Replacement/Upgrade for Emotiva XPA-11

[Diktat]

Hi everyone!

So my Emotiva XPA-11 Gen 3, which was powering my 7.2.4 system, has just blown the power source, and I need to send it back for service. As I’m looking at minimum 4 weeks before recovering it (if it’s fixable…) I’m entertaining options to replace it as an upgrade to my system, and looking for advice on what could be à sizes le improvement for my system.

Currently I’m considering 3 options:
- Replacing it with another 11-channel amp
- Replacing it with two amps, one dedicated for the front soundstage, and another for all surrounds/atmos
- Replacing it with a single, bigger amp, probably 16-channel, to either bi-amp the front surrounds and center, or add 4 overhead speakers.

Budget is not necessarily a hurdle, as long as the upgrade is really noticeable. I guess my max would be around the price of the new Marantz Amp10 (8k or so), which I’m considering as an option.

In addition, I’m considering taking advantage of a group offer to go on upgrading my receiver from the Marantz AV8805 (not A) into the new Marantz AV 10. Will this be an upgrade, or not really noticeable?

My usage is 70% Home Theatre, 20% Gaming and 10% music.

System:

Front surrounds: Klipsch RF-7 Mk III
Front center: Klipsch RC-64 Mk III
Surrounds: Klipsch RP-502S
Rears: Klipsch RP-600M
Elevation (Front and Rear): Klipsch RP-500SA
Subwoofers: Dual SVS PB-16 Ultra

Receiver: Marantz 8805
Amp: Emotiva XPA-11 Gen 3

Thanks all for your valuable input!

 

[TLS Guy]

Hi everyone!

So my Emotiva XPA-11 Gen 3, which was powering my 7.2.4 system, has just blown the power source, and I need to send it back for service. As I’m looking at minimum 4 weeks before recovering it (if it’s fixable…) I’m entertaining options to replace it as an upgrade to my system, and looking for advice on what could be à sizes le improvement for my system.

Currently I’m considering 3 options:
- Replacing it with another 11-channel amp
- Replacing it with two amps, one dedicated for the front soundstage, and another for all surrounds/atmos
- Replacing it with a single, bigger amp, probably 16-channel, to either bi-amp the front surrounds and center, or add 4 overhead speakers.

Budget is not necessarily a hurdle, as long as the upgrade is really noticeable. I guess my max would be around the price of the new Marantz Amp10 (8k or so), which I’m considering as an option.

In addition, I’m considering taking advantage of a group offer to go on upgrading my receiver from the Marantz AV8805 (not A) into the new Marantz AV 10. Will this be an upgrade, or not really noticeable?

My usage is 70% Home Theatre, 20% Gaming and 10% music.

System:

Front surrounds: Klipsch RF-7 Mk III
Front center: Klipsch RC-64 Mk III
Surrounds: Klipsch RP-502S
Rears: Klipsch RP-600M
Elevation (Front and Rear): Klipsch RP-500SA
Subwoofers: Dual SVS PB-16 Ultra

Receiver: Marantz 8805
Amp: Emotiva XPA-11 Gen 3

Thanks all for your valuable input!

I am going to give you some advice. An 11 channel amp is a really bad idea, and just right behind an 11 channel receiver. Running a load of amps off 1 power supply is a really bad idea. It is a much better idea to use 2 channel amps, and may be one three channel.

I would actually recommend that you buy a 19" rack and use pro-amps. I would use 19" Crown or QSC amps. QSC would be the high road. I would bet you never buy a replacement power amp again for the rest of your life.

The surprise would be if that EMO amp did not blow up.

You obviously have an above average system, and I recommend that you build for quality/reliability. Engineering for the long term is by far the cheapest solution even if the original outlay may be higher.

I would not put one cent into repairing that Emo horror.

QSC would be the high road.

With your speakers you can stay on the low power end of their offerings.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just don't get another Emo.

If you're getting the Marantz AV-10, then the matching AMP-10 is tempting.

Personally, I would sell the AVP and Amp, get an 11-Ch AVR and call it a day.

