AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Emotiva xpa-1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Emotiva xpa-1

post #1 of 197
11/23/08 at 8:33pm
Thread Starter 
We should make this the thread for XPA1 amplifier owners

XPA-1 Differential Reference Mono-block Power Amplifier
500 watts RMS x 1 into 8 ohms, 1,000 watts RMS x 1 into 4 ohms.
Effortless power. Performance. Sound. A true reference level amplifier.

You know that sweet spot all amplifiers have? That magical level where things are rich, full, but still a bit relaxed? The amp is in its comfort zone, open, but not overworked. What if you could find that sweet spot at practically any volume level?

It's all about control, and the XPA-1 is a control freak. 500 watts RMS into 8 ohms, 1,000 watts RMS into 4 ohms. All the performance you'd expect to see for an audiophile reference level amplifier. But what about the sound? Big...expansive...powerful...and yet very refined...and defined. This is what you get when you have control.

Mono-block amplifiers have typically been a company's flagships. They define the ultimate expression of a company's approach to design and construction. The XPA-1 amplifier puts our ultimate expression within your reach at market-shattering prices.

Our commitment to build quality, superior design and ultimate performance is reelected in every facet of the XPA-1. Effortless. Period.

Power output:
8 ohms = 500 WRMS
4 ohms = 1000 WRMS
Stable below 4 ohms

Gain structure - 32db.
Frequency response is 20 to 20Khz with less than 0.2db deviation.
Broadband frequency response: 10 to 100Khz at +0db-3db.
Signal to noise ratio at 1 watt: <89db and <117db referenced to full power output.
THD at rated power for all impedance is 0.001% (referenced from 20 to 20Khz)
True Differential Reference design
Discrete front end
Fully balanced quad differential input stage
Darlington VAS stage with optimized C dominant pole
Ultra high current ON Semiconductor output stage with low output impedance
24) output devices
1200VA transformer with 130,000uF of secondary capacitance
Laser etched serial number on faceplate
High resolution LED metering (defeatable)

Effortless. The XPA-1. $999

click any image for a larger view
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 197
11/24/08 at 5:59am
Its a one channel amp for $1K....please!!!

This is where I jump off the Emotiva band wagon (Im a huge fan!!!) and say this is a complete waste of money.

The smart money isnt going to buy this IMO! For those of us that actually have 1000W into 4 ohm amps we already know the $$$ is in having pro-amps.

Also why spend $1K on 1 channel when you can spend 2-3K on 5 channels with 400W/8ohms or 800W/4 ohms?

$$$/performance is lost on this decision, anyone buying this will not have any respect from me in terms of audio intelligence
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 197
11/24/08 at 6:35am
I would buy the XPA-2 and bridge it for 1000 Watts @8 ohms monoblock amp and save 20%.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 197
11/24/08 at 6:37am
Quote:
I would buy the XP-2 and bridge it for 1000 Watts @8 ohms monoblock amp and save 20%

hehe, nice call! and they are even less with the current sale!

You mean 1000 Watts @ 4 ohms though, right?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 197
11/24/08 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

hehe, nice call! and they are even less with the current sale!

You mean 1000 Watts @ 4 ohms though, right?

"...The XPA-2 also boasts a bridgeable mode, turning it into a 1,000 watt (8 ohms) monoblock amp...Power output: 250 watts RMS/ channel into 8 ohms, 500 watts RMS/ channel into 4 ohms and 1,000 watts RMS bridged...." Emotiva.

It's probably not RMS 20-20K (Although it doesn't say).
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 197
11/24/08 at 9:48am
Question.
How does the secondary capcitance come into play in amp performance. I see where the XPA-2 has 54,000uf vs XPA-1's 130,000uf.?
Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 197
11/24/08 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

You mean 1000 Watts @ 4 ohms though, right?

XPA-2 isn't rated for 4-ohms bridged mode operation.

