|
|
Post by audiosanity on Nov 17, 2013 17:46:46 GMT -5
It definitely adds something to the sound quality - bass is the most noticeable aspect and the ability to drive them cleanly at very loud SPL levels, but as much as I like loud, the 3312 went as loud as I required (not quite as cleanly though.) All these night-and-day differences reviews that I've been reading though are far far from what I am hearing. If I was to rate the sound on a scale of 1 to 100 before and after the XPA-5, I'd say it is 5 points higher after the addition. If you actually perceived that much difference, than that is huge. My guess is that a portion of your 5 points is even due to placebo. As a rule of thumb, I immediately dismiss any audio review that makes "night and day" difference claims. Sure, against a crappy boom box or truly a low end system, I buy it. But when you are comparing high quality amps/preamps, any difference should be subtle, sometimes even imaginary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 18:36:45 GMT -5
My favorite is reviewers of audio gear and their crazy descriptions for the way things sound vs another. They are worse than car salesman with they audio snake oil lingo. Theres no way I can read a review of audio gear since it's always as good as something twice as much, a huge deal in audio etc.
Urgh, I just wish we could get a regular guy to reviews stuff that doesn't turn into a horse and pony show. Be realistic, do a proper comparison instead of "remembering" how something sounded 6 months before.
But that will never happen because it won't sell anything. I generally like Emotiva because they don't make any wild claims (other than a few employees) and they sell great gear that sounds good.... IMO thats more than enough!!
|
|
|
|
Post by brendelac on Nov 18, 2013 15:49:32 GMT -5
 My living room is very open so far from an ideal listening environment. No room treatments or measuring equipment (other than an SPL meter) in place. I have my towers on either side of the TV and surrounds on either side of the couch with the center channel above the TV. I have a two non-identical 15" sealed subwoofers - one located in the bottom left corner of the picture and the other beside the right-surround speaker (opposite the kitchen wall) Sorry, I'm actually rather bad at helping with diagrams. But I do appreciate the effort. Maybe somebody else would do better? I can help you more if you can post an actual photo of where the main speakers are. (If you can include the couch and surroundings as much as possible that would help as well). These would allow me to see - how far apart the speakers are. The toe in. Whether there are major obstructions. How far away from the wall. Whether it's past the plane of the speakers. What if any carpetting. Etc. Then others with more experience can direct you as to some good starting locations of the acoustic panels.  Sorry for the delay. My camera appears to have sprouted legs and walked away. I dug up this older picture. Nothing has really changed except for the XPA-5 addition and tidying things up a bit... My left surround speaker is essentially placed in a corner (wall beside and behind it) while the the right surround speaker has only the wall behind it. The wall beside the left surround speaker is only about 5-6 feet long but is the full 8 foot height of the room. The diagram might help to understand. Far from ideal I know, but I'm working with what I have... |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 18, 2013 16:15:32 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm actually rather bad at helping with diagrams. But I do appreciate the effort. Maybe somebody else would do better? I can help you more if you can post an actual photo of where the main speakers are. (If you can include the couch and surroundings as much as possible that would help as well). These would allow me to see - how far apart the speakers are. The toe in. Whether there are major obstructions. How far away from the wall. Whether it's past the plane of the speakers. What if any carpetting. Etc. Then others with more experience can direct you as to some good starting locations of the acoustic panels. Sorry for the delay. My camera appears to have sprouted legs and walked away. I dug up this older picture. Nothing has really changed except for the XPA-5 addition and tidying things up a bit... My left surround speaker is essentially placed in a corner (wall beside and behind it) while the the right surround speaker has only the wall behind it. The wall beside the left surround speaker is only about 5-6 feet long but is the full 8 foot height of the room. The diagram might help to understand. Far from ideal I know, but I'm working with what I have... That's very helpful. Well you've got most of the things done pretty well imo. Spaced widely apart - nice, and not toed in too much or too little. You have some carpet. That's an acoustic treatment behind the tv right? Here are some suggestions. Some of the mmay not work in your living/aesthetic situation. I would 1. pull the speakers forward into the room some. Definitely past the plane of the tv. 2. Get rid of the side couch. 3. Get rid of the cofee table. 4. I don't know much about subwoofers, but maybe experiment to see which place has the best response? Others can help you here. 5. Bass traps. 6. Acoustic panels on the first reflection points. An acoustic panel behind your couch on the wall. 7. If it is possible, maybe move the speakers slightly to the right (away from the corner wall). That's the best I've got for now. |
