XPA-2 - Gen. 2 vs. Gen. 3

[Boomzilla]

Since people keep axin -

Ive owned at least three XPA-2, generation 2 amps and at least two generation 3s. So the first question is "why so many?"

For the generation 2 amps, I sold one of them to a buddy who wanted it badly. I sold another ( I think it was a Gen. 2) to afford an XPR-2 amp from Emotiva. And I sold the third because I wanted to try a tube amp & needed the money to make the change.

For the generation 3 amps, the first one (that I bought new from Emotiva), arrived DOA, so I returned it for a refund. The second one (bought used from a Lounge member), I still have for sale in the Emporium.

The XPA-2, G2 amp has a traditional "big-iron" transformer & lots of power supply capacitance. It is heavy, but it sounds great.

The XPA-2, G3 amp has a "switching" power supply with significantly less capacitance. The actual amplifier modules are on plug-in-blades that socket into a backplane board.

In theory, I like the construction and design of the G2 better than the G3. But in practice, I like the lighter weight of the G3.

Sonically, I honestly think that there's very little difference between the two. Both sound as you might expect - great bass control - no treble artifacts - smooth frequency response - very dynamic.

But to my ears, the G3 has a slightly "dry" sound in the midrange and treble that the G2 lacked. The G3 may do a slightly better job of revealing detail in the midrange and treble, but to my ears, the G2 sounds more like real music. Don't get me wrong - the G3 isn't a bad amp by ANY standards (in fact, it's a pretty awesome one), but in my room, with my speakers (Emotiva T2s, currently), and to my ears, I think I'd prefer the sound of the G2 amp.

Now keeping in mind that my opinions are worth every penny you're paying for them, it would be best if you listened for yourself (if possible). My audio amigo, garbulky, seems to like the G3, so you might consider asking his opinion too.

Boomzilla

[garbulky]

I had to think about this one because they both sounded different to me. And different doesn't necessarily mean better or worse, it can simply mean different.

Then I went to thinking, which amp would I want to live with? And also would I live with an amp if it was simply given to me. Then the answer came easier to me. The answer to the first was no. The answer to the second was maybe - for a bed room system with some reservations.

In this particular case, in my *opinion*, different means worse. The gen 2 is better. The gen 3 single channel blades imo are a step in the wrong direction.

*subjective, ymmv, it was only a brief audition

BTW you also had one or two gen 1 XPA-2 as well.

[teaman]

I asked the question to Boom in an earlier post this afternoon just out of curiosity knowing he has listened extensively to all three Generations of Emotiva XPA series amps. That drove me to do some critical listening and pushing some louder than normal listening levels on separate set ups in my house this evening.

I will probably differ with most of your opinions, and that is fine. We all hear what we hear, and like what we like for different reasons. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same things.

I think the Gen 1 amps were the best. I have 5 Gen 1 amps and 4 Gen 2 amps and as capable as the Gen 2 are....refined if you like, I find the Gen 1 better in all aspects. More punch, better bass control, effortless driving.

Every speaker I drive with an amp in my house is 96db efficient or better. It really doesn't take much to bring music or movies up to a moderate to loud listening level with any of the amps, however I have done several A/B comparisons going back and forth with XPA-1, XPA-2 and XPA-5 of both Gens and in every circumstance the Gen 2 seems more strained to reach the same listening levels.

In each set up I am using the XDA-2 Gen 1 as my preamp/DAC so with all things considered there should be little variance. The XPA-2 Gen 2 driving 102 db efficient Klipsch KLF-30 speakers today had four or five flashing LED lights lit on the front panel at low to moderate listening levels. I came in to the other room with the exact same set up but the XPA-2 Gen 1 in it's place. I was pushing louder listening levels by quite a bit yet only two LED lights lit up across the front. Now this might very well mean nothing as far as the lighting triggered at different levels however when I listened at increasingly louder levels the Gen 1 sounded well and able, almost asking for more....turn it louder! With the Gen 2 as the listening levels increased the amp seemed a bit strained. Even with hyper sensitive speakers, I am still pushing two twelve inch woofers per speaker which still takes some oomph....and it felt like I was using every bit of it as I climbed that volume ladder.

For movies I admit I notice the differences in amps a lot less, the dynamics in music are much longer and louder than the sudden bursts of movie dynamics. I have pretty much relegated all of my Gen 2 amps into HT duty and put all of my Gen 1 amps in two channel set ups...with the exception of a Gen 2 XPA-2 I have set up in the garage.

I have not had the pleasure of listening to any of the Gen 3 equipment but on several occasions found myself tempted to jump in on deals that pass through. Somehow I am hooked on the tried and true toroidal big ass, back breaking amps. I mean, you only have to move it once in most cases. As time passes I am sure I will try the Gen 3 but I am really in no hurry.


Tim

[Boomzilla]

I agree with teaman - I thought the XPA-2 Gen. 1 was maybe the best sounding amp that Emotiva has ever built (except maybe for the BasX A300).

[Gary Cook]

I have had a Gen 1 XPA-2, a Gen 1 XPA-3 and I still have Gen 1 XPA-5 (easy to hear why they were Emotiva's best selling power amp) and I prefer the Gen 2 XPA-1L's to all of them. But that's hardly a fair comparison as I have taken full advantage of their monoblock architecture.

