InVeNtOr Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 i have one of those questions... i have read on here that the 7's are "power hungry." i plan on buying emotiva's processor and another amp. i currently have the lpa-1, which will power the 4 rear rs-42's, and i will buy another amp for the front 3. now i have asked this same question a while back, but it was conserning bi-amping. i am not going to be doing that again. to me it was a waiste of speaker wire and banana plugs. long story short, i listened to my demo disk bi-amped, and then just using 3 channels of the lpa-1. didn't notice a difference. sounded the same to me. break down: bi-amped: available 125w per high and low, total of available 250w x 3. 3 channel: available 175w x 3. so the meat of the question is, will the xpa-3 (200x3) work just as well as the xpa-5 (250x3)? does the 50w make that big of a deal? some guys on here have 500w mono blocks per main, so i really don't know. i am assuming with the experiment i did today that the xpa-3 would perforem the same. i would assume if a 75w difference didn't sound any different that surly a 50w wouldn't either. does anyone with these speakers done any type of test or have some experience they can share? called emotiva tech about this too. he said they would sound the same (they are designed to) and are build almost identical. (over look the 2 extra channels, and total wattage). the only benifit he mentioned is the extra "head room." i don't know if i will ever get the volume that high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 so the meat of the question is, will the xpa-3 (200x3) work just as well as the xpa-5 (250x3)? does the 50w make that big of a deal? I believe it will. You will not notice 50 watts of extra power. If you only need a 3 channel amp, get the xpa-3. If you need 5 channels, get the xpa-5. I personally wouldn't get the xpa-5 and only use 3 channels. Seems like a waste to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsp1068 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I ran a Rotel 1080 (2 x 200) into my 7's before tubes, and it was sweet. I tried a Rotel 1070 (2 x 130) prior to that, and the bigger of the 2 made a most noticable difference at low volumes (which is where most of my listening happens) in sheer dynamics, headroom, as they are alot of sound top to bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn5 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm running a QSC PLX-2402 (425 W/ch) on my 7's. I also noticed more clarity and detail at all volumes compared to the old Pioneer 100 W/ch receiver I was using. The QSC is much higher quality than my old Pioneer, but it did make a big difference in sound quality. Loud passages are much more effortless and relaxed - and you don't get fatigued listening after a few hours like I did on the Pioneer. I doubt a 50 W difference would be noticeable. I would just buy the 3 channel amp if that's all you need. The RF-7 is efficient, but it has an impedance dip to around 3 ohms at lower frequencies (forget the specifics). An amp that is 2 ohm stable should have no problem. One that isn't might be stressed - regardless of power rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWL Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I run Crown XTI 2000's (475 wpc @ 8ohms) to the lows of my 7's. ....and a vintage HK430 (30wpc) to the highs. Headroom up the ying yang. It's a beautiful thing. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilbertma Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Hi inventor, sorry I'm late to your thread. In the beginning (July 08) I bought the XPA-2 and XPA-3 to run 5.1 separates with RF and KLF speakers. I tested the RF's with the XPA-2 and XPA-3(two channels driven) and came away feeling that the -2 outmuscled the -3 in every way possible. Bass was tighter, highs were better and just more presence since the RF's reveal everything your pros/amps/sources are doing. If you investigate the way these amps are built, you will see similar construction between the XPA's -1 and -2 and a different architecture for the -3 and -5. That being said, I'm running a 3.1 system in a separate room with another set of RF/C-7 and the XPA-3 and I'm very happy with the way it performs. In my HT it's three XPA-2's driving 5.1 with the RC-7 getting it's own -2 in a passive bi-amp setup. Yes it is overkill for this sensitive of speaker but I feel that at lower listening levels the -2 still brings improvements over it's lesser brothers and the ability to handle dynamic extremes is improved also. Emotiva has been cautioning prospective RF owners that the -2 may not work for them (possible horn/noise/hiss issues?) but I have not experienced this. They have an excellent return policy and their CS is well regarded so no worries if someone experiences bad results, so that a good selling point. When their UMC pre/pro comes out I will move the LMC that I bought as a bridge and put that in the 3.1 room replacing a Denon AVR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InVeNtOr Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 wow, i wouldn't think the xpa2 (250w) would out do the xpa3 (250w with only 2 channels). so in the end you would also suggest getting the xpa3, instead of the xpa5 (using 3 channels only)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Guy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 wow, i wouldn't think the xpa2 (250w) would out do the xpa3 (250w with only 2 channels). so in the end you would also suggest getting the xpa3, instead of the xpa5 (using 3 channels only)? The XPA-2 is designed a little differently making it a more powerful amp than the XPA-3 or XPA-5, while the XPA-3 and XPA-5 are the exact same design with the XPA-5 given more channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilbertma Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 " wow, i wouldn't think the xpa2 (250w) would out do the xpa3 (250w with only 2 channels). " Someone tried to explain this on the Emo site, it has to do with the way the two amps are built/designed, they are very different internally and the performance differences aren't that great but they are noticeable. " so in the end you would also suggest getting the xpa3, instead of the xpa5 (using 3 channels only)? " This is a tough question, there are so many choices. There are people talking about getting two XPA-5's and doing a bunch of bi-amping to get the results they want. I'm glad I decided hi power 5.1 was going to do it for me, it made my decision a little easier (wait a minute, maybe two XPA-1's would be better for the mains [*-)] ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InVeNtOr Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 here's the funny thing....since i have been the mood to do a bunch of testing.....power connectors, shields, wires....etc i tested my lpa-1 bi-amped and in 3 channel. didn't notice a difference. watched the same movie at the same volume, couldn't tell. maybe i didn't listen correctly, but i couldn't pick up on a "night and day" performance. i guess you haven't seen my HT yet.....i only have room for 2 emotiva amps. one spot is already taken for the lap-1 (future amp for 4 rear surrounds) and the other spot is for the amp to power the front 3. i guess i am limited by the design i came up with. not a big deal, i am not a 2ch guy. right now i have the radio on, and that's basically the only music i play with my set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I can tell a difference between the XPA-2 and XPA-5 but I doubt you'll hear a difference between the XPA-3 and XPA-5. Get the XPA-3 and you'll be good to go IMO. You should notice a huge difference too when you decide to crank it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InVeNtOr Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 u notice the difference between xpa2 vs. xpa5 (when cranked up)? hopefully you didn't mean between the xpa3 vs. xpa5. as soon as i get some more money, i will get the umc-1 and xpa-3. maybe there will be a combo deal? could only hope.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't have an XPA-3 but I hear it is the exact same amp as the XPA-5 so it should sound awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.