|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 29, 2022 15:58:45 GMT -5
makes sense. /a good deal of power coupled with Low Sensitivity speakers.
Next up? low cut the 3.7s....at maybe 50hz to 60hz and get a good sub from 50hz or so on DOWN....
That cleaned up my 1.6s a lot and is a seamless combination.
You may consider a DWM mid bass panel, too. chekc them out....
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 29, 2022 16:10:24 GMT -5
 (XPA-2 gen 3) www.stereophile.com/content/emotiva-xpa-gen3-two-channel-power-amplifier-measurementsThis is one reason See those highest two peaks - those two are the actual signal. Everything else is distortion. You can compare how other amplifiers handle the tests. Though this is not the same test and not at high power - so very different - but here is a multitone test all those peaks are the signal. But you see how low the distortion is on this.  I wonder how these measured results would change if the amp were using a largish Linear PS? Big toroid, at a high enough voltage with plenty of Capacitance..... |
|
|
|
Post by jjkessler on Jul 29, 2022 16:24:43 GMT -5
Wonder if there have been any efforts to improve this
|
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Jul 29, 2022 16:25:18 GMT -5
Funny, I owned the XPA-1 Gen 2 Mono blocs and now the DR-1's as well as a DR-3. They (Gen 3) sound cleaner, less restrained and more effortless than the Gen 2's while all the time running much more efficiently and cooler. I would never go back to 100 lb amps as room heaters, no thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjkessler on Jul 29, 2022 16:35:52 GMT -5
I bought DR-3 and two build you own 4 and 6 channel XPA’s. They are replacing a bunch of XPA-1L amps to help reduce heat I don’t have the best speakers in the world but, they work for me (all Axiom / RSL for heights). I’m thinking real world, I won’t hear much difference. Have not had a chance to install the new amps yet
|
|
|
|
Post by tropicallutefisk on Jul 29, 2022 16:36:51 GMT -5
Funny, I owned the XPA-1 Gen 2 Mono blocs and now the DR-1's as well as a DR-3. They (Gen 3) sound cleaner, less restrained and more effortless than the Gen 2's while all the time running much more efficiently and cooler. I would never go back to 100 lb amps as room heaters, no thanks. I had an XPA 1L running my center channel. It sounded incredible, but I wanted to match my three fronts so I replaced it with a dr1. My impressions are the same; effortless, smooth and yes cooler. I considered it a noticeable upgrade to the 1L. |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jul 29, 2022 16:38:36 GMT -5
Funny, I owned the XPA-1 Gen 2 Mono blocs and now the DR-1's as well as a DR-3. They (Gen 3) sound cleaner, less restrained and more effortless than the Gen 2's while all the time running much more efficiently and cooler. I would never go back to 100 lb amps as room heaters, no thanks. Jeez, I couldn't imagine my XPA-2 Gen.2 could possibly sound cleaner, less restrained, effortless, barely runs warm under normal use and it only weighs 72 lbs! For me, there's no compelling reason to "upgrade" to the Gen.3 stuff. Big toroids FTW! |
|
|
|
Post by jjkessler on Jul 29, 2022 16:45:53 GMT -5
Room heater is right, my new house in North Carolina has a 4x6 closet for my gear (no longer in a cold Illinois basement). With all 11 XPA-1Ls running (kids forget to turn them off all night), it gets hot in there
Have plenty of Toroids to spare
Might have to by some blue lights though
Most home theater use
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 29, 2022 16:49:20 GMT -5
I wonder how these measured results would change if the amp were using a largish Linear PS? Big toroid, at a high enough voltage with plenty of Capacitance..... That was called an XPA-x G1 and G2, as I mentioned on the previous page they measured better (in other words they've been there and done that), but few of us who've owned both feel they necessarily sounded better, at least speaking for myself and those who've posted. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 29, 2022 16:51:41 GMT -5
Funny, I owned the XPA-1 Gen 2 Mono blocs and now the DR-1's as well as a DR-3. They (Gen 3) sound cleaner, less restrained and more effortless than the Gen 2's while all the time running much more efficiently and cooler. I would never go back to 100 lb amps as room heaters, no thanks. Jeez, I couldn't imagine my XPA-2 Gen.2 could possibly sound cleaner, less restrained, effortless, barely runs warm under normal use and it only weighs 72 lbs! For me, there's no compelling reason to "upgrade" to the Gen.3 stuff. Big toroids FTW! The xpa1 gen 2 impress me every day. Emotiva doesn’t make bad amps but I think their gen 1 and 2 lines are really nice. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 29, 2022 16:55:54 GMT -5
One Major drive? weight and shipping difficulties. cutting weight cuts costs and makes shipping much less expensive.
