MONSTER MPA 3250 Power Amplifier Vs. emotiva xpa3

bdtae5656 · March 2009

I've been reading alot of post about the emotiva amps and how good they are for the money.....Im new to the amp world, so I need your help. Is 400watts too much for a small living room? What are the pros and cons vs these two amps? They will run w/ LSIC and LSI15's or 25's??? Which ever I can find the cheapest!
Thanks

Early B. · March 2009

Don't focus too much on watts. What matters most is the sound quality. In this case, the Emo is probably the best choice, especially for music.

cfrizz · March 2009

No 400wpc is not too much, my amp is 405wpc and all my speakers sound great. The speakers will only take what they need at any given time. It's just about making sure that the amp HAS it to give.

cheddar · March 2009

A powerful amp is not just about volume (although it can be). It's about being large and in control of the power sent to your speakers and not under powered and sloppy (losing control of the power can send a dirty signal out that can damage equipment).

I own an MPA 3250 and 2250 powering lsi15s, an lsiC, and a pair of lsifxs. And I really love the improvement in the sound over my denon 3803. On the AVR, the lsis sounded good, but a little muddy at times and lacking in bass. With the amps, especially the 15s are now very detailed, crisp, and have a nice bass slam that wasn't there before. These are beast amps in every sense, with great power headroom, build quality, and tonnage (a two person job if you have to move these amps any distance). I have pushed my set-up to the edge of my volume tolerance levels only showing 100 or so watts on the blue meters. I'm sure you can go to ear bleed levels with the amp, but my guess is that you'll never get to 400 watts during normal listening.

I wouldn't listen to people recommending the monsters or the emotivas as better unless they've used both. They're likely to have differences that can only be judged as better or worse by the end user during an audition. I love the sound of my amps with the lsis. But that doesn't mean that you will. You really need to listen to the two amps to decide for yourself.

mmadden28 · March 2009

bdtae5656 wrote: »

....Is 400watts too much for a small living room? ...

As Ms. Frizz mentioned, your not pushing 400W into the speakers, you just making it available. The speakers will only pull what they need-and some speakers need more than others.

It's like having a car capable of 200mph (or lets just say an engine/drivetrain w/lots of power). That doesn't mean you'll drive that way all the time (if ever), the car only goes as fast as you want it to, and has the ability to accelerate fast when you really need it to (merge onto a highway from a stop).

You don't want a underpowered engine when your trying to do that merge. And you don't want to constantly have to keep it floored just to get to 55mph (oh how I remember my Grandmom's Chevette :rolleyes:).

cheddar · March 2009

Just FYI in case you want a look under the hood. There seem to be some differences in design that could be making the monster heavier. Maybe some of those who know about such things can comment?

The monster:

The emotiva:

Dawgfish · March 2009

I agree with Cheddar in that it really comes down to what you think best with your setup. Having said that, I own both of these amps and I will tell you what I think about these amps and how they compare to each other.

First of all, I must say I like them both. I am happy with the way both of them sound. I like both of them better than my GFA 555 and 545 Adcoms and my TFM 35 Carver (even though I like those also). The Monster is very neutral sounding. It's very clean, has a nice soundstage, and has plenty of power. This amp is built like a tank and weighs a ton. It's at it's best listening to Jazz, Classical, and Blue Grass. My only complaints are that it is almost too neutral sounding for my tastes, and I find the sound to be somewhat sterile and lacking feel. It also lacks a little bass punch compared to some of my other amps.

The Emotiva has a little more forward sound to me. It has a nice, wide soundstage (by far the widest of all the amps I own). It also has a vey nice bass response that has plenty of kick, but is not muddy at all. Unlike the Monster, this amp has more "feel". I find it's at it's best listening to rock, blues, and home theater. It's also good for jazz and classical. My only complaint is it may be a little too forward to some when listening to Jazz and Classical. I like the way it sounds however and have been extremely happy with this amp overall.

All other things being equal (deals, availibility, etc), my advice would be this; If you are looking for an amp that is more neutral and analytical, and listen to mostly jazz, classical, and other higher pitched instrumental music, and some (not mostly) home theater, I would probably lean more towards the Monster. If you listen to mostly rock, blues, and other hard driving music, or a variety of different music and a good deal of home theater also, I would lean towards the Emotiva. To me though, the Emotiva is the more versatile of the two, because it does jazz and clasical 95% as well as the Monster, while other genres of music and home theater sound a good bit better than the Monster. Hope this helps.

cfrizz · March 2009

Nice eplaination Madden. But :eek::D WAAA! Was it the Chevette or was it your Grandma's driving!?:D

mmadden28 wrote: »

As Ms. Frizz mentioned, your not pushing 400W into the speakers, you just making it available. The speakers will only pull what they need-and some speakers need more than others.

