|
|
Post by jkeedy on Apr 18, 2009 1:31:58 GMT -5
After listening from 2PM this afternoon 'til late this evening, I have reached a conclusion about the XPA-2. At my son's friend's house we had 4 people listening with two people switching. We listened with two sets of speakers and were able to compare an expensive Yamaha receiver, a old Nakamichi receiver, a cheap JVC receiver, the XPA-2, and a built from scratch tube amp (not a kit). We drove the XPA-2 using the other units as the pre. We used various music sources and two video selections, one being The Dark Knight.
Easily the throwaway of the bunch was the JVC. It was unanimous that it had few redeeming qualities. Everyone could tell immediately that it was far inferior to everything else. The Nakamichi was slightly better. The Yamaha was next, its main flaw being the lack of good base. My old Yamaha had the same problem. Next best was the XPA-2. On a 1-10 scale I would give the JVC a 2 (simply because it worked) and the Nakamichi a 4. I did not expect much out of either. The Yamaha would get a 5 or 6, although my past experience with my own Yamaha would preclude me from buying that brand again. The XPA-2 would get a 7. However, the tube amp designed and built by my son's friend would get a 9. What's up with that? While his tube amp was two a channel, he believes three mono blocs for L, R, C would be a better set-up. Using upgraded parts might result in a 10, although that is just a guess. (The 9 doesn't mean near perfection, but a frame of reference for what we tested.)
The difference? Those of you that have had (or heard) tubes understand when I say tubes have a warmth that transistors, etc. cannot produce. And that is what happened. The XPA-2 sounded shrill next to the tubes. At the beginning of the Dark Knight there is a drill going into the safe. On the XPA-2 it was like fingernails across a blackboard. It made everyone wince, and we had to hear it more than once! Even with eyes closed it was an immediate knock off. The tubes made the machine sound like a drill. With the tubes, Dylan (Blood On The Tracks) sounded like Dylan. On the XPA-2, it sounded "kinda like" Dylan. On The Dave Brubeck Quartet's Time Out, the tubes made you feel like the quartet was there while the XPA-2 colored the performance with its own coloration.
The XPA-2 has a good presence, but not as good as the tubes which, again, gave one the feeling they were in the room. The XPA had great highs, but it had a harshness I did not like. I might be fine watching a movie, but I would not be able to enjoy music for very long without some serious equalization. And I was a little shocked at the base. The XPA got down to some good, clean lows, but it lacked the punch of the tubes. It was very surprising to me. The rhythmic base in the Dark Knight that drives the suspense was lost to the XPA. Kinda like the Sports Center da da da, da da da. The tubes gave one the feeling that something very ominous was about to happen (perhaps the director's intention!?).
In conclusion, the amp was better than most of what we tested and it is better than anything I have ever owned. For that reason alone I would have no trouble recommending it. But the tubes were soooo much better. Given the fact that tubes are generally very costly, I would probably not go that route and hang with the XPA, but with a friend who is expert at building such things I can get great equipment at a reasonable price. So I will be returning my XPA-2. However, I have not given up on Emotiva. I still need power for a 7.1 system, so I may still get the XPA-5, and I will still need a processor such as the UMC or XMC. All that being said, I feel the XPA-2 is a very good product worthy of a recommendation, but the ears of my son, his friends and my own found something better. Of course, having an engineer who can deliver a great product at a reasonable price (cost) does not grow on trees, so I consider myself lucky in that respect. And I do feel guilty about the return.
(NEW COMMENT, 6-11): READ MY LATER POST. I DECIDED TO KEEP THE XPA-2 AND I AM VERY HAPPY WITH IT. SO HAPPY, IN FACT, THAT TODAY (6-11) I AM RECEIVING THE XPA-2 AND THE ERC-1. I AM ON THE WAITING LIST FOR THE 2 CHANNEL AND THE XMC. I AM :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by kensai69 on Apr 18, 2009 2:10:30 GMT -5
Tube = Distortion period. Ear Pleasing, Warmth, Smooth, "realistic"
SS = Neutral, quick, good woofer control. Crap in Crap out.
So what you hear about the "Warmth" and "Realistic" is quite expected, esp from ppl who has/had used tube amps.
But I am surprised that you find the tubes has better lows than the XPA-2 tho.