Insurance claims relating to poorly packed amps must be a real nightmare.....
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 29, 2022 17:00:35 GMT -5
One Major drive? weight and shipping difficulties. cutting weight cuts costs and makes shipping much less expensive. Insurance claims relating to poorly packed amps must be a real nightmare..... In my opinion the major advantage is shipping, the secondary advantage is people like me who won't buy another heavy amp. As mentioned previously, shipping heavy amps is detrimental to their health (and lifting them is detrimental to those who use them). |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 29, 2022 17:06:19 GMT -5
Funny, I owned the XPA-1 Gen 2 Mono blocs and now the DR-1's as well as a DR-3. They (Gen 3) sound cleaner, less restrained and more effortless than the Gen 2's while all the time running much more efficiently and cooler. I would never go back to 100 lb amps as room heaters, no thanks. Jeez, I couldn't imagine my XPA-2 Gen.2 could possibly sound cleaner, less restrained, effortless, barely runs warm under normal use and it only weighs 72 lbs! For me, there's no compelling reason to "upgrade" to the Gen.3 stuff. Big toroids FTW! I would agree there's no reason to upgrade, but there's also no reason to buy an older amp except that they're used and cheaper. |
|
|
|
Post by hdkeith on Jul 29, 2022 20:18:27 GMT -5
Yeah I was thinking it, but for me the 65W on the stereo modules is a concern. I have not selected my speakers yet so been trying to do surrounds at 100w to be safe. The current short list for speakers are Arendale 1723 towers, center with 1961 for surrounds. Next option is Ascend acoustics Sierra Towers and Horizon center, but maybe Goldenear Supersat 3s for surrounds or Martin Logan 4i, 6i or 8i for surrounds. Last option is likely Martin Logan 60XTi/50XTi front stage with either the ML surrounds or Goldenear Supersat surrounds. One alternate is the Arendale 1961 surrounds no matter what front stage. Difference between 65 watts and 100 watts? Less than 2db increase. 65 to 130 would be an even 3db..... What you have going for you is the fact that most HT speakers are in no way a demanding or wide impedance swing type load...... I'd also TEND to choose speakers which match. And by match I mean the sound or timbre. Speakers too far apart in this regard will tend to 'stick out'. What have you LISTENED to? What stuck out? Do you have an idea of 'system' here or just stuff? What do YOU like or value? If exclusively for movies? That eases the burden. Nobody knows what most of that stuff sounds like, anyway. But if you use a music reference? You'll probably need to be a little more 'picky'..... my goal is to match all speakers from same brand. I do understand the difference between 65w and 100w, but my goal is give each channel plenty of head room and yes, 100w is not a ton more than 65w. I do mostly HT, but do about 10-20% music with some of if higher res like BD music, DSD, etc. My room is 18’Lx14.5”Wx8’H and enclosed with exception of doorway left of MLP. Because of the doorway my side surrounds are mounted high outside of desired wisdom. Same with backs as there is a bay window behind MLP. Because of that my surrounds have a limited height to fit without looking overly obnoxious. Really liked the Monitor Audio Gold 300, but way over my price range. Monitor Audio Silver 500 7G still is in the running. I have heard AMT and love the sound of those style tweeters. Was real interested in Ascend Acoustics, but lack of an ATMOS elevation (bound type) and their small (5.25’”) woofer is making them a hard sell. Martin Logan 60XTi with either 4i or Supersat 3 for surrounds, but not digging that combo. That leave Arendale 1723 Towers with 1961 heights as elevations and surrounds with the Monitor Audio Silver 500 as the 2 top contenders. I hear the Arendales are great, but like a lot of power on tap even when I chatted with them. The appeal of the XPA amps is the potential for 300w on tap for the main channels. And while I don’t believe half of the reviews I watch at least 1 reviews pointed out the two channels seems to be lacking compared to the mono channels. Also does not hurt that I hear the XPA will run cooler compared to say a full AB like the Monolith amps., not to mention the lighter weight. Tired of the reviews equating weight with quality for Amps, sure let me make a crappy amp and put a brick inside so it must be good as it is heavy. |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jul 29, 2022 21:50:47 GMT -5
