vcrpro3
Minor Hero
..A loony lunatic.....
Posts: 73 
|
Post by vcrpro3 on Oct 12, 2018 22:18:45 GMT -5
I am curious as to why the XPA-1L had a relatively short duration in the Emotiva lineup. The XPA-1 has been around a while as have the XPA-2, Gen 1 and 2 (the gen 3 to me is a whole different thing) and then the UPA-1 which morphed into the XPA-100. Was it a situation where it was a superfluous amp because of the existence of the full size XPA-1? Was it a amp that was problematic in durability or other factor?
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 12, 2018 22:42:13 GMT -5
THE XPA-1L was actually the very first ground up gen 2 amp, it was a success but was rather expensive to build, comparison of the 250 watt to the XPA-1 dollar per watt just made the bigger beast a beter value. I still own a pair of -1L s as they are great in my smaller system. My big boy amps are the XPR-1s. So a XPA-1 would just have been too much. Also, Ive found that many equate weight with quality, the -1L is only 35 lbs and the XPA-1 is about 90 lbs.
I’ll continue to enjoy the sound and abilities of the -Ls untill I decide I need to downsize.
Hope this has helped.
PS, ive owned 4 of the -1Ls, selling the first set mande me realize what a mistake it was.
|
|
vcrpro3
Minor Hero
..A loony lunatic.....
Posts: 73
|
Post by vcrpro3 on Oct 12, 2018 23:00:38 GMT -5
THE XPA-1L was actually the very first ground up gen 2 amp, it was a success but was rather expensive to build, comparison of the 250 watt to the XPA-1 dollar per watt just made the bigger beast a beter value. I still own a pair of -1L s as they are great in my smaller system. My big boy amps are the XPR-1s. So a XPA-1 would just have been too much. Also, Ive found that many equate weight with quality, the -1L is only 35 lbs and the XPA-1 is about 90 lbs. I’ll continue to enjoy the sound and abilities of the -Ls untill I decide I need to downsize. Hope this has helped. PS, ive owned 4 of the -1Ls, selling the first set mande me realize what a mistake it was. It has because for me, the fact of it being a 35 pound monoblock for this old, arthritic geezer is more attractive than trying to muscle around a 75 pound XPA-2 and i also have the upgrade bug for something different. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 12, 2018 23:03:15 GMT -5
I have compared the XPA-1 gen 2 with the XPA-2 gen 2 and a pair of XPA-1 L monoblocks and four XPA-1 L monoblocks.
First all three amps sounded very good. They were all worth the asking price.
The XPA-1 L had just like other Emotiva amps spot on tone. It also had a clarity and seamlessness in its soundstage. Just overall it really was a quality piece of gear. You wouldn't listen to these and go meh. You could tell you were listening to a carefully made amp that produced music.
However the XPA-2 and XPA-1 hada more extended bass response with the tower speakers used. I believe we tried Axiom M100's and Tekton Pendragons. EVen the very efficient pendragons (we've used 5 watt tube amps with it) experienced extended bass with an improved dynamics. With the XPA-1 L comparing directly there was a compression to the sound on the XPA-1 L compared to the XPA-1 gen 2 which felt a bit more open.
As for why they stopped being sold I think it has nothing to do with that comparison. You really can't tell the XPA_1 L has that short coming unless you compare it directly with an amp that doesn't. It has to be pointed out to you.
Likely it was economics and nothing to do with sound.
For instance I really wonder why the quite excellent XPA-1 gen 2 is not being sold.
Thankfully there is still a star performer in Emotiva's line up and it is the rather fantastic Emotiva PA-1 monoblock amps which I'm quite taken with, probably just as much as the XPA-1 gen 2! I compared it for one whole glorious day with my XPA-1 gen 2 monoblocks in class A mode. And it did some amazing things including tremendous speed and resolution. And all the praise I can give it wasn't even considering the very excellent form factor. These are some star class amps that I honestly would consider over the XPA-1 L and even XPA-2 gen 3 which I've also heard. Unless you really really like lots of bass which in that case the XPA-2 gen 3 does provide a lot of bass but I wasn't taken with its sound quality which was only "ok".
Currently I'm toying with the idea of replacing my XPA-1 gen 2's with these tiny amps - perhaps quad monoblocks?!
