|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on May 7, 2013 11:40:40 GMT -5
Andrew, those B&W speakers are a *very* interesting design! I have never seen a speaker that allows for the shifting of the TM module from a top mount to a center mount. How do they accommodate the woofers within the cabinet and ensure that their resonance does not compromise the TM output? Most designs generally try to isolate the TM (tweeter, midrange) speakers within their own "mini-cabinet". How do they accomplish this when the module is moved from the top position to the middle? And how does moving one of the woofers affect its interaction with the rest of the cabinet? B&W surely knows their stuff, I just wonder how they were able to pull that off... The CT8.2s are the second speaker I've owned that allow for the re-positioning of the midrange and/or tweeter section. The Episode 900 Series theater speakers also allow for this type of re-positioning. The speaker's internal bracing/structure allows for their to be no real change in sound when the tweeter/midrange section is moved for the guts were designed and voiced with such adjustment in mind. When the tweeter/midrange is moved to the middle, Bowers & Wilkins is keen to point out that the speaker should then be rest upon its side horizontally as you would a "typical" center speaker. However, and as I have stated elsewhere, I don't have to rely on a horizontal center, so while I have moved the tweeter/midrange just to see how it's done, it's not how I have them setup. Though, to your larger question, does moving the tweeter/midrange affect the sound? Not dramatically, if at all. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 7, 2013 11:54:30 GMT -5
When people talk about they noticed a "difference" does it means they sound better?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on May 7, 2013 12:03:25 GMT -5
When people talk about they noticed a "difference" does it means they sound better? No, not all the time. At least not in my personal experience. "Better" is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Different on the other hand is just that -different.  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 7, 2013 13:03:24 GMT -5
When people talk about they noticed a "difference" does it means they sound better? No, not all the time. At least not in my personal experience. "Better" is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Different on the other hand is just that -different. So I should basically build my system around my speakers instead of the other way around? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Robinson on May 7, 2013 13:09:42 GMT -5
So I should basically build my system around my speakers instead of the other way around? You should build your system around what makes sense for you and based solely on what you want/like. Speakers are important and arguably have more of an impact on your system's sound than any other component, but that isn't to say that other components don't play an important role. For example; my Bowers & Wilkins CT8.2 LCRs sound markedly different when powered by my Parasound Halo amplifiers than they do my Crown XLS DriveCore amps. Note I didn't say better (or worse) just different. They still sound like Bowers & Wilkins, which I happen to like, but different none the less. Building a system is about balance and the individual. You may find that springing for better speakers (note I didn't say more expensive) is worth while over say an extra 100-Watts of power on your amp. Your speakers will tell you if a bigger, badder amp is the answer, too -just look at your loudspeaker's efficiency. My Tekton Design Pendragon speakers seem un-phased by changes in amplifiers though my Bowers & Wilkins speakers take to change like a duck to water -one speaker is 99dB efficient (meaning you could power it to reference levels with a 9-Volt battery ) and the other needs straight "racing fuel." The point being there is no magic solution or answer. It's a journey. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 7, 2013 14:05:05 GMT -5
Isc wrote: "You can clearly tell the difference btw the XPR-5 vs. two XPR-1s. So, I'd say if you can tell the difference and think it's worth it, then it's not overkill." And you've compared them in the same room at the same volume levels? If not, I think you might want to do so. It could be very instructive... -RW- I have magical ears. XPR-1s are better than 2 channels out of MY XPR-5. And my current XPR-5 is way way way better than my old XPA-5. This should not be a revelation to anyone. Also, if the person with the "difference" question was referring to my original post...the next sentence has your clarification. ;D This of course is all my opinion. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 7, 2013 14:11:30 GMT -5
