Aperion Audio Utility Nav home my aperion my cart live chat

Emotiva

Last post 02-22-2009, 4:56 AM by Scottiemon. 15 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (16 items)   1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  02-17-2009, 12:38 PM 9900

    Emotiva

    Looks good to me!

    http://emotiva.com/umc1.shtm

     

    Cheers 


    Russ

    Joined you!
  •  02-17-2009, 1:28 PM 9901 in reply to 9900

    Re: Emotiva

    *drool*

     

    Isn't their video upscaling chip the same one that has been giving the Onkyo 806 problems with artifacts?

  •  02-17-2009, 1:31 PM 9903 in reply to 9900

    Re: Emotiva

    It does look pretty cool.  One word of caution, Emotiva is well known for their amps.  Their pre/pros have not received the best reviews in the past.  I'll be anxious to see the professional reviews in the coming months.
    Speakers: Aperion 6T, 6C, 5DB, 6IC, Bravus 10Dx2
    Monitor: JVC RS20U front projector with Stewart Velux 100" screen
    Receiver: Yamaha RX-V1800
    Blu-ray: Yamaha BD-S2900
    Amplifier: Emotiva UPA-7
    Conditioner: Panamax M5300PM
  •  02-17-2009, 7:20 PM 9908 in reply to 9900

    Re: Emotiva

    Whoa…..hold on just a danged minute…you’ve just opened another can of worms, Russ…just like you did when you first started asking questions about sensitivity.  No offense, but you seem to have a real proclivity for commotion!

     

    From your post, Emotiva’s amp is listed as: “XPA-5 1,000 Watt 5 Channel Power Amplifier”, specs exactly as shown below (but highlights are mine):

    • 200 watts RMS/channel into 8 ohms, all channels driven
      • 5 channels - 8 ohm = 200 watts per channel
      • 4 channels - 8 ohm = 230 watts per channel
      • 3 channels - 8 ohm = 250 watts per channel
      • 2 channels - 8 ohm = 275 watts per channel
      • 1 channel - 8 ohm = 300 watts per channel
    • 4 ohm rating:
      • 5 channels - 4 ohm = 350 watts per channel
      • 4 channels - 4 ohm = 375 watts per channel
      • 3 channels - 4 ohm = 400 watts per channel
      • 2 channels - 4 ohm = 450 watts per channel
      • 1 channel - 4 ohms = 500 watts per channel
    • 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: 1600VA Toroid
    • Secondary capacitance: 60,000uF
    • Weight: Approximately 70 pounds

    Just what are we supposed to make of this: “RMS/channel”…”all channels driven”…”THD+N”…”Frequency response”….and all of this specified/advertized at “8 ohm” and “4 ohm”….and for every possible configuration???????? 

    WTF gives?

     

    Earlier (and in another thread) I had mentioned: “For example: 250 watts RMS per channel into 8 ohms from 20Hz - 20kHz @ 0.05% THD.  Instead of the RMS designation, they might substitute continuous average power or maybe even something like continuous sine wave power.  If you bought a stereo amplifier you could be reasonably assured that both channels would deliver this simultaneously.  Today we’re not seeing much (if any) of this from the mainstream AVR mfgs.”

     

    Given what I’ve just read from Emotiva’s website, I now stand corrected.  But I’ll bet you a dollar-to-a-donut that Emotiva can substantiate their claim with verifiable data (or they would never allow this ad to run so publicaly) for each and every one of its 5 channels…singly or combined.  My only possible recovery from making such a previous statement is to mention that Emotiva ain’t exactly mainstream.

     

    Here’s a little of the mainstream hype, promotion and sales pitch I’ve referred to…in this case from Yamaha (but others are probably just as guilty). 

     

    From Yamaha’s ad for the RX-V1800: http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=558291&CTID=5000300&ATRID=1020&DETYP=ATTRIBUTE

     

    ·         7-channel 910W powerful surround sound (130W x 7).”

