|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 4, 2019 17:30:22 GMT -5
Well, if I trade my XMC-1 for an RMC-1L, I’m not sure what advantage I am buying if there isn’t a somewhat smaller fully differential amps for surround sound duty (600 watts not needed). I have a number of XPA-1L today and really like them for surround duty and wish there was a similar, smaller fully differential model to make use of the RMC-1L capability Right, but if they use the DR-1 card and somehow adapt this chassis to take it, then you’ll get power something like that. I doubt they want to build another card, though one thought would be taking the stereo card and making a differential amp out of it, but I’m guessing you’d get a 75 watt balanced amp. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 4, 2019 17:49:53 GMT -5
I think the key is that this is the least expensive they can make an XPA amp, so let’s say you want three of them, that’s $2400. A fully balanced DR-3 is $2200, so more cost effective whether you need the power or not, the only disadvantage being you can’t place them by your speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjkessler on Jul 4, 2019 17:58:31 GMT -5
It’s the one element that sways me the XMC-2 direction over RMC-1L and use the cash buy the XPA-3DR for the mains and wait for a few more XPA-1L’s to become available. I would move out of pure mono-blocks in exchange for differentially balances F/C/R. I am 49 / 51 torn between both choices. Having the fully DR RMC-1L slightly edging out the XMC-2 for future flexibility
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 4, 2019 22:50:51 GMT -5
Wish they had an HC-1DR version. Sort of like an XPA-1DR Yup this is what's needed! A fully balanced blade. That's what's going to make this more of a draw iimo. I think the X-series monoblocks should stay balanced like the XPA-1 L, XPA-1 and XPA DR-1. I believe the only x series unbalanced monoblocks previously offered are the single blade gen 3 module and the XPA-100. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 4, 2019 23:24:16 GMT -5
Wish they had an HC-1DR version. Sort of like an XPA-1DR Yup this is what's needed! A fully balanced blade. That's what's going to make this more of a draw iimo. I think the X-series monoblocks should stay balanced like the XPA-1 L, XPA-1 and XPA DR-1. I believe the only x series unbalanced monoblocks previously offered are the single blade gen 3 module and the XPA-100. So then they’d have two amps exactly the same, except one’s smaller and maybe $50 cheaper. I suppose they could then drop the XPA DR1, like they dropped (or never introduced) the XPA-1 G3 (you refer to it but it’s not on the product page, nor can you build one). Then the only monoblocks would be half size. So would an HC-DR1 be more desirable than an XPA DR1 because it’s smaller, and slightly less expensive (though not upgradable)? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2019 1:39:56 GMT -5
Yup this is what's needed! A fully balanced blade. That's what's going to make this more of a draw iimo. I think the X-series monoblocks should stay balanced like the XPA-1 L, XPA-1 and XPA DR-1. I believe the only x series unbalanced monoblocks previously offered are the single blade gen 3 module and the XPA-100. So then they’d have two amps exactly the same, except one’s smaller and maybe $50 cheaper. I suppose they could then drop the XPA DR1, like they dropped (or never introduced) the XPA-1 G3 (you refer to it but it’s not on the product page, nor can you build one). Then the only monoblocks would be half size. So would an HC-DR1 be more desirable than an XPA DR1 because it’s smaller, and slightly less expensive (though not upgradable)? Good question So I think the HC-1 single wide needs to go out and be replaced with the HC-1 DR module. And that's about it. Maybe the Dr-1 can be replaced with the HC-1 Dr module. Makes sense, it's half the size and the same thing. The regular size DR chassis can stay because it can do up to three channels. As for upgradability, though it is a neat idea, I don't know how many people would be all about doing it to justify it as a big feature. I think the "upgradability" is more about it being easy for Emotiva to use the same chassis and modular architecture over several products bringing down the cost. |
|
|
|
Post by tagmanz on Jul 5, 2019 1:54:43 GMT -5