|
|
|
Post by brendelac on Nov 18, 2013 16:54:39 GMT -5
That's an acoustic treatment behind the tv right? That's a fireplace. Perhaps it has some acoustic treatment properties that I am unaware of...  |
|
|
|
Post by Percussionista on Nov 18, 2013 17:08:49 GMT -5
Agree fully, so the question is who can hear the differences between such a "good" vs. "better" amplifier. If those golden-eared reviewers are waxing a bit too rhapsodic, then what about us "normal folk"? I bought my first serious separate power amp about 30 years ago - it was a Phase Linear 400, by our buddy Bob Carver. As its moniker suggests, it was 200 watts per side, quite powerful for the day. My receiver at the time just couldn't drive the speakers, but this one had all the mojo. It also developed scary problems now and then with output transistors, and they became known in the trade as "Flame Linear" (or maybe it was their more powerful version at 350 watts per side). Mine had to go into the shop a few times. In any case, when I upgraded speakers a dozen or so years later (Apogee planar all-ribbon) I needed a better amp. I usually first listen for mid/high clarity and soundstage - how lifelike and clear a speaker is. I was checking out a new amp (Belles) with similar power on paper (actually measured a little bit more), but what totally surprised me was the bottom end. Playing music with some low piano notes came out a bit more thud-thud with the P.L.400, what I will refer to as "low-bass flatulence", whereas it was just solid notes with the Belles. Presumably the P.L.400 was just running out of gas down there and was distorting, in spite of its power (but perhaps its reserves couldn't hack it). Absolutely night and day there. Think of how solid and controlled the Emo Stealth speaker line is on low bass vs. considerably less endowed speakers. So all I'm saying is, even what might be classed as an "audiophile" amp can have very audible issues. (I still have the Flame Li..., err umm, Phase Linear 400, been gathering dust for a long time. Was hoping with Bob's earlier involvement with Emo that maybe I could pawn it off (for free) maybe for a future Bob Carver museum of audio gear  ) A good amplifier should never change anything in the signal, its function is to simply amplify as the name suggests. A better amplifier will allow you to achieve clean, distortion-free sound when pushed harder. So you should not be hearing a "night and day" difference. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 19, 2013 12:55:25 GMT -5
Indeed. There is a famous quote that is widely attributed (apparently falsely - or it's really highly paraphrased) to Albert Einstein - that goes: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” In the audiophile world (which is beset with far too much snake oil) we always need to keep this in mind. Sometimes the excess of reptilian lubrication leads us to oversimplify things in an attempt to get onto solid (and non-slippery) ground. Amplifiers really do sound different, and in ways that perfectly normal folks can usually hear - but the details depend on the circumstances. I've personally owned a lot of amplifiers - and quite a few speakers - in my days as an audiophile. At one particular point in time I had a pair of Vandersteen 4's (which have a very heavy isobarik passive "sub" in them), and a pair of Spica Angelus (which are a rather simple two-way design with some very fancy cabinetry). At the same time, I had a Hafler 280XL (a pretty standard Class A/B amplifier with FET output devices), and an Aragon 8008 (a massively powerful Class A/B amp using standard transistors). Note that these were both reasonably powerful amplifiers with excellent specifications, and I wasn't playing either terribly loud. With the Angelus(es), which are quite easy to drive, both amps sounded pretty much the same; but, with the Vandersteens, the Aragon was clearly much superior in the bass. The bass sounded tighter, and seemed to go lower - even though I suspect it would have measured about the same. My educated guess is that the Vandys needed lots of bass damping, with plenty of current capability to back it up, and the Aragon was able to deliver it - while the Hafler was not. The result was that the bass sounded cleaner and clearer with the Aragon - which made it seem to go deeper. The Spicas were clearly nowhere near as demanding, and so worked well with pretty much any amp. It would take a lot of rather sophisticated testing to determine whether my theory about the reason for the difference