     

    From Test Bench measurements from Sound and Vision Magazine:

     

    §         Output at clipping (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms)
    1 channel driven: 158/281 W (22/24.5 dBW)*
    5 channels driven (8 ohms): 103 W (20.1 dBW)
    7 channels driven (8 ohms): 55 W (17.4 dBW)

    Yamaha’s advertized power for 7 channels: 910 Watts.

     

    S&V’S measured power for 7 channels: 385 Watts.

     

    Where did the other 525 Watts go????

     

    Misleading? 

     

    You be the judge and draw your own conclusion(s).

     

    Fred

  •  02-18-2009, 6:33 AM 9909 in reply to 9908

    Re: Emotiva

    Fred,

     

    I have on occasion been compared to a little bitty spoon in a great big pot. 

     

     

    Cheers 


    Russ

    Joined you!
  •  02-18-2009, 7:38 AM 9910 in reply to 9909

    Re: Emotiva

    going back to this article...http://www.audioholics.com/education/amplifier-technology/the-all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test

    Household line 120V 15A can deliver max continuous power of (120x15)=1800

    Typical Linear A/B Amplifier is between 40-50% efficient

    Take the maximum 1800 watt power from wall outlet and multiply by amp efficient (let's say 45%)

    1800x.45=810 the max power an a/b am can deliver on a continuous basis – assuming the amps power supply can consume the entire 1800 watts without causing the transformer to overheat or go into thermal meltdown

    5 channels driven 810/5=162 watts per channel

    7 channels driven 810/7=116 watts per channel

    Note:Rail switching amps (class G/H) can be 65% efficient and Class D switching amps can be 90% efficient assuming proper power supply Is used.

    So 65% efficiency (class G/H)=1800x.65 = 1170 continuous watts from outlet

    5 channels=1170/5=234

    7 channels= 1170/7=167

    90% efficient (Class D) = 1800/.90=1620 continuous watts

    5 channels=1600/5=320

    7 channels= 1600/7=228

    This gives us an idea of some of the limiting factors that determines the maximum continuous wattage an amp can deliver to all channels (wall outlet, efficiency, number of channels driven)

    To look at a real world exampleEmotivas Class H 7x200 watt channel amplifier (60%efficient) the MPS-2 ($1700) should then only be able to deliver 167 continuous watts per channel assuming the power supply is up to snuff.  Keep in mind when you get into AVR's you need to take into account the wattage that is used up by the processing and video demands as well.

    Now most of us would probably be looking at a UPA-7 which is a class A/B (45%) efficient.  So you're looking to get 110 watts continous max out of each channel. 

    So my questions:

     what is the benefit of going with a 200 Watt x 7 channel class H amplifier vs a 125 watt x 7 class B amplifier if your maximum continous wattage is limited by the power coming out of your wall outlet?  My guess would be that you are only going to get 40-50 watts per channel more (continuos 7 channels drive) by going with the 200 wpc vs 125 wpc.

    What would be the point of a 400 watt x 7 if there is no way in heck your amp can draw enough power from the outlet to support those numbers in the first place?

    Should we then pay more attention to the efficiency ratings, THD, and power transformers of a piece of equipment vs the posted watts per channel to get an idea of what it is really capable of?

    If you want your continuous 200 watts you better get class D. Anyone know how much those cost?

    Edit...In any event a 200 watt seperate amp is going to hurt your ears. In the real world situations, an amp is never really called upon to delvier full continous power to all channels for prgramming content (music, DVD, etc..)  The point is the manufacturer says 200 watt per channel X 7 which doesn't appear possible.  They shouldn't be marketing with WPC numbers...They should be marketing with efficiency ratings, THD and power supply capabilities.  After all, you can only get 1800 watts max continous from you wall (unless you change your circuit breaker) so it would make more sense to get the amp that is most efficient, meaning it can make the most out of those watts...So i would take a class H 100 watt amp over an Class A 125 w amp.

    Such is the basis of the amp vs AVR argument.  in most cases the Amp is going to be more efficient with those 1800 watts then the AVR becuase it has better transformers and less stuff to power on it..

