or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › EMOTIVA Amps - Power Rating Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EMOTIVA Amps - Power Rating Discussion - Page 2

post #31 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Fuses don't blow because
a. The peak power is rarely if ever (probably "never" for most of us) approached in real life. Especially for multi-channel systems. Even if it is, it would only happen on transient peaks, which are very, very fast to something like a fuse or breaker.
b. Which reminds me, they are usually breakers, not fuses, and very short surges will not trip them. Even a fast blow fuse will sustain very brief transients well over its capacity -- it takes time for the metal to heat up and blow.

FWIWFM - Don

DonH50, I was told by EMO Sales that the XPA-5 has two (2) 10 Amp 19mm. Slow Blow fuses internally within it. EMO has no resettable breaker on the rear panel.
Maybe others with EMO XPA series can add to this.
post #32 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitod View Post

I couldn't care less about all this mumbo jumbo. All I know is that the XPA-3 does a fine job driving the fronts.

Thank you for your attention.

That's scientific

No offense, but maybe your speakers are Klipsch's and only need 10 watts!
If you owned big low efficiency, 4 ohm Magnepans (like me) how much REAL power an amp can make becomes very important. And it does make an audible difference.

Mumbo -jumbo: I wonder how far NASA would have gotten ignoring technical "mumbo-jumbo" - I can hear it now:

"hey, don't worry about how much thrust we make, just strap them thar rockets on and light that sucker!! They're just sh*t out of luck if it can't get 100 ft off the ground"

Or tell that to the guy who just bought a Corvette and thinks he's got 400 ponies but finds out he's really got only 200...wonder if he'll be happy that "it makes those tires go round"

Yup, mumbo-jumbo sure doesn't matter

Amazing post there, mate
post #33 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

I worked on IBM's first Ink Jet printer, but after 100 Million $ into the project they cancelled it. Guess that states what my Engr. grade was. Back then we sprayed Ink using a BathTub, can you believe that?

But don't forget, WATSON didn't even know that Toronto was NOT a US City w/ the biggest Airport, Duh... a little Algorithm problem

The airport question was tricky for a computer. I belive the question required that the computer figure out that it needed a city with two airports one named for a WWII battle, and another for an aviator (also WWII?)

That would be Chicago for Midway and O'Hare.

Watson was smartly programmed, and realized it was not very sure of the answer and that it was way ahead, and wagered very little.
post #34 of 421
I think some people don't like technical discussions of power. I saw the same thing over at the "lounge."

Either it hurts their heads, bores them, or they are Emo fans, and don't want to read anything bad about them... (can't think of any other obvious options.)

Hence the mumbo jumbo comment I guess.
post #35 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

DonH50, I was told by EMO Sales that the XPA-5 has two (2) 10 Amp 19mm. Slow Blow fuses internally within it. EMO has no resettable breaker on the rear panel.
Maybe others with EMO XPA series can add to this.

I am told that some transformers also come with thermal cut offs. They are not resettable...but they are supposed to prevent catastrophic transformer failure, which should protect your home.

No way of knowing if Emo has added that option as well.

We certainly hope the standard current protection kicks in well before that would be a point of failure.
post #36 of 421
My position on the Emo XPA5/3 is for the money, they represent great value.

But I have seen no proof that they can produce the same all channels driven power under sustained conditions (meaning length of time) that a Parasound A51 with 2.2KVA transformer can.

1200VA does not = 2200VA.

And Emotiva's 60,000uF does not = Parasound's 164,000 µF caps

To me, it looks like Emotiva's multichannel power ratings are voodoo power

The XPA1 and XPA2 are different story, they really do seem to have the balls to go toe-to-toe with the big name, more expensive amps.

But on their multichannel amps, there power supplies are not that much bigger than what used to be in upper end class A/B receivers. The Pioneer Elite 59TXi for instance, had 750VA and my '78 Sansui quad receiver that was rated for 4 X 60 watts per ch (!) had 960 VA!

Emo's 1200 VA transformer for 5 channels is skimpy for supposed 1000 watt capability.

