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 3

post #61 of 419
2/17/11 at 5:13am
^^
from Emotiva's website:
"IEC power inlet, 120/230 VAC configurable"

from the XPA manual:

"Voltage Indicator ‐ All Emotiva amplifiers operate on either 115V or 230V. The voltage is detected when the amplifier is turned on, and is identified by the indicator lights. There are no user adjustments, the amplifier automatically adjusts to the voltage."

Sounds like all you have to do is plug it in
Just like 115 & 120V ratings are used interchangeably, 230 & 240V are also.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 419
2/17/11 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by richandy View Post

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.

Only if you use a step down transformer.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 419
2/17/11 at 5:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

"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....

I could not agree more with this post. The Emotiva amps do give a good value but when you get down to making the comparisons to higher price amps they do lack in some areas, transformer and cap sizes are just two that standout IMO. I would go as far to say since most of us buy more power than we need that the SQ of even the UPA series of amps is going to be good in most systems and provide good volume. Love the car analogy, both will get you there but there is no doubt the Lexus is going to be a better ride!
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 419
2/17/11 at 5:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by homank76 View Post

Only if you use a step down transformer.

Not according to Emotiva's own manual...the amp has a voltage sensing circuit so will automatically detect the correct voltage and be configured accordingly. I don't own the amp but I can read the manual & understand how it's supposed to work
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 419
2/17/11 at 5:58am
That's a cool feature. By all means plug it in and enjoy your new amp.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 419
2/17/11 at 6:07am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

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

Don, glad to see you learned something about the fuses internally w/in those XPA's you have (It's not shown in their Manual is it?), and it is also very reassuring that you like them from a Value/Cost basis.

Just don't get those 2's at 2.99999, or your Algorithm will Fail, and you might have to say <6
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 419
2/17/11 at 6:40am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

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.

Steve, free 30 Day trial will give you the answer. But I guess you would have to pay the shipping back, right?
Den
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 419
2/17/11 at 6:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

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.

HDTV -- that is the Million $ Question here -- "having real power specs????"

So how do they get 200 Watts RMS into 8 Ohms x 5 for their XPA-5, with only a 1200VA Xformer using a Class A/B design?

If EMO ever got over 200W / Channel on their XPA-5, how long was it performing at >200W / Ch.?

Where are the independant tests on this Multi-Ch. Amp, not just the Mfg's. EMO's test?
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 419
2/17/11 at 6:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by richandy View Post

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.

Go to Page 10 of their newly released X-Series Operation Manual and it states:

IEC Power Inlet, 115/230Vac Auto Configurable

or call Vincent at EMO in Sales -- he's always laughing, maybe to the bank as well, but a good guy, just want more answers from him there -- as we are not questioning quality, but TRUE POWER SPECS HERE.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 419
2/17/11 at 7:28am
Thread Starter 
OK - per EMO's newly released X-Series Manual it states on Pg. 10 this:

"ALL EMOTIVA AMPLIFIERS ARE RATED FOR CONTINUOUS POWER, TESTED WITH ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN SIMULTANEOUSLY. WE AT DO NOT PLAY GAMES WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND TEST ALL OF OUR AMPLIFIERS TO INDUSTRY STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS WITH THE AMPLIFIER PUT UNDER THE STRICTEST LOADS. THIS MEANS THAT THE POWER OUTPUT AND OTHER SPECIFICATIONS LISTED ARE THE BARE MINIMUM (OR WORST CASE SCENARIO) YOU WILL RECEIVE FROM OUR AMPLIFIERS. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WILL GET MUCH HIGHER OUTPUT THEN WHAT IS RATED."

Ok, so we are BACK to the XPA-5 MODEL with ACD Simultaneously and it states Continuously also... how do they get 1,000 Total Watts RMS into 8 Ohms per Channel with a 1200VA Xformer, using a Class A/B design????

If so, also what is the Strictest Load == ???
What Industry Std. Test Conditions are Used?
To What Industry Std. SPEC Number = ???