You might want to give the QUAD 909 a try, it might better suit your taste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2009 9:42:16 GMT -5
I'm sure there are plenty of current and former tube owners that can chime in as well as the plethora of experienced and knowledgable loungers that can provide their insight.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Apr 18, 2009 10:10:52 GMT -5
jkeedy's post is an example of the subjectivity of audio. Once you move past actual measurements and meaningful testing into the realm of "that sounds like..." it all becomes about personal taste and individual differences. Some people just prefer tubes no matter what. So be it. That's why valve amps are still manufactured. But do not make the mistake of calling one "better" than the other. It's not. It's just that you preferred one over the other.
To each his own!
|
|
|
|
Post by Indycolts on Apr 18, 2009 11:30:31 GMT -5
great point!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jkeedy on Apr 18, 2009 13:57:30 GMT -5
Please note that I said to the ears of four people the tubes sounded better. That is subjective, yes, but it is reality for those four persons. And I said the EPA is a great amp, but it was not "better" according to THOSE four sets of ears. That is why I said I would still recommend the XPA. So "better" or "preferred" are semantics. Whichever word one uses, it suits the person listening. I did not use the word "better" in a quantitative sense, but in the subjective sense of THOSE four persons.
Also, "distotrtion period" is an unfair representation. Yes, there is more measurable distortion in tubes, but there are measurable distortions in live music also (even without amplification). Some believe that this is the very esssence of the nusic - the totallity of the sound. To explain this further, I will use a source example. The new vinyl released by many artists sounds beautiful compared to most regular CD's. Better? Subjectively, to me, yes. To you? Maybe not. That is what I heard. The smooth richness (subjective terms) in the tubes compares to the same qualities heard on good vinyl. Does everyone like it? No. Does it mean that what I like is the best? No. All it means is that I have found something that I like. You may like something different. I respect that. Even though I listen to music about 20% of the time versus video programming 80% of the time, the music is still more important to me. And , to me, the tubes are "better" - a subjective term in this case - as in better for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by kensai69 on Apr 18, 2009 14:40:18 GMT -5
Live music distortion should be pick up by the mic, and thus re-interpreted by your recording --> amplifier --> speakers. Tube distortion is caused by soft clipping.
I am not disagreeing with your finding. I used to own tube gears, and I know what you mean. It is just sweet sounding.
What I am suggesting to you is that there are other amplifiers that has a better resembling to tube sound, that is all.
|
|
TRT
Emo VIPs
Everytime the Avatar stops, I upgrade something!
Posts: 476
|
Post by TRT on Apr 19, 2009 21:45:30 GMT -5
Perhaps if you had used a quality pre-pro with the XPA-2, the results would have been different. Using cheap receivers that were never designed for pre-pro duties is far from ideal. What's the point in buying the most expensive video processor on the market if you're going to plug a VCR into it. Low-end receiver: YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK! GOOD-BYE  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 19, 2009 22:05:15 GMT -5
Perhaps if you had used a quality pre-pro with the XPA-2, the results would have been different. Using cheap receivers that were never designed for pre-pro duties is far from ideal. What's the point in buying the most expensive video processor on the market if you're going to plug a VCR into it. Low-end receiver: YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK! GOOD-BYE Well that is true, if the XPA-2 was being driven by one of the cheap receivers which was even acknowledged by the OP as not very good, then it was not really fair comparison unless the tube amp was also being driven by the preamp sections of the A/V's. And even if the tube amp was being driven by the A/V's you still have the problem of the A/V's being the weakest link. The tube amp may have mitigated the harshness of the A/V's a lot more than a solid state amp would have. |
|
|
|
Post by jkeedy on Apr 20, 2009 4:18:32 GMT -5
While it is true that the XPA was run through some cheap stuff, it was also run through a top line Yamaha (RX-Z7) and a very nice tube pre. I will excuse any erroneous assumptions that I would put dirt in and expect gold out. No one here knows me, so assumptions may be in order. The tube amp sounded shabby when it went through the JVC, and hardly better on the Nakamichi, and the best results occurred when the XPA and the tube amp went through the tube pre. To put it succinctly, the better the pre, the better each performed. Would one argue that if the tube amp sounded "better" than the XPA (to ME) whether I was using a tube pre, a high end receiver as a pre or a low end receiver as a pre, then using the new UMC would make the tube amp sound inferior to the XPA? It sure wouldn't be logical. I would expect the same results. And why would that be? Because the sound produced by the tubes pleased ME more. The highest end pre connected to those two units should result in, arguably, still "better" sound for both (at least to the capable limits of the amps), but there will still be a difference in coloration that will result from the use of two very different amp structures.
