Two Emotiva Basx300's VS Emotiva XPA 2

[Fishboy]

Gentlemen I must dispute you guys Respectfully I mean that first and for-most, I value and use the advice you guys extend to me. But my bone to pick is this. Gene Delasala did a video on his review of the OUTLAW 5000, 5 channel amp, 120W all channels driven. He spoke very highly of the amp for both build and value. He emphasizes at the end of the video about optimizing and useing the amp to bi-amp your fronts (4 channels) and use the 5th for your center channel. He talks of how this you can get 240 w to each tower (120W for the drivers and the other 120W for the mids and highs by doing this. I for myself suggested this by getting 2 Emotiva basx300 (2 channel amp) 150W 2 channels driven. 1 amp for each PolkRTIA9 (2 amps total) What is any different from what he is suggesting and why do you guys think that was not a great idea for me. Same principle, in fact mine is even that much better NO? Have each front tower having its own amp and thus power supply. Folks help me understand why opinions vary in this situation. Is Gene correct? You guys are awesome....
Look forward to the responses
Derek

 

[Fishboy]

MY apology gene does not mention the 240 W, BUT does endorse the whole idea, just watched video again.

 

[lovinthehd]

I would maybe watch the video if you hadn't retracted the claim I'd be surprised he'd make What speakers is Gene bi-amping? Do they benefit particularly from such? I dunno.

The whole idea behind extra speaker terminals is largely marketing, some speakers come with such merely because the competition does (and I've read comments from speaker designers to this effect). Same for avrs offering routing the same channel info to two sets of terminals. Seems more about selling amps and wire than any actual benefit IMO. I have no interest in the practice, if I need more power I just put a higher power amp in service. I'm happy with the speaker designer's work with the passive network it came with.

One of these days I'll take my older minidsp and make my own active speakers, but until then my drivers won't be getting their own amp

 

[KEW]

I think this was when Gene hooked his Status Acoustic 8T's to the Outlaw if memory serves.
The 8T's are a ridiculously difficult load, dropping to something like 2.3 Ohms (but if you are using speakers that cost $50,000/pr, you probably have $4,000+ for an extreme amp). As I recall, he was impressed that the Outlaw could half-way drive them.
But that has nothing to do with your question.
The answer is that the Status Acoustics have a different way to separate the drivers than any normal speakers. Sorry that my technical details are sketchy, but I suspect someone will be along to get more specific before too long.
I believe @AcuDefTechGuy may be familiar with the difference that makes the 8T better suited for bi-amping.

 

[Fishboy]

Watch the video my friends!, he doesn't mention of the specific speakers. He mentions that if you have big towers (any) how this would be beneficial for more power buy using this amp that way. I agree that there is no sonic difference just more power. For me I could use two basx300s for my fronts and would be the same as 1 XPA2 correct? I could save 300 by getting the 2 basx,s However LHD I do admit I kinda been eyeballing those Crown XLS1502s they look sleek. Am I on to something? (finally!)

 

[lovinthehd]

No, you still can't get 300w/ch from two 150w/ch amps, at least not without bridging the amps (and that may not be a good idea depending what impedance that bridged amp is useful at). If there isn't a sonic difference why bother? Do you really need more power at all? Nothing else in the system needs improvement?

 

[KEW]

Watch the video my friends!, he doesn't mention of the specific speakers. He mentions that if you have big towers (any) how this would be beneficial for more power buy using this amp that way. I agree that there is no sonic difference just more power. For me I could use two basx300s for my fronts and would be the same as 1 XPA2 correct? I could save 300 by getting the 2 basx,s However LHD I do admit I kinda been eyeballing those Crown XLS1502s they look sleek. Am I on to something? (finally!)

Listen to Gene at 8:31. He says "If you have active bass drivers, use one channel for the bass drivers and the other for the mids and highs". I think it is misleading for him to say this without further elaboration, but your Polks do not have active bass drivers.

I completely understand why you assumed this applied to any big towers, but it doesn't!

This is the speaker Gene bi-amped:

 

[Fishboy]

Thanks Kew and LHD, I understand you wont get 300W a channel with the EMO, but if 1 amp was used to power 1 speaker, if its a 2 channel amp, 150 RMS each channel, biamped you not getting 150w to the bottom half and 150w to the top half 9brackets removed of course on the posts )of 1 tower speaker, that's all I want to know. and yes LHD other improvements can be made.

 

[Verdinut]

I think this was when Gene hooked his Status Acoustic 8T's to the Outlaw if memory serves.
The 8T's are a ridiculously difficult load, dropping to something like 2.3 Ohms (but if you are using speakers that cost $50,000/pr, you probably have $4,000+ for an extreme amp). As I recall, he was impressed that the Outlaw could half-way drive them.
But that has nothing to do with your question.
The answer is that the Status Acoustics have a different way to separate the drivers than any normal speakers. Sorry that my technical details are sketchy, but I suspect someone will be along to get more specific before too long.
I believe @AcuDefTechGuy may be familiar with the difference that makes the 8T better suited for bi-amping.