Give 'em a Call STEVE at 1-615-790-6754, and have them at EMO give you some specifics... go get 'em Steve.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 419
2/17/11 at 8:18am
Theoretically, bumble bees can't fly either.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 419
2/17/11 at 9:08am
I think it's the word continuous that's been attacked in previous discussions.

Given no working definition of continuous, I can't tell you what they think it means. But I don't think it's the same 5 minutes called for by the FTC rules.

For argument's sake, let's say they are stacking the deck a bit by saying 'continuous" when they did a short power sweep. Ok, we feel we know what's going on, so as informed consumers we know what we are paying for what we are getting.

I honestly don't feel people NOT aware of this discussion and ramifications are getting ripped off though. I understand the objections certainly. But I really don't see a huge problem here?

The people really getting ripped off with amp power are people with no knowledge of amplifiers and electronics buying HTIB systems rated for 1000+ watts of power (because that's what it says in big letters on the box.) If that's not dishonest, nothing is. Hey let's measure our output from one channel into hard clipping, then multiply that by the number of channels, then add on the subwoofer's own peak power output (when all the stars align), and call it a 1500 watt HITB system and sell it for $200 WITH speakers! Killer deal.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 419
2/17/11 at 9:17am
Thread Starter 
Called PARASOUND at 1-415-397-7100, and asked some questions about their Model 5250v2 New 5 Ch. Amp.
MSRP = $2850 USD

But it's rated at 250W RMS / Ch. ==> 8 Ohms ACD

Interesting, they have TWO (2) Toroid Xformers, and it weighs in at 69#, only 3# heavier than the EMO XPA-5, but produces 250 x 5 = 1250W, 25% More than EMO's XPA-5, but costs 317% MORE!!

Parasounds techE... did not know the VA for each Xformer, but is to get back to me. Parasound recommended that a 20 Amp CCT. be used for this Model 5250v2!
Also, only UnBalanced inputs to amp, but with Variable Gain knobs on back for each of the five Amps internally.

So, in essence it's 317% MORE $ than EMO, and only produces 25% MORE Power than an EMO XPA-5!! That is a taxing situation, so what would one get with the Parasound over an EMO, besides THX Ultra 2 Certification and a little more Power, but only a 3 yr. Warranty vs. EMO's 5 Yr. Transferrable Warranty??
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 419
2/17/11 at 9:21am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deane Johnson View Post

Theoretically, bumble bees can't fly either.

Johnson -- go to the front of this Class, as you need to learn something today, let alone yesterday!! Theory, ZERO!!

MJHuman -- these are the types that buy the HTIB, and wonder why it sounds like a TIN CAN!!
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 419
2/17/11 at 9:34am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I think it's the word continuous that's been attacked in previous discussions.

Given no working definition of continuous, I can't tell you what they think it means. But I don't think it's the same 5 minutes called for by the FTC rules.

For argument's sake, let's say they are stacking the deck a bit by saying 'continuous" when they did a short power sweep. Ok, we feel we know what's going on, so as informed consumers we know what we are paying for what we are getting.

I honestly don't feel people NOT aware of this discussion and ramifications are getting ripped off though. I understand the objections certainly. But I really don't see a huge problem here?

The people really getting ripped off with amp power are people with no knowledge of amplifiers and electronics buying HTIB systems rated for 1000+ watts of power (because that's what it says in big letters on the box.) If that's not dishonest, nothing is. Hey let's measure our output from one channel into hard clipping, then multiply that by the number of channels, then add on the subwoofer's own peak power output (when all the stars align), and call it a 1500 watt HITB system and sell it for $200 WITH speakers! Killer deal.

MJHuman -- yes, if it works well as most state and maybe produces 810Watts continuously for the XPA-5 still a good deal:

Comparing it to the Parasound 5250v2 Amp yields:

[810W/1250W] = 0.65 x $2850 = $1847 Comparing it to a Parasound 5250v2 Amp. and the EMO XPA-5 is selling for $899 Including S/H to your door.

Therefore, approx. 65% of the POWER let's assume of the ParaSound 5250v2, for 32% of the COST !!