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 12, 2018 23:39:37 GMT -5
I have compared the XPA-1 gen 2 with the XPA-2 gen 2 and a pair of XPA-1 L monoblocks and four XPA-1 L monoblocks. First all three amps sounded very good. They were all worth the asking price. The XPA-1 L had just like other Emotiva amps spot on tone. It also had a clarity and seamlessness in its soundstage. Just overall it really was a quality piece of gear. You wouldn't listen to these and go meh. You could tell you were listening to a carefully made amp that produced music. However the XPA-2 and XPA-1 hada more extended bass response with the tower speakers used. I believe we tried Axiom M100's and Tekton Pendragons. EVen the very efficient pendragons (we've used 5 watt tube amps with it) experienced extended bass with an improved dynamics. With the XPA-1 L comparing directly there was a compression to the sound on the XPA-1 L compared to the XPA-1 gen 2 which felt a bit more open. As for why they stopped being sold I think it has nothing to do with that comparison. You really can't tell the XPA_1 L has that short coming unless you compare it directly with an amp that doesn't. It has to be pointed out to you. Likely it was economics and nothing to do with sound. For instance I really wonder why the quite excellent XPA-1 gen 2 is not being sold. Thankfully there is still a star performer in Emotiva's line up and it is the rather fantastic Emotiva PA-1 monoblock amps which I'm quite taken with, probably just as much as the XPA-1 gen 2! I compared it for one whole glorious day with my XPA-1 gen 2 monoblocks in class A mode. And it did some amazing things including tremendous speed and resolution. And all the praise I can give it wasn't even considering the very excellent form factor. These are some star class amps that I honestly would consider over the XPA-1 L and even XPA-2 gen 3 which I've also heard. Unless you really really like lots of bass which in that case the XPA-2 gen 3 does provide a lot of bass but I wasn't taken with its sound quality which was only "ok". Currently I'm toying with the idea of replacing my XPA-1 gen 2's with these tiny amps - perhaps quad monoblocks?! Nice articulate and to the point. Like the comparison. |
|
vcrpro3
Minor Hero
..A loony lunatic.....
Posts: 73
|
Post by vcrpro3 on Oct 13, 2018 20:44:46 GMT -5
I am curious as to why the XPA-1L had a relatively short duration in the Emotiva lineup. The XPA-1 has been around a while as have the XPA-2, Gen 1 and 2 (the gen 3 to me is a whole different thing) and then the UPA-1 which morphed into the XPA-100. Was it a situation where it was a superfluous amp because of the existence of the full size XPA-1? Was it a amp that was problematic in durability or other factor? Reason i'm asking is that i have spotted a pair of XPA-1L's on sale (i might be too late on them though) and am considering them to match up with the XSP-1 that i already have. Of course, it would mean that i would the sell off the UPA-1 pair i have. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 13, 2018 22:01:55 GMT -5
THE XPA-1L was actually the very first ground up gen 2 amp, it was a success but was rather expensive to build, comparison of the 250 watt to the XPA-1 dollar per watt just made the bigger beast a beter value. I still own a pair of -1L s as they are great in my smaller system. My big boy amps are the XPR-1s. So a XPA-1 would just have been too much. Also, Ive found that many equate weight with quality, the -1L is only 35 lbs and the XPA-1 is about 90 lbs. I’ll continue to enjoy the sound and abilities of the -Ls untill I decide I need to downsize. Hope this has helped. PS, ive owned 4 of the -1Ls, selling the first set mande me realize what a mistake it was. At least with Class 'A' amplifiers, WEIGHT and POWER are very much related. The Big Dodge is using a switching PS which skips the usually pretty large, and now customary, toroid transformer. But for the outputs and all the rest? You simply need a ton of heat sink to support the fact that class 'A' has a transistor simply radiating a lot of heat even when doing nothing. This whole bias thing sets an upper limit to efficiency. An 'A' amp consumes full power at idle and when outputting rated power. At which point it's maybe 20% to 25% efficient. As bias to the output is reduced, heat load also decreases. For an amp of maybe 10 class 'A' watts and 150 watts @ 'A/B', weigh is much more manageable. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 13, 2018 23:59:21 GMT -5
Comparing a pair of monoblocks (like XPA-1L's) with a stereo amp (like an XPA-2) is pretty meaningless unless the monoblock advantages are taken fully into account. The XPA-1L's (and XPA-1's) feature fully balanced, discrete circuitry which the XPA-2 does not. That doesn't mean as much if they are not connected to a pre amp that can take advantage of that (like an XSP-1) so that there is fully balance discrete circuitry all the way from the source. It also doesn't mean much if the mono blocks are stacked in one location like a stereo amp would have to be. Locating mono blocks close by their respective speakers is an advantage. Locating them close by their respective speaker means using long XLR cables (there's that fully balance discrete circuitry again) and very short speaker cables. Which means less scope for external interference (noise) plus less loss of damping factor. XPA-1L's (and XPA-1 Gen 2's) have a limited level of Class A available by switch election, the XPA-2 doesn't not have that, it moves from Class A biasing to Class AB biasing relatively early in its power output. Being mono blocks there are a number of advantages of XPA-1L's (XPA-1's) that an XPA-2 just physically can't and technically doesn't have. Whether these advantages turn into better sound in any given systems is dependant on what gear they are used with and the system lay out.