in sound was correct (you would need to be able to measure current draw and back EMF under dynamic conditions), but the difference itself was quite obvious. However, my point for purposes of this discussion is that I had two amplifiers that sounded virtually the same with one set of speakers, yet sounded very different with different speakers... proof that you need to take everything into consideration before making sweeping generalizations. (If I had only the Spicas, I would have felt vindicated in claiming that "all amplifiers sound about the same". If I only had the Vandys, I would have been convinced that "amplifiers don't sound at all the same".) The fact that you can find a pair of speakers that sound the same regardless of what amplifier you connect them to does not "prove" that "all amplifiers sound the same". Agree fully, so the question is who can hear the differences between such a "good" vs. "better" amplifier. If those golden-eared reviewers are waxing a bit too rhapsodic, then what about us "normal folk"? I bought my first serious separate power amp about 30 years ago - it was a Phase Linear 400, by our buddy Bob Carver. As its moniker suggests, it was 200 watts per side, quite powerful for the day. My receiver at the time just couldn't drive the speakers, but this one had all the mojo. It also developed scary problems now and then with output transistors, and they became known in the trade as "Flame Linear" (or maybe it was their more powerful version at 350 watts per side). Mine had to go into the shop a few times. In any case, when I upgraded speakers a dozen or so years later (Apogee planar all-ribbon) I needed a better amp. I usually first listen for mid/high clarity and soundstage - how lifelike and clear a speaker is. I was checking out a new amp (Belles) with similar power on paper (actually measured a little bit more), but what totally surprised me was the bottom end. Playing music with some low piano notes came out a bit more thud-thud with the P.L.400, what I will refer to as "low-bass flatulence", whereas it was just solid notes with the Belles. Presumably the P.L.400 was just running out of gas down there and was distorting, in spite of its power (but perhaps its reserves couldn't hack it). Absolutely night and day there. Think of how solid and controlled the Emo Stealth speaker line is on low bass vs. considerably less endowed speakers. So all I'm saying is, even what might be classed as an "audiophile" amp can have very audible issues. (I still have the Flame Li..., err umm, Phase Linear 400, been gathering dust for a long time. Was hoping with Bob's earlier involvement with Emo that maybe I could pawn it off (for free) maybe for a future Bob Carver museum of audio gear ) A good amplifier should never change anything in the signal, its function is to simply amplify as the name suggests. A better amplifier will allow you to achieve clean, distortion-free sound when pushed harder. So you should not be hearing a "night and day" difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 19, 2013 16:09:13 GMT -5
There is a famous quote that is widely attributed (apparently falsely - or it's really highly paraphrased) to Albert Einstein - that goes: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I believe that the actual Einstein quote, from the Herbert Spencer Lecture at Oxford on 10th June 1933 titled “On the Method of Theoretical Physics”; "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." I personally have a liking for the paraphrasing by The Publisher, Time Magazine 1960 "In fields of specialized knowledge, we aim to render an account that is plain and simple, yet does no violence to the difficulty of the subject, so that the uninformed reader can understand us while the expert cannot fault us." Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Percussionista on Nov 21, 2013 20:07:32 GMT -5
Einstein's quote (in Keith's rendition) is one my fav quotes of all time. What is interesting is that Gary's actual rendition shows that the more generic one suffers from too much simplification What is key that is left out is that last phrase "without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." If you understand the simplified quote, you know that in fact this is what it means, but because this reason for not simplifying things too far is left out of the generic quote, it becomes too simple, and the general joe might have no idea what it really is saying (i.e. "but no simpler"... no indication of the consequences of oversimplification). I hadn't seen the real quote before - thanks for posting! There is a famous quote that is widely attributed (apparently falsely - or it's really highly paraphrased) to Albert Einstein - that goes: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I believe that the actual Einstein quote, from the Herbert Spencer Lecture at Oxford on 10th June 1933 titled “On the Method of Theoretical Physics”; "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." |
|
|
|
Post by gravi on Nov 22, 2013 13:13:09 GMT -5
