# Amp sugestions



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

Hello Shacksters,
I've been absent from the forums for the past few months. I'm back and looking for input/opinions about what surround amp I should go with. 

I've narrowed it down to two very different animals. 

First is the all powerful Emotiva XPA-5. 
It's strong, it's big, and it's going to provide more power than I'll use. 

https://emotiva.com/products/amplifiers/xpa-5

The other option is a Sonace DSP8-130. This has about half the power but has a 10 band EQ per channel with volume tilt and crossover. Beyond this the Sonace is rumored to be adding speaker sensitivity per channel in their next firmware update.

http://www.sonance.com/electronics/amplifiers/dsp

---
Existing equipment:
AC7701
Martin Logan Vantage towers
Martin Logan Depth-i sub
Martin Logan Motion 30 center
Martin Logan Motion 15 surrounds


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Mr. Rabbit... I missed your avatar! Welcome back! :bigsmile:
Can't offer any direct-experience comparison between the two amps, but I do own an XPA-5. Reviews abound, so I'll not repeat here other than to say it's a solid performer that's not let me down during demanding playback. My ears give in before I can coax the amp into clipping. It's brawn with finesse! 
There. I'm done patting myself on the back for getting one!


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

XPA-3 myself and it's been flawless. Movie watching has slowed recently but like Lumen said your ears will give before the amp does.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

And that's exactly why I'm stuck. 

I really want the extra power but the idea of having a 10band EQ per channel with hi/lo pass and tilt control is very appealing. And if Sonance adds a sensitivity curve to their EQ then I'd be able to EQ across all SPLs. And it's only 1RU so it will be easier to put in a half rack. 

But the XPA has sooo much power. 

I'm in a bind.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

If you were going to use it for the front channels... I would say go with a Pro amp. I ran some Classe DR10s in bridged mono (400wpc)years ago, and it sounded great with the ML Sequels, but when I tried a inexpensive QSC Pro amp (around 200wpc) it really opened them up! For the price of the Emotiva... You could get 3 Yamaha P2500S amps new for about $1200, and I bet it would sound better. :T

Watch for sales and you can save even more money... http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/yamaha-p2500s-dual-channel-power-amp


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Ask MKTheater how he likes his... He just bought 3 from me used. :T


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

Hmm…cheaper and sounds better?


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

While I could adjust gain per channel I'd be loosing 12v triggering and this would take up at least 6 or my 16U space.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

For home theater use do you really want 10 band EQ per channel with volume tilt and crossover in the amplifier ?
What kind of processor are you using on the front end ?
How will the additional processing available in the amplifier be used ?
To have any chance of getting positive benefits from the additional processing you will have to be an audio calibration super user and even then I am not confident the end result will sound better.

If the Sonace is just something you think you want to play with though, by all means get one and post your experience with it here.
It is certainly an interesting machine.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

I would suggest when buying an AMP... just buy an AMP. Because it will last a LONG time. I know some guys that still have Carver AMPS from the 80's and they sound awesome. you can always buy stuff for DSP and a lot cheaper as well. Mini DSPs.... Pre Pros like Emotiva XMC or Pioneer Elite stuff with MACC or Onkyo with Audessy....

Leave the AMP to amp duty :whistling:


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

rab-byte said:


> While I could adjust gain per channel I'd be loosing 12v triggering and this would take up at least 6 or my 16U space.


The rack space is why I sold them...other then that they were awesome amps, and they drank very little electricity too.:T


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

fschris said:


> I would suggest when buying an AMP... just buy an AMP. Because it will last a LONG time. I know some guys that still have Carver AMPS from the 80's and they sound awesome. you can always buy stuff for DSP and a lot cheaper as well. Mini DSPs.... Pre Pros like Emotiva XMC or Pioneer Elite stuff with MACC or Onkyo with Audessy.... Leave the AMP to amp duty :whistling:


I have a Marantz AV7701 sorry I typo'd the pre/pro in the listed equipment section of my OP. 

Audessy will still help with many factors and after I run a full pro-cal I'll be in good shape for reference volume for sure. I'm interested in a few things the DSP has to offer:

1) small form factor for space management.
2) very efficient 
3) runs very cool
4) using two channels for a digital a crossover in for the towers
5) setting a sensitivity curve for speaker so volume will ramp the same across all levels (ever had 94dB fronts and 89dB rears?)