I have had an XPA-2, XPA-3 and I still have an XPA-5 and, with their monoblock advantages fully taken, the XPA-1's sound better to me (of course it's not night and day) but they are substantially quieter (that's easily noticeable).
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 14, 2018 16:38:27 GMT -5
"Whether these advantages turn into better sound in any given systems is dependant on what gear they are used with and the system lay out."
Gary, what you wrote above is true as far as it goes. The next consideration is execution.
Good or 'best' practices exection of A/B, for example, should 'trump' a high bias or 'A' design of inferior execution.
I'm not even talking 'specs' which are advisory, at best.
Do monoblocks 'beat' a stereo amp? Maybe or maybe Not. Doesn't have to be so, and in this case I'll bet you are pretty much Source Limited. Even single ended connections, used within reasonable limits should
not be a handicap. By the time you are out to 15' or 20 feet from pre to amp, or in a noisy (electrically) enviroment, than balanced might provide for 'better'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 14, 2018 18:57:12 GMT -5
"Whether these advantages turn into better sound in any given systems is dependant on what gear they are used with and the system lay out." Gary, what you wrote above is true as far as it goes. The next consideration is execution. Good or 'best' practices exection of A/B, for example, should 'trump' a high bias or 'A' design of inferior execution. I'm not even talking 'specs' which are advisory, at best. We are talking about XPA-lL's in this thread. Obviously an X brand Class A amp may or may not be the same as a brand Y Class AB amp. but in this case they are both Emotiva, same components, in the same box, designed and tuned by the same engineer. So I'm not sure how Lonnie would have carried out different "practices" on the Class AB circuitry and not done the same on Class A. My point was XPA-1L's have definite technical advantages eg; fully balanced discrete input to output circuitry and Class A biasing up to 30 watts, over an XPA-2. Plus they have the usual monoblock physical advantages, eg; by the speaker location facilitating long interconnects and short speaker cables. The 2 together in my system (which is fully balanced discrete from the ERC-3, through the XSP-1 and the XPA-IL's to the speakers) makes the XPA-1"s the superior sounding choice over the XPA-2 (but it ain't night and day). My environment isn't noisy (IMHO) it's very quiet. Going to the XPA-1L"s did eliminate one very faint noise, extremely intermittent and only audible in silent patches in the music. Maybe once week or so I could just hear it and eventually I traced it to the ice maker in the fridge. With the balanced circuitry all the way it is 100% silent. Whether the noise was getting into the interconnects, the speaker cables or the gear itself I can't say, just that doing the lot eliminated it. If by "source limited" you mean the original recording then no arguments here, some are brilliant, others rubbish. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 14, 2018 20:27:34 GMT -5
I am curious as to why the XPA-1L had a relatively short duration in the Emotiva lineup. The XPA-1 has been around a while as have the XPA-2, Gen 1 and 2 (the gen 3 to me is a whole different thing) and then the UPA-1 which morphed into the XPA-100. Was it a situation where it was a superfluous amp because of the existence of the full size XPA-1? Was it a amp that was problematic in durability or other factor? Reason i'm asking is that i have spotted a pair of XPA-1L's on sale (i might be too late on them though) and am considering them to match up with the XSP-1 that i already have. Of course, it would mean that i would the sell off the UPA-1 pair i have. That's easy. I have heard the UPA-1 and UPA-2. I've used the UPA-2 for several years with lots of enjoyment. I find the UPA-1 to be similar in sound signature to the UPA-2 but a bit better. The XPA-1 L is superior to the UPA-1 imo. If you notice a difference or notcomes down to the individual and their setup. Your mileage may vary but imo the XPA-1 L is better than the UPA-1. It's clearer to me and a bit quicker. It has a more open sound |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 14, 2018 21:38:47 GMT -5
Designers, like Lonnie change over time. They Learn. Somebody once posited it takes 2000 hours to get to that kind of level. John Curl? Nelson Pass? BHK, now designing for PSAudio? (Bascom H. King?) Dan D'Agostino? (Krell) These guys I note
are all apparently at that level. All approach 'good sound' with both years of learning and perhaps a certain 'philosophy'.