That is why they are selling!!
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 419
2/17/11 at 10:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deane Johnson View Post

Theoretically, bumble bees can't fly either.

They have revised theory I believe...current theory says they can.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 419
2/17/11 at 10:06am
It would not surprise me, that the Parasound amp mentioned is wall power limited. With sufficient transformer size and assuming no amplifier protection circuits limiting power, you are wall power limited not including dynamic power available from the PS caps.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, at some point you are running up against the law of diminishing returns on power.

I have wondered why Emo does not license some class D amp design, and make the first affordable 5 or 7 channel class D amp. If Crown can do 200x2 watts for under $400, Surely Emo can do 200x5 or 200x7 for under 1k? Heck, shave that down a bit even, if that's what it takes, and do 180. Of course buyers like the nice round number of 200. But Emo only has to hit 200x2 to call it a 200 watt amp according to FTC rules. Then state that it can't do 200x7 continuous, but that it's dynamic power is better than 200x7 using the same test Audioholiocs has been using.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 419
2/17/11 at 10:12am
Interesting thread, but I'm surprised that the UPA-5 and 7 haven't been discussed yet as they have even worse power to watt ratios. This is something that has started to bother me since Emo has marketed their amps with these ACD numbers that just don't add up.

Yet the Audioholics review of the UPA-7 didn't seem to find any weakness in this regard. Until you analyze their numbers and realize they didn't even test the amp ACD. They gave it some kind of 'burst' test, whatever that will do, and they gave it a strong buy recommendation! I bet it would get outperformed by some of the top end receivers.

For the price, they are an option, but I prefer truth in numbers. Some of the Outlaw amps have the same ratings but the transformers are about double the size of the Emotiva models.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 419
2/17/11 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post
Called PARASOUND at 1-415-397-7100, and asked some questions about their Model 5250v2 New 5 Ch. Amp.
MSRP = $2850 USD

But it's rated at 250W RMS / Ch. ==> 8 Ohms ACD

Interesting, they have TWO (2) Toroid Xformers, and it weighs in at 69#, only 3# heavier than the EMO XPA-5, but produces 250 x 5 = 1250W, 25% More than EMO's XPA-5, but costs 317% MORE!!

Parasounds techE... did not know the VA for each Xformer, but is to get back to me. Parasound recommended that a 20 Amp CCT. be used for this Model 5250v2!
Also, only UnBalanced inputs to amp, but with Variable Gain knobs on back for each of the five Amps internally.

So, in essence it's 317% MORE $ than EMO, and only produces 25% MORE Power than an EMO XPA-5!! That is a taxing situation, so what would one get with the Parasound over an EMO, besides THX Ultra 2 Certification and a little more Power, but only a 3 yr. Warranty vs. EMO's 5 Yr. Transferrable Warranty??
don't know, but if we were talking about Bryston, which is even more expensive, you'd be seeing a huge S/N ratio, amazing distortion performance, huge power. Query whether you could hear any of these differences, but Bryston does seem to make astoundingly clean amps. I used to have a little one, but could not at present bring myself to purchase even a used multichannel, because I don't sense that I'm pushing my midlevel Denon receiver hard enough for cracks to appear in its performance . . . and I can't buy tech for tech's sake at present.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 419
2/17/11 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenPureSound View Post
Yes, exactly as I have a 20Amp cct. -- Heck, 8K Watts of Peak Power to drive what? Isn't that more POWER than IMAX Theaters? My ears are draining some fluids now... ouch.
Power being only one parameter does matter when your paying for it with hard earned dollars, how else could one analyze anything, which you can't do anyways since it seems to me all the mfg's. use different specs. to test their amps, and if you were to print out spec sheets from a few mfgs. and feed those into your spreadsheet, it would look like an inverted IRS form with no algorithms.
IMAX theaters do not required > 110dB @ 10Hz to get the best know subwoofer driver (18" LMS5400) to produce output at 10Hz a person needs boost down there an a TON of power. I can do 10Hz too with 4 18" woofers in an IB design (yeah, I have that design too!) but I want a 3.5 cuft box and I want it to go low. Hoffman's Iron law is kicking in quickly

I 100% agree with mfg's specs being mostly crap. We have been measuring subwoofer amps over on the DIY forum for years. I have sent many myself to be tested.