So then they’d have two amps exactly the same, except one’s smaller and maybe $50 cheaper. I suppose they could then drop the XPA DR1, like they dropped (or never introduced) the XPA-1 G3 (you refer to it but it’s not on the product page, nor can you build one). Then the only monoblocks would be half size. So would an HC-DR1 be more desirable than an XPA DR1 because it’s smaller, and slightly less expensive (though not upgradable)? Good question So I think the HC-1 single wide needs to go out and be replaced with the HC-1 DR module. And that's about it. Maybe the Dr-1 can be replaced with the HC-1 Dr module. Makes sense, it's half the size and the same thing. The regular size DR chassis can stay because it can do up to three channels. As for upgradability, though it is a neat idea, I don't know how many people would be all about doing it to justify it as a big feature. I think the "upgradability" is more about it being easy for Emotiva to use the same chassis and modular architecture over several products bringing down the cost. It's an interesting argument. I have to agree with both you and AudioHtit. Personally I prefer the narrower case for a mono block and I think if Emotiva were to produce the double wide module they would need to drop the DR1 as the two would compete. Also it's not that clear (to me at least) which power supply they have under the hood. I believe the HC noclumenture stands for high current. If it's the larger SMPS from the DR line that's in the box then that probably justifies the name when used with the single wide module. Swapping it out for the double wide probably loses this advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 5, 2019 11:11:47 GMT -5
Good question So I think the HC-1 single wide needs to go out and be replaced with the HC-1 DR module. And that's about it. Maybe the Dr-1 can be replaced with the HC-1 Dr module. Makes sense, it's half the size and the same thing. The regular size DR chassis can stay because it can do up to three channels. As for upgradability, though it is a neat idea, I don't know how many people would be all about doing it to justify it as a big feature. I think the "upgradability" is more about it being easy for Emotiva to use the same chassis and modular architecture over several products bringing down the cost. It's an interesting argument. I have to agree with both you and AudioHtit. Personally I prefer the narrower case for a mono block and I think if Emotive were to produce the double wide module they would need to drop the DR1 as the two would compete. Also it's not end clear (to me at least) which power supply they have under the hood. I believe the HC noclumenture stands for high current. If it's the larger smps from the DR line that's in the box then that probably justifies the name when used with the single wide module. Freaking out for the double wide probably looses this advantage. I think I remember Keith explaining that the power supplies used in the current G3 and DR series were similar, but had different rail voltages, so might not be a big change there. The question is probably whether they anticipated fitting a double wide blade in the case and if there’s room for the second board. I’d disagree with garbulky that they should drop the current HC-1 as it represents the lowest price monoblock and XPA, not everyone needs the power nor differential architecture of the DR series (it would also be very expensive to do the 13 wide array I mentioned above — though also very cool) Then with both HC-1 and HC-DR1 models, you could build this ultimate expression of Emotiva Amplifier Opulence, perfect for that 9.1.6 installation you’ve been planning ... I give you ... the Emo Power Pyramid! *** all rights reserved, artist rendering not to scale, void where prohibited by law |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2019 20:15:52 GMT -5
It's an interesting argument. I have to agree with both you and AudioHtit. Personally I prefer the narrower case for a mono block and I think if Emotive were to produce the double wide module they would need to drop the DR1 as the two would compete. Also it's not end clear (to me at least) which power supply they have under the hood. I believe the HC noclumenture stands for high current. If it's the larger smps from the DR line that's in the box then that probably justifies the name when used with the single wide module. Freaking out for the double wide probably looses this advantage. I think I remember Keith explaining that the power supplies used in the current G3 and DR series were similar, but had different rail voltages, so might not be a big change there. The question is probably whether they anticipated fitting a double wide blade in the case and there’s room for the second board. I’d disagree with garbulky that they should drop the current HC-1 as it represents the lowest price monoblock and XPA, not everyone needs the power nor differential architecture of the DR series (it would also be very expensive to do the 13 wide array I mentioned above — though also very cool) Then with both HC-1 and HC-DR1 models, you could build this ultimate expression of Emotiva Amplifier Opulence, perfect for that 9.1.6 installation you’ve been planning ... I give you ... the Emo Power Pyramid!View Attachment*** all rights reserved, artist rendering not to scale, void where prohibited by law The tower of power! I love it. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jul 5, 2019 20:23:44 GMT -5
I’m here to clean up this ,so called pyramid of power!