No, not all the time. At least not in my personal experience. "Better" is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Different on the other hand is just that -different. So I should basically build my system around my speakers instead of the other way around? You should build your system around your strongest component currently in your system. Unlike others, I believe in building with a certain balance so you don't have any glaring weaknesses. This reduces upgraditis. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 7, 2013 14:16:51 GMT -5
So I should basically build my system around my speakers instead of the other way around? I think that's been the common wisdom for some time. Your room guides/dictates your speaker selection, your speakers will perform best with the right amp, your processor selection might be guided by amp and speaker location; balanced cables for longer runs, 5.1, 7.2, 9.3, etc. Certainly (back on topic) you could first buy an amp that will drive virtually any speaker (like the XPR-1), though if you have a specific budget that may not be the best way to allocate your funds. But (as Andrew implies), these are things we like, and we should enjoy the journey as well as the destination. |
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 7, 2013 15:12:56 GMT -5
^ To add to this, I typically tell people that want to get into home theater to build around their budget.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 7, 2013 20:57:25 GMT -5
Differences among good enough amps are subtle. Differences among speakers costing $1000 vs. $5000 are enormous. I remember checking out the B&W lineup and switching from the CM9 to the 804 Diamond. It was a massacre for the CM9, even though it seemed quite good on its own. Another point about audio vs. video: I feel a LOT more comfortable throwing more money at the audio side because there's so little progress there. Video, on the other hand, is improving rapidly. Difference btw XPA-5 and XPR-5 are not subtle. And anyone who says all you get is 3dB more out of the XPR-5 has no clue what they are talking about. Also, comparing different price points of the same brand....have u compared the 5k F208 vs 16k Studio2? No massacre here. |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on May 7, 2013 21:04:28 GMT -5
I have both of these amps and have tried them with the same speakers (my 803's). The differences are subtle, at least in my opinion and with my speakers. The difference was far more subtle than between the speakers I mentioned.
Haven't listened to any Revels.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 7, 2013 21:15:44 GMT -5
I have both of these amps and have tried them with the same speakers (my 803's). The differences are subtle, at least in my opinion and with my speakers. The difference was far more subtle than between the speakers I mentioned. Haven't listened to any Revels. A quick example. Same movie...same volume. When the train passes...with the XPA-5 it sounds like a movie with the train passing. With the XPR-5, it sounds like a real train just blew past my family room. That's not a subtle difference to me. When a kick drum sounds live, it's not a subtle difference. When the music sounds much more effortless out of the XPR-5, that's not subtle. So our definition of subtle must be different. To get the difference, you gotta turn it up a little. Frankly, as a fellow owner of both, I'm shocked that you think it's a subtle difference...there is something missing here. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on May 7, 2013 21:19:42 GMT -5
I have both of these amps and have tried them with the same speakers (my 803's). The differences are subtle, at least in my opinion and with my speakers. The difference was far more subtle than between the speakers I mentioned. Haven't listened to any Revels. A quick example. Same movie...same volume. When the train passes...with the XPA-5 it sounds like a movie with the train passing. With the XPR-5, it sounds like a real train just blew past my family room. That's not a subtle difference to me. When a kick drum sounds live, it's not a subtle difference. When the music sounds much more effortless out of the XPR-5, that's not subtle. So our definition of subtle must be different. To get the difference, you gotta turn it up a little. Frankly, as a fellow owner of both, I'm shocked that you think it's a subtle difference...there is something missing here. To be sure they must be compared at the same volume! That said, I think that the XPR-5 is like a Corvette to an XPA-5's Camaro. |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on May 7, 2013 21:50:26 GMT -5
Hemster, I'd compare them to a 911 S vs. Boxter S . Both very nice. One is a lot more bling and a little bit more power... Next to that the XPR-1 would be the 911 TT, the XPA-1L a GT3, and a random Sony receiver a little Toyota Yaris. Lsc, I really do believe the most fundamental difference between these amps is the amount of power (being able to go 3 dB higher is important in my book). They're both fundamentally the same class-AB design from the same people, however. I don't think either of the amps will audibly distort in any way before clipping. Maybe the transients are a little better with the R (which is probably a function of being able to deliver more current quickly). |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 7, 2013 21:59:24 GMT -5