@Kew,

I agree, if you have speakers which cost over $50,000 a pair, you can afford to have $4,000+ for an amp, but it's not absolutely necessary unless you want to impress the audience or you prefer the look of boutique amps..
Some pro audio amps can handle 2 ohm loads. For instance, my QSC DCA1222s will drive up to five 8 ohm speakers in parallel. Actually, they can drive loads as low as 1.6 ohms, not for a short period of time, but continuously. They cost a fraction of those fancy expensive audiophile amps. In addition, no one can prove that you can hear a difference between them in as long as each one is driven within its limits.

By the beginning of spring, I should have my third DCA1222, and as promised, I will post a review with regard to my listening impressions on my HT with the 3 front speaker channels bi-amped with the 3 QSC's, an active bi-amping configuration between the mid-range speakers/subwoofers used as woofers in same cabinets, and a passive crossover between the midwoofers and the tweeters.

Cheers,

 

[PENG]

Thanks Kew and LHD, I understand you wont get 300W a channel with the EMO, but if 1 amp was used to power 1 speaker, if its a 2 channel amp, 150 RMS each channel, biamped you not getting 150w to the bottom half and 150w to the top half 9brackets removed of course on the posts )of 1 tower speaker, that's all I want to know. and yes LHD other improvements can be made.

Not a good idea because the tweeter and mid range driver do not take as much power as the woofers.

 

[KEW]

Thanks Kew and LHD, I understand you wont get 300W a channel with the EMO, but if 1 amp was used to power 1 speaker, if its a 2 channel amp, 150 RMS each channel, biamped you not getting 150w to the bottom half and 150w to the top half 9brackets removed of course on the posts )of 1 tower speaker, that's all I want to know. and yes LHD other improvements can be made.

I am the wrong person to provide further information. This discussion is one that we see all of the time and I am just giving you my synopsis of what is known by the guys here who get the electrical end more than I do.
Gene is listed as a contributor in this article (and presumably, as head of Audioholics had final say on the article).
If you scroll down, you will see a section labelled "Passive Bi-amping" and another labelled "Active Ai-amping".
Your speakers (like most) do not support active bi-amping. You can read their comments here, but the summary is:

However, in terms of basic audible differences, there’s not much to write home about, and what improvements do exist could typically be gained by simply utilizing a single more powerful amplifier with similar or better performance metrics than the two smaller amplifiers.

http://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring

So you shouldn't screw anything up, but you could probably spend the money better on something else.
I would probably get the 5000, let the Yamaha drive the mains and use the Outlaw of ther other channels (or vice versa). The only situation where I might imagine you running out of power is when all 5 speakers are going at once (and loud). Using an external amp for a 2/3 split would eliminate this concern. I guess I see the Outlaw as a generally capable and flexible addition that you can adapt as your system changes.

 

[everettT]

Thanks Kew and LHD, I understand you wont get 300W a channel with the EMO, but if 1 amp was used to power 1 speaker, if its a 2 channel amp, 150 RMS each channel, biamped you not getting 150w to the bottom half and 150w to the top half 9brackets removed of course on the posts )of 1 tower speaker, that's all I want to know. and yes LHD other improvements can be made.

An easier way to understand biamping is to understand how a passive crossover works. The tweeter in your speakers could never withstand 150w, it would fry. So if you look at how a crossover reduces the supplied power available, its clear. Some compression drivers are made to handle high power but most all tweeters are not.

Another example would be looking at the crossover at the terminals. Jumpers on or off and biamped, what's the difference ? If Gene wasn't clear, he was saying he was feeding the lfe/ sub channel to the bass drivers and the L/R to the top half of his towers. That setup wouldn't really work for your speakers and most others as well.

 

[PENG]

Watch the video my friends!, he doesn't mention of the specific speakers. He mentions that if you have big towers (any) how this would be beneficial for more power buy using this amp that way. I agree that there is no sonic difference just more power. For me I could use two basx300s for my fronts and would be the same as 1 XPA2 correct? I could save 300 by getting the 2 basx,s However LHD I do admit I kinda been eyeballing those Crown XLS1502s they look sleek. Am I on to something? (finally!)

I just watched that video. You misunderstood what Gene was saying. He did not say biamping using the Outlaw 5000 would get you the same effect that you would get with a single 300W X2 amp, not all all.

The fact is, if you use one BassX-A300 to biamp one speaker, you will get 150W for the bass driver(s) and 150W for the tweeter (2-way) or 150W for the mid range/tweeter. (See everettT's post#32 above).

That is not the same as using a 300W XPA-2 that will provide much more power to the bass drivers if and when required, such as during action movie explosion scenes and music that has a lot of bass contents.