Sadly the same thing is not done with regular consumer main speaker amps.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 419
2/17/11 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post
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.
You didnt just call me "fandom", did you?? That would be extremely funny considering my long time position on Emotiva equipment

My point really is that power differential is almost meaningless in real terms. I never though Emotiva had a rep for any 'REAL' specs. I thought they simply are a low cost online audio equipment source. Nothing special at all.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 419
2/17/11 at 12:17pm
Wow, what a hoot!

My take on Emotiva is what I said: great performance for the price (good value). I have not compared them recently with any high-end equipment (or very little, and not in my system so I can't really comment). There are plenty of reviews favorable to them at their price point, and frankly I wanted to put my money into other things than $20k worth of amps. Like room treatment, and college tuition for my boys...

I cannot, and as far as I know, do not claim they will match said monoblocks. Don't know they won't, to me, but I have not listened recently. I could rig up a test system to check their power, but it's not worth it to me. I have work to do and a concert to prepare for in my free time (anybody in the Colorado Springs area? -- www.pikespeakphil.org ).

I have Magnepan MG-IIIa's, a relatively benign load but 4-ohm and fairly inefficient so they suck some power. Center CC3, surrounds and rears MC-1's. An XPA-2 drives the L/R and XPA-5 the rest. Maybe it is a piece of junk, but it sounds OK to me. My past experience leads me to belive that differences among SS amps is subtle at best once you exceed a fairly low threshold. (Threshold, another great old amp...)

My previous setup was probably 15 years back, before the system went into storage while Life took over. Then, I used a modified ARC SP3a-1 preamp, and biamped the MG-IIIa's with an ARC D-79 on top and Counterpoint SA-220 on the bottom. At that time (say mid-80's) I worked in the business and a number of amps, including Bryston, Krell, CJ, Levinson, etc. all passed through the system. I loved my tubes, whilst knowing they were not the cleanest, quietest, nor provided the best bass. I just liked the sound, colored as it was. When I set up my system again I went into deep depression when I realized the class of equipment I had before was far beyond my means, and I didn't really have the time and funds to bring all my tubes back to life. The Emotivas filled the gap nicely enough for me.

I have always found specsmanship a bit misleading and marketing-led so have never been particularly upset by claims (some are pretty funny, but that's another thread). I use the spec sheet as a rough guide, then read reviews and test results. The biggest spec-shock I have had in the past couple of years was finding out just how little power by previous Sony AVR actually put out...

As for credentials, in addition to decades in the biz (usually install and repair work, plus a lot of live sound and some studio mastering) I have a few degrees in electrical engineering that I have put to good use in the world of high-speed (GHz+) analog IC design. Gives me no more cred than anyone else since you probably can't prove it online.

Don't think I can contribute any more (not sure I actually did any at all) to this thread, but there's my take on it.

FWIWFM, my 0.00001 cents, YMMV, blah blah blah - Don
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 419
2/17/11 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post
I think it's the word continuous that's been attacked in previous discussions.

Given no working definition of continuous, I can't tell you what they think it means. But I don't think it's the same 5 minutes called for by the FTC rules.

For argument's sake, let's say they are stacking the deck a bit by saying 'continuous" when they did a short power sweep. Ok, we feel we know what's going on, so as informed consumers we know what we are paying for what we are getting.

I honestly don't feel people NOT aware of this discussion and ramifications are getting ripped off though. I understand the objections certainly. But I really don't see a huge problem here?