I think the XPA-1 is well placed as their flagship monoblock. It has more to offer than the XPA-2 and should be priced higher. It's overbuilt and looks very stylish (if you like the LEDs anyway). Not everybody wants to use pro amps, and these are probably one of the cheapest non-pro ways to get 1000w@4ohm if you discount BASH sub amps which aren't applicable for full-range use anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 197
11/24/08 at 1:12pm
Quote:


XPA-2 isn't rated for 4-ohms bridged mode operation.

Quote:


"...The XPA-2 also boasts a bridgeable mode, turning it into a 1,000 watt (8 ohms) monoblock amp

The site has inaccurate comments The (8 ohms) is a typo!!!!

I know for sure it will not be 1000W @ 8 ohms bridged because its only a 250W/ch @ 8 ohms amp....you can not get 1000W bridged if you only have 250W to start with.

The site says "500 watts RMS/ channel into 4 ohms and 1,000 watts RMS bridged"


http://www.emotiva.com/xpa2.shtm

Code:
Number of channels: 2 
Amplifier Class: Short signal path A/B 
Output design: Triple Darlington with ON semiconductor output stages 
Differential Drive: Dual Differential input 
Types of inputs: Both Balanced (XLR) and Un-balanced (RCA) 
Type of outputs: Audiophile quality 5 way binding post 
Display type: Digital VU meters 
Metering: 14) Blue LEDS and 1) red per channel 
Power output: 250 watts RMS/ channel into 8 ohms, 500 watts RMS/ channel into 4 ohms and 1,000 watts RMS bridged. 
THD+N at rated power output: 0.007% 
S/N ratio: >100db 
Frequency response: 10 to 120Khz (-3db) and 20 to 20 (with less than .15db deviation) 
Gain structure: 32db 
Transformer size: 1200VA mounted in a reinforced steel super structure 
Secondary capacitance: 54,000uF 
Massive aluminum heat sinks running the length of the amp ensure cool operation and amp longevity 
Weight: Approximately 75 pounds 
Retail price: $799.00 
17” W x 7.75” H x 19” D
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 197
11/24/08 at 1:19pm
When you bridge an amp the impedance seen by each side is effectively halved. So the 1000w figure is correct. Each side can put out 500w @ 4 ohm which combined will drive 1000w into 8 ohms.

For another example: one of the audiosource amps I have is rated 80w @ 8 ohms stereo or 100w @ 4 ohms stereo. The 8-ohm bridged output is 200w.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 197
11/24/08 at 1:23pm
Hmmm...if 500 watts into two channels at 4 ohms (500W x 2 @ 4 ohms) then it makes sense that it would be 1,000 watts bridged into an 8 ohm load.

Edit: jvgillow beat me to it
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 197
11/24/08 at 2:53pm
The other thing the XPA-1s have going for them is the amplifier design which is a fully balanced design.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 197
11/24/08 at 4:16pm
Quote:


Hmmm...if 500 watts into two channels at 4 ohms (500W x 2 @ 4 ohms) then it makes sense that it would be 1,000 watts bridged into an 8 ohm load.

Yeah, I had a mental brain fart today !!!!

and the other point about the XPA-2 is that it wont do 4 ohms bridged ( as someone posted above).

Quote:


which is a fully balanced design

Oh, that will matter
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 197
11/24/08 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Yeah, I had a mental brain fart today !!!!

and the other point about the XPA-2 is that it wont do 4 ohms bridged ( as someone posted above).



Oh, that will matter

Yeah, good luck finding a fully balanced pre/pro and audio source to go with it. The ability to send and receive balanced signals is one thing but to keep the signal balanced from the source through the amplifier is quite another. It's a cool amp but but my xpa-5 and ep2500 are not in danger of being replaced...for the time being .
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 197
11/24/08 at 6:25pm
My DAC is fully balanced. My pre-amp is going to be fully balanced. I plan to make sure the amp I use with them is fully balanced too, if possible.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 197
11/25/08 at 6:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josuah View Post

My DAC is fully balanced. My pre-amp is going to be fully balanced. I plan to make sure the amp I use with them is fully balanced too, if possible.