It's like having a car capable of 200mph (or lets just say an engine/drivetrain w/lots of power). That doesn't mean you'll drive that way all the time (if ever), the car only goes as fast as you want it to, and has the ability to accelerate fast when you really need it to (merge onto a highway from a stop).

You don't want a underpowered engine when your trying to do that merge. And you don't want to constantly have to keep it floored just to get to 55mph (oh how I remember my Grandmom's Chevette :rolleyes:).

WilliamM2 · March 2009

cheddar wrote: »

Just FYI in case you want a look under the hood. There seem to be some differences in design that could be making the monster heavier. Maybe some of those who know about such things can comment?

I would imagine the Monster weighs more, it has 3 separate transformers, one for each channel. The Emo only has one transformer.

mmadden28 · March 2009

cfrizz wrote: »

Nice eplaination Madden. But :eek::D WAAA! Was it the Chevette or was it your Grandma's driving!?:D

It was the 'Vette

. When I took it out on the highway, I literally had to floor it to stay at 55. :eek:
I also borrowed it when I took my drivers exam. The lack of power steering made it difficult for me to turn the wheel without doing hand-over hand. That way I didn't forget to do it-I heard so many fail that part (in PA) because they just used one hand to turn the wheel.

cheddar · March 2009

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I would imagine the Monster weighs more, it has 3 separate transformers, one for each channel. The Emo only has one transformer.

Does it make much of a difference to isolate power supplies this way?

bdtae5656 · March 2009

Dawgfish wrote: »

I agree with Cheddar in that it really comes down to what you think best with your setup. Having said that, I own both of these amps and I will tell you what I think about these amps and how they compare to each other.

First of all, I must say I like them both. I am happy with the way both of them sound. I like both of them better than my GFA 555 and 545 Adcoms and my TFM 35 Carver (even though I like those also). The Monster is very neutral sounding. It's very clean, has a nice soundstage, and has plenty of power. This amp is built like a tank and weighs a ton. It's at it's best listening to Jazz, Classical, and Blue Grass. My only complaints are that it is almost too neutral sounding for my tastes, and I find the sound to be somewhat sterile and lacking feel. It also lacks a little bass punch compared to some of my other amps.

The Emotiva has a little more forward sound to me. It has a nice, wide soundstage (by far the widest of all the amps I own). It also has a vey nice bass response that has plenty of kick, but is not muddy at all. Unlike the Monster, this amp has more "feel". I find it's at it's best listening to rock, blues, and home theater. It's also good for jazz and classical. My only complaint is it may be a little too forward to some when listening to Jazz and Classical. I like the way it sounds however and have been extremely happy with this amp overall.

All other things being equal (deals, availibility, etc), my advice would be this; If you are looking for an amp that is more neutral and analytical, and listen to mostly jazz, classical, and other higher pitched instrumental music, and some (not mostly) home theater, I would probably lean more towards the Monster. If you listen to mostly rock, blues, and other hard driving music, or a variety of different music and a good deal of home theater also, I would lean towards the Emotiva. To me though, the Emotiva is the more versatile of the two, because it does jazz and clasical 95% as well as the Monster, while other genres of music and home theater sound a good bit better than the Monster. Hope this helps.

Thats a huge help! Do should I be looking for in RCA cables? And or Speaker wire?

WilliamM2 · March 2009

cheddar wrote: »

Does it make much of a difference to isolate power supplies this way?

Not so much to do with isolation, but it will allow all channels to reach their rated output. The Emo's power output drops as you increase the number of channels.

mmadden28 · March 2009

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Not so much to do with isolation, but it will allow all channels to reach their rated output. The Emo's power output drops as you increase the number of channels.

I would have guessed that with the 3 xformers on a 3 channel amp that the Monster was setup like a triple monoblock design and whatever audio advantages went along with that.
It doesn't appear that Monster makes these anymore? I'm having a hard time finding any info on it. Nothing on the Monstercable site anyway. Do they still support it? Repair? I'd keep that in mind as well when making a decision.