The people really getting ripped off with amp power are people with no knowledge of amplifiers and electronics buying HTIB systems rated for 1000+ watts of power (because that's what it says in big letters on the box.) If that's not dishonest, nothing is. Hey let's measure our output from one channel into hard clipping, then multiply that by the number of channels, then add on the subwoofer's own peak power output (when all the stars align), and call it a 1500 watt HITB system and sell it for $200 WITH speakers! Killer deal.
While I mostly agree with your thoughts, I don't think the point is whether Emo customers are getting ripped off. Take a look at the description for the UPA-5:

Quote:
We dare you to compare the UPA-5, delivering a solid dose of 125 watts per channel, to ANY receiver you've got that claims to be 125, 130, or 150 watts per channel.

The UPA-5 delivers 125 watts of continuous power with all channels driven. That's the key word. 'Continuous' means...well, just that. Continuous. Not a peak rating. Not the rating the amp achieves while being pushed to its limits, putting out a distorted and muddy sound. Continuous power means the amplifier is in its comfort zone, doing what's its designed to do - giving you an exceptional theater and music experience without breaking a sweat.

The vast majority of receivers rated at 125, 130, or even 150 watts per channel are promising you output power, but they can't really deliver it. There's a lot of small print on those spec. sheets. Take a closer look and you'll see what we mean. It's not continuous power with all channels driven; that's the way we state it. Simple. Honest. Real. Most receivers are straining to hold it together when asked to deliver the goods. Confused about what 125 watts per channel of real power really means? When done right, it's a lot of power!

So that's the dare. Check out the UPA-5, and see for yourself what 625 watts of real power can do for you!
This type of ad copy has been in various places on their site, and what makes them wrong in my book is holding themselves up as a cut above. When they clearly define what they mean by continuous(which btw doesn't define their methodology) and claiming they get these numbers without pushing the amp to it's limits(.1%THD!) but have it run in it's comfort zone!

It just doesn't add up, specially when it's the UPA series.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 419
2/17/11 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post
Interesting thread, but I'm surprised that the UPA-5 and 7 haven't been discussed yet as they have even worse power to watt ratios. This is something that has started to bother me since Emo has marketed their amps with these ACD numbers that just don't add up.

Yet the Audioholics review of the UPA-7 didn't seem to find any weakness in this regard. Until you analyze their numbers and realize they didn't even test the amp ACD. They gave it some kind of 'burst' test, whatever that will do, and they gave it a strong buy recommendation! I bet it would get outperformed by some of the top end receivers.

For the price, they are an option, but I prefer truth in numbers. Some of the Outlaw amps have the same ratings but the transformers are about double the size of the Emotiva models.
I thought they DID an ACD...and yes, it was not as good as Emotiva's published ACD numbers. I noticed that same thing. Audioholics even commented on that, but noted how test conditions can differ, so did not make a big point of it (and seeing how Gene loaths the ACD test, you can imagine he's not putting a lot of stock in it.)

# of CH Test Type Power Load THD + N
7 1kHz Psweep 108 watts 8-ohms 0.1%
7 1kHz Psweep 117 watts 8-ohms 1%

That is not the same thing as their dynamic test which were these numbers...

7 Dynamic PWR 156 watts 8-ohms 1%
2 Dynamic PWR 320 watts 4-ohms 1%
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 419
2/17/11 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post
I thought they simply are a low cost online audio equipment source. Nothing special at all.
That's about where I'm at. I have no skin in the game, don't own their gear, but have looked at their offerings because they are "cheap" and I admit that's tempting.

I'll say it again, if I were in the market for a monoblock or stereo amp, their XPA's do look fairly spec'd and are great values. The others....

other name brand 2 channel class A/B amps with 1100-1200 VA power supplies rate them about the same as XPA-2. So how does Emotiva make 2.5 times the power (5 ch/2 ch proportionality) for their 5 channel version out of the same identical power supply? They can't!

Using the same power supply as Emotiva's XPA2, the XPA5 should be rated as approx 120 watts per channel.

2 X 300 watts = 600 for XPA2
600/5 channels = 120 per channel for XPA5

The transformers are identical, only the XPA5 has 1.33 times the capacitor capacity, so it can hold a its voltage for 1.33 times as long as the XPA2.