Nice! Which DAC and preamp are you going with?
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 197
11/25/08 at 9:07am
Thread Starter 
Well Balanced amps are usually a lot more expensive you can find truly balanced pre/pro in the high end such as Classé, Levinson, Krell....

I wonder how it will deliver
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 197
11/25/08 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by robfive View Post

Nice! Which DAC and preamp are you going with?

Both are currently unannounced products. If you're interested, PM me.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 197
11/25/08 at 10:00am
What does a balanced amp mean? I thought it was simply balanced inputs and I'm not even sure what that means technically.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 197
11/25/08 at 9:28pm
Fully balanced gear basically has a circuit for both the positive and negative audio signals, and of course this can only be applied to balanced signals (XLR).

As an example, on a non-fully balanced amplifier, no matter if it takes in balanced XLR or single-ended RCA, the voltage gain will only be applied to the XLR signal+ or RCA signal. In the case of a balanced XLR input, the XLR signal- will most likely be sent to ground, so that right past the input jack it looks the same as single-ended RCA.

A fully balanced amplifier will apply the same voltage gain to both the XLR signal+ and signal-. If it accepts single-ended RCA then the circuit that would normally process signal- is most likely given ground for its input signal.

The advantage to balanced cables is that any noise picked up by the signal wires will be rejected by the circuit because you compare signal+ to signal-, and any noise will appear in both and cancel out. You get this advantage even if the gear is not fully balanced.

The advantage to fully balanced gear is that any noise picked up on the inside of the equipment is likewise cancelled out. For example, a high frequency clock inside a processor, or your kitchen microwave, might result in noise that gets picked up inside. This noise would alter the signal of a non-fully balanced processor, but not in a fully balanced one.

Did I miss anything?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 197
11/25/08 at 10:36pm
Wow, that was really informative. I didn't know Balanced gear did all that. I thought it was basically only beneficial if you had long runs of cables.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 197
11/26/08 at 7:20am
I'm still not sure I understand. I thought that balanced inputs were 180deg out of phase from each other and the amp would simply realign both signals and average them out. Effectively cutting noise in half.

I'm not sure what you mean about - and + on an analog signal. I guess that could be 180deg out of phase tho.

If non fully balanced amps don't use both signals, then wouldn't that connection be the same as the RCA input?

OR (after reading your post for a 4th time )

Maybe a fully balanced amp would have two signal paths all the way until the end where they are re-aligned and the noise is filtered out?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 197
11/26/08 at 9:02am
Mongoose, your last sentence is basically correct.

Balanced signals, on the cable (signal+ and signal-) or inside the gear, have the two signals 180 degrees out of phase with each other. That means whenever the two signals finally get compared against each other, any noise common to the two signals gets rejected.

Non-fully balanced amps, would turn the XLR cable's signal into the same as the single-ended RCA input. You still get the noise rejection for anything picked up on the cable, but not for anything that might get picked up inside your gear after this conversion has taken place.

Aarhead, balanced cables are beneficial for long runs of cables because it is easier to pick up noise on the cable in those cases. But in addition, you could choose to keep the signal balanced inside your electronics as well. Electronics are usually shielded from outside noise to some degree, but it is still possible to pick up noise inside the electronics. In such a case balanced circuits inside the electronics can be beneficial.

Fully balanced gear is more expensive because you basically have twice the circuitry.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 197
11/26/08 at 9:40am
Thread Starter 
Thank you Joshua
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 197
11/26/08 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josuah View Post

Mongoose, your last sentence is basically correct.

Balanced signals, on the cable (signal+ and signal-) or inside the gear, have the two signals 180 degrees out of phase with each other. That means whenever the two signals finally get compared against each other, any noise common to the two signals gets rejected.