Where's Dan in all this? Well, he's, like all the rest, a work in progress. He changes, learns and maybe hears something one day that sets him off on a new direction.
So, Of Course his stuff changes and hopefully improves. He's not trying to reinvent the wheel, but will take the best from what has comebefore, improve if possible and make it affordable. Admirable, since some of these guys, (above) can get as much for a set of amps
as an automobile.
I'd like to see a 'timeline' of the work of the above guys, including Lonnie.
I'd speculate that at the 'best' of each designer, you'd need a very good system in a very good room to begin telling the differences......which would turn into preferences for the listener. It would be interesting if any agreement about any Patterns could be arrived at.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Oct 15, 2018 9:00:34 GMT -5
Reason i'm asking is that i have spotted a pair of XPA-1L's on sale (i might be too late on them though) and am considering them to match up with the XSP-1 that i already have. Of course, it would mean that i would the sell off the UPA-1 pair i have. Go for it if you have the upgrade bug. They should be an improvement over your UPA-1's, but it won't be night and day. Of course there isn't an amp out there that will be night and day superior to the UPA-1's, as you're at the point of diminishing returns already. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Oct 15, 2018 10:46:09 GMT -5
Gar suggested that the 1Ls may lack a bit in bass response. I have five 1Ls and they are definitely NOT limited in bass response with my NHTs in my room.
Russ
|
|
vcrpro3
Minor Hero
..A loony lunatic.....
Posts: 73
|
Post by vcrpro3 on Oct 15, 2018 15:01:47 GMT -5
I am curious as to why the XPA-1L had a relatively short duration in the Emotiva lineup. The XPA-1 has been around a while as have the XPA-2, Gen 1 and 2 (the gen 3 to me is a whole different thing) and then the UPA-1 which morphed into the XPA-100. Was it a situation where it was a superfluous amp because of the existence of the full size XPA-1? Was it a amp that was problematic in durability or other factor? At this point awaiting call back from the seller........... |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 15, 2018 18:13:28 GMT -5
I am curious as to why the XPA-1L had a relatively short duration in the Emotiva lineup. The XPA-1 has been around a while as have the XPA-2, Gen 1 and 2 (the gen 3 to me is a whole different thing) and then the UPA-1 which morphed into the XPA-100. Was it a situation where it was a superfluous amp because of the existence of the full size XPA-1? Was it a amp that was problematic in durability or other factor? MHO is that the XPA-1L was stealing sales from the XPA-1. It had the Class A to Class AB switching, high bias, was fully balanced differential/discrete, lighter, in a smaller package, so more easily moved and located close by speakers. The only thing the XPA-1 had over the XPA-1L was watts (250 vs 500) and if your speakers didn't benefit from the extra 250 watts then the XPA-1L was an absolute bargain. When the XPA-1L ceased the XPA-1 was the only fully balanced differential/discrete monoblock and if that's what you wanted then you had to pay the XPA-1 price. Plus I don't think it was coincidental that the XPA-1L was discontinued during the move to the retail selling model when the price of XPA-1's went up 50%. It's much the same as the XPR-1, if you didn't need the extra power then the XPA-1 was a great choice. The less costly alternative won out, which I believe the XPA-1L was doing because Lonnie did such a great job with it, so they killed it. Cheers Gary |
|
vcrpro3
Minor Hero
..A loony lunatic.....