One Major drive? weight and shipping difficulties. cutting weight cuts costs and makes shipping much less expensive. Insurance claims relating to poorly packed amps must be a real nightmare..... I have argued this point since the Gen. 3 stuff came out. Reduction of shipping costs is the primary reason Emotiva went to SMPSs with the Gen.3 stuff, not because it sounds or performs better. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,033
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jul 29, 2022 22:10:48 GMT -5
One Major drive? weight and shipping difficulties. cutting weight cuts costs and makes shipping much less expensive. Insurance claims relating to poorly packed amps must be a real nightmare..... I have argued this point since the Gen. 3 stuff came out. Reduction of shipping costs is the primary reason Emotiva went to SMPSs with the Gen.3 stuff, not because it sounds or performs better. I would agree this is the main factor, but I know someone who has owned both Gen 1 and Gen 3, including myself, who think Gen 3 sounds better. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 29, 2022 23:56:06 GMT -5
One Major drive? weight and shipping difficulties. cutting weight cuts costs and makes shipping much less expensive. Insurance claims relating to poorly packed amps must be a real nightmare..... I have argued this point since the Gen. 3 stuff came out. Reduction of shipping costs is the primary reason Emotiva went to SMPSs with the Gen.3 stuff, not because it sounds or performs better. I would say it’s not only shipping cost, but the ability to safely ship the amplifier without damage. So I agree, shipping issues are number one. Two, and this seems lost in the discussion, the Gen 3’s are modular and upgradeable / reconfigurable, same chassis for all XPA and only a different power supply for the DR series. So less expensive to manufacture and inventory (build to order), and more flexible for the end user should they want to reconfigure their system at a later date or if bought used. Finally the lower weight not only helps in shipping, but in every step of manufacturing, inventory, yes shipping, and installation by the end user (thank you). While I truly did enjoy my XPA-7 G2 both in power and sound quality, I got no pleasure out of getting the roughly 100 pound amplifier into place, and even less when it failed and had to be removed and shipped back, never to be seen again (shipping damage, even in all the original packaging). Though I was disappointed, Emotiva offered me a very fair trade in for my unrepairable amp, when I did get my G3 I was skeptical it would be as good, but the ease in installation really greased the skids. When I got it setup and dialed in I didn’t miss a beat, nor did I spend days agonizing over whether it was as good, I started listening, and soon forgot I even had a different amp (I actually am still a little miffed they moved the power connector to the other side if you really want to pick nits). The G3 is noticeably cooler which follows because it uses 27% less power at idle, potentially less heat could also make it last longer, but I have no data to support that. So I might also agree that the motivation for the making the G3 may not have been made to make an amp that sounds better, but mine sounded just as good, cost about the same, was much easier to install, produces less heat, and uses less power — all wins in my book. But I would not argue that anyone with a G1 or G2 needs to upgrade (unless maybe they need more channels). |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 30, 2022 1:16:00 GMT -5
I'm not about to look for it, but one person here shipped an amp back to EMO and it arrived in an unfixable state. Box looked like it had been kicked down an elevator shaft.
I felt bad for the guy. Some pics had been posted by EMO.....
Me? I recently shipped a Mark II naval Compass from WWII. I could bore everyone with a few pics of the pack, but it arrived in perfect shape. Lady at the shipping place saw my work and offered me a JOB.