Gene suggested the biamp option because he was using the Denon AVR-X5200W+Outlaw 5000 scenario as an example. As he said in the video, the AVR has 9 channels built in and that's enough to drive all the surround channels, so it is in fact a good idea to use the otherwise wasted amplifier channels to biamp the front left and right channels. Again, the 150WPC BassX-A300 won't give you the same effects as one single 300W X 2 XPA-2 amp will, because it is the bass drivers that typically benefit more from having more power reserve.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think this was when Gene hooked his Status Acoustic 8T's to the Outlaw if memory serves.
The 8T's are a ridiculously difficult load, dropping to something like 2.3 Ohms (but if you are using speakers that cost $50,000/pr, you probably have $4,000+ for an extreme amp). As I recall, he was impressed that the Outlaw could half-way drive them.
But that has nothing to do with your question.
The answer is that the Status Acoustics have a different way to separate the drivers than any normal speakers. Sorry that my technical details are sketchy, but I suspect someone will be along to get more specific before too long.
I believe @AcuDefTechGuy may be familiar with the difference that makes the 8T better suited for bi-amping.

If the 8T is designed like the other 2 RBH modular towers - SVT Tower and SX-T2 Tower - then you have 3 options:

1. Bass cabinet has no internal crossover. Since no internal XO, you can Actively Power it. 2 Amps per speaker.
2. Bass cabinet has internal crossover (additional cost). 1 amp per speaker.
3. Bass cabinet has external crossover to connect to top cabinet (additional cost). 1 Amp per speaker.

I chose option 1 and power the bass cabinets as you would power any passive/non-powered subwoofer. So basically it is a subwoofer + speaker system that just looks like a single tower speaker. This requires 2 power amps per speaker - one amp for the top cabinet and one amp for the bottom cabinet.

I believe option #2 would be more like the Phil3, SoundScape-10, etc. This requires only one amp per speaker.

Gene said that he powers his 8T with a single amp, so I assume he went with option #3 (using an external XO).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

...he doesn't mention of the specific speakers...

Listen to Gene at 8:31. He says "If you have active bass drivers, use one channel for the bass drivers and the other for the mids and highs".

As already mentioned, Gene was talking about Active Bass Drivers.

Active Bass Drivers = No Internal Crossovers.

Since most speakers have internal crossovers for all the drivers, most speakers do not have active bass drivers.

So it is very specific.

For example, in my HT system, I have 5 RBH SX-T2/R towers. I have 10 Channels of ATI Amps.

The ATI AT2005 (200W x 5) powers the 5 top cabinets.

The ATI AT3005 (300W x 5) powers the 5 bottom cabinets.

 

[PENG]

As already mentioned, Gene was talking about Active Bass Drivers.

Active Bass Drivers = No Internal Crossovers.

Since most speakers have internal crossovers for all the drivers, most speakers do not have active bass drivers.

So it is very specific.

For example, in my HT system, I have 5 RBH SX-T2/R towers. I have 10 Channels of ATI Amps.

The ATI AT2005 (200W x 5) powers the 5 top cabinets and the ATI AT3005 (300W x 5) powers the 5 bottom cabinets.

No, in the video Fishboy referred to, Gene was just talking about tower speakers, no reference to anything active. Edit: Thanks to ADTG who corrected me, He did utter the word active, it was so quick and brief that I missed it the first time. See my post#33 for what it really was about, i.e. Gene's rationale for biamping the FR/FL with the Outlaw in that specific video.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No, in the video Fishboy referred to, Gene was just talking about tower speakers, no reference to anything active. See my post#33 for what it really was about, i.e. Gene's rationale for biamping the FR/FL with the Outlaw in that specific video.

Listen to Gene at 8:31. He says "If you have active bass drivers, use one channel for the bass drivers and the other for the mids and highs".

That's what Gene said - If you have "active" bass drivers.

And as KEW mentioned, most massive big towers don't have active bass drivers; most massive big towers have passive bass drivers (Salon2, 800D, Blade, Muon, Soundscape, etc.).

That's one big reason I love my RBH modular massive towers - they have active bass drivers (no internal crossovers).

 

[PENG]

That's what Gene said - If you have "active" bass drivers.

And as KEW mentioned, most massive big towers don't have active bass drivers; most massive big towers have passive bass drivers (Salon2, 800D, Blade, Muon, Soundscape, etc.).

That's one big reason I love my RBH modular massive towers - they have active bass drivers (no internal crossovers).

I watched it again the second time and thanks for the 8:31 tip I did hear he mentioned "active..." this time. Regardless of active bass drivers or not, the idea is still to utilize all 14 (9+5) channels. The OP's question is about "power", not so much about the benefits of active biamp.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The OP's question is about "power", not so much about the benefits of active biamp.

He mentions that if you have big towers, how this would be beneficial for more power by using this amp that way.

Ah, but didn't he asked about the benefits, though?

The benefits of "using this amp that way" ?

I assume he was really asking if there is a benefit to bi-amping his Polk towers.

And if he is really asking that question, then my answer is no, he is not getting much benefits by passively bi-amping his Polk towers or any towers.

 

[PENG]

Ah, but didn't he asked about the benefits, though?

The benefits of "using this amp that way" ?

I assume he was really asking if there is a benefit to bi-amping his Polk towers.

And if he is really asking that question, then my answer is no, he is not getting much benefits by passively bi-amping his Polk towers or any towers.

I have to agree, if he was asking about benefits of passive biamp, there is practically none. If he wants to biamp in order to have more power for the drivers, then a single 300WX2 XPA amp is better than two 150WX2 BassXA amps.