The Sheriff is back in town! 😎
 eastwest atm
|
|
|
|
Post by tchaik on Jul 5, 2019 22:21:34 GMT -5
Not for me. This is an amp not designed, but thrown together from what is available. A 13KW ps for a 300W amp? Should have put a properly designed linear ps in this. Monoprice is looking better and better to me lately. Totally disagree Use what you have, to get what you need, to get what you want. Undistorted sound. The existing power supply is 1300w, amp is 300w, you now have more potential power than will be used by the amplifier stage- PERFECT. IT'S THE POWER SUPPLY THAT IS THE WEAK LINK IN MANY POWER AMPS. By over kill in supply power, you just eliminated transient voltage, thus clean power to the amp, thus cleaner sound. for the record this is what the product page actually says.... 3KW. not 13KW or 1300w. note quote........ "Thanks in part to recent advances in power supply technology we’ve finally overcome this limitation. One of the design enhancements shared by all of our new XPA power amplifiers is our new, specially designed, high current, switch mode power supply (SMPS). Our powerful, intelligent new power supply offers all of the benefits of a classic transformer-based design but avoids virtually all of the limitations. It can deliver over 3 kW of fully regulated power, which ensures optimum performance under a wide range of load conditions, and plenty of dynamic power to ensure that musical peaks will never be compressed or limited. However, it’s also more efficient, more reliable, and much lighter. (Our revolutionary new SMPS has enabled us to reduce the weight of our new amplifiers by about 30%, making them easier to ship, and easier to install in your equipment rack or shelf.)" for the record, Lonnie and Dan gave me figures on exceptional 2 Ohm performance that it was capable of but they chose not to include in the product page info. what is given is minimum performance specs, my guess is that this is going to satisfy a lot of listeners. for those who are waiting in the wings to dispute my entry, just move on since you have already voiced your opinions. tchaik..... |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jul 5, 2019 23:05:15 GMT -5
for those who are waiting in the wings to dispute my entry, just move on since you have already voiced your opinions. How could they have voiced their opinions disputing your entry before you even entered it?  |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 6, 2019 8:50:04 GMT -5
Totally disagree Use what you have, to get what you need, to get what you want. Undistorted sound. The existing power supply is 1300w, amp is 300w, you now have more potential power than will be used by the amplifier stage- PERFECT. IT'S THE POWER SUPPLY THAT IS THE WEAK LINK IN MANY POWER AMPS. By over kill in supply power, you just eliminated transient voltage, thus clean power to the amp, thus cleaner sound. for the record this is what the product page actually says.... 3KW. not 13KW or 1300w. note quote........ "Thanks in part to recent advances in power supply technology we’ve finally overcome this limitation. One of the design enhancements shared by all of our new XPA power amplifiers is our new, specially designed, high current, switch mode power supply (SMPS). Our powerful, intelligent new power supply offers all of the benefits of a classic transformer-based design but avoids virtually all of the limitations. It can deliver over 3 kW of fully regulated power, which ensures optimum performance under a wide range of load conditions, and plenty of dynamic power to ensure that musical peaks will never be compressed or limited. However, it’s also more efficient, more reliable, and much lighter. (Our revolutionary new SMPS has enabled us to reduce the weight of our new amplifiers by about 30%, making them easier to ship, and easier to install in your equipment rack or shelf.)" for the record, Lonnie and Dan gave me figures on exceptional 2 Ohm performance that it was capable of but they chose not to include in the product page info. what is given is minimum performance specs, my guess is that this is going to satisfy a lot of listeners. for those who are waiting in the wings to dispute my entry, just move on since you have already voiced your opinions. tchaik..... Sorry, due to re-editing of this initial post, my post just looks stupid and wrong. 3KW PS and 300W amp makes more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 6, 2019 9:08:25 GMT -5
They all jumped in formation for the official, unofficial photo shoot! The Emotiva Stackers form ... the Emo Power Pyramid ...  * While this was envisioned as a joke, my seat of the pants analysis says this stacking should work. The airflow looks good, and the weight is distributed so that the worst case bottom row should have the same weight as a single stack three high (and they’re only about 20 lbs each). |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,163
Member is Online
|
Post by ttocs on Jul 6, 2019 9:57:17 GMT -5
The ES-EPP, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 6, 2019 10:23:59 GMT -5
Yes, in lieu of Emofest this year, Team ES will be touring the country taking on all comers with their imaginative and nimble amp formations (they look forward to taking on Team D’Agostino who at the last meeting we’re unable to get out of the truck)  |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Sept 1, 2019 5:41:06 GMT -5
So how does two HC-1’s compare to a DR-2? And also an ordinary XPA gen3
I’m planning to do an update to my 2ch amp section. Today I use a XPA-11 (3.4) gen 3, which in stereo already gives me 2x300W in 8ohm.
Although not near 600W in 4ohm, not fully differential and not full L/R signal separation as mono blocks have with even their own PS.
DR-2 has the advantage of even more watts (2x550W), upgradable to 3 channels, quad differential and maybe better control of the sound.
