|
|
Post by ocezam on Dec 16, 2015 11:12:35 GMT -5
"if you are forced to do solid state at all." Hilarious, I love it. Heck, if you are "forced" to do solid state for power reasons, I'd suggest only doing SS on the bass. Bi-amp using wonderful tube sound on the top. Blissful experience.... |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 16, 2015 11:49:59 GMT -5
Garbulky, no offense; but I'll trust Andrew's opinion over yours  Why? No offense to you or Andrew, but I don't believe I've agreed with anything Andrew has ever said. And I was reading his internet "reviews" long before his brief tenure with Emotiva. Garbulky on the other hand has earned my respect as a listener and reviewer. We've never met, and I don't agree with all his posts. We've even argued over a few on occasion. But Garbulky has a much better ear than Andrew in my opinion. Peace I don't want to discuss this very much since were discussing people here, and neither person should have their name or reputation dragged through the mud. But briefly; I don't believe in bi-wiring (for example) which Garbulky does and Andrew doesn't. Actually, "believe" is the wrong word; audio is a science, there is no science that supports bi-wiring as being effective unless you are perhaps running two skinnly little 24 ga cables as your speaker cable. A single 12 / 10 ga speaker cable is all that is needed. I also own (and use) the behringer UCA soundcard and find it quite noisy and cheap, certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone on an emotiva forum looking for high quality. There are more things, but again my point is not to start a fight or dump on someone in public. Sorry if I've gone too far already. Basically I've read a lot of stuff on these forums (I don't post much but I'm here every day); I've found myself agreeing with Andrew and a few people (KeithL is another great poster, terrific really) time and time again. Edit: Forgot to add this: So when you have two opinions that differ, you basically choose the opinion of the person you find most credible, based on other things they have said in the past and how trustworthy you find them. I can't trust someone who believes bi-wiring is effective (for example) because it means they are hearing things that is not supported by science. How can I trust other things they "hear"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 12:05:32 GMT -5
I know this configuration won't work with the Maggies however I wanted to jump in to give my 2 cents on the subject. I agree with an earlier responder that I too think Emotiva is getting out of the 90# amp genre so what ever you do, whichever you settle on buy it quickly or you may be SOL! That being said I have recently gone to the XPA-2 Gen2 Bridged and all I can say is WOW! Are they balanced? No. Can I run them into 4ohms? No. But anyone running 8 ohm +/- will be amazed! The biggest difference in what I hear is in Separation and soundstage it was an instant realization that this just sounds better...I didn't "sell myself" that it sounds better to justify the expense it just did! The extra punch was exciting however that was a foregone conclusion seeing the increase to 1000 Watts. Another good reason to go this route was God forbid something goes wrong with an amp you still have a 2 channel system ready to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Dec 16, 2015 12:06:05 GMT -5
I don't want to discuss this very much since were discussing people here, and neither person should have their name or reputation dragged through the mud. Basically I've read a lot of stuff on these forums (I don't post much but I'm here every day); I've found myself agreeing with Andrew and a few people (KeithL is another great poster, terrific really) time and time again. Edit: Forgot to add this: So when you have two opinions that differ, you basically choose the opinion of the person you find most credible, based on other things they have said in the past and how trustworthy you find them. I can't trust someone who believes bi-wiring is effective (for example) because it means they are hearing things that is not supported by science. How can I trust other things they "hear"? I don't think anyone has had there reputation dragged through anything in this thread. And you're correct that listening (reading) a persons opinion over time gives a good sense of who they are and why they say what they say. Therefore, over time, a person can build up a confidence in another's opinion without ever meeting the other person. I've never heard an improvement with bi-wiring either. But I don't dis-credit those who do. Many of them hear things in other instances that are completely similar to my own experience. I've heard fairly BIG differences between conventional A or AB amps versus Class D. Like all things audio, some prefer one over the other, but to say there's no difference? Well, what would "science" tell you? I've been here almost a decade, and in the hobby almost 40 years. I'll stand by my statement, and I'll stand by Garbulky, at least most of the time... |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Dec 16, 2015 12:08:43 GMT -5
I prefer the sound of my system biwired, since another kind forum member gave me a high quality pair gratis!