 

[isolar8001]

Just don't get another Emo.



Personally, I would sell the AVP and Amp, get an 11-Ch AVR and call it a day.

I thought the same thing....his speakers are pretty efficient and an easy load. Using that beast of an amp might get maybe 3-4db more volume...doubt that it's even needed.

 

[ban25]

AV10 and AMP10 make a very compelling pair, I would be hard pressed to pass on them.

 

[j_garcia]

Looks like Monoprice has a Monolith amp that offers sort of what you are talking about in one amp. 200 for the fronts, 100 for the rest.

Monolith by Monoprice 11-Channel (3x200 + 8x100 Watts) Multi-Channel Home Theater Power Amplifier with XLR Inputs - Monoprice.com

The Monolith™ 11X is a state‑of‑the‑art, high‑performance, audiophile‑grade 11 channel home theater amplifier. With three channels of 200 watt amplification and 8 c

www.monoprice.com

It is out of stock currently though.

8805 is a nice Pre, I would keep it until you hit a point where the functionality or features is holding you back and that won't be the case currently. Going to the AV10 though, would certainly get you current with any/all features for quite a while. Amp10 might be overkill a bit if you are sticking with 11ch.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I am going to give you some advice. An 11 channel amp is a really bad idea, and just right behind an 11 channel receiver. Running a load of amps off 1 power supply is a really bad idea. It is a much better idea to use 2 channel amps, and may be one three channel.

I would actually recommend that you buy a 19" rack and use pro-amps. I would use 19" Crown or QSC amps. QSC would be the high road. I would bet you never buy a replacement power amp again for the rest of your life.

The surprise would be if that EMO amp did not blow up.

You obviously have an above average system, and I recommend that you build for quality/reliability. Engineering for the long term is by far the cheapest solution even if the original outlay may be higher.

I would not put one cent into repairing that Emo horror.

QSC would be the high road.

With your speakers you can stay on the low power end of their offerings.

QSC GX3 used to cost $299. It's up to $499 now. At the original price, it was really great deal. Still ok now.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

QSC GX3 used to cost $299. It's up to $499 now. At the original price, it was really great deal. Still ok now.

$500 for an UGLY AS HECK 2Ch amp? No thanks.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I thought the same thing....his speakers are pretty efficient and an easy load. Using that beast of an amp might get maybe 3-4db more volume...doubt that it's even needed.

What can I say? Great minds...............

 

[TLS Guy]

Just don't get another Emo.

If you're getting the Marantz AV-10, then the matching AMP-10 is tempting.

Personally, I would sell the AVP and Amp, get an 11-Ch AVR and call it a day.

Why on Earth would you want another box with 11 power amps from one inadequate power supply and now with pre-amps and processing. That is NOT state of the art, nor is is it likely to be reliable.

By far the best approach to get value for money and spend the least over time, is to plan and design for reliability from the ground up. My approach over well over half a century now, has not failed me. I could never have afforded, nor would I have the wonderful systems I have now, if I had not followed that precept.
A lot of members change equipment like shirts, and that's costly. Neither of your options above would be ones I would ever consider.

 

[TLS Guy]

$500 for an UGLY AS HECK 2Ch amp? No thanks.

Ideally power amps are heard and not seen. But even if they are seen, pro-amps in a pro 19" rack with an AVP is neat and tidy and would look pretty darn good. Marantz AVPs have rack mounting kits available, which I use in my AV room. All AVPs should be 19' rack mountable in my view.

 

[lovinthehd]

Buying more amp channels to passively bi-amp would be a waste. If you want all in one box the Monolith would be my choice over Emotiva. The multiple boxes could still keep you in audio should one fail unlike putting it all in one box...and I find two ch amps more generally useful in multiple systems than one 11ch amp would be....(fwiw I use multple 2ch amps, mostly Crowns, gathered over the years).

 

[gene]

Hi everyone!