Clearly, they are playing fast & loose with their ratings, basing their ratings on 2 different testing methodologies (how much time it can maintain that power) or both. They aren't the 1st to do this or the last...but people jumping on the Emo bus should know what they are really buying, not some pumped up marketing hype.

There is no such thing as a free lunch here. And Emotiva didn't discover a new way to create energy
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 419
2/17/11 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post
Which ones, may I ask?
HDTV, what do you consider "well-made"? Just curious what your criteria are.
Arguments or AVRs?
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 419
2/17/11 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Wow, what a hoot!

My take on Emotiva is what I said: great performance for the price (good value). I have not compared them recently with any high-end equipment (or very little, and not in my system so I can't really comment). There are plenty of reviews favorable to them at their price point, and frankly I wanted to put my money into other things than $20k worth of amps. Like room treatment, and college tuition for my boys...

I cannot, and as far as I know, do not claim they will match said monoblocks. Don't know they won't, to me, but I have not listened recently. I could rig up a test system to check their power, but it's not worth it to me. I have work to do and a concert to prepare for in my free time (anybody in the Colorado Springs area? -- www.pikespeakphil.org ).

I have Magnepan MG-IIIa's, a relatively benign load but 4-ohm and fairly inefficient so they suck some power. Center CC3, surrounds and rears MC-1's. An XPA-2 drives the L/R and XPA-5 the rest. Maybe it is a piece of junk, but it sounds OK to me. My past experience leads me to belive that differences among SS amps is subtle at best once you exceed a fairly low threshold. (Threshold, another great old amp...)

My previous setup was probably 15 years back, before the system went into storage while Life took over. Then, I used a modified ARC SP3a-1 preamp, and biamped the MG-IIIa's with an ARC D-79 on top and Counterpoint SA-220 on the bottom. At that time (say mid-80's) I worked in the business and a number of amps, including Bryston, Krell, CJ, Levinson, etc. all passed through the system. I loved my tubes, whilst knowing they were not the cleanest, quietest, nor provided the best bass. I just liked the sound, colored as it was. When I set up my system again I went into deep depression when I realized the class of equipment I had before was far beyond my means, and I didn't really have the time and funds to bring all my tubes back to life. The Emotivas filled the gap nicely enough for me.

I have always found specsmanship a bit misleading and marketing-led so have never been particularly upset by claims (some are pretty funny, but that's another thread). I use the spec sheet as a rough guide, then read reviews and test results. The biggest spec-shock I have had in the past couple of years was finding out just how little power by previous Sony AVR actually put out...

As for credentials, in addition to decades in the biz (usually install and repair work, plus a lot of live sound and some studio mastering) I have a few degrees in electrical engineering that I have put to good use in the world of high-speed (GHz+) analog IC design. Gives me no more cred than anyone else since you probably can't prove it online.

Don't think I can contribute any more (not sure I actually did any at all) to this thread, but there's my take on it.

FWIWFM, my 0.00001 cents, YMMV, blah blah blah - Don

I sure hope that no one thinks the Emotiva amps are junk. I don’t think they are. But at the same time I am sure that many of their amps don’t live up to the numbers that claim. The Audioholics UPA-7 review is a good example of this. I would not think that an amp that is capable of 150 watts is junk even if it is rated at 200. At the same time if you advertise your amp can make 200 watts continuous and the numbers don’t add up then you should define how you make the test. That being said the problem for me is they present their amps to be all the other name brands are. They appear to claim you don’t give up anything for the cost difference of their amps verses say Outlaw or ATI are even Krell and Bryston. The numbers on these other amps seem to make sense for the power they claim, many of the Emotiva amps do not. That is not to say they are bad amps or poor SQ.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 419
2/17/11 at 1:38pm
Quote:


Yet the Audioholics review of the UPA-7 didn't seem to find any weakness in this regard. Until you analyze their numbers and realize they didn't even test the amp ACD. They gave it some kind of 'burst' test, whatever that will do, and they gave it a strong buy recommendation! I bet it would get outperformed by some of the top end receivers.