The disadvantage being higher price, one PS for both channels and bigger chassie (not a problem for me though).
How large is the power bank in Emotiva amps? I haven’t seen this in their specs at all.. Does this part sit in the PS section or does it
follow each module? Quite important as it tells how much power you’ll get when it peaks..
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 1, 2019 6:54:59 GMT -5
So how does two HC-1’s compare to a DR-2? And also an ordinary XPA gen3 I’m planning to do an update to my 2ch amp section. Today I use a XPA-11 (3.4) gen 3, which in stereo already gives me 2x300W in 8ohm. Although not near 600W in 4ohm, not fully differential and not full L/R signal separation as mono blocks have with even their own PS. DR-2 has the advantage of even more watts (2x550W), upgradable to 3 channels, quad differential and maybe better control of the sound. The disadvantage being higher price, one PS for both channels and bigger chassie (not a problem for me though). How large is the power bank in Emotiva amps? I haven’t seen this in their specs at all.. Does this part sit in the PS section or does it follow each module? Quite important as it tells how much power you’ll get when it peaks.. I think the simple answer is that the DR-2 would be superior to two HC-1s due to its fully balanced design and greater power (though it can’t sit next to both speakers like mono-blocks). However I’d give the edge to the HC-1 over any equivalent number of XPA Gen 3 channels, due to the separate, more robust power supplies. This is all on paper, I’ve never heard the HC-1 or the DRs for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Sept 1, 2019 13:04:29 GMT -5
So how does two HC-1’s compare to a DR-2? And also an ordinary XPA gen3 I’m planning to do an update to my 2ch amp section. Today I use a XPA-11 (3.4) gen 3, which in stereo already gives me 2x300W in 8ohm. Although not near 600W in 4ohm, not fully differential and not full L/R signal separation as mono blocks have with even their own PS. DR-2 has the advantage of even more watts (2x550W), upgradable to 3 channels, quad differential and maybe better control of the sound. The disadvantage being higher price, one PS for both channels and bigger chassie (not a problem for me though). How large is the power bank in Emotiva amps? I haven’t seen this in their specs at all.. Does this part sit in the PS section or does it follow each module? Quite important as it tells how much power you’ll get when it peaks.. I think the simple answer is that the DR-2 would be superior to two HC-1s due to its fully balanced design and greater power (though it can’t sit next to both speakers like mono-blocks). However I’d give the edge to the HC-1 over any equivalent number of XPA Gen 3 channels, due to the separate, more robust power supplies. This is all on paper, I’ve never heard the HC-1 or the DRs for that matter. Well both are fully balanced. The difference being dual vs quad differential I guess, whatever difference that might make. What impresses me is the power you get in 4 ohm and probably also in 2 ohm due to having its own PS. There you can see the difference with DR, the 550W you get with 2ch in 8 ohm don’t become 1100W in 4 ohm. Actually 600W vs 800W in 4 ohm.. What happens in 2 ohm? It seems the more difficult speaker you have to drive the better it seems to be to have its own PS. But maybe better S/N and THD with DR I guess. They should release a HC-1DR with a Dual module.. 650W in 8ohm with 1200-1300W in 4ohm would be amazing.. I may actually have to call my electrician to make it work  |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 1, 2019 13:06:19 GMT -5
I think the simple answer is that the DR-2 would be superior to two HC-1s due to its fully balanced design and greater power (though it can’t sit next to both speakers like mono-blocks). However I’d give the edge to the HC-1 over any equivalent number of XPA Gen 3 channels, due to the separate, more robust power supplies. This is all on paper, I’ve never heard the HC-1 or the DRs for that matter. Well both are fully balanced. The difference being dual vs quad differential I guess, whatever difference that might make. What impresses me is the power you get in 4 ohm and probably also in 2 ohm due to having its own PS. There you can see the difference with DR, the 550W you get with 2ch in 8 ohm don’t become 1100W in 4 ohm. Actually 600W vs 800W in 4 ohm.. What happens in 2 ohm? It seems the more difficult speaker you have to drive the better it seems to be to have its own PS. But maybe better S/N and THD with DR I guess. They should release a HC-1DR with a Dual module.. 650W in 8ohm with 1200-1300W in 4ohm would be amazing.. I may actually have to call my electrician to make it work The HC-1 only has a balanced input, like all of the XPA G3's, I don't think it's correct to call it fully balanced. Edit: But yes, the HC-1 doubles it’s power into 4 ohms, so ‘High Current’ is available! |
|