No one needs to be defensive for having bought an Emotiva product and erroneously assuming that I either don't know what I am doing or that I am bashing Emotiva to such an extent that lash outs are necessary. Far from it. I thought the XPA was a very good piece of equipment that I would recommend. Many people do not like the "tube sound" or believe tubes are full of distortion, or can't hit clear highs, or can't deliver powerful base - or whatever else. I understand that, and for those feeling that way I sincerely believe Emotiva is a great product. Throw in price and it is an amazing product. As a matter of fact, I am now considering using the XPA-2 with an XPA-5 and a UMC/XMC for movies and using my subs and EQ to achieve what I desire, and using the tubes for my music.
In the meantime, you can stop the CAPS if you want - I can hear you at normal volume. Oh, and personal attacks usually tell readers more about the attacker than the person being attacked. But both are your prerogative. Good luck with that temper TRT :-)
|
|
lonnie
Administrator 
GM
OZ- 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by lonnie on Apr 20, 2009 8:57:18 GMT -5
While it is true that the XPA was run through some cheap stuff, it was also run through a top line Yamaha (RX-Z7) and a very nice tube pre. I will excuse any erroneous assumptions that I would put dirt in and expect gold out. No one here knows me, so assumptions may be in order. The tube amp sounded shabby when it went through the JVC, and hardly better on the Nakamichi, and the best results occurred when the XPA and the tube amp went through the tube pre. To put it succinctly, the better the pre, the better each performed. Would one argue that if the tube amp sounded "better" than the XPA (to ME) whether I was using a tube pre, a high end receiver as a pre or a low end receiver as a pre, then using the new UMC would make the tube amp sound inferior to the XPA? It sure wouldn't be logical. I would expect the same results. And why would that be? Because the sound produced by the tubes pleased ME more. The highest end pre connected to those two units should result in, arguably, still "better" sound for both (at least to the capable limits of the amps), but there will still be a difference in coloration that will result from the use of two very different amp structures. No one needs to be defensive for having bought an Emotiva product and erroneously assuming that I either don't know what I am doing or that I am bashing Emotiva to such an extent that lash outs are necessary. Far from it. I thought the XPA was a very good piece of equipment that I would recommend. Many people do not like the "tube sound" or believe tubes are full of distortion, or can't hit clear highs, or can't deliver powerful base - or whatever else. I understand that, and for those feeling that way I sincerely believe Emotiva is a great product. Throw in price and it is an amazing product. As a matter of fact, I am now considering using the XPA-2 with an XPA-5 and a UMC/XMC for movies and using my subs and EQ to achieve what I desire, and using the tubes for my music. In the meantime, you can stop the CAPS if you want - I can hear you at normal volume. Oh, and personal attacks usually tell readers more about the attacker than the person being attacked. But both are your prerogative. Good luck with that temper TRT :-) Hello J, A very interesting read as well as a good analysis of the differences between Tubes and ST. I am sorry the XPA didn't have the particular reproduction characteristics you were looking for, but now you know for sure what it is you want and that is a good thing. Specs are one thing and a good place to start when looking for a new piece of equipment, but the ultimate test is always, how does it sound to me and that is why we have the 30 day audition period. We want people to have the time to really listen to the equipment and make an honest assessment of the situation. It is meets your needs and sounds the way you want, wonderful. If it doesn't, I completely understand and as I father used to say, no harm, no foul. From a technical stand point, tubes will always be inferior to ST. However, one must ask themselves, if this is true, then why are they still made? The answer is simple but all to often over looked. Given the way a tube works the inherent harmonics generated at clipping are pleasing to the ear and this is why they call them Warm sounding. It may not be accurate, but it does sound sweet and I can accept you choosing it over the XPA. When comparing ST to ST, that is a whole different ball game, but Tube to ST will always come down to personal taste. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 20, 2009 9:24:39 GMT -5