The XPA-3 is rated as a 600Watt (w/8ohms) amp with all channels driven. It may drop max wattage per channel, but the amp is still going to provide what its rated for with all channels driven. Its not like the typical ratings of an AVR where they only publish the 2 channels driven rating. Actually if you look at the specs below-it actually increases its total output as you drive more channels. My guess is that is probably related to the power handling capacity of the circuitry in each channel rather than the transformer. Otherwise then I would expect a 600W or more rating with one channel driven.

8 ohm rating:
3 channels - 8 ohm = 200 watts per channel
2 channels - 8 ohm = 250 watts per channel
1 channels - 8 ohm = 300 watts per channel

4 ohm rating:
3 channels - 4 ohm = 300 watts per channel
2 channels - 4 ohm = 400 watts per channel
1 channels - 4 ohm = 500 watts per channel

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the Monster ratings from here.
Monster 3250

# 250 watts per channel, 750 watts total with all channels driven.
# 400 continuous watts, all channels driven into 4 Ohms,
# instantaneous peak power all channels driven greater than 300 watts per channel/8 Ohms, 500 watts/4 Ohms.

I sure do like the digital VU meters on the MPA's though.

Dawgfish · March 2009

bdtae5656,

I am running Audioquest Copperhead RCAs with these amps with great success. They also make a sereies of RCAs called Sidewinders which are great bang for the buck interconnects. I am currently running 12 guage Belkin pure copper speaker wire (check out Blue Jeans Cable for this) with banana terminals. I am eventually going to try some of the fancier speaker wires out there, but for now I'm happy with the Belkin.

Xcapri79,

I decided to stay out of that one. People have preconcieved notions about things and are going to believe what they want to believe. Nothing I say is going to make others change their minds. Also I think sound is a personal thing. I like (make that love) the way my XPA-3 sounds, but I have to admit it's a little bit more forward sounding then some of my other amps. I like this, but I know there are many others who prefer something a little more neutral. I don't find the XPA-3s forwardness to be harsh in anyway however, but that's my ears.

Steve

ben62670 · March 2009

I wouldn't give ~M~ a dime. My buddy has the EMO 2 channel and 5. Both sound good, but run out of current under heavy loads. A watt is not a watt.

cheddar · March 2009

mmadden28 wrote: »

It doesn't appear that Monster makes these anymore? I'm having a hard time finding any info on it. Nothing on the Monstercable site anyway. Do they still support it? Repair? I'd keep that in mind as well when making a decision.

Um, this is right off the monster site under power centers and amplifiers. It's easy to get lost on the monster site because 'power' links will lead you to the power centers instead of the amps if you're not careful. As bad as their 'litigation' rap is, their customer service is very good. They sent me a new package of balanced cables -- no receipt, no questions, no hassle. Just had to send in the old ones where the cable wrap was frayed.

http://www.monstercable.com/power/amplifiers.asp

ben62670 wrote: »

My buddy has the EMO 2 channel and 5. Both sound good, but run out of current under heavy loads. A watt is not a watt.

I also noticed that the monster is closer to doubling its rated 8ohm power into 4ohms than the emotiva is -- and like more expensive amps do. I guess it's an emotiva design compromise to bring down the price but still give good performance through less than heavy loads.

mmadden28 · March 2009

cheddar wrote: »

Um, this is right off the monster site under power centers and amplifiers. It's easy to get lost on the monster site because 'power' links will lead you to the power centers instead of the amps if you're not careful. ...

http://www.monstercable.com/power/amplifiers.asp

Thanks..

Hmm interesting. I missed that. You'd think they would have a separate category for it. The main category is Cable, Powercenters and accessories, which didn't make sense for an amp, and when I briefed through that list I passed by the Power Centers and Amplifiers as I only read the Power Centers part and then continued on. I didn't spend too much time there.

Then I only searched for mpa and nothing came back. I guess with their search engine you have to be very specific. Just now I searched for MPA 3250 and it did come back-Its odd. My google search didn't find anything either, of course I only looked at the first few pages of results.

mmadden28 · March 2009

cheddar wrote: »

...
I also noticed that the monster is closer to doubling its rated 8ohm power into 4ohms than the emotiva is -- and like more expensive amps do. I guess it's an emotiva design compromise to bring down the price but still give good performance through less than heavy loads.

Looks to me like the specs are pretty close in that regard.
XPA-3
200W into 8 (3 chnls)
300W into 4 (3 chnls)
150% from 4 to 8

MPA 3250
250W into 8 (3 chnls)
400W into 4 (3 chnls)
160% from 4 to 8

Is that even a measure of an amps performance or capability? Is 10% really that much of a design compromise?