  •  02-18-2009, 4:00 PM 9911 in reply to 9910

    Re: Emotiva

    What I have not seen anybody address (Fred, Jack?) is the fact that the most power required for sound is to reproduce bass. When running a separate sub, with your speakers crossed over at 80Hz, how much power do you really need to feed the 5 in a 5.1 system with a separate sub? In Dan's example, the efficiency factor of netting 800 watts or so seems plenty to me?!?!

    I have never felt a need for louder with my 805, which has plenty of power. I have never once said "gee, I would like a separate amp, I need it louder".

    Clean power does not sound loud. I had a friend over watching a Yes concert, and I had it blasting. It did not seem loud, until he tried to talk to me and had to scream for me to hear him.

    Imagine if you will, the civil defense tone, which I believe to be 1KHz. Your TV probably puts out about 10WPC max. When that sound comes on, does it not sound incredibly loud?

    Chime in and educate me here folks. I am anxious for replies to this.

    -Scott


    Scottiemon
  •  02-18-2009, 10:28 PM 9912 in reply to 9910

    Re: Emotiva

    Dan,

    That is a very interesting post. Very informative and useful information, although frustrating as well. I always feel that there is a limit to what one can do with one's system before insanity sets in.  ex.-imagine the conversation one would have with the wife. "Honey, I need us to redo the circuit breaker so it can truly handle the amp I want to buy to power the speakers." I feel like this is the case for me sometimes. Maybe ignorance is bliss. Too bad my Aperions took my ignorance away and started this sickness.

  •  02-19-2009, 12:46 AM 9913 in reply to 9912

    Re: Emotiva

    mjwarburton:

    Dan,

    ex.-imagine the conversation one would have with the wife. "Honey, I need us to redo the circuit breaker so it can truly handle the amp I want to buy to power the speakers."

    Wow, now I'm embarrassed.  I had that conversation with my wife Embarrassed

    All my breakers are 20A, but I decided to put my A/V on a dedicated circuit.  But don't kid yourself, add up your potential watts on your lights (ALL lights on the circuit, this includes any hallways, bathrooms, floor lamps, etc) and then include your A/V equipment.  I'll bet most of us are at our limit (or slightly over), especially those on 15A. 

    Hopefully you're not running that blender during a movie Big Smile

    I cautioned before jumping on the Emotiva bandwagon.  Their amps are large, warm quickly (certainly not to the same extent as some previous Onkyo's), and will tax your total amperage.  Take these things into consideration. 

    If anyone needs convincing the pure enjoyment of a separate amp, by all means, next time you travel through Alabama, stop by for a listen (and a beer).  It's not about maximum volume and total watts, but rather dynamic highs and lows are the key to a really incredible system IMO.  This is especially true in home theaters.  Just as I enjoy how tight and accurate the Bravus subs are, the same can be said for a separate amp. 


    Speakers: Aperion 6T, 6C, 5DB, 6IC, Bravus 10Dx2
    Monitor: JVC RS20U front projector with Stewart Velux 100" screen
    Receiver: Yamaha RX-V1800
    Blu-ray: Yamaha BD-S2900
    Amplifier: Emotiva UPA-7
    Conditioner: Panamax M5300PM
  •  02-19-2009, 5:21 PM 9926 in reply to 9911

    Re: Emotiva

    Scottiemon,

     

    It’s been a while since we’ve conversed in any manner and I must say it’s enjoyable to see you probing and contributing again!  Please allow me to furnish my own opinions to your questions.