In the particular comparison you mention the theory behind the sound difference might indeed be correct and even be measurable. But if the variable in question (current capability of speaker) was held constant at a level that is enough to drive the least efficient possible speaker, along with all other factors, the fact remains that differences between solid-state amplifiers (or any other electronic component for that matter, say DAC, Pre-amp, etc.) is not measurable with any degree of precision. Now that does not mean they cannot sound different to different people. There is no difference as far as Physics is concerned, but they could be from the perspective of Psychoacoustics, which is a valid area of scientific endeavor. Indeed. There is a famous quote that is widely attributed (apparently falsely - or it's really highly paraphrased) to Albert Einstein - that goes: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” In the audiophile world (which is beset with far too much snake oil) we always need to keep this in mind. Sometimes the excess of reptilian lubrication leads us to oversimplify things in an attempt to get onto solid (and non-slippery) ground. Amplifiers really do sound different, and in ways that perfectly normal folks can usually hear - but the details depend on the circumstances. I've personally owned a lot of amplifiers - and quite a few speakers - in my days as an audiophile. At one particular point in time I had a pair of Vandersteen 4's (which have a very heavy isobarik passive "sub" in them), and a pair of Spica Angelus (which are a rather simple two-way design with some very fancy cabinetry). At the same time, I had a Hafler 280XL (a pretty standard Class A/B amplifier with FET output devices), and an Aragon 8008 (a massively powerful Class A/B amp using standard transistors). Note that these were both reasonably powerful amplifiers with excellent specifications, and I wasn't playing either terribly loud. With the Angelus(es), which are quite easy to drive, both amps sounded pretty much the same; but, with the Vandersteens, the Aragon was clearly much superior in the bass. The bass sounded tighter, and seemed to go lower - even though I suspect it would have measured about the same. My educated guess is that the Vandys needed lots of bass damping, with plenty of current capability to back it up, and the Aragon was able to deliver it - while the Hafler was not. The result was that the bass sounded cleaner and clearer with the Aragon - which made it seem to go deeper. The Spicas were clearly nowhere near as demanding, and so worked well with pretty much any amp. It would take a lot of rather sophisticated testing to determine whether my theory about the reason for the difference in sound was correct (you would need to be able to measure current draw and back EMF under dynamic conditions), but the difference itself was quite obvious. However, my point for purposes of this discussion is that I had two amplifiers that sounded virtually the same with one set of speakers, yet sounded very different with different speakers... proof that you need to take everything into consideration before making sweeping generalizations. (If I had only the Spicas, I would have felt vindicated in claiming that "all amplifiers sound about the same". If I only had the Vandys, I would have been convinced that "amplifiers don't sound at all the same".) The fact that you can find a pair of speakers that sound the same regardless of what amplifier you connect them to does not "prove" that "all amplifiers sound the same". Agree fully, so the question is who can hear the differences between such a "good" vs. "better" amplifier. If those golden-eared reviewers are waxing a bit too rhapsodic, then what about us "normal folk"? I bought my first serious separate power amp about 30 years ago - it was a Phase Linear 400, by our buddy Bob Carver. As its moniker suggests, it was 200 watts per side, quite powerful for the day. My receiver at the time just couldn't drive the speakers, but this one had all the mojo. It also developed scary problems now and then with output transistors, and they became known in the trade as "Flame Linear" (or maybe it was their more powerful version at 350 watts per side). Mine had to go into the shop a few times. In any case, when I upgraded speakers a dozen or so years later (Apogee planar all-ribbon) I needed a better amp. I usually first listen for mid/high clarity and soundstage - how lifelike and clear a speaker is. I was checking out a new amp (Belles) with similar power on paper (actually measured a little bit more), but what totally surprised me was the bottom end. Playing music with some low piano notes came out a bit more thud-thud with the P.L.400, what I will refer to as "low-bass flatulence", whereas it was just solid notes with the Belles. Presumably the P.L.400 was just running out of gas down there and was distorting, in spite of its power (but perhaps its reserves couldn't hack it). Absolutely night and day there. Think of how solid and controlled the Emo Stealth speaker line is on low bass vs. considerably less endowed speakers. So all I'm saying is, even what might be classed as an "audiophile" amp can have very audible issues. (I still have the Flame Li..., err umm, Phase Linear 400, been gathering dust for a long time. Was hoping with Bob's earlier involvement with Emo that maybe I could pawn it off (for free) maybe for a future Bob Carver museum of audio gear ) |