Worth keeping in mind that the Gen 1's have the advantage of the higher gain (32 db versus 29 db) which can make a difference, especially when the source is a bit weak on output.

Cheers
Gary

[teaman]

Almost wondering if we should rename the survey to which generation of amp.....more generalized. Personally I prefer the Gen 1 higher gain on every source to this point. I would have a hard time parting with my Gen 1 XPA-1's, that's for sure.

[Boomzilla]

I'm VERY surprised that there's not yet a single vote for the XPA-2, Gen. 3. It does sound somewhat dryer than the previous generations, but for that slight negative, you get a HUGE increase in midrange and treble resolution. LOTS of detail there that is more starkly revealed by the slight harmonic thinness. With the right speakers (something rich & midrange-oriented, like maybe a Vandersteen?) the Gen. 3 might be a match made in heaven (or not?).

[rbk123]

May 2, 2018 5:59:04 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I agree with teaman - I thought the XPA-2 Gen. 1 was maybe the best sounding amp that Emotiva has ever built (except maybe for the BasX A300).

Rory did say the BasX line used the XPA G2 design, so the A300 could just be a lower powered sister to the XPA-2 G2.

[geeqner]

I cannot compare the older-gen XPA amps. My relatively new XPA-2 G3 is my first venture into "higher-end" 2-Channel Audio.

With that in mind - according to the reviews that I read before purchasing them, my ELAC speakers present a fairly complex load
(4-Ohms, a bit less at some frequencies, Sensitivity only 85 dBA), plus they are supposedly respond with different nuances to different Amplifiers.

When I first bought them, I was driving them with my NAD 7130 PE Receiver. Although it is rated a bit low of optimal in its STANDARD rating, its design incorporates significant power for Dynamic Headroom. I felt that although the sound DID improve over the same setup with the older Polk Monitor 5JRs - the new speakers just weren't quite "living-up to the hype".

A few months later, when I was able to scrape-up the funds to upgrade - I added the XPA-2 and broke-out the Pre-Amp portion of the NAD with it. WOW! BIG difference - even at low levels, everything seemed more balanced. I also acknowledge that some of this could be due to "freeing-up" the Power Supply section of my Receiver (I've heard that the Pre-Amp section of this receiver supposedly becomes better in many ways when this is done - true or not? I do not know) I still attribute MOST of the change to the new XPA-2 and will be in no big hurry to replace it anytime soon. (Only drawback is that I wish that for 2-Channel setups - in spite of the "modular" advantages, an a small level - it would be nice if the XPA-2 G3 could have been packaged in a smaller enclosure.)

So, even though I am "overdriving the he-double-hockey-sticks" out of them - this setup WORKS. It would be interesting to see (hear) if the Gen-1 or Gen-2 would produce any audible difference but I doubt that it would, because other factors within the room / system are a bit less than optimal.

[26gary26]

In reference to (Geeqner) comments I also not heard the previous XPA Gen1 or Gen2. I recently have purchased the XPA2 Gen3 & XSP1 Gen2 and love it. It makes my Klipsch RF-7IIs really sing. Had many friends with other equipment (to many to list) that probably are not audiophiles but have invested thousands of dollars in equipment and told me this is one of the best stereos they have heard. Maybe it was the perfect match of components or maybe we don't know what a good stereo sounds like LOL. Not going to vote on this posts. Just throwing in my two cents.

[garbulky]

May 3, 2018 8:30:37 GMT -5 rbk123 said:

May 2, 2018 5:59:04 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I agree with teaman - I thought the XPA-2 Gen. 1 was maybe the best sounding amp that Emotiva has ever built (except maybe for the BasX A300).

Rory did say the BasX line used the XPA G2 design, so the A300 could just be a lower powered sister to the XPA-2 G2.

Well depending on how broad you get with a defintion, my clock radio could just be a lower powered Boulder amp. Bannanas also share 50% of their DNA with us!

Imo the A-300 is nowhere in the same category as an XPA 2 other than they are both amps and may possibly use some aspects of the same tech. I wouldn't even compare the A-300 to its predecessor the XPA-200 and the UPA-2 which had more in common with the x series line up. It's closest sister is the UPA-200 imo.

The A-300 has a single blade for two channels, and a fan.
The XPA-2's gen 2 relatives are the XPA-1 and the SA-250 and by a slight stretch the XPA-1 L.

Now here are some better comparisons - in terms of build.

An XPA-2 gen 2 is a repurposed XPA-1 gen 2 for stereo.

An SA-250 is a relation to the XPA-2 gen 2.
An XPA-1 L is a lower powered sister to the XPA-1 gen 2 (though I don't think it sounds that way in sound).
An XPA-200 is a sister to the UPA-2. The XPA-100 is a sister to the UPA-1. The mini-x A-100 is a low powered relation of the UPA-2.

An old UPA-5 was a low powered relation to the XPA-5 - if you stretched it a bit.

[rbk123]

Again, you're basing it on physical build appearance. From a circuit implementation standpoint, which is what really matters, they can be highly similar and still look different.

And the opposite is true - they can also look highly similar and be completely different circuitry.