Box-within-a-box and layers of styrofoam wiht the interior gimbel box wrapped in several laps of bubble wrap.
I'd have to go NUTS if I packed a seriously heavy amplifier. And it'd get worse if it had TUBES.
Sure, SMPS is a bit more efficient. but has some downsides, too, apparently. I think the 'uses less power' is potentially a red herring. After all, speakers are mostly 5% or LESS efficient which puts a lid on the
whole chain from plugging in the amp to the speaker making sound. Besides? The output is fairly low. 10 watts per channel, continuous, would be a LOT. At that point? 88db sensitive speakers would be at 98db,
which is pretty darn loud.
I suspect a LOT of the heat reduction is output device bias setting. Less bias? Less heat. If you bias into class 'A' for say the first 10 to 20 watts? It's gonna get warm.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 30, 2022 8:33:02 GMT -5
I would agree this is the main factor, but I know someone who has owned both Gen 1 and Gen 3, including myself, who think Gen 3 sounds better. Y'all must be an awful lonely couple... |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 30, 2022 8:44:42 GMT -5
Difference between 65 watts and 100 watts? Less than 2db increase. 65 to 130 would be an even 3db..... What you have going for you is the fact that most HT speakers are in no way a demanding or wide impedance swing type load...... I'd also TEND to choose speakers which match. And by match I mean the sound or timbre. Speakers too far apart in this regard will tend to 'stick out'. What have you LISTENED to? What stuck out? Do you have an idea of 'system' here or just stuff? What do YOU like or value? If exclusively for movies? That eases the burden. Nobody knows what most of that stuff sounds like, anyway. But if you use a music reference? You'll probably need to be a little more 'picky'..... my goal is to match all speakers from same brand. I do understand the difference between 65w and 100w, but my goal is give each channel plenty of head room and yes, 100w is not a ton more than 65w. I do mostly HT, but do about 10-20% music with some of if higher res like BD music, DSD, etc. My room is 18’Lx14.5”Wx8’H and enclosed with exception of doorway left of MLP. Because of the doorway my side surrounds are mounted high outside of desired wisdom. Same with backs as there is a bay window behind MLP. Because of that my surrounds have a limited height to fit without looking overly obnoxious. Really liked the Monitor Audio Gold 300, but way over my price range. Monitor Audio Silver 500 7G still is in the running. I have heard AMT and love the sound of those style tweeters. Was real interested in Ascend Acoustics, but lack of an ATMOS elevation (bound type) and their small (5.25’”) woofer is making them a hard sell. Martin Logan 60XTi with either 4i or Supersat 3 for surrounds, but not digging that combo. That leave Arendale 1723 Towers with 1961 heights as elevations and surrounds with the Monitor Audio Silver 500 as the 2 top contenders. I hear the Arendales are great, but like a lot of power on tap even when I chatted with them. The appeal of the XPA amps is the potential for 300w on tap for the main channels. And while I don’t believe half of the reviews I watch at least 1 reviews pointed out the two channels seems to be lacking compared to the mono channels. Also does not hurt that I hear the XPA will run cooler compared to say a full AB like the Monolith amps., not to mention the lighter weight. Tired of the reviews equating weight with quality for Amps, sure let me make a crappy amp and put a brick inside so it must be good as it is heavy. This is going to sound strange but power is definitely not a problem. Average listening level takes about a watt or two at most. Mine is usually less than a watt. You need the rest for dynamic swings. But 60 watts for a surround? Unlikely to be a problem. This is because music is dynamic and therefore power needs are only temporary. I listened at bzillas house to several amps including Macintosh gear. We cranked it hard and I don’t think we managed to move the meter past two to three watts if that much not even in the peaks. He has a mono tube amp that has maybe seven watts of power per channel. And it had no problem filling the room to realistic sound levels. Though it was only there that the very loudest notes had that tube clipping set in. We’ve tried several basx a-100 which is Emotiva’s lowest power amp and we couldn’t get it to distort or strain. |
|