|
kknadella
Minor Hero
Seeking Audio Nirvana thru Emotiva
Posts: 19 
|
Post by kknadella on Nov 22, 2013 15:43:47 GMT -5
The night and day difference people just make me laugh. I've never heard a night and day difference between any electronics, ever. There are subtle differences but the people that hear these huge drastic differences must have broken amps... I have to respectfully disagree with N8DOGG regarding the generalization of all differences being subtle. There are a multitude of parameters which could contribute to the degree of one's liking or disliking a particular piece of equipment. My Denon AVR was by no means broken when I replaced it with the XPA-5/UMC-200 combo. The following are a few of the many things which nailed it for me (regarding the XPA/UMC combo): - When playing at reference level, bass was very muddy with the Denon AVR whereas with the XPA it was almost musical Yes, I could clearly hear rythmic variations in mid-bass with the XPA, which I never heard earlier with the Denon In this case, however, I agree that the difference I noticed could've been amplified by my Klipsch speakers. RF-7's impedance is known to dip down to 2.7Ω during bass heavy passages... Which the Denon is not equipped to handle. The difference here is between the wife asking to turn down the volume on Denon vs asking to turn it up because its sounds like IMAX with XPA (Subtle Difference? Not for me) - Soundstage - Even my wife noticed a difference in the sound-stage between the Denon and XPA She said that she could pick the instruments independently with eyes closed with XPA She even said that the voice sounds a lot nicer/softer (could be the Emo-Q/XPA combo did a better job taming the horn in RF-7s than Denon ever did) (Subtle difference? I don't think so) - Amount of clean bass and the extension is ridiculous with the XPA compared to the Denon Before XPA, I always used to feel that the RF-7's were never able to properly complement my SVS Ultra in the bass dept After XPA, the mid-bass from RF-7's is so thunderous that I have a feeling that I will have to add another sub to match their output. (Subtle Difference? You decide) I do, however, agree not everyone who purchases an XPA will experience the same magnitude of differences that I have. It will depend a lot on other parameters like your speakers / sources / room acoustics / type of material (music, movies) / volume levels etc I for one am loving the XPA/UMC over the Denon... I do not miss the Denon one bit. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by brendelac on Nov 22, 2013 21:05:14 GMT -5
The night and day difference people just make me laugh. I've never heard a night and day difference between any electronics, ever. There are subtle differences but the people that hear these huge drastic differences must have broken amps... I do, however, agree not everyone who purchases an XPA will experience the same magnitude of differences that I have. It will depend a lot on other parameters like your speakers / sources / room acoustics / type of material (music, movies) / volume levels etc I for one am loving the XPA/UMC over the Denon... I do not miss the Denon one bit. Cheers What puzzles me is how there can be such a dramatic difference of opinion though. Given the difference in cost of the XPA/UMC combo VS the AVR, I think that it should be expected to be loving the emotivas compared to the denon. Part of me does want to give the UMC-200 a try, but I am reminded of the old saying - Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 22, 2013 22:46:45 GMT -5
I have owned Energy Veritas towers. They are difficult to drive, and no matter what amp I used, I never got mine to sound very dynamic. That said, I notice that the OP likes "loud." This is even harder for the Energy speakers to do.
Although I'd expect the XPA-5 to sound better than an AVR, I'd also say that it is STILL a five-channel amp using roughly the same power supply as all the X-series Emotiva amps. The more channels sucking off that transformer, the more anemic they'll all sound when asked to perform at their limits. With more efficient speakers, less complicated crossovers, or lower volumes, it might not matter so much. But when all channels are asked to sing loudly, they may not do so very sweetly...
So would an XPA-3, an XPA-2, or an XPA-1 sound progressively better with the Energy speakers than the XPA-5? Yes, I think they would. However, the ultimate problem is not the amplifier, the preamp, or the DAC - it's the speakers. If you don't care for the sound of the speakers, no electronic component is going to suddenly transform them.