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Dec 16, 2015 12:13:24 GMT -5
I agree with an earlier responder that I too think Emotiva is getting out of the 90# amp genre so what ever you do, whichever you settle on buy it quickly or you may be SOL! To me it seems Emotiva is getting out of serious two channel. More and more of their stuff seems geared towards theater, or millennials with mp3's. Most of the stuff I've thought looked promising over the last several years is nowhere to be seen anymore. I.E. high quality digital music player, turntable, XPR amps, rack sized DAC, tube gear etc. Sigh... I guess that's what Dan's marketing research is telling him. That being said I have recently gone to the XPA-2 Gen2 Bridged and all I can say is WOW! Are they balanced? No. Can I run them into 4ohms? No. But anyone running 8 ohm +/- will be amazed! The biggest difference in what I hear is in Separation and soundstage it was an instant realization that this just sounds better...I didn't "sell myself" that it sounds better to justify the expense it just did! The extra punch was exciting however that was a foregone conclusion seeing the increase to a 1000 Watts. Another good reason to go this route was God forbid something goes wrong with an amp you still have a 2 channel system ready to go. Yep the XPA-2 is an extremely versatile amp. edit: by the way, there have been at least two people on this forum who have successfully ran their bridged XPA-2 with 4 ohm speakers. It's true that Emotiva does not officially support 4 ohm operation of a bridged XPA-2, but that doesn't mean the amp isn't capable of it. It does mean that Emotiva doesn't want to be bothered by people having problems running their amp in this manner. Most Emotiva amps will outperform the specs given and operate with lower impedance speakers than those specified. You will not hurt anything if you try. The amp will simply go into protect mode if needed. Enjoy.... |
|
|
|
Post by splash51 on Dec 16, 2015 12:39:43 GMT -5
Hi, I just replaced 2 XPA-2 g2's(mono block mode) with XPA-1s NO COMPARISON. Get the XPA1s the class A sound is incredibly smooth. Much more detail across the board. XPA-1s ONLY for the front L/R XPA-1L for the center great combo. Although the 1L was discontinued for some reason....
|
|
|
|
Post by restless on Dec 16, 2015 12:54:00 GMT -5
I am currently running Mag 1.7i with two XPA-1 Amps (used both GEN 1 and GEN 2 amps).
There are no issues, and the result is clear and musical.
I might add that DIRAC also adds a bit to the Mag 1.7 as well, depending upon your room and environment.
My problem now, is that I wonder how the 3.7 will sound in place of the 1.7 !!!
These speakers are used in 2CH and 7.1 CH home theater. They are exceptional in both.
As for power available, if you get more than 3-4 lights on the XPA-1, you may have to leave the room. No weak spots in the delivery with that power on the 1.7.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Dec 16, 2015 13:05:38 GMT -5
I am currently running Mag 1.7i with two XPA-1 Amps (used both GEN 1 and GEN 2 amps). There are no issues, and the result is clear and musical. I might add that DIRAC also adds a bit to the Mag 1.7 as well, depending upon your room and environment. My problem now, is that I wonder how the 3.7 will sound in place of the 1.7 !!! These speakers are used in 2CH and 7.1 CH home theater. They are exceptional in both. As for power available, if you get more than 3-4 lights on the XPA-1, you may have to leave the room. No weak spots in the delivery with that power on the 1.7. The 3.7 will have a bit better bass than stand alone 1.7's. I'd prefer 1.7's with a couple, or even one, good sub to a pair of 3.7's. I'm in a great minority here, but I do not prefer the 3 or 20 series true ribbon to the quasi ribbin on the 1.7 and lower. I also wouldn't want the behemoth 3 or 20 series in my living room. If I were buying Maggies now I would get a pair of .7's and a pair of good cone subs. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 16, 2015 13:29:18 GMT -5
copperpipe No offense taken guys! I've encountered several people who experience their audio differently from me. I think that's what makes this area so varied and enjoyable. The more the merrier.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 16, 2015 13:49:44 GMT -5
As for the Behringer - my love for it is unabashed. Because it's cheap as heck and has a lot of features. The sound from the lineouts is surprisingly good. Not as good as say an XDA-1. But it gets close. It's got nice bass. It manages soundstage. The only critic (in context with price) would be a slight something not quite right with the treble. There's plenty of far better DACs. But for $30, it's hard to find one that does better. imo. I did encounter significant noise from the recording loop feature but only when using a specific laptop so maybe if you were experiencing audible noise it could be a problem with the computer's power supply and/or possibly poor power regulation in the UCA 202. I reccomend it all the time for somebody who is just jumping in and isn't at all concerned with the source - usually running it straight out of the PC's headphone jack. Bi-wire: Honestly I don't know what to think about bi-wire. When my friend gave me a pair of biwire cables I used them on my axioms because oh heck I am getting something like 6 or 8 guage equivalence with it. I felt the from the UPA-2 was slightly more "at ease". But say if I was put on the spot and asked to say which was biwire and which wasn't I can promise you I wouldn't be able to pick it out. It was merely a feeling and a very small vague one at that. So my position on that is if you have the capability sure go ahead and do it but likely 12 guage will sound about the same. Since I do have the capability I do it. Now Bi-amping - I do like because you can stick double the power on to a speaker. Maybe one day I will be insane enough to get a second pair of XPA-1 gen 2s just to see what it will do enabling me to get double the class A power. As for science: We have to differnetiate what we consider science. For instance double blind listening tests I do have a problem with. You know the ones that say pretty much any modern preamp or amp or DAC (though Jury's out on DACs) should techinically sound the same. Or even ones where people can't differnetiate between mp3s. But things like bi-wire I think well the science says it shouldn't make much of a difference and I'm not too interested in the results of that anyway . It likely doesn't make a large difference. But I haven't really tested those things out. Andrew and I differ in opinions mainly over that he listens mainly to mp3s and his choice in certain gear. We have different opinions on the subject. But I think he is a great guy and enjoy reading his reviews. I liked his contributions to the forum here and wish he would hang around a bit more with us. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 16, 2015 14:04:14 GMT -5