A quick example. Same movie...same volume. When the train passes...with the XPA-5 it sounds like a movie with the train passing. With the XPR-5, it sounds like a real train just blew past my family room. That's not a subtle difference to me. That sounds (sic) like a volume difference to me. With a UMC-200 at an appropriate volume setting and an XPA-5 I can shake, rattle and roll the house like it is the train. Not sure that I want/need more volume than that.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 7, 2013 22:07:46 GMT -5
Also due to the xpr-5's lower gain )29db) it should be actually delivering less volume at the same volume output. So the difference is not likely due to the volume being not matched IMO if the xpr-5 sounded better unless the higher gain was causing the xpa-5 to strain at the higher power demand.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 7, 2013 22:16:45 GMT -5
A quick example. Same movie...same volume. When the train passes...with the XPA-5 it sounds like a movie with the train passing. With the XPR-5, it sounds like a real train just blew past my family room. That's not a subtle difference to me. That sounds (sic) like a volume difference to me. With a UMC-200 at an appropriate volume setting and an XPA-5 I can shake, rattle and roll the house like it is the train. Not sure that I want/need more volume than that. Cheers Gary Volume level was the same. I've been at this a while, I'm no spring chicken. The XPA-5 is a fine amp no question but with my speakers, the XPR-5 is at another level. The Revel F208s are very dynamic, revealing speakers. Pretty easy to tell the difference and by different, I mean the XPR-5 is way better. Of course, to anyone if their stuff sounds great to them, there is nothing left to do but enjoy. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 7, 2013 22:26:29 GMT -5
Hemster, I'd compare them to a 911 S vs. Boxter S . Both very nice. One is a lot more bling and a little bit more power... Next to that the XPR-1 would be the 911 TT, the XPA-1L a GT3, and a random Sony receiver a little Toyota Yaris. Lsc, I really do believe the most fundamental difference between these amps is the amount of power (being able to go 3 dB higher is important in my book). They're both fundamentally the same class-AB design from the same people, however. I don't think either of the amps will audibly distort in any way before clipping. Maybe the transients are a little better with the R (which is probably a function of being able to deliver more current quickly). Arthurz with all due respect, when was the last time you had your hearing checked?  Transients are way better. Did u really side by side a/b them or are you pulling my leg? |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on May 7, 2013 23:05:01 GMT -5
Yes, I compared them a few minutes apart. It wasn't a real test in that I didn't go back and forth (nor was it blind, let's not forget this part...). I think my hearing is fine – I can hear a clear difference between the Asgard 2 and the HA540/XDA-2's headphone amp, as I reported earlier. I'd still classify that difference as subtle, however. Maybe we have different definitions of what's subtle??? As someone else said in another thread earlier today: always be suspicious of claims of night-and-day differences in high-end audio. Here's a quote from an old thread you might find interesting (granted, I understand XPA-5 is not XPA-1..., but neither is XPR-5): Both Lonnie and Dan told me several times at Emofest 2010 and Axpona that the XPA-1 will remain the SQ amp. Both also told me that the XPR is for the highest power, not highest SQ. They also told me that the XPR line would sound great, but would not have SQ that would surpass the XPA-1. |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on May 7, 2013 23:39:02 GMT -5
Arthurz with all due respect, when was the last time you had your hearing checked? Please take a look at the distortion charts: emotiva.com/resources/media/xpr5/xpr5_8ohms.pdfemotiva.com/resources/media/xpa5/xpa5_8ohm.pdfHere are a few sample points from the THD+N charts at 1 kHz (pages 6 and 7 respectively; apologies for the dashes, ProBoards is very aggressive about coalescing adjacent spaces even in tt mode): Level -- XPA-5 -- XPR-5
-----------------------
200 µW – 0.25% –- 0.50%
--1 mW – 0.12% -– 0.24%
--1 W –- 0.015% – 0.012%
100 W –- 0.009% – 0.01%You will surely observe the XPA-5 actually outperforms the XPR-5 (on paper; in reality this level of distortion is imperceptible). The XPA-5 test was done with a low-pass at 80 kHz, while the XPR-5 had a low-pass at 20 kHz, which I think would've made the test minimally more difficult for the XPA-5 due to the theoretical presence of more IMD, although I'd bet that's not even close to being a factor. If you agree with Emotiva's measurements, you'll need to point to another possible source of XPR-5's claimed superiority (since it can't be distortion). It can't be the frequency response either, since we know it's a ruler in both cases. |
|