I realize that this may not be what the OP wants to hear, but I'd recommend trying some different speakers to see what you like. THEN select the upstream equipment to properly drive the speaker set.
Cheers - Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by brendelac on Nov 22, 2013 23:48:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the response boomzilla. I think I mentioned somewhere that I am happy with the sound and was even before the XPA-5, but reading all the reviews on them, it sounded promising that there would be big improvements with the Emotiva. I also have a set of Energy Reference Connoisseur speakers (RC-70s, RC-LCR, RC-Rs, RC-10s) which are definitely more efficient that I have briefly tested with the XPA-5 and have the same opinion about the Emo.
Before the RCs, I had an older set of Energy e:XL speakers. The jump from them to the RC line for me was very significant. Then going from the RCs to the Veritas, I had my expectations pretty high again, but the improvement wasn't as dramatic. I thought the addition of the XPA-5 would be the key to giving me that WOW feeling, but again, it just seems like minor improvements to me - and given the cost, I think I should be able to expect more...
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Nov 23, 2013 1:23:39 GMT -5
The night and day difference people just make me laugh. I've never heard a night and day difference between any electronics, ever. There are subtle differences but the people that hear these huge drastic differences must have broken amps... I have to respectfully disagree with N8DOGG regarding the generalization of all differences being subtle. There are a multitude of parameters which could contribute to the degree of one's liking or disliking a particular piece of equipment. My Denon AVR was by no means broken when I replaced it with the XPA-5/UMC-200 combo. The following are a few of the many things which nailed it for me (regarding the XPA/UMC combo): - When playing at reference level, bass was very muddy with the Denon AVR whereas with the XPA it was almost musical Yes, I could clearly hear rythmic variations in mid-bass with the XPA, which I never heard earlier with the Denon In this case, however, I agree that the difference I noticed could've been amplified by my Klipsch speakers. RF-7's impedance is known to dip down to 2.7Ω during bass heavy passages... Which the Denon is not equipped to handle. The difference here is between the wife asking to turn down the volume on Denon vs asking to turn it up because its sounds like IMAX with XPA (Subtle Difference? Not for me) - Soundstage - Even my wife noticed a difference in the sound-stage between the Denon and XPA She said that she could pick the instruments independently with eyes closed with XPA She even said that the voice sounds a lot nicer/softer (could be the Emo-Q/XPA combo did a better job taming the horn in RF-7s than Denon ever did) (Subtle difference? I don't think so) - Amount of clean bass and the extension is ridiculous with the XPA compared to the Denon Before XPA, I always used to feel that the RF-7's were never able to properly complement my SVS Ultra in the bass dept After XPA, the mid-bass from RF-7's is so thunderous that I have a feeling that I will have to add another sub to match their output. (Subtle Difference? You decide) I do, however, agree not everyone who purchases an XPA will experience the same magnitude of differences that I have. It will depend a lot on other parameters like your speakers / sources / room acoustics / type of material (music, movies) / volume levels etc I for one am loving the XPA/UMC over the Denon... I do not miss the Denon one bit. Cheers What you mean when you say you Denon avr was not broken? In addition, what do you mean when you say with the denon the bass was "muddy." Does that mean that the bass from the SVS subwoofer was muddy? Isn't the subwoofer has its own built in amp? Where you running the speakers full range? What do you mean when you say "I always used to feel that the RF-7 never....." And ultimately what do you mean when you say "I have a feeling I will have to add another sub to match their output." Personally, I think (not feel) that most experiences are going to be different based on speakers and equipment and so on...If the OP hears no difference or feel no difference so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Nov 23, 2013 1:34:03 GMT -5
Right mow I am listening to my "power hungry" Magnepan speakers and power them up with my AVR after I sold my UPA-1 amps and guess what....at 70db I can't hear much difference and the AVR hasn't shutdown even though is not rated to drive 4ohm speakers. I am sure if I push the AVR I might damage the speakers or the AVR but every application has its merits. Is now kind of late so I am going to hit the bed. Good night everybody.