I have an ext amp designed for electrostat speakers that has a 1200VA torroidal transformer and rated for 300 watts @ 8 ohms & 600 watts @ 4 ohms for only 2 channels, pretty similar to the XPA2. Unless the laws of electricity have changed, 600 total watts/5 channels kind of equals 120 watts per channel. And my amp has 18 output transistors per channel compared to Emotiva XPA5's 6 per channel.

Please tell me how it can come close to the per channel output of my Innersound amp.

It can't. Sorry, I don't believe it.

The fact that some of you very familiar with Emotiva have confirmed it's hard to pin them down on their testing conditions and question how long it can sustain that power, supports my own beliefs.

For $900, the XPA5 is still a steal, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that it will do the same sustained power as an A51. There's a reason an A51 and similar amps cost much more & it's not just the name brand.

I would certainly consider an XPA1 or XPA2 amp in a heartbeat, but I think the XPA5/3 are way over-spec'd. They probably work fine for many but they would not be any better than a robust receiver for my needs.
post #37 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I think some people don't like technical discussions of power. I saw the same thing over at the "lounge."

Either it hurts their heads, bores them, or they are Emo fans, and don't want to read anything bad about them... (can't think of any other obvious options.)

Hence the mumbo jumbo comment I guess.

I agree, but this is a technical discussion thread. There are plenty of Emotiva threads for fanboys.

Someone wants to discuss Emotiva's power ratings & performance, so here we all are. This is not really a thread for the fanclub, is it, Michael?

Yes, it hurts the head to be scientific, but considering how well US students do in science compared to other countries, what can we expect

Hey, if it "ain't" on MTV or is rap-able, it "ain't worth lernin"
post #38 of 421
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/a.../emotiva-upa-7

If you read this review it will clearly show in the case of the UPA-7 it is not able to produce the power output that Emotiva claims. As the OP states it is clear if you understand component rating, efficiency and what continuous means most of their amps cannot meet the ratings they publish in a real ACD power test. The UPA 7 was able to do 108 watts for a short power sweep. It would do even worst on a continuous test.


When you think about the XPA-5 with a 1200va transformer making 1500 watts out into 4 ohms, what a joke!
post #39 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I think some people don't like technical discussions of power. I saw the same thing over at the "lounge."

Either it hurts their heads, bores them, or they are Emo fans, and don't want to read anything bad about them... (can't think of any other obvious options.)

Hence the mumbo jumbo comment I guess.

SS9001 IS CORRECT... those types just hit the switch and pray for something to happen, and there SQ is not even close to being in the ballpark. It takes all kinds.
post #40 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just cruising View Post

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/a.../emotiva-upa-7

If you read this review it will clearly show in the case of the UPA-7 it is not able to produce the power output that Emotiva claims. As the OP states it is clear if you understand component rating, efficiency and what continuous means most of their amps cannot meet the ratings they publish in a real ACD power test. The UPA 7 was able to do 108 watts for a short power sweep. It would do even worst on a continuous test.


When you think about the XPA-5 with a 1200va transformer making 1500 watts out into 4 ohms, what a joke!

Your right on, and that is why I have asked to see some real continuous Bench Tests with the XPA-5, and guess what NO ONE has them buy EMO, wonder why? But the EMO tests show over 200 W / Ch. ACD, but Continuously is the question number one, not that I would listen to anything that loud anyways.
post #41 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I agree, but this is a technical discussion thread. There are plenty of Emotiva threads for fanboys.

Someone wants to discuss Emotiva's power ratings & performance, so here we all are. This is not really a thread for the fanclub, is it, Michael?

Yes, it hurts the head to be scientific, but considering how well US students do in science compared to other countries, what can we expect

Hey, if it "ain't" on MTV or is rap-able, it "ain't worth lernin"

Steve SS9001 -- All I can say is Engr. College in the 60's and 70's was one Heck of a lot different than today! All you need today is a Cell Phone, look up a question and believe the first thing you read while your driving in your Car. Problem solved. AMEN.
post #42 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

Your right on, and that is why I have asked to see some real continuous Bench Tests with the XPA-5, and guess what NO ONE has them buy EMO, wonder why? But the EMO tests show over 200 W / Ch. ACD, but Continuously is the question number one, not that I would listen to anything that loud anyways.

that's why I'm skeptical as hell. I'd like to believe but I don't.