So my Emotiva XPA-11 Gen 3, which was powering my 7.2.4 system, has just blown the power source, and I need to send it back for service. As I’m looking at minimum 4 weeks before recovering it (if it’s fixable…) I’m entertaining options to replace it as an upgrade to my system, and looking for advice on what could be à sizes le improvement for my system.

Currently I’m considering 3 options:
- Replacing it with another 11-channel amp
- Replacing it with two amps, one dedicated for the front soundstage, and another for all surrounds/atmos
- Replacing it with a single, bigger amp, probably 16-channel, to either bi-amp the front surrounds and center, or add 4 overhead speakers.

Budget is not necessarily a hurdle, as long as the upgrade is really noticeable. I guess my max would be around the price of the new Marantz Amp10 (8k or so), which I’m considering as an option.

In addition, I’m considering taking advantage of a group offer to go on upgrading my receiver from the Marantz AV8805 (not A) into the new Marantz AV 10. Will this be an upgrade, or not really noticeable?

My usage is 70% Home Theatre, 20% Gaming and 10% music.

System:

Front surrounds: Klipsch RF-7 Mk III
Front center: Klipsch RC-64 Mk III
Surrounds: Klipsch RP-502S
Rears: Klipsch RP-600M
Elevation (Front and Rear): Klipsch RP-500SA
Subwoofers: Dual SVS PB-16 Ultra

Receiver: Marantz 8805
Amp: Emotiva XPA-11 Gen 3

Thanks all for your valuable input!

I would sell the Emotiva amp after you get it back from service and thank your lucky starts they are actually servicing it for you. If you want a single box solution that will last and gives you good performance, here are your options:

• Yamaha MXA-5200 (very inexpensive, very reliable, not as powerful as others below but still really good)
• Marantz Amp 10 (solid performance, a bit pricey)
• Storm Audio PA16 - (very powerful and bulletproof but expensive)
• Monolith 11X - (all around great performer and built by ATI, great value)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ideally power amps are heard and not seen.

Ideally? Why? Do amps sound better when they are not seen?

Is that why so many companies like McIntosh spend so much money making their AVP and Amps look so aesthetically pleasing?

Of course, to each his own. But the fact is, most of us would prefer to have things that both perform extremely well and look very pleasing.

My electronics are inside an AV Closet. But I still want them to look good.

You might not care, but many of us do care. To each his own.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why on Earth would you want another box with 11 power amps from one inadequate power supply and now with pre-amps and processing. That is NOT state of the art, nor is is it likely to be reliable.

By far the best approach to get value for money and spend the least over time, is to plan and design for reliability from the ground up. My approach over well over half a century now, has not failed me. I could never have afforded, nor would I have the wonderful systems I have now, if I had not followed that precept.
A lot of members change equipment like shirts, and that's costly. Neither of your options above would be ones I would ever consider.

Is that why you’ve had to send in your AVP for repairs in the past?

Complex electronics like AVR/AVP have a high risk of eventually failure. They usually don’t last forever. In addition, they often get outdated in a matter of several years, not decades. I’ve own AVRs that lasted 10-20 years. I usually end up giving them away to my family.

ONE good approach is getting a reliable AVR that will last about 10+ years and costs thousands of dollars less than an AVP + AVR. Why spend a lot more money for something that doesn’t sound any better?

Noticed I emphasized “ONE”. There are other good approaches.

Many of us love our systems just as much as you love your system.

I absolutely love my system just as much as you love your system.

So there are many awesome systems out there - one for everyone.

 

[TLS Guy]

Is that why you’ve had to send in your AVP for repairs in the past?

Complex electronics like AVR/AVP have a high risk of eventually failure. They usually don’t last forever. In addition, they often get outdated in a matter of several years, not decades. I’ve own AVRs that lasted 10-20 years. I usually end up giving them away to my family.

ONE good approach is getting a reliable AVR that will last about 10+ years and costs thousands of dollars less than an AVP + AVR. Why spend a lot more money for something that doesn’t sound any better?

Noticed I emphasized “ONE”. There are other good approaches.

Many of us love our systems just as much as you love your system.