|
|
kknadella
Minor Hero
Seeking Audio Nirvana thru Emotiva
Posts: 19
|
Post by kknadella on Nov 23, 2013 2:50:29 GMT -5
What you mean when you say you Denon avr was not broken? In addition, what do you mean when you say with the denon the bass was "muddy." Does that mean that the bass from the SVS subwoofer was muddy? Isn't the subwoofer has its own built in amp? Where you running the speakers full range? What do you mean when you say "I always used to feel that the RF-7 never....." And ultimately what do you mean when you say "I have a feeling I will have to add another sub to match their output." Personally, I think (not feel) that most experiences are going to be different based on speakers and equipment and so on...If the OP hears no difference or feel no difference so be it. I am not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. I will answer your questions either ways  When I said my Denon AVR was not broken I was referring to N8DOGG's comment (N8DOGG: people that hear these huge drastic differences must have broken amps...) When I said bass with Denon was "muddy", I was referring to the mid-bass (40-120hz), which is typically handled by my floorstanders (RF-7s). This has nothing to do with the SVS and the frequencies that it handles (both Denon and UMC perform similarly in lower-bass). I guess its due to the fact that the SVS subwoofer has its own amplifier and all it needs is a clean pre-out from Denon or UMC. I do not like to run my Floorstanders as full-range (I think it muddies the mid-bass), I set the crossover at 40Hz for my mains. Although, with the amount of control XPA brings with it, I can probably run the RF-7s as full range but I won't due to the following reason: I am afraid that I might blow the woofers on RF-7s if I run them as full range (based on a totally non-scientific approach... the amount of woofer excursion) Regarding my before and after XPA comment... I meant the following: Before XPA, there was not enough slam/control in mid-bass (I am pretty sure it probably has to do with the amount of current required for the slam) I guess high current applications/damping factor were not at the top of Denon's design criteria for the 2310CI AVR (what with it being lower-midrange receiver) Due to the lack of that mid-bass slam, I used to feel that the lower-bass generated by SVS subwoofer was more controlled/prominent (with the Denon). Once I added the XPA, I feel the other way round. Now I feel that I will need to add another sub-woofer (for lower-bass) to keep up with the mid-bass slam/control. Before you ask me, I did run Emo-Q/Audyssey to make sure that the Freq Response is balanced. I also confirmed that the subwoofer is not running any hotter than the floorstanders or vice-versa using an SPL meter. I guess I was fortunate enough to see a big difference in my setup with the addition of XPA/UMC combo Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 23, 2013 5:37:27 GMT -5
Hi again, brendelac - I agree with you that changing to better speakers makes (in most cases) far more difference than changing electronics. There are exceptions, though. I once had some Thiel 3.6 speakers whose bass was complete & utter mush until I paired them with an Emotiva XPA-2. That was a "night and day" change caused by electronics. The Thiel speakers REALLY needed the current & control that a muscular amp could provide (at least they did in my room...).
We recently had an "amplifier show down" in my home with an XPA-2, an A-100 Mini-X, and a Crown PS-400 "pro" amp. Although we could hear minor differences (sometimes), the consensus was "more alike than different." The cause of this result was my (highly efficient and easy-to-drive) Definitive Technology SM65 speakers. Since all amps were "loafing" with the speakers, we didn't hear a great difference from amps. This would likely have had a different outcome if we were using low-impedance, low-sensitivity speakers.
So to summarize, if you want night-and-day differences in your sound, then providing that there's not already some huge mismatch between your amps & speakers, the most "bang for the buck" is to be had in changing speakers, not electronics. The only other way I know of to improve your sound a huge amount is by changing the acoustics of your room by using treatment to absorb slap-echo. I got more improvement in my listening room by adding $300 worth of ATS absorber pads (thanks, DYohn) than I did from changing speakers a half-dozen times previously.
Happy Listening!
Boomzilla
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,086
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 23, 2013 7:03:14 GMT -5
Nice lava lamp...
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Nov 23, 2013 11:13:50 GMT -5
It is refreshing to see in this forum people that can finally hear the differences... After all, isn't it one of the joys of this hobby?
|
|
)
