Post by budgetaudiophile on Feb 11, 2009 22:54:06 GMT -5
First of all, let me state that these are more "casual" listening notes than critical. I can't really do thorough critical listening reviews until the ERC-1 comes out. My BRD player is great for lossless home theater sound, but is a bit on the harsh side for two channel listening. I sold my NAD 5000, and have nothing else to play CDs on.
I've seen a post that the ERC-1 will come out this month... I can only hope...
With that said, here are a few casual listening notes.
First of all, this thing is a beast. Lugging it downstairs to the theater room is not for the out of shape couch potato... you'll likely strain something.
Unfortunately, Fed-X was none to kind to my amp. The outer box was wet. Yes, WET!! Wet, and nasty (real dirty). Inner box was in beter shape, but was still cracked. This is not Emotiva's fault, but luck of the draw. My XPA-3 arrived in GREAT shape - both boxes. The amp looked undamaged, though, and it obviously worked or I'd not be posting this.
I hefted the XPA-2 onto the available shelf with some effort, hooked it up and started listening. Out of the box, I could tell that it was superior to the XPA-3. After listening to several songs, I put in a fresh CD and let it play through at moderate volume to warm up the amp (this proves to be a hard thing, as it just doesn't get warm... even afer beating on it at high volumes for a while, I can barely feel heat coming from it).
Later, I returned for some 2-channel listening. First, some general notes I took, then the more detailed notes.
General notes:
* The XPA-2, out of the box, has less "sheen" than the XPA-3. It's clearer, more matter of fact, and clearly superior in dynamics. That latter surprised me a bit, as the XPA-3 is pushing 400/channel into my front two speakers, vs. 500/channel from the XPA-2 (the reality is that I'm not using anywhere near this much power, but on paper, it should be nearly a wash).
* It looks real nice on my shelp above the XPA-3.
* It produces a more dynamic sound than any amp I've owned to date.
* It subjectively has less separation than my Rotel monoblocks, less precise imaging, but a larger, deeper soundstate.
* My Thiels integrate better with the sub being driven by the XPA-2, making no changes anywhere else (i.e., no adjustements to the sub's level, crossover, etc.).
* This thing has GOBS of power. It sounds fantastic cranked up - moreso than the XPA-3, and it crushes the Rotel monoblocks when driving the Thiels at loud volume. The extra headroom is clearly audable.
The more detailed (okay, somewhat more detailed) notes:
Fleetwood Mac - Rumors -- Yes, an older recording, but not a bad one. I particularely like track 3 (Never going back again) and 7 (The Change). These are clean recordings, pretty much free of compression.
The XPA-2 brought the acoustic instraments to new levels. The "pluck" of the guitar had better weight and snap than I remember. I also, subjectively, think the detail was better than with any of the other amps I've played it through. The kick drums on 'The Change' were tigher and more "on" than I remember with the other amps. The bass was tight and crisp.
I popped in Kenny Loggins, Outside From the Redwoods. It's a live recording, but a decent one. The soundstage was larger than life, and the available power seemed endless. I had it quite loud and the LED meters never moved. I noticed a lack of precision in the imaging. Rather than Loggins being firmly placed center stage (as with the Rotels), he was there, but only center-ish, rather than firmly held between the speakers. The Rotel monoblocks get this right, but can't match the soundstage depth or width (or dynamics) of the XPA-2. This is perhaps a fair trade, as the wider soundstage is of benefit to off-axis listening.
Moving on to Enya, Watermark, I was startled to pick up subtle details that I hadn't heard before. On one track, I was physically startled (I actually jumped) by a sound effect in the right speaker that was subdued before, but was placed out there with authority by the XPA-2. On all Enya's songs, the soundstage was consistently large and layered. Very nice. The high to low balance - particularly on piano - was impressive. Some amps roll off the lower scales a bit (probably due to lack of overhead), but not the XPA-2. It was well balanced. Orinoco Flow was HUGE with the XPA-2. The CS1.6's never blended better with my sub on the low notes. Obviously, they aren't going to reproduce the nether regions, but they were more solidly producing what they are capable of, and with more authority than I've previously heard.
The first track on Anderson, Bufford, Wakeman and Howe has some very delicate symbol work in the background. Generally, it has come across as "farther in the background and subdued sounds", but with the XPA-2 I could clearly hear the distinct background taps and other background sounds that once sort of blended together. It was brought to the forefront better than I've heard it previosly. The Rotels were good at bringing out most of this detail, but the XPA-2 took it to a new level.
That was all I had time for. When the ERC-1 comes out, I'll revisit this after doing some more serious critical listening. I can't wait to see what it can do with a real audiophile source. The Thiels are unforgiving of upstream electronics, and the XPA-2 throws everything at the Thiels that it is given.
I did think that there was a bit of an edge with the XPA-2. It's a foreward sounding amp. I can't tell how much of this is the source (probably most of it, the source is a bit harsh on all the amps I've played it through... at least two channel CDs), how much of it may be due to a complete lack of break in, or how much may be due to the fact that the Rotel's are a bit more laid back. In any case, I'm impressed with this amp right out of the box. That says a lot. I'll definitely be breaking it in on a daily basis - time willing. There is no doubt that even with a rather harsh source, I can crank it up farther than ever before and not cringe (well, depending on the CD... some of the modern, overly compressed crap makes me cringe regardless of what amp or speakers I'm listening to).