I absolutely love my system just as much as you love your system.

So there are many awesome systems out there - one for everyone.

The first AVP I bought years ago, had a bad regulator in the power supply early after I bought it. It was promptly fixed and gave years of service. I still have it but that is not in use. The next two 7701s I bought a long 13 years ago, are still in service, though both remotes failed and I have generic replacements. My 7705 I bought four years ago is still working fine. So of the four Marantz AVPs I bought the one I of 20 years ago had a bad regulator,. The other three are still in service and have a lot of hours on them. I would have thought that was a better track record than AVRs. Not only that I get to drive them via my wonderful Quad amps. I would never ever use any AVR amp in place of a Quad.

As you say, it is complex electronics, and that is why power amps do not belong in the same box. That is just bad design, and bad engineering.

I dispute that it does not sound better. The Quad amps and other good power amps will sound better. In any event a lot of my speakers, for instance my front three and rear backs could not be driven from a receiver. It would not be possible.

 

[lovinthehd]

AVRs are "bad engineering" or just slightly out of TLS' comfort window? I'd say perhaps a bit more engineering actually might be required to put the amps in. Or is it just less engineering needed to remove the amps and sell the rest as an avp? Those quad amps likely have little advantage over the avrs, tho they are decent amps. So now amps sound different if they're quad?

ps Then again TLS thinks bike mechanics are somehow lesser than something as mundane as a turntable mechanic. Bike mechanics invented the airplane otoh. TT and amp mechanics, not so much.....

 

[TLS Guy]

AVRs are "bad engineering" or just slightly out of TLS' comfort window? I'd say perhaps a bit more engineering actually might be required to put the amps in. Or is it just less engineering needed to remove the amps and sell the rest as an avp? Those quad amps likely have little advantage over the avrs, tho they are decent amps. So now amps sound different if they're quad?

No, there are other fine amps. Quad though have superb reliability and make little heat and the output stage can be biased heavily towards class B, in fact the 405s are biased class C. There is a small class A amp providing a feed forward error correction. So, you get class A performance without the huge hassle of high quiescent current and lots of heat. Numerous third parties have confirmed that the Quad current dumping amps, do in fact provide class A performance without the problems and disadvantages of the class A topography. The whole design concept is just brilliant and works beautifully with zero crossover distortion even at the lowest powers. In fact it was such a good idea, that Nelson Pass infringed Peter's patents. However, Peter Walker being the gentleman he was turned a blind eye to it.

What is bad engineering is putting a boat load of amps in with fragile processing circuits and feeding them from grossly inadequate power supplies. You can see the power supplies are inadequate from the specs and third party tests. If you think they are OK, fine, but not in my systems, No Way!

 

[lovinthehd]

No, there are other fine amps. Quad though have superb reliability and make little heat and the output stage can be biased heavily towards class B, in fact the 405s are biased class C. There is a small class A amp providing a feed forward error correction. So, you get class A performance without the huge hassle of high quiescent current and lots of heat. Numerous third parties have confirmed that the Quad current dumping amps, do in fact provide class A performance without the problems and disadvantages of the class A topography. The whole design concept is just brilliant and works beautifully with zero crossover distortion even at the lowest powers. In fact it was such a good idea, that Nelson Pass infringed Peter's patents. However, Peter Walker being the gentleman he was turned a blind eye to it.

What is bad engineering is putting a boat load of amps in with fragile processing circuits and feeding them from grossly inadequate power supplies. You can see the power supplies are inadequate from the specs and third party tests. If you think they are OK, fine, but not in my systems, No Way!

I think the bottom line is "not in my systems"....many would be happy without that extent of setup you have (not even considering the custom room/speaker setup).

 

[TLS Guy]

I think the bottom line is "not in my systems"....many would be happy without that extent of setup you have (not even considering the custom room/speaker setup).

Well you have touched on another issue there, which is total system design. Lets not touch that can of worms tonight, except to say, that the state of the art has now reached the point where a total system design concept is required to properly implement the formats that have now evolved.