Everyone who posts or reviews how great these XPA amps are and how they are giant-killers only bench tests the XPA1, XPA2. Not one independent review with bench tests is available for the XPA3 or 5. I wonder why...even Audioholics hasn't gone there.

If Emo wouldn't have put the same power supply in all 3 amps & made the power claims they do OR had upped the power supply in the 3 & 5 channel amps AND charged what the amp would then be worth, I wouldn't hesitate to consider buying one for separates.
post #43 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

My position on the Emo XPA5/3 is for the money, they represent great value.

But I have seen no proof that they can produce the same all channels driven power under sustained conditions (meaning length of time) that a Parasound A51 with 2.2KVA transformer can.

1200VA does not = 2200VA.

And Emotiva's 60,000uF does not = Parasound's 164,000 µF caps

To me, it looks like Emotiva's multichannel power ratings are voodoo power

The XPA1 and XPA2 are different story, they really do seem to have the balls to go toe-to-toe with the big name, more expensive amps.

But on their multichannel amps, there power supplies are not that much bigger than what used to be in upper end class A/B receivers. The Pioneer Elite 59TXi for instance, had 750VA and my '78 Sansui quad receiver that was rated for 4 X 60 watts per ch (!) had 960 VA!

Emo's 1200 VA transformer for 5 channels is skimpy for supposed 1000 watt capability.

I have an ext amp designed for electrostat speakers that has a 1200VA torroidal transformer and rated for 300 watts @ 8 ohms & 600 watts @ 4 ohms for only 2 channels, pretty similar to the XPA2. Unless the laws of electricity have changed, 600 total watts/5 channels kind of equals 120 watts per channel. And my amp has 18 output transistors per channel compared to Emotiva XPA5's 6 per channel.

Please tell me how it can come close to the per channel output of my Innersound amp.

It can't. Sorry, I don't believe it.

The fact that some of you very familiar with Emotiva have confirmed it's hard to pin them down on their testing conditions and question how long it can sustain that power, supports my own beliefs.

For $900, the XPA5 is still a steal, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that it will do the same sustained power as an A51. There's a reason an A51 and similar amps cost much more & it's not just the name brand.

I would certainly consider an XPA1 or XPA2 amp in a heartbeat, but I think the XPA5/3 are way over-spec'd. They probably work fine for many but they would not be any better than a robust receiver for my needs.

ss9001 Steve -- Now that's what I am talking about, and I have to totally agree with you across the board with detail entirely. Ok, let's say EMO can produce 1KW we then can do a comparison by:

1.) Total Watts RMS Output / Weight
Is 1000W / 66 # => 15.15 W per #

2.) Cost / Total Watts RMS Output
Is $899 (incl. del'v) / 1000 => $0.899 / W

How does that stack up to a Parasound A51? Steve, pls. run those numbers, ok and thanks. Den
post #44 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

Steve SS9001 -- All I can say is Engr. College in the 60's and 70's was one Heck of a lot different than today! All you need today is a Cell Phone, look up a question and believe the first thing you read while your driving in your Car. Problem solved. AMEN.

LOL

I went to Case Western Univ in Cleveland in late 60's, an MIT of the midwest. Straight A student in high school and Case kicked my *ss! We didn't have calculators then! Just slide rules

It was an experience....my goal was to get out alive with a degree, GPA was secondary

The "I don't need to know anything" crowd is a hoot. Where do they think all this technology comes from...someone's behind?
post #45 of 421
Math is hard...

What part of e ^ (i * PI) = -1 don't you understand?

For the record I think some people are being just a bit harsh with Emotiva, but I guess I understand. They do give the impression in their web page it's a convservative no BS measurement.