While it is true that the XPA was run through some cheap stuff, it was also run through a top line Yamaha (RX-Z7) and a very nice tube pre. I will excuse any erroneous assumptions that I would put dirt in and expect gold out. No one here knows me, so assumptions may be in order. The tube amp sounded shabby when it went through the JVC, and hardly better on the Nakamichi, and the best results occurred when the XPA and the tube amp went through the tube pre. To put it succinctly, the better the pre, the better each performed. Would one argue that if the tube amp sounded "better" than the XPA (to ME) whether I was using a tube pre, a high end receiver as a pre or a low end receiver as a pre, then using the new UMC would make the tube amp sound inferior to the XPA? It sure wouldn't be logical. I would expect the same results. And why would that be? Because the sound produced by the tubes pleased ME more. The highest end pre connected to those two units should result in, arguably, still "better" sound for both (at least to the capable limits of the amps), but there will still be a difference in coloration that will result from the use of two very different amp structures. No one needs to be defensive for having bought an Emotiva product and erroneously assuming that I either don't know what I am doing or that I am bashing Emotiva to such an extent that lash outs are necessary. Far from it. I thought the XPA was a very good piece of equipment that I would recommend. Many people do not like the "tube sound" or believe tubes are full of distortion, or can't hit clear highs, or can't deliver powerful base - or whatever else. I understand that, and for those feeling that way I sincerely believe Emotiva is a great product. Throw in price and it is an amazing product. As a matter of fact, I am now considering using the XPA-2 with an XPA-5 and a UMC/XMC for movies and using my subs and EQ to achieve what I desire, and using the tubes for my music. In the meantime, you can stop the CAPS if you want - I can hear you at normal volume. Oh, and personal attacks usually tell readers more about the attacker than the person being attacked. But both are your prerogative. Good luck with that temper TRT :-) Well that explains it.. personally the last time I heard anything amplified by tubes was my parents old Zenith television! So I am not familiar with the difference but from the way you explained it, I sure can't argue with you. |
|
|
|
Post by jkeedy on Apr 20, 2009 13:28:25 GMT -5
And Lonnie, that is exactly why I may keep the XPA-2 and get an Emotiva set up for video and enjoy that "other" sound on my vinyl. Maybe I can enjoy the "best" (to me) of both worlds. And I sure appreciate your post and your understanding.
|
|
lonnie
Administrator
GM
OZ- 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by lonnie on Apr 20, 2009 14:00:29 GMT -5
And Lonnie, that is exactly why I may keep the XPA-2 and get an Emotiva set up for video and enjoy that "other" sound on my vinyl. Maybe I can enjoy the "best" (to me) of both worlds. And I sure appreciate your post and your understanding. I think that is an excellent option. However, if you choose not to keep the XPA, not a problem, just give us a call. We will make it as painless as possible. ;D |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by LCSeminole on Apr 20, 2009 15:06:29 GMT -5
jkeedy, I think it is great that you've found that "sound" that you enjoy, being that is what the audio world is all about. I am more curious about why you would consider an XPA series power amplifier when you know that the tube amplifier that your friends son made from scratch sounds inherently to you??? Can your friends son make more of these to power your set-up. If so, then this would be the logical course to take in enjoying the sound that the tube amplifier produced.  |
|
|
|
Post by jkeedy on Apr 20, 2009 22:25:42 GMT -5
I believe that the tubes sounded better on music to such an extent that I decided to have him build me a couple for that purpose. However, the improvements that I want to make on his tube system require me to purchase not only more, but better tubes and parts. Three amps across the front would be necessary in the video system, and I would still have to buy more amps for the surrounds and the rears. In addition, he is going to build a tube pre to go along with the tube amps. While my son's friend is a nice guy, he won't be building these for free. There is the problem of having to drive some nice tubes through an SS processor. There may be warranty problems (could be caused by a move, a rift, health or who knows what else) Then there are tube replacement issues.
Remember, I said the XPA might have been the best SS I have ever heard. There are two drawbacks on the video side of the XPA. One is my perceived high end harshness (an exaggerated word as most would properly call it clarity) which I can tame with some EQ or, better, some room acoustics (my room is square, has a lot of windows, a glass table and a wood floor). The other is a little lack of punch on the base (the base was there, but I will be able to solve the punch with the two powered subs).
So - that is why.
