OS Amp decsion, Eclipse XA4000 or MMATS SQ-4070

[Imtjnotu 5,000+ posts]

Care to explain in detail?
Here's some inside shots:

And I can show you guts of my mmats 2000.05 next to any other 2k amp showing less but still more clamped power and efficient

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

MMats has built a reputation for their efficiency, Eclipse hasn't. Unless this is some ultra-efficient Eclipse design, I highly doubt that it can touch the efficiency of the MMats.

 

---------- Post added at 01:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ----------

 

Btw, those gut pics show me that the MMats is more capable. Too bad too many noobs think that the one with the bigger torroid is more powerful

 

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

I ran an XA5000 for quite awhile. It was a nice amp. Sounded great, very under rated, efficient, etc. The reason I got rid of mine was because the crossovers arent defeatable.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

MMats has built a reputation for their efficiency, Eclipse hasn't. Unless this is some ultra-efficient Eclipse design, I highly doubt that it can touch the efficiency of the MMats.

Neither of us has clamped either amp, or seen any kind of specific efficiency results/claims. I'm going off of class a/b vs class d...common sense would assume that the class d is more efficient. Can you give me a reason as to why the class d Eclipse can't touch the efficiency of the class a/b Mmats besides "Mmats is known for efficiency"?

Btw, those gut pics show me that the MMats is more capable. Too bad too many noobs think that the one with the bigger torroid is more powerful

Explain.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Neither of us has clamped either amp, or seen any kind of specific efficiency results/claims. I'm going off of class a/b vs class d...common sense would assume that the class d is more efficient. Can you give me a reason as to why the class d Eclipse can't touch the efficiency of the class a/b Mmats besides "Mmats is known for efficiency"?

Oops! Forgot it was A/B. Derp

 

[will3 10+ year member]

Care to explain in detail?
Here's some inside shots:

Others LINEAR POWER™

If you were an electronics engineer you could look inside LINEAR POWER™ products and instantly recognize that LINEAR POWER™ is made different and better than any other brand on the market. Only the finest components available were used. The most obvious difference is the output transistors. In the full size amplifiers, you find the T0-3 Transistor. They are expensive and they are the best, period. In the smaller amplifiers, you find the T0-218 case transistor, pound for pound the best device you can buy.

Most of the competitors use the small T0-220 transistor, Even in their most expensive products. Transistors are to your amplifier what an engine is to your car. Small engines make weak cars, and small transistors make weak amplifiers. Superior headroom, power, clarity, durability, are hallmarks of the LINEAR POWER™ experience.

I'm not an EE or amp guru or anything , but the EA looks like it uses the T0-220, and the Mmats uses the T0-03, i don't know that just how it looks , and I would trust Ray on amplifiers

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

Filter design and capitance back Is important as well..

Mmats uses the highend toshiba transistors, the 4170 isn't 600 bucks for nothing!

 

[ace_800 5,000+ posts]

Again, I liked both amps but the layout design of the MMATs would have made installation a PITA. Even though the MMATs probably has better SQ, I honestly probably won't notice a difference.

 

[destined2race 10+ year member]

by OS your talking old school? guess i didnt consider the xa series that old school, but i think either way is pretty decent. Only real experience i had with MMATS amps was a mono i had for a while running a pair of 8815 eclipse aluminum cones. Loved that setup