Anyway, for the price I paid for my XPA-3, I did not expect a 1200 VA transformer..
post #46 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

The airport question was tricky for a computer. I belive the question required that the computer figure out that it needed a city with two airports one named for a WWII battle, and another for an aviator (also WWII?)

That would be Chicago for Midway and O'Hare.

Watson was smartly programmed, and realized it was not very sure of the answer and that it was way ahead, and wagered very little.

The dollar wager was easy (just some math) for it to do a worse case analysis, but what I can't figure out why it did not know that Toronto was not a US City with the biggest airport? Maybe they'll explain what happened tonight and why.
I want WATSON to do a BIG BLUE CRAPS for me, and show me how to Win, and minimize the House Vig...

I understand the AP test gear for Audio is around $45K and EMO uses it! But I am still skeptical of EMO's specs., and I do not have $45K to spend on test equipment, and I should not have to either.
post #47 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Math is hard...

What part of e ^ (i * PI) = -1 don't you understand?

Come on Michael, your still trying to figure out what the Integral of the Exponential to the X Power is, right?

The kids today don't care even what freq. is like Steve says, unless it's a Freak on MTV, let alone what the Circular Freq. is (w) Omega = 2 x PI x f, and who cares about the Units of Measure (Sec ^-1) or 1/Sec, or Rad/Sec... Gosh, I did not know, LOL, that cycles was a Dimensionless Quantity, and a Radian also. Must of gone to Calif. Poly in SLO then onto the Big S(tanford) and Sons, with only a slide rule that pissed me off because it's granularity was weak at best, and it would never tell me where to put the decimal point, and forced me to use Scientific Notation, and that never helped me to SPELE either - You got it

Hard to figure it out Steve, your right on, it just Fell Out of one of those Stars from above.
post #48 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Math is hard...

What part of e ^ (i * PI) = -1 don't you understand?

For the record I think some people are being just a bit harsh with Emotiva, but I guess I understand. They do give the impression in their web page it's a convservative no BS measurement.

Anyway, for the price I paid for my XPA-3, I did not expect a 1200 VA transformer..

Your right on .. although as they raise prices, they will have to come totally CLEAN with specs. and all the details of how it was tested precisely. They do have a good customer relationship(s) from what I can tell, but they need to answer my Technical emails ... still waiting for that and my darn Amp here. Not even an email that it shipped yet, what gives... isn't there 24 hrs. in a day, when your making that kind of money?
post #49 of 421
It's a special case of the Euler identity (that e raised to i times PI = -1, but it's very cool, and kind of weird...I believe you work it out with a series expansion of some sort.)
post #50 of 421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Math is hard...

What part of e ^ (i * PI) = -1 don't you understand?

For the record I think some people are being just a bit harsh with Emotiva, but I guess I understand. They do give the impression in their web page it's a convservative no BS measurement.

Anyway, for the price I paid for my XPA-3, I did not expect a 1200 VA transformer..

Michael -- till AM off to watch WATSON, my Old Big Blue employer, which by the way was the BEST CORP. I HAD EVER WORKED FOR -- BAR NONE HANDS DOWN.
post #51 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

Come on Michael, your still trying to figure out what the Integral of the Exponential to the X Power is, right?

The kids today don't care even what freq. is like Steve says, unless it's a Freak on MTV, let alone what the Circular Freq. is (w) Omega = 2 x PI x f, and who cares about the Units of Measure (Sec ^-1) or 1/Sec, or Rad/Sec... Gosh, I did not know, LOL, that cycles was a Dimensionless Quantity, and a Radian also. Must of gone to Calif. Poly in SLO then onto the Big S(tanford) and Sons, with only a slide rule that pissed me off because it's granularity was weak at best, and it would never tell me where to put the decimal point, and forced me to use Scientific Notation, and that never helped me to SPELE either - You got it

Hard to figure it out Steve, your right on, it just Fell Out of one of those Stars from above.