I like the idea of possibly enjoying the best of both worlds.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by LCSeminole on Apr 21, 2009 17:15:38 GMT -5
I believe that the tubes sounded better on music to such an extent that I decided to have him build me a couple for that purpose. However, the improvements that I want to make on his tube system require me to purchase not only more, but better tubes and parts. Three amps across the front would be necessary in the video system, and I would still have to buy more amps for the surrounds and the rears. In addition, he is going to build a tube pre to go along with the tube amps. While my son's friend is a nice guy, he won't be building these for free. There is the problem of having to drive some nice tubes through an SS processor. There may be warranty problems (could be caused by a move, a rift, health or who knows what else) Then there are tube replacement issues. Remember, I said the XPA might have been the best SS I have ever heard. There are two drawbacks on the video side of the XPA. One is my perceived high end harshness (an exaggerated word as most would properly call it clarity) which I can tame with some EQ or, better, some room acoustics (my room is square, has a lot of windows, a glass table and a wood floor). The other is a little lack of punch on the base (the base was there, but I will be able to solve the punch with the two powered subs). So - that is why. I like the idea of possibly enjoying the best of both worlds. I never actually thought he'd be making these for free!!!  Just curious, What are you paying for his builds??? |
|
|
|
Post by jkeedy on Apr 22, 2009 2:43:11 GMT -5
LCS, I will let you know. His profession is in photography and he is on a shoot that prevents him from putting together an estimate. Roughly, each mono amp will be $250 (he said he had about $200 in each of his monos). Then there are upgrades to the tubes. I will let you know when he finishes.
By the way, I have decided to keep my Emotiva.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mac11700 on Apr 22, 2009 14:36:39 GMT -5
LCS, I will let you know. His profession is in photography and he is on a shoot that prevents him from putting together an estimate. Roughly, each mono amp will be $250 (he said he had about $200 in each of his monos). Then there are upgrades to the tubes. I will let you know when he finishes. By the way, I have decided to keep my Emotiva. Smart move..mate it to a different source,and I am quite sure you will find it much different,and most likely,much more agreeable.I've played around with some different tube equipment as of late,and will take the sound I have now over any of them.Both of my pre-pro's are Interga units (7.8 & 9.8) and Emo's amps are a perfect match for them. Good luck with the new tube amp when you get it..and don't forget to post some pictures of it when you get a chance.. Mac |
|
|
|
Post by jkeedy on May 6, 2009 17:17:55 GMT -5
I have some more testing results thanks to a local high end A/V store. The XPA-2 was hooked up to the sound board and was compared with the straight stereo sounds of a Yamaha RX-Z7(msrp $2700), a Pioneer Elite SC-07(msrp $2200) and a Denon 4308CI (msrp $2700). The first test was between the three receivers. My son and I have listened with two salespersons and a tech. Everyone liked the Denon sound best with all types of music. Next, we compared the Denon 4308 with the XPA-2 using as a pre the Denon 3808. All agreed the XPA sounded "warmer" or "smoother". The Denon appeared to be "clearer" or "sharper" or "more detailed". All felt that each of the above had its own good qualities with all agreeing that listening to music was slightly more enjoyable through the XPA/3808 combo. We did not test with movies as the hook-up was more difficult and the guys at the store had already been more than accommodating. Some SPECULATED that the clarity or sharpness of the Denon might help with audio from video, but the experiences that I related in previous posts would tell me that I would enjoy the XPA over the Denon. I was not able to test Onkyo since that brand is not carried here. Personally I believe the XPA is a great product in its category. There may be receivers (or amps) that cost much more (3-5K) that sound better, but they are not for me and I won't be testing them.
Versus the tubes? Well, I still like the sound of music AND the audio from video sources from those tubes. However, the cost of the damn things has skyrocketed. I do realize why, as I tried to get the best parts (within reason). Two really good monos will total $1500 while a lesser quality 3 channel amp (not monos) will run $1000. Of course, I could go with cheaper parts, but then the sound might not be as good as what I heard the first time I heard his tubes. And there will be NO return policy! Given that, and the lack of good (or no) warranty support, parts supply, and the inevitability of tube degradation, I would be hard pressed to justify running tubes as part of my main system. Maybe someday.
I have to conclude that for me (and my budget) the XPA-2, along with an XPA-5, will serve as my amplification.
Now, should I get the UMC-1, XMC-1 or the Onkyo PR-SC886P? For the answer to that question I will have to wait on Emotiva:-)
|
|
Just curious, What are you paying for his builds???