Posts: 73
|
Post by vcrpro3 on Oct 15, 2018 19:30:18 GMT -5
Well, probably not going to happen anyway. They are being offered up at 'The Music Room' in the Denver, Co. area. I have sent 2 emails and left a phone message that have not been answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Oct 15, 2018 20:08:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 15, 2018 20:16:42 GMT -5
I am curious as to why the XPA-1L had a relatively short duration in the Emotiva lineup. The XPA-1 has been around a while as have the XPA-2, Gen 1 and 2 (the gen 3 to me is a whole different thing) and then the UPA-1 which morphed into the XPA-100. Was it a situation where it was a superfluous amp because of the existence of the full size XPA-1? Was it a amp that was problematic in durability or other factor? MHO is that the XPA-1L was stealing sales from the XPA-1. It had the Class A to Class AB switching, high bias, was fully balanced differential/discrete, lighter, in a smaller package, so more easily moved and located close by speakers. The only thing the XPA-1 had over the XPA-1L was watts (250 vs 500) and if your speakers didn't benefit from the extra 250 watts then the XPA-1L was an absolute bargain. When the XPA-1L ceased the XPA-1 was the only fully balanced differential/discrete monoblock and if that's what you wanted then you had to pay the XPA-1 price. Plus I don't think it was coincidental that the XPA-1L was discontinued during the move to the retail selling model when the price of XPA-1's went up 50%. It's much the same as the XPR-1, if you didn't need the extra power then the XPA-1 was a great choice. The less costly alternative won out, which I believe the XPA-1L was doing because Lonnie did such a great job with it, so they killed it. Cheers Gary SOUNDS like a large power difference, but is only 3db. Given the power most persons use, which is maybe 10 to 20 watts, continuous, you'd never Hear the difference between the 1L and XPA-1. I doubt I use that much power, even considering my panels are of Notoriously LOW sensitivity. Killing the 'better' amp? That doesn't make much sense to me, which makes me want to know more.....like real costing and reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Oct 15, 2018 20:21:58 GMT -5
MHO is that the XPA-1L was stealing sales from the XPA-1. It had the Class A to Class AB switching, high bias, was fully balanced differential/discrete, lighter, in a smaller package, so more easily moved and located close by speakers. The only thing the XPA-1 had over the XPA-1L was watts (250 vs 500) and if your speakers didn't benefit from the extra 250 watts then the XPA-1L was an absolute bargain. When the XPA-1L ceased the XPA-1 was the only fully balanced differential/discrete monoblock and if that's what you wanted then you had to pay the XPA-1 price. Plus I don't think it was coincidental that the XPA-1L was discontinued during the move to the retail selling model when the price of XPA-1's went up 50%. It's much the same as the XPR-1, if you didn't need the extra power then the XPA-1 was a great choice. The less costly alternative won out, which I believe the XPA-1L was doing because Lonnie did such a great job with it, so they killed it. Cheers Gary SOUNDS like a large power difference, but is only 3db. Given the power most persons use, which is maybe 10 to 20 watts, continuous, you'd never Hear the difference between the 1L and XPA-1. I doubt I use that much power, even considering my panels are of Notoriously LOW sensitivity. Killing the 'better' amp? That doesn't make much sense to me, which makes me want to know more.....like real costing and reliability. Well imagine if the XPA-1 had a bigger power supply and say 700 watts, the bass would be even cleaner bahahahahaha I went from a PA 7-350 to a Mini-X A100 amp and I hear zero zip difference in the sound, I have good ears my room is treated but the 7-350 while one bad ass amp was way over kill for me, is that a bad thing well no but I'm not sure why so many relate wattage to better bass and cleaner sound, at a certain point I believe better power sounds better like going from my internal amps of a cheap Yamaha receiver to UPA-1's sounded much much better, I have a iNuke 6000DSP powering my two Mach 5 18" subs, between that amp and the one I sold which was also Class D I was using two channels of my 7-350 to power them and guess what, less actual power on paper but the sound from them was really really good, 550 watts from the 7-350 compared to 2000 watts from my iNuke. Chad |
|