Another math identity I struggle to visual is d/dx e^x = e^x. I mean like how can a function's derivative be itself? That's why e is special (named after Euler I think, in spite of the lower caseness of it.)
post #52 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

Michael -- till AM off to watch WATSON, my Old Big Blue employer, which by the way was the BEST CORP. I HAD EVER WORKED FOR -- BAR NONE HANDS DOWN.

I also worked for Big Blue for 4 years on contract in a city whose name just happens to also be a city in the state most associated with IBM. Coincidence? I sometimes think not.
post #53 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post

DonH50, I was told by EMO Sales that the XPA-5 has two (2) 10 Amp 19mm. Slow Blow fuses internally within it. EMO has no resettable breaker on the rear panel.
Maybe others with EMO XPA series can add to this.

My bad, I thought people were talking about the breakers in their house service panels, not inside the amps. Also, I understand there are still a lot of fuses in house panels out there...

For the record, I own an XPA-2, XPA-3 and an XPA-5. Never checked the fuses, though...

Euler aside, the emo's probably don't make full power much past the IHF test period, but are a great value and certainly outperform amps and AVRs that cost several times their price. I doubt they'd best the Krell or Levinson monoblocks I used to play with, but they are good enough for me.

As for math, one of my favorites: 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2... - Don
post #54 of 421
Breaker...breaker...
post #55 of 421
Stop it! good buddy...
post #56 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

What is really the concern??

Could it be because Emotiva has built their brand name and rep on 'having real power specs????'

BTW, It's interesting to see the fandom using some of the very same arguments I was using in support of (well made) multichannel AVR's a year or so ago.
post #57 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

For the record, I own an XPA-2, XPA-3 and an XPA-5.

And you have maggies IIRC. What I don't remember is which models you have. What models and how do the XPA's compare to what you used before?

My fronts are 3.6's and prior to that 1.6's. A normal class A/B receiver could drive the 1.6's just fine, but adding the Innersound amp improved piano & percussion transient attack, dynamics, clarity in massed choral music. The just came alive more at higher volumes.

My concern would be an XPA-5 would not do 3.6's justice. The others are CC3, 2 pair MC-1's, and some old conventional EPI Advent clones for rear wall channels.
post #58 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

BTW, It's interesting to see the fandom using some of the very same arguments I was using in support of (well made) multichannel AVR's a year or so ago.

Which ones, may I ask?
HDTV, what do you consider "well-made"? Just curious what your criteria are.
post #59 of 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Euler aside, the emo's probably don't make full power much past the IHF test period, but are a great value and certainly outperform amps and AVRs that cost several times their price. I doubt they'd best the Krell or Levinson monoblocks I used to play with, but they are good enough for me.

"great value"

I agree with that. My issue is I'd prefer them to be honest & provide real world power ratings, more in keeping with the big names. Even if they published lower ratings, people would still flock to them because of their great value. At least, potential buyers could make better judgments as to which Emotiva amps better suit their speaker requirements, i.e. 5-XPA1's or 1-XPA5

Emotiva might just sell a few more 1's, 2's and 3's that way, and make more money.

Another example of a popular company who makes fine products but at least in their past, just didn't want to publish honest specs - Definitive Technologies. Take their Supercube subs, spec'd to 11-14 Hz but barely capable of high 20's. Not an honest way to market which they didn't have to do to sell their otherwise fine speakers.

If Emotiva really based their reputation on publishing real power specs, then they should live by the same standards as the name brands. If the amp can only maintain rated power for 5 seconds, then say that, or rate it to provide power continuously, like the Krells of the world. They'll still sell lots of amps and be seen as a better company for it. As it is now, they'll always have doubters like me sitting on the sidelines, wanting to consider their products, but not buying because we don't trust their honesty.

Don't make it seem that someone is getting a Lexus when they're getting a Corolla The Corolla is still a fine car....
post #60 of 421
I am about to receive a XPA-5, Will it be Ok to use it on a 240V circuit? I have a spare 240V in my theater room, and figure it would be better to have the unit run off a different circuit from the other equipment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › EMOTIVA Amps - Power Rating Discussion