Non-fully balanced amps, would turn the XLR cable's signal into the same as the single-ended RCA input. You still get the noise rejection for anything picked up on the cable, but not for anything that might get picked up inside your gear after this conversion has taken place.

Aarhead, balanced cables are beneficial for long runs of cables because it is easier to pick up noise on the cable in those cases. But in addition, you could choose to keep the signal balanced inside your electronics as well. Electronics are usually shielded from outside noise to some degree, but it is still possible to pick up noise inside the electronics. In such a case balanced circuits inside the electronics can be beneficial.

Fully balanced gear is more expensive because you basically have twice the circuitry.

Which begs the questions: At what point is this all overkill?

This is a hobbby of inordinate cost to gain the last possible bit of fidelity, but where in the spectrum does this feature/architecture/design fall?
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 197
11/26/08 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Strasse View Post

Which begs the questions: At what point is this all overkill?

This is a hobbby of inordinate cost to gain the last possible bit of fidelity, but where in the spectrum does this feature/architecture/design fall?

The point of overkill is subjective however the point of diminishing returns is objective and starts around the $200 price point.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 197
11/26/08 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

The point of overkill is subjective however the point of diminishing returns is objective and starts around the $200 price point.

OK, fair enough, re: it might be possible to determine the point of diminishing returns objectively.

But $200 for what?? An external amp, (the subject of this thread)?
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 197
11/26/08 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Strasse View Post

For what?? An external amp, (the subject of this thread)?

I'm talking about any audio amp in general. It can be in a receiver or integrated. BTW the subject of this thread is the Emotiva XPA-1 not external amps.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 197
11/26/08 at 9:59pm
Well, you could use an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer to identify noise that the gear is injecting into your signal, and then decide based on that. Even noise outside the audio spectrum on an analog audio signal can have an effect on your down-chain components, and obviously noise on a digital signal can have other effects.

I also disagree quite a bit with the point of diminishing returns on an amplifier being at $200....

Anyway, the XPA-1 looks great and the stated specs are better than the XPA-2. I was a little disappointed to see the XPA-2 measure worse than the RPA-1; you'll notice the specs are a little less specific than those listed for the XPA-2.

I'd love to have 1000W/ch @ 4ohms to my HT speakers; but that'd be ~$7000 of XPA-1s? Eek. The XPA-2 would provide 500W/ch @ 4 ohms, allowing me to play at reference level, but with 1% THD+N and higher THD+N at 1W than the XPA-1. Right now I have an MPS-1 which will get me about -3dB from reference level at 1% THD+N.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 197
11/27/08 at 4:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josuah View Post


Anyway, the XPA-1 looks great and the stated specs are better than the XPA-2. I was a little disappointed to see the XPA-2 measure worse than the RPA-1; you'll notice the specs are a little less specific than those listed for the XPA-2.

.

Huh???

I think you need to rub your eyes and re-read those specs. Unless you have done your own testing, I think you misread them. THD+N at rated power is 0.007% NOT 1%(clipping). The XPA-2 was rated at 515Wx2 @ 4 Ohms vs the RPA-1's 320Wx2 @ 4 Ohms here.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 197
11/27/08 at 5:42am
Quote:


I'd love to have 1000W/ch @ 4ohms to my HT speakers; but that'd be ~$7000 of XPA-1s?

That is what I posted in the first couple of posts....if you want that much power buy a D-sonic or Sunfire amp both give 800W+/ch @ 4 ohms and you will be only out 3K.

Unless you are driving Pro-audio drivers that will hit high SPLs therefore can handled the 800W, Im talking about Subwoofer, or mid bass stuff because mids and tweeters just do not use that much power and never can hit high high SPLs without extreme distortion.

Besides, only 512W gives you 30dB of gain.....most speakers do not perform higher then that anyways!!!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Emotiva xpa-1