The Emo on the other had has power!


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

rab-byte said:


> I have a Marantz AV7701 sorry I typo'd the pre/pro in the listed equipment section of my OP.
> 
> Audessy will still help with many factors and after I run a full pro-cal I'll be in good shape for reference volume for sure. I'm interested in a few things the DSP has to offer:
> 
> ...


that is a really nice RCVR.... cant go wrong with Marantz!

this would probably blow everything else away... for DSP
http://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/product-line-summary


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

fschris said:


> that is a really nice RCVR.... cant go wrong with Marantz!
> 
> this would probably blow everything else away... for DSP
> http://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/product-line-summary


Yup, the Dirac is what i am running. :T


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

rab-byte said:


> I have a Marantz AV7701 sorry I typo'd the pre/pro in the listed equipment section of my OP.
> 
> Audessy will still help with many factors and after I run a full pro-cal I'll be in good shape for reference volume for sure. I'm interested in a few things the DSP has to offer:
> 
> ...


1: What are you using for a digital crossover? 
2: Are you bi-amping... If so I highly suggest you get an amp with adjustable gain for at least one end (top or bottom) to get your levels properly matched between the top and bottom ends of the bi-amped speakers.
3: You can use the trim controls for matching the levels of your channels but not for bi-amping.

I like that you are going for efficient, and running cool...that is one of the things I loved about the Yamaha amps. When I had the 5 channel Lexicon, and Sherbourn my consumption at low levels was double what it was for reference levels with the Yamaha Pro amps. Now this sounds great, but there is a little more to the story. The Yamaha amps had gain controls and were able to run my speakers with hardly any power whereas the Lexicon and Sherbourn had no gain controls, and were sucking more power just running at normal levels. If I had been using the Yamahas at full power (insane levels of about 130+) they would have been using about what the other 5 channel amps were using. My new Yamaha is sucking less power out of the wall at reference levels than even the Pro amps were.:T:T


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

ellisr63 said:


> 1: What are you using for a digital crossover? 2: Are you bi-amping... If so I highly suggest you get an amp with adjustable gain for at least one end (top or bottom) to get your levels properly matched between the top and bottom ends of the bi-amped speakers. 3: You can use the trim controls for matching the levels of your channels but not for bi-amping. I like that you are going for efficient, and running cool...that is one of the things I loved about the Yamaha amps. When I had the 5 channel Lexicon, and Sherbourn my consumption at low levels was double what it was for reference levels with the Yamaha Pro amps. Now this sounds great, but there is a little more to the story. The Yamaha amps had gain controls and were able to run my speakers with hardly any power whereas the Lexicon and Sherbourn had no gain controls, and were sucking more power just running at normal levels. If I had been using the Yamahas at full power (insane levels of about 130+) they would have been using about what the other 5 channel amps were using. My new Yamaha is sucking less power out of the wall at reference levels than even the Pro amps were.:T:T



Check out the manual. This is a matrix amp so I can assign two channels so the same input and adjust crossover and gain independently. 

http://www.sonance.com/assets/media/files/downloads/Sonamp_DSP_8-130_Amplifier_Manual_070612.pdf


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Your MLs are setup for bi-wire not bi-amp per their website...which is strange since they have a 200w amp for the bass already built in. If this is true you will basically be doing a bi-wire setup with 2 amps. You can do it but I see zero advantage, and I would not use the crossover in the Sonance unless you bypass the ML internal crossover (which I do not recommend doing). I think the crossover in the ML is much better than the one in the Sonance as it is tuned for your speakers.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

ellisr63 said:


> Your MLs are setup for bi-wire not bi-amp per their website...which is strange since they have a 200w amp for the bass already built in. If this is true you will basically be doing a bi-wire setup with 2 amps. You can do it but I see zero advantage, and I would not use the crossover in the Sonance unless you bypass the ML internal crossover (which I do not recommend doing). I think the crossover in the ML is much better than the one in the Sonance as it is tuned for your speakers.


They say bi-wire because the amp samples the input signal as opposed to requiring real power. Like a rel sub. 

It would just be to utilize the EQ bands across a tighter frequency range (low/high)


----------