Runnin' you obviously don't like Audioholics and I apologize for the offense our editorial content causes you. You also don't seem to care for reading the details of our test conditions.

We actually did do 7CH ACD tests for the Emotiva amp via the "1kHz Psweeps". This is the industry standard way of measuring ACD and its how the print magazines do it. Of course we went much further and conducted full power bandwidth testing into 8 and 4 ohm loads as well as dynamic power testing. Unlike some of the print magazines that use a variac to hold the line voltage to a fixed #, we don't do that. We instead use a 20A line and monitor the line to ensure it doesn't drop more than a few volts. This is a more real world scenario since nobody uses a Variac in their theater systems. As a result our power #s tend to be less flattering than the manufacturers. We also rate power into 0.1% THD instead of 1% which I consider audible clipping.

We then conducted fullbandwidth all-to-one crosstalk testing which nobody does. Typical crosstalk tests are one channel at a time and at 1kHz. Our method is much tougher and produces less flattering results. Our SNR tests are done un-weighted which again produces less flattering results, yet the Emo did exceedingly well.

Here is our test report which details all of this:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/a...7-measurements

I also wrote an article about how we measure amplifiers should you care to read it:
http://www.audioholics.com/education...ent-techniques

I'd also encourage you to read our article on the insanity of the ACD test:
http://www.audioholics.com/education...amplifier-test
(Be warned its alot of reading)

and yes, the UPA-7 will definitely be outperformed by some of the top receivers on the market such as the venerable Denon AVR-5805 or Pioneer Elite SC-37 but neither of those receivers cost $700, sorry $600 dollars....
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 419
2/17/11 at 1:52pm
^^
Hi Gene

Any plans to test the XPA-5? For the record, I am an Audioholics user, love the reviews your group does.

On your comment about the receivers' cost, I don't need to remind you that you can get an SC-37 for less than $2K and if you bought a UPA7 amp you'd still have to add the cost of a decent prepro which makes the comparison in favor of the receiver or at best equal, doesn't it?
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 419
2/17/11 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene DellaSala View Post

Runnin' you obviously don't like Audioholics and I apologize for the offense our editorial content causes you. You also don't seem to care for reading the details of our test conditions.

We actually did do 7CH ACD tests for the Emotiva amp via the "1kHz Psweeps". This is the industry standard way of measuring ACD and its how the print magazines do it. Of course we went much further and conducted full power bandwidth testing into 8 and 4 ohm loads as well as dynamic power testing. Unlike some of the print magazines that use a variac to hold the line voltage to a fixed #, we don't do that. We instead use a 20A line and monitor the line to ensure it doesn't drop more than a few volts. This is a more real world scenario since nobody uses a Variac in their theater systems. As a result our power #s tend to be less flattering than the manufacturers. We also rate power into 0.1% THD instead of 1% which I consider audible clipping.

We then conducted fullbandwidth all-to-one crosstalk testing which nobody does. Typical crosstalk tests are one channel at a time and at 1kHz. Our method is much tougher and produces less flattering results. Our SNR tests are done un-weighted which again produces less flattering results, yet the Emo did exceedingly well.

Here is our test report which details all of this:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/a...7-measurements

I also wrote an article about how we measure amplifiers should you care to read it:
http://www.audioholics.com/education...ent-techniques

I'd also encourage you to read our article on the insanity of the ACD test:
http://www.audioholics.com/education...amplifier-test
(Be warned its alot of reading)

and yes, the UPA-7 will definitely be outperformed by some of the top receivers on the market such as the venerable Denon AVR-5805 or Pioneer Elite SC-37 but neither of those receivers cost $700, sorry $600 dollars....

Actually if you look at my last posts, you will see that I was mostly commenting on Emotiva's claims. At any rate, I was looking just now at the review on Audioholics on the Measurements and Analysis page. It appeared that the ACD dynamic power test was done with a 1kHz signal. I apologize for going on memory on this one.

And I'm afraid I'm in the school of thought that has high regard for the ACD test though it looks like we are a dying breed!
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 Amps - Power Rating Discussion