I can't trust someone who believes bi-wiring is effective (for example) because it means they are hearing things that is not supported by science. How can I trust other things they "hear"? You need to qualify with "currently" not supported by science, and add the caveat "to the best of your knowledge". Science couldn't explain the flight ability of bees, but only recently scientists believe they can. To assume it's a foregone conclusion that science cannot find a distinction when bi-wiring is just that - an assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Dec 16, 2015 14:09:53 GMT -5
I can't trust someone who believes bi-wiring is effective (for example) because it means they are hearing things that is not supported by science. How can I trust other things they "hear"? You need to qualify with "currently" not supported by science, and add the caveat "to the best of your knowledge". Science couldn't explain the flight ability of bees, but only recently scientists believe they can. To assume it's a foregone conclusion that science cannot find a distinction when bi-amping is just that - an assumption. bi-wiring not bi-amping. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 16, 2015 14:27:24 GMT -5
I can't trust someone who believes bi-wiring is effective (for example) because it means they are hearing things that is not supported by science. How can I trust other things they "hear"? You need to qualify with "currently" not supported by science, and add the caveat "to the best of your knowledge". Science couldn't explain the flight ability of bees, but only recently scientists believe they can. To assume it's a foregone conclusion that science cannot find a distinction when bi-amping is just that - an assumption. Unlike your poor bee example, audio is fully understood by science. We can run tests, make hypothesis, and prove them. There is no room for disputing this, so "to the best of your knowledge" is totally inaccurate. You may as well claim that "grass is green to the best of our knowledge" and that "science has to yet to discover all the facets that make up green to be green." |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Dec 16, 2015 14:41:33 GMT -5
You guys are taking about two different things. No one should need science to know that one positive and one negative speaker wire connected to one amp channel and then split into two positives and two negatives then connected to the same speaker will make any difference. Go back and read what Garbulky wrote. He likes Bi-Amping ! |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 16, 2015 19:27:59 GMT -5
Unlike your poor bee example, audio is fully understood by science. We can run tests, make hypothesis, and prove them. There is no room for disputing this, so "to the best of your knowledge" is totally inaccurate. You may as well claim that "grass is green to the best of our knowledge" and that "science has to yet to discover all the facets that make up green to be green." The concept that science knows everything about any single topic is laughable, let alone something as complicated as sound, or the human ear. Science is constantly revealing new information replacing old beliefs. Audio is fully understood by science? Good grief. Science has a current understanding of audio that will be revised and updated each and every year you and your grandchildren's grandchildren walk this earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Dec 16, 2015 19:37:05 GMT -5
Unlike your poor bee example, audio is fully understood by science. We can run tests, make hypothesis, and prove them. There is no room for disputing this, so "to the best of your knowledge" is totally inaccurate. You may as well claim that "grass is green to the best of our knowledge" and that "science has to yet to discover all the facets that make up green to be green." The concept that science knows everything about any single topic is laughable, let alone something as complicated as sound, or the human ear. Science is constantly revealing new information replacing old beliefs. Audio is fully understood by science? Good grief. Science has a current understanding of audio that will be revised and updated each and every year you and your grandchildren's grandchildren walk this earth. In the world of quantum physics particles pop in and out of existence and can be in two places at once. In the world of humans we are just going to have to stick with what Newton and Einstein figured out until someone else with an over sized brain comes along. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 16, 2015 20:00:12 GMT -5
Unlike your poor bee example, audio is fully understood by science. We can run tests, make hypothesis, and prove them. There is no room for disputing this, so "to the best of your knowledge" is totally inaccurate. You may as well claim that "grass is green to the best of our knowledge" and that "science has to yet to discover all the facets that make up green to be green." The concept that science knows everything about any single topic is laughable, let alone something as complicated as sound, or the human ear. Science is constantly revealing new information replacing old beliefs. Audio is fully understood by science? Good grief. Science has a current understanding of audio that will be revised and updated each and every year you and your grandchildren's grandchildren walk this earth. When it comes to bi-wiring, you can bet your bottom dollar we know everything that needs to be known to be able to say "bi-wiring has no effect". I'm sorry that you don't have enough of a science / math background to appreciate that fact. If you want to believe in magic and vague hand waving, knock yourself out; but I'm not going to argue any further on this with you. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Dec 16, 2015 20:04:01 GMT -5
I believe in magic and vague hand-waving? Careful you don't throw out your back with those stretches.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Dec 16, 2015 21:10:05 GMT -5
The concept that science knows everything about any single topic is laughable, let alone something as complicated as sound, or the human ear. Science is constantly revealing new information replacing old beliefs. Audio is fully understood by science? Good grief. Science has a current understanding of audio that will be revised and updated each and every year you and your grandchildren's grandchildren walk this earth. When it comes to bi-wiring, you can bet your bottom dollar we know everything that needs to be known to be able to say "bi-wiring has no effect". I'm sorry that you don't have enough of a science / math background to appreciate that fact. If you want to believe in magic and vague hand waving, knock yourself out; but I'm not going to argue any further on this with you. I really doubt that we know everything about something. That is a really silly statement. No offense |
|