     

    Concerning your observation of required “power” I’m in total agreement that the most demanding portion of the audible spectrum for the amp is in the “bass” region…IMO, the range < 80 Hz, or probably extending downward from 60 Hz.  If you review the Efficiency thread from last year I even remarked on this when I stated: “Whatever your situation, my best advice is to find a high quality sub with built-in amplification: even a few hundred watts dedicated to a narrow band of response (< 100 Hz) will substantially reduce the power requirements of your AVR for the remainder of the spectrum (out to 20 kHz)…especially at elevated levels of SPL.”  Please notice the word “substantially.”  If anyone’s interested, here’s the link: http://www.aperionaudio.com/community/forums/thread/6326.aspx

     

    Concerning your: “I have never felt a need for louder with my 805, which has plenty of power. I have never once said "gee, I would like a separate amp, I need it louder".  I cannot refute your observation because you’re obviously pleased with your choice of an AVR (remember my “kilowatt” statement from another thread?)…and you’re likely joined by many more who are satisfied with their selections.  If this is the case, then I couldn’t possibly be happier for all of you.  However, keep in mind that there are others out there whose preferences, demands and expectations might be more demanding than your own: Do they have a much larger room than you?  What are the sensitivities of their speakers? How do you define “LOUD” compared to them?  As I (and others) have mentioned before on this forum, ALL of us have different tastes.

     

    Clean power does not sound loud.”  Again, no argument from me: clean power sounds good…and sounds even better (to me) in a large room when playing LOUD.

     

    In Dan's example, the efficiency factor of netting 800 watts or so seems plenty to me?!?!”  Hell, Scott, I’ll go Dan one better than that: Paul Klipsch submitted a paper to the Audio Engineering Society more than 50 years ago extolling the virtues of “efficiency” in loudspeaker design, and the title of his paper was something along the lines of “10 watts is more than enough.”  That’s NOT an exact quote, but I read a reprint of his paper (a long time ago so forgive me if my memory ain’t what it used to be) and it was something very similar to what I’ve written.  But back to the subject: should “800 watts or so seem plenty”???  Good grief…I would HOPE so!  I mention this tongue-in-cheek and with a wink (!), but please note that one contributor to this forum has stated that he noticed a definite difference in sound when operating in a multi-channel mode, and he had the supposed high-power AVR.

     

    HOWEVER – HOWEVER – HOWEVER – here come the caveats.

     

    The focus of your post appears to center on “power” but, IMO, this ain’t the issue!  The point I’ve been trying to make is NOT about “power” per se (though that’s the most easily measurable factor in all of this, and the measurement for which I’ve copied and pasted from both the OEM’s ads and those of reviewers) but about TRUTH in advertizing.

     

    Truth, you ask? Absolutely.

     

    One manufacturer proclaims (on their website) they have an AVR that will deliver “7-channel 910W powerful surround sound (130W x 7).”  They measure 385 watts.

     

    Another manufacturer says: “# channels - 7.1, Power (8 ohms 20 – 20kHS 0.08% / Ch…..100W”.  Reviewer measures (highlight is mine): 

     

    ·         5 channels driven (8 ohms): 75 W* (18.8 dBW)


    *Approximate result; with 5 or more channels driven the receiver protected, effectively shutting down, after approximately a half-second of drive at full output

     

    Last fall I purchased the predecessor of this AVR (both have the same power/channel, but different video features) and I’m now thinking: Hot damn…you mean the AVR I just purchased is going to shut down after a half-second of drive???????  For real????   You mean like…seriously????

     

    Well, there it is Scottiemon, so just for grins I’m going to toss another variable into the equation: both mfgs make no mention of a sub, and both mention the capability of delivering their power over the entire portion of the audible spectrum: 20 – 20 kHz.   Since S&V’s measurements were all conducted with a 1 kHz signal (a less-demanding condition than a swept 20 – 20 KHz signal), I’m left wondering what my AVR will actually deliver in real-world applications.

     

    Should it be this complicated?  Should we have to search incessantly to confirm/verify the accuracy of advertized specs for the mainstream mfgs?

     

    Sadly, it appears that we must, so…caveat emptor.

     

    IMHO (and comparatively speaking) the Emotiva is a locomotive.  If I were still addicted, I’d start with a mfg who isn’t afraid to publish the performance of its offering(s) in all possible (driven) configurations.

     

    Fred

     

    PS – Dan?  Good research and exploration…and thanks for sharing.