These amps are not even the same architecture. Or are they with the exception of the separate power supplies?

Damn I really love the watt meters on that MPA. I wonder if there are any after market meters like that can go between an amp and the speakers? That sounds like a toy I would definitely buy.

cheddar · March 2009

mmadden28 wrote: »

instantaneous peak power all channels driven greater than 300 watts per channel/8 Ohms, 500 watts/4 Ohms

Well, 10% more continuous and I was also looking at the instantaneous peak you quoted and that someone said that the emotivas run out of current under heavy load. Don't know how much all this really matters at normal listening levels anyways. Probably only makes a difference if you were to operate the amps a lot near their rated maximums. Seems like the monster would give you more consistent power output per channel instead of dropping off the more channels you used. But I'm no expert, just trying to piece together what others have said. It just seemed to me when I first saw the pictures that the monster used up every square inch of its box while the emotiva had a lot more empty space and smaller components. So I was just curious why monster would put stuff in that seemed to be missing from the emotiva. And some sort of price/performance compromise came to mind...

The blue meters are pretty fun. It makes you realize real fast how little power actually goes to each speaker. The fronts get the most, of course. But at the volumes my wife listens to (not really low, just lower than I like), all the meters read zero. At my first comfort level, the fronts are about a watt. At my max casual listening level, the fronts measure about 10. And I only go above that if I really want to be hit in the chest with some sound. And the surrounds are probably 1/10 compared to the fronts and center. So if you've got all the meters bouncing around, you'll definitely be in ear bleed level...;)

mmadden28 · March 2009

The two amps are different designs from different companies-I would expect there to be a difference inside. Having more inside is not necessarily desirable (more in the signal path) so certainly not a performance or SQ indicator. Just from the pics in this thread, it seems the only thing the MPA 3250 has extra taking up space is the transformers and that is because it appears to be a triple Monoblock design-the XPA-3 is not.

You're also comparing an amp that costs $3000 retail with an amp that sells for $600. Besides, it doesn't appear that all the information is available to compare stat for stat, which is really not the most important thing anyway. Its how an amp fits in with the synergy of the rest of the gear and whether or not it performs satisfactorily.

Without looking ath all the other specs:
The XPA-3 is rated as a 600W amp and provides 200W per channel with all 3 channels driven (into 8 ohms).
The MPA 3250SS is rated as a 750W amp with 250W per channel with all channels driven (into 8ohms).
I'm not sure it matters what scale it provides that power compared to only 1 channel driven, or how that compares between driving a 4 ohm load vs an 8 ohm load to determine how consistent the power delivery would be. Some amps are conservatively rated, and some are underrated. You can't know just by looking at the specs.

The above is based strictly on what the manufacturer provides as specs, not based on somebody's individual experience. Stuff like that will really depend on what speakers are being driven, etc, etc, etc. For the record, my XPA-5's have yet to run out of steam when driven hard on my HT rig.

Now, based on the OPs query I think the spec ratings of the two amps are fairly close but the cost difference is obvious.

bdtae5656 wrote: »

.... Which ever I can find the cheapest!
Thanks

dorokusai · March 2009

Personally I wouldn't add another dime to Monster Cable but doubt you would hear that much of a difference between the two amplifiers. They're not radical designs. Plus Emotiva has always been marketed low and reasonable while MC marketed high and quickly lowered their prices, flooded eBay with deals and basically went belly up to move the product.

No thanks.

cheddar · March 2009

Thanks all for taking the time to answer my questions. Like I said, I really don't know much about amp design and was really just curious about what I was seeing in the pictures and why they might design an amp one way or another.

I also wouldn't pay anywhere near retail for the monster. I got both my amps for under 1000 each. And the only other stuff I picked up from monster in the recent past was when goodguys went under and they were even selling their used cabling for really cheap. That's why I was surprised when monster CS took back the beat-up cable and sent out new ones no questions asked. I haven't heard the emotiva myself, but from all the testimonials, it sounds like a great deal.

Terra S · March 2009

I'm also quite new to amps but after reading through this thread it seems quite a few of you are certainly in the know. So since the Emo amps have been discussed here, I'd like to ask; would I be making a mistake in going with the UPA-7? The the XPA-5 is OOS right now but I'm sure its most expensive of all the XPA's. In order to get 7 channels I'd have to add an XPA-2 down the road. That just seems like overkill to me, two huge amps. I'm thinking about buying a used pre/pro off eBay rather than an new AVR and with the current sale at Emo, the UPA-7 caught my eye. Just wondered what some of the experts in here think of it.

