was originally going with my original post. I was just looking at some pix on the inside from the thread about their release, and while it looks like one could lay the amp blades down on their side (vs. having them stand up tall) to make it shorter - the power supply is ~2/3 the width of the amp's chassis and looks to be as tall. So, making it thinner doesn't appear to be an option and even if the power supply were not really as tall as it looks from the photo - the width can't be reduced much. To get these blades and power supply into a smaller case would be a total redesign - at least it looks like it would be. So, for smaller form factor from Emotiva - the options I noted previously appear to be the ticket. Outside Emotiva - there are many options (like...Hypex...). Mark |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Dec 21, 2017 7:40:18 GMT -5
Reading my OP again would perhaps help. I am not suggesting Emo remove the upgrade option with the current chassis. I am suggest Emo make a new chassis that is 2-channel only so its smaller. As rbk said above, if enough people ask... Yeah, I get that. I think it's about the economies of scale. I doubt they'd make a smaller one. Check out the Schiit Vidar. It's solid state, class AB, has a non-switching power supply and can be run as monoblocks or a stereo amp. More importantly much smaller. 100w@8, 200w @ 4 ohms, (Monoblocks 400 w). The DC-1 monoblocks called the PA-1 I believe are going to be even smaller. They will be class D ICE modules which are pretty well regarded in the market. I just got this to drive my Maggies for TV viewing...... |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 21, 2017 9:35:26 GMT -5
My comment was based upon the fact that the OP has an XPA-2 currently. The guts of that particular amp couldn't necessarily be fit into a smaller chasis. Something would have to give in this situation and that would be the performance of the amp in order to fit it into a smaller chasis. This is unless it was a different class amp, but that wasn't where I was originally going with my original post. Fair enough but he did specify it was a Gen 3 XPA 2, which (obviously) doesn't use all the bays (and thus my comment). I believe you are referring to the Gen 1/2 versions of the XPA 2? |
|