I've seen a post that the ERC-1 will come out this month... I can only hope...
With that said, here are a few casual listening notes.
First of all, this thing is a beast. Lugging it downstairs to the theater room is not for the out of shape couch potato... you'll likely strain something.
Unfortunately, Fed-X was none to kind to my amp. The outer box was wet. Yes, WET!! Wet, and nasty (real dirty). Inner box was in beter shape, but was still cracked. This is not Emotiva's fault, but luck of the draw. My XPA-3 arrived in GREAT shape - both boxes. The amp looked undamaged, though, and it obviously worked or I'd not be posting this. I hefted the XPA-2 onto the available shelf with some effort, hooked it up and started listening. Out of the box, I could tell that it was superior to the XPA-3. After listening to several songs, I put in a fresh CD and let it play through at moderate volume to warm up the amp (this proves to be a hard thing, as it just doesn't get warm... even afer beating on it at high volumes for a while, I can barely feel heat coming from it).
Later, I returned for some 2-channel listening. First, some general notes I took, then the more detailed notes.
General notes:
* The XPA-2, out of the box, has less "sheen" than the XPA-3. It's clearer, more matter of fact, and clearly superior in dynamics. That latter surprised me a bit, as the XPA-3 is pushing 400/channel into my front two speakers, vs. 500/channel from the XPA-2 (the reality is that I'm not using anywhere near this much power, but on paper, it should be nearly a wash).
* It looks real nice on my shelp above the XPA-3.
* It produces a more dynamic sound than any amp I've owned to date.
* It subjectively has less separation than my Rotel monoblocks, less precise imaging, but a larger, deeper soundstate.
* My Thiels integrate better with the sub being driven by the XPA-2, making no changes anywhere else (i.e., no adjustements to the sub's level, crossover, etc.).
* This thing has GOBS of power. It sounds fantastic cranked up - moreso than the XPA-3, and it crushes the Rotel monoblocks when driving the Thiels at loud volume. The extra headroom is clearly audable.
The more detailed (okay, somewhat more detailed) notes:
Fleetwood Mac - Rumors -- Yes, an older recording, but not a bad one. I particularely like track 3 (Never going back again) and 7 (The Change). These are clean recordings, pretty much free of compression.
The XPA-2 brought the acoustic instraments to new levels. The "pluck" of the guitar had better weight and snap than I remember. I also, subjectively, think the detail was better than with any of the other amps I've played it through. The kick drums on 'The Change' were tigher and more "on" than I remember with the other amps. The bass was tight and crisp.
I popped in Kenny Loggins, Outside From the Redwoods. It's a live recording, but a decent one. The soundstage was larger than life, and the available power seemed endless. I had it quite loud and the LED meters never moved. I noticed a lack of precision in the imaging. Rather than Loggins being firmly placed center stage (as with the Rotels), he was there, but only center-ish, rather than firmly held between the speakers. The Rotel monoblocks get this right, but can't match the soundstage depth or width (or dynamics) of the XPA-2. This is perhaps a fair trade, as the wider soundstage is of benefit to off-axis listening.
Moving on to Enya, Watermark, I was startled to pick up subtle details that I hadn't heard before. On one track, I was physically startled (I actually jumped) by a sound effect in the right speaker that was subdued before, but was placed out there with authority by the XPA-2. On all Enya's songs, the soundstage was consistently large and layered. Very nice. The high to low balance - particularly on piano - was impressive. Some amps roll off the lower scales a bit (probably due to lack of overhead), but not the XPA-2. It was well balanced. Orinoco Flow was HUGE with the XPA-2. The CS1.6's never blended better with my sub on the low notes. Obviously, they aren't going to reproduce the nether regions, but they were more solidly producing what they are capable of, and with more authority than I've previously heard.
The first track on Anderson, Bufford, Wakeman and Howe has some very delicate symbol work in the background. Generally, it has come across as "farther in the background and subdued sounds", but with the XPA-2 I could clearly hear the distinct background taps and other background sounds that once sort of blended together. It was brought to the forefront better than I've heard it previosly. The Rotels were good at bringing out most of this detail, but the XPA-2 took it to a new level.
That was all I had time for. When the ERC-1 comes out, I'll revisit this after doing some more serious critical listening. I can't wait to see what it can do with a real audiophile source. The Thiels are unforgiving of upstream electronics, and the XPA-2 throws everything at the Thiels that it is given.
I did think that there was a bit of an edge with the XPA-2. It's a foreward sounding amp. I can't tell how much of this is the source (probably most of it, the source is a bit harsh on all the amps I've played it through... at least two channel CDs), how much of it may be due to a complete lack of break in, or how much may be due to the fact that the Rotel's are a bit more laid back. In any case, I'm impressed with this amp right out of the box. That says a lot. I'll definitely be breaking it in on a daily basis - time willing.
There is no doubt that even with a rather harsh source, I can crank it up farther than ever before and not cringe (well, depending on the CD... some of the modern, overly compressed crap makes me cringe regardless of what amp or speakers I'm listening to). 