Dawgfish · April 2009

Terra S.,

I personally would wait for the XPA-5 to come back in stock and buy that. The UPA-7 is a good amp for the price, but the XPAs are in another league as far as sound quality goes. If you did end up using an AVR, you could run the XPA-5 to push your fronts, center, and surrounds, and use the AVR to push the rear surrounds. I have done this before and it sounds very good. Usually you don't need a lot of watts going to your rear surrounds (unless you do like me and run RTi-8's as rear surrounds, but they really don't need a lot of power to push either, I just like having power :-)). A lot of depends on what kind of speakers you are using, how large of a room you have, and how loudly you like to listen to things. To me though having too many quality watts is better than not having enough.

As far as the Monster amp goes, I bought mine used from a friend for $600. It's definitely worth that, but there is no way in hell I would pay the $3000 retail price for it. Those meters in the front are cool at first, but they can be distracting and annoying after a while. Thankfully you can adjust the brightness of them and turn them off altogether if you want. Cheddar is right though, it's kind of cool to see how much power you are actually using. To show you what an idiot I am, I've actually seen the right and left meters read 500+ for short peaks when listening to two channel stereo maybe a wink too loudly. LOL it sounded so good though. Rock on!

cheddar · April 2009

Dawgfish wrote: »

To show you what an idiot I am, I've actually seen the right and left meters read 500+ for short peaks when listening to two channel stereo maybe a wink too loudly. LOL it sounded so good though. Rock on!

OMG, the highest peaks I've ever had were around 200+ on the meters. And I thought that was pretty much as high as I could take. I've read about people going to 650 peaks on the monsters. Did the ringing in your ears ever stop? :eek:

Dawgfish? Dawgfish...can you hear me???

Dawgfish · April 2009

What? I thought I heard something!! :-)

mmadden28 · April 2009

Breaker 19
Breaker 19...
...
..

Well I don't hear anybody talking right now so I guess its my turn...

Dawgfish wrote: »

Terra S.,

I personally would wait for the XPA-5 to come back in stock and buy that. The UPA-7 is a good amp for the price, but the XPAs are in another league as far as sound quality goes. If you did end up using an AVR, you could run the XPA-5 to push your fronts, center, and surrounds, and use the AVR to push the rear surrounds. I have done this before and it sounds very good. Usually you don't need a lot of watts going to your rear surrounds...

+1
That's the way I'll probably push my rear channels when I eventually get them in play.

Terra S wrote: »

...The the XPA-5 is OOS right now but I'm sure its most expensive of all the XPA's....

Actually the XPA-1 is the most expensive of the XPA's at $1k per channel (or $900 on sale)

nooshinjohn · April 2009

Rotel makes some great stuff.... here's the link

http://www.craigslittlebuddy.com/browseResults/?q=rotel&type=electronics&sort=&p=http%3A%2F%2Fminneapolis.craigslist.org%2Fele%2F1093979232.html

They look like they mean business and have a great rep for quality:cool:

mmadden28 · April 2009

The OP asked about a comparison between two amps. and the discussion ensued about differences between those two amps. Then you throw another amp in the mix but provide nothing to explain why you would consider that one instead of the other two.

Have you heard all three? Care to share?

nooshinjohn · April 2009

mmadden28 wrote: »

The OP asked about a comparison between two amps. and the discussion ensued about differences between those two amps. Then you throw another amp in the mix but provide nothing to explain why you would consider that one instead of the other two.

Have you heard all three? Care to share?

I have heard the rotel, and liked its performance, and the fact that it seemed to have plenty of power and a very good soundstage. I have never heard the others. That said, I like many others here, do not care for the Monster brand in general and would not consider buying a toothpick from them let alone an amp of any kind. With regards to Emo, I would love to try one someday, but don't see that opportunity coming any time soon, unless somebody in Indiana/Illinois wants to do a side by side comparison at my place. I will even spring for the beer of their choice if an Emo beats my Sunfire...

The reason I provided that link and introduced the Rotel into the mix is to show there are some excellent three channel amps out there that could be a better value for somebody considering purchasing a three channel amp:)

MONSTER MPA 3250 Power Amplifier Vs. emotiva xpa3

Welcome!

Comments

Welcome!

Welcome!

Quick Links