  •  02-19-2009, 5:57 PM 9927 in reply to 9913

    Re: Emotiva

    "Hopefully you're not running that blender during a movie Big Smile"

    Astute observation, so let me add: or your wife isn't using her hair dryer or curling iron...because those things have HUGE appetites for current. 

    After 25 years I'm now convinced these gadgets are so appealing to women because the mfgs of these "things" use copious amounts of estrogen injected during their mfg processes.

    Just my opinion.

    Fred

  •  02-19-2009, 6:21 PM 9928 in reply to 9927

    Re: Emotiva

    Here's another opinion of mine concerning the Emotiva.

    1,000 Watts (that's one kilowatt) for $800 bucks...well less than a dollar-a-watt.

    This badboy weighs 70 pounds...a little over a dollar-a-pound.

    Steak at your supermarket is around $5-to-$7 a pound...delicious, right?  Eat it today and enjoy it...but it's probably gonna' be gone by tomorrow.

    I'm guessing the Emotiva is gonna' have more endurance.

    Fred

  •  02-20-2009, 6:38 PM 9948 in reply to 9928

    Re: Emotiva

    It's soooooooooo good to have you back Fred. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I also got an E-mail from a friend about it.

    Your observations and knowledge are always appreciated.


    Scottiemon
  •  02-21-2009, 8:38 PM 9957 in reply to 9910

    Re: Emotiva

    Dan,

     

    That’s a pretty good analysis you’ve presented and I applaud you for your research, and I hope other readers appreciate the time you put into your post.  I do, however, wish to point out what I consider to be an error in your analysis and has to do specifically with your statement (in part): “To look at a real world example Emotivas Class H 7x200 watt channel amplifier (60%efficient) the MPS-2 ($1700) should then only be able to deliver 167 continuous watts per channel assuming the power supply is up to snuff.” 

     

    You cannot apply the efficiency factor of 60% that you mention to the MPS-2’s advertized claim of 200 watts times 7 channels because Emotiva’s use of the term “Watts has already accounted for the overall derating for this particular amp.  That is, when you look at the formula for the determination of “watts” (for AC circuits), two derating factors have already been applied: Power Factor (abbreviated PF, a dimensionless value expressed generally between maybe 0.70 to 0.95, that defines the phase relationship between Voltage (V) and Current (A), and with higher numbers approaching 1.0 (unity) the better) and Efficiency (again a dimensionless value expressed from maybe 0.40 to 1.0, 1.0 meaning it’s 100% efficient).

     

    Here’s the formula: Watts = (V) x (A) x (Power Factor) x (Efficiency)

     

    When I use the term “overall derating” I’m referring to the resulting “(Power Factor) x (Efficiency)” value in the above equation because I’ve seldom seen any OEM provide specific values for each of these variables.  For example, let’s say the Power Factor is 0.90 (pretty darned good) and the Efficiency is also 0.90 (extremely good, though unlikely unless were discussing poly-phase motors), then the “overall derating” would be 0.81 when converting Volt-Amps ( “(V) x (A)” ) to Watts.

     

    In reviewing the link you provided for the MPS-2, one spec provided by Emotiva caught my eye and might help me explain in a more understandable manner what I’m trying to say.  From Emotiva’s site:

     

    ·         “200 watt power modules feature independent 350VA low noise toroid power transformers w/ high speed rectifiers and low ESR 105°C power supply capacitors”

     

    Using Emotiva’s spec and solving for my definition of “overall derating” yields: (200 Watts)/(350 VA) = ~ 0.57

     

    If the Emotiva’s Class H amps are operating at around 65% Efficiency (0.65), then the amps are around:  (0.57)/(0.65) =  0.88 Power Factor…fairly close to the high-end of the range I mention.

     

    Since the MPS-2 is a power amplifier only (and doesn’t have to worry about furnishing any ancillary power for pre-amp/processing/video features as you’ve mentioned), and since each channel has its own dedicated power supply (which I’m guessing probably aids in its overall efficiency), it’s my belief that the Emotiva is likely to be honestly rated (or at least more honestly rated than the offerings of mainstream mfgs).

     

    As a side note, since we also know the supply voltage for the MPS-2 is 120 VAC, each of the power modules’ transformers will draw a maximum of ~ 2.92 amps primary current.  For all seven channels simultaneously driven to full-rated output (an unlikely event for this amp in a home application unless you’re running very-low-sensitivity speaker in a pretty large room), we can expect this amp to pull a maximum of ~ 20.4 amps.  For anyone considering this amp, you better have a dedicated 20-amp circuit for this fella’ (as another reader has observed).  And at 115-lbs you might need a forklift to move this beast.

     

    However, I do find interesting Emotiva’s use of RMS for some of its amps (XPA-5, RPA-2, XPA-2) and just plain Watts for others.  I’m guessing the RMS- guys can deliver their claimed power on a continuous basis while the plain old Watts-guys will only be able to do this on some (undefined) short-term basis.  Regardless, since Emotiva provides values of “watts” for each of their possible driven configurations (1/2/3/4/5/6/7-channels) I’m inclined to believe them.

     

    To your observation: “What would be the point of a 400 watt x 7 if there is no way in heck your amp can draw enough power from the outlet to support those numbers in the first place?”  Emotiva is specifying different levels of power delivered for different values of load impedance (8/4/2 ohms).  If you plug these values of impedance into equations for Ohm’s Law, they compute.  Given the weight of these brutes (and the values mentioned for power supply components) I suspect they’re pretty accurate.

     

    To conclude: IMO, Emotiva is reaching out to an entirely different (and more discerning) audience than the mainstream mfgs, and I’m more than impressed with them.  Like I said…”If I were still addicted…”!!!

     

    Finally, to your statement: After all, you can only get 1800 watts max continous from you wall (unless you change your circuit breaker)”.  Please don’t ever try increasing the breaker rating from 15-amps to 20-amps unless you also confirm that the existing conductors in your wall are capable of handling the additional current.  Remember this…fire is a four-letter word!

     

    WTH does any of this mean?

     

    As I review what’s written I wonder how much of this might possibly affect your decision regarding your next upgrade?  After all, how many of us actually care about (or even pretend to understand) the differences between Ohm’s Law and L.A. Law?  In expressing my opinions on this forum I’ve been challenged by a few who dispute what I say, have chastised/admonished me,  and have reminded me that they have never examined the numbers but have, instead, relied on the advice of the “experts” regarding their selections.  While I’ve never claimed to be an “expert” I have admitted to being an “avid” audio guy!  So for those of you who might rely upon the advice of the “experts” concerning your next purchase, I leave you with the following from Emotiva’s website:

     

    “Here's a typical power spec from a popular name-brand receiver that sells for around $2,000: 120W x 7 (8 Ohm 20-20kHz 0.09%THD) - Sounds great, doesn't it? But look a little deeper into the specifications, and you'll see it again, but listed as a 'Channel Power Rating'. What does that mean? It's called 'fine print...a disclaimer.

     

    It means that one (maybe two) channels can make that rated output, at that specification for a finite amount of time. It doesn't mean that all seven channels, working at the same time, and at the same power level, can come anywhere close to the cumulative power rating of 840 watts that the specs indicate at first glance (7 x 120 = 840). You get the idea. Something had to give. That something was power.”

     

    Wow…Emotiva calls that “Something”:  fine print…a disclaimer.”???  Hells-bells…that’s pretty damned conciliatory!  I’m reminded of the adage “numbers don’t lie, but….”.  Well, OK Emotiva…I finally get the message!  So let me be a little less candid and blunt…and I’ll just continue to call it TRUTH in advertizing.

     

    Case closed.

     

    Fred

  •  02-21-2009, 9:13 PM 9958 in reply to 9948

    Re: Emotiva

    Scottiemon,

    Kind words indeed...thank you.

    Would that "friend" you mention happen to be a common acquaintance?

    Just wondering.

    Fred

Page 1 of 2 (16 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML