|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 13, 2017 16:26:19 GMT -5
open your amp and enjoy. If it doesn't fit your needs sent it back within the return window. You should have a good basis from what your old amp sounded like. Forget what Stereophile and what we say. Hook that amp up and listen to it. It didn't measure well. No big deal. sound is all that matters. Of course it helps to see specs because it helps when trying to do an apples to apples comparison with competing products. On the other hand, sometimes people get carried away with specs to the detriment of the bottom line which ought to be listening pleasure. If it sounds good then what does it matter what the specs say? If we were to go and look at all the detailed specs of every product we use (such as our cars, appliances, food we eat, etc.), we'd probably be unhappy with everything we own. Some people's fascination with specs is akin to someone going to eat at a restaurant and then demanding to have a tour of the kitchen before eating, demanding to know what all of the ingredients are in their order, and how it was prepared and what the temperature is in the fridge, where the chef learned his or her trade, etc. And then not being able to enjoy the meal after finding out that some spice used was not the highest grade available. Also, I don't put any credence in Stereophile reviews anyway because it's all about snobbery with them. They've got advertisers with really expensive products they have to keep happy. I'm sure Dan and Lonnie and the powers that be will have a response to the review, too. First, Specs are an advisory at best, a distraction at worst and BS at the Ultimate. RMS Power into a resistor is one such meaningless number. This is especially true since NO speaker is a resistor but rather a complex mix of inductance and capacitance. Some amps which measure well into a resistor fall on their axxes when presented with a real load. Some amps of more 'modest specs' might actually do better into a real speaker than the one with the Big Numbers. Stereophile reviews are just an opinion, true. An Informed opinion, though, since the knowledge base of the reviewers and editorial staff is Gigantic compared to 95% of the listening public. Most of whom don't know the differrence between a ported and sealed enclosure. Or what that means to the capabilities / measurables of such different speakers. Stereophile with their huge background of reputible measurements is able, sometimes, to ascribe audible changes to measurements. That's the 'advisory' I write, above. And some stuff 'Just Depends'. An old school Big Box speaker from Klipsch / Altec / Bozak does NOT benefit from a high damping factor. Might even hurt the ultimate sound, too. And running Kilowatt amps into 100db speakers is (generally) an exercise in Futility. Sound will probably benefit from a different pairing where amp or speakers can shine with different partners. Nothing beats Bacon Wrapped Kosher Hot Dogs prepared on a screaming hot Charcoal grill. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 13, 2017 17:04:49 GMT -5
In those tests it appears to do very well. That makes this way more confusing. Now I did notice those are for a 2 V output. While I believe the stereophile tests were for a 50 watt output. But the measurements looked markedly different. Maybe the amp was a faulty unit not representative of all? I have a hard time believing that Emotiva would release an amp that measures poorly though I did see the graphs. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 13, 2017 17:59:20 GMT -5
In those tests it appears to do very well. That makes this way more confusing. Now I did notice those are for a 2 V output. While I believe the stereophile tests were for a 50 watt output. But the measurements looked markedly different. Maybe the amp was a faulty unit not representative of all? I have a hard time believing that Emotiva would release an amp that measures poorly though I did see the graphs. Yes, the tests were done quite differently. Atkinson pre-stressed the amp by running it at 100W into 8 ohms for an hour. It was hot! Also Atkinson did THD+N at 1W and with differing frequencies Whereas HTHF only did 1KHZ at 0.5W. Atkinson's THD+N at 1KHZ and 1W was close to the HTHF results. Atkinsons 19KHZ/20KHZ IM at 100W was bad, but at 1W, it was about the same as HTHF. Atkinson goes well beyond the normal testing methods at these higher powers. HTHF pointed out that most music occurs at less than 1W. So there are many questions that I hope Keith will give us some input on. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 13, 2017 18:06:34 GMT -5
In those tests it appears to do very well. That makes this way more confusing. Now I did notice those are for a 2 V output. While I believe the stereophile tests were for a 50 watt output. But the measurements looked markedly different. Maybe the amp was a faulty unit not representative of all? I have a hard time believing that Emotiva would release an amp that measures poorly though I did see the graphs. Yes, the tests were done quite differently. Atkinson pre-stressed the amp by running it at 100W into 8 ohms for an hour. It was hot! Also Atkinson did THD+N at 1W and with differing frequencies Whereas HTHF only did 1KHZ at 0.5W. Atkinson's THD+N at 1KHZ and 1W was close to the HTHF results. Atkinsons 19KHZ/20KHZ IM at 100W was bad, but at 1W, it was about the same as HTHF. Atkinson goes well beyond the normal testing methods at these higher powers. HTHF pointed out that most music occurs at less than 1W. So there are many questions that I hope Keith will give us some input on. Gotcha. Good analysis. I couldn't have figured that out! So it failed the stress test but not a test error. That's still not good  Though most music occurs at less than 1 watts, the peaks do take more. A 300 watt amp having only good 1 watt results and not more and only under no strain isn't so great either. On a tangential thought - this is interesting that standard testing can reveal excellent results but tests that aren't HUGELY out of left field can reveal a very different picture of amp quality. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 13, 2017 18:37:11 GMT -5
Another point in defense of the Emotiva Stereophile review - I looked through a bunch of my more recent Stereophile issues and the other amplifiers (solid state) that I saw tested were all 20 to 50 times the cost of the Emotiva. Yes, all of them performed better in all aspects, but what would one expect for $22,000 to $99,000. I would like to see the same test on equivalent Monolith, Outlaw, or Parasound amps.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 13, 2017 19:29:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 13, 2017 19:52:53 GMT -5
Nope! Lets keep it to amplifiers - too many other things going on in a receiver! |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 13, 2017 20:30:10 GMT -5
You COULD just look at the amp data, you know? Measured performance of the amp section is superb, especially considering price point. It was made for a decade plus without substantial changes. Quite a lasting piece of value. EDIT: to answer complaint about other amps tested and results. www.stereophile.com/content/parasound-halo-jc-1-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurementsHere is the measured data from a Parasound JC-1 monoblok. This is a 6000$ pair so not for the faint of heart. But not wacky, either. Sometimes available on the pre-loved market, a friend of mine used them to about 10% of capacity and ended up selling them. He had NO conceivable use for 1000watts @4ohms. His old speakers were Magnepan which Could make use of such power when pushed. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 13, 2017 22:30:07 GMT -5
Yes, the tests were done quite differently. Atkinson pre-stressed the amp by running it at 100W into 8 ohms for an hour. It was hot! Also Atkinson did THD+N at 1W and with differing frequencies Whereas HTHF only did 1KHZ at 0.5W. Atkinson's THD+N at 1KHZ and 1W was close to the HTHF results. Atkinsons 19KHZ/20KHZ IM at 100W was bad, but at 1W, it was about the same as HTHF. Atkinson goes well beyond the normal testing methods at these higher powers. HTHF pointed out that most music occurs at less than 1W. So there are many questions that I hope Keith will give us some input on. Gotcha. Good analysis. I couldn't have figured that out! So it failed the stress test but not a test error. That's still not good Though most music occurs at less than 1 watts, the peaks do take more. A 300 watt amp having only good 1 watt results and not more and only under no strain isn't so great either. On a tangential thought - this is interesting that standard testing can reveal excellent results but tests that aren't HUGELY out of left field can reveal a very different picture of amp quality. I'll wait till I can read the review for futher comment, but Stereophile 'stress tests' an amp 1/3 rated output for an hour. This is Worst Case for an A/B amp and will produce the highest heatsink temp. A few amps, even the high-priced types can go into protection. A few of THOSE never wake back up! The rest of the amps get thru the preconditioning period OK and while some are TooHot to touch, others are cooler. Some amps measure the same B4 and After the heating cycle. The object of testing it 2-fold, IMO. You can use testing to find the limits. max power? max slew rate? output impedance? The other object is to test under real conditions. Like somebody's living room. That's why stereophile is valuable to some. They will listen than run it thru the lab. And sometimes what a listener hears is reflected in some measure or measurement artifact. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 14, 2017 6:07:48 GMT -5
You COULD just look at the amp data, you know? Measured performance of the amp section is superb, especially considering price point. It was made for a decade plus without substantial changes. Quite a lasting piece of value. EDIT: to answer complaint about other amps tested and results. www.stereophile.com/content/parasound-halo-jc-1-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurementsHere is the measured data from a Parasound JC-1 monoblok. This is a 6000$ pair so not for the faint of heart. But not wacky, either. Sometimes available on the pre-loved market, a friend of mine used them to about 10% of capacity and ended up selling them. He had NO conceivable use for 1000watts @4ohms. His old speakers were Magnepan which Could make use of such power when pushed. Other than it could burn your house down if not "properly grounded", the Parasound measured better in all tests than the Emotiva, but at 3 x the price. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 14, 2017 12:10:35 GMT -5
I'm curious about the ground problem and as importantly the UltraSonic oscillation the amp went into.
Apparently it was when testing ground configurations with single ended input? That's about all I can make of that part of the article.
The question REALLY is if a home user could face the same problem? Will anyone have a similar setup to the test rig AND be using a scope?
Have ANY JC-1s ever 'gone wild' in consumer hands? I'd have thought a meltdown of sorts to be wonderful discussion material.
Any posts about such events?
My pair of A23, a distant younger cousin of the JC-1 shows no issues with grounding. Plug and Play, to coin a phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jul 14, 2017 13:21:46 GMT -5
I feel slightly fortunate to not have any knowledge regarding understanding specs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jul 14, 2017 13:25:12 GMT -5
My pair of A23, a distant younger cousin of the JC-1 shows no issues with grounding. Plug and Play, to coin a phrase. I have a Parasound A52 which is also a distant cousin but, I think, more distant than your A23. I had blamed it for over a year on some grounding issues but it was something completely different. I LOVE Parasound products and their service is second-to-none. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 14, 2017 15:37:01 GMT -5
Bassed on POWER alone, I'd say the A52 is 2 and 1/2 of my A23. Same power output @8 and 4. I suspect a slightly more robust power supply (higher VA) with the same output voltages.
I've not seen any interior pics to confirm or deny.
People DO get wrapped around the spec axle. No question about it. Endlessly pouring over AP data is an afternoon wasted.
That being said, when MEASURED performance and LISTENING tests agree, than you are on to something.
Everything that can be measured doesn't matter and everything that matters can't be measured.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Jul 14, 2017 16:08:34 GMT -5
Everything that can be measured doesn't matter and everything that matters can't be measured. You lost me there. If that was a joke or sarcasm I missed it, but I definitely don't agree; in fact it's the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 14, 2017 16:36:47 GMT -5
I'm being EXACTLY true and correct. No Sarcasm, to which I'm prone or 'dissing' of anyone or their opinion.
It's a simple fact, to me.
Everything that can be measured doesn't matter. Look at the huge number of measurements made on a modern amp. Look at the Stereophile measurements of the new G3.
Will anyone beef about that or simply get on with the listening? Some highly regarded Tube amps with .75% distortion are even sought after.
Everything that matters can't be measured. Show me a measure of Sound Quality. or Satisfaction. Some measures which would indicate the amps ability to drive bad or highly reactive loads might
indicate ELECTRICAL compatibility but not if you'll like the 'sound' you get.
To this I'd add 'yet'. The state of the measurment art continues to evolve and hopefully improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Jul 14, 2017 16:59:18 GMT -5
The first problem with your argument is using absolutes like "everthing", "can't" etc. Measurements might not tell the whole story, but it can tell you a significant story.
Your distorting tube amp is a good example; your flaw in the argument is thinking that because you like the distorted sound that therefore measurements are invalid. The real truth is that the measurement is telling you the amp is distorting; it's up to you to use that measurement and compare it to other amps. If you like distorted sound, then you'll need to find amps that measure with distortion.
Those of us who like neutral sound from amps/speakers, will find that measurements point in this direction. There may be one or two measurements (like in the case of this xpa gen 3) which show minuscule problems in certain scenarios, but that doesn't invalidate measurements. You can use those measurements to tell you how bad an issue it is. In the case of this xpa-3, I'm just rolling my eyes and saying "get over it, the amp sounds find for normal (ie. non-testing) usage".
I'm still wondering how you can say "everything that matters can't be measured". Because frequency response can definitely be measured, and it definitely matters (just as an example).
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 14, 2017 17:29:00 GMT -5
I won't belabor this. And stand by my initial statement.
Some gear which measures poorly has a following. Can't account for taste.
Other gear which measures terrific, flops or gets a poor sounding reputation.
The 'everything' that matters and can't (maybe yet?) be measured is sound quality. No metric or set of metrics can yet 'predict' with 100% accuracy if something will sound good or Not.
Indicate Quality? Maybe, but certainly not predict.
Ok, you've got me there. You CAN measure frequency response. Now What? I've seen 'audiophiles' at shows with Hearing Aids. What's THAT all about?
And yes, I'd agree to the extent that measurments / specs are ADVISORY: But some simple stuff like measuring an amps performance into a REAL speaker load is seldom done, instead relying on the
bogus measure of power into a resistor.
Don't forget, people, we are trrying to assemble a System. Of real objects and things which must work together for best results. Not specs or in most cases measurements.
That's why I so Seldom mention specific gear or make specific recommendtaions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jul 14, 2017 18:25:47 GMT -5
Well everyone's ears are not calibrated the same or the brain's interpretation of the signal presented to them by the ear may not be the same. But technically competent measurements made on properly calibrated equipment, my friend, are scientific accuracies. If the technical results and the listening results do not coincide then either not enough parameters were tested, or the listening environment and final transducer device (speaker) are most likely responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 14, 2017 19:49:11 GMT -5
Sure. Proper measurements with all the right stuff in place ARE scientific accuracies. Now What?
I rather doubt you CAN at this time 'test enough parameters' to have a good / bad conclusion of the sound of a piece of gear.
If ALL you have to go on is the measured data. Why does STereophile and many others even Bother to Listen to something once the
measurments are in?
Plenty of examples of well-spec'd gear that also measured well that didn't sound as good as it maybe Should have.
|
|
Though most music occurs at less than 1 watts, the peaks do take more. A 300 watt amp having only good 1 watt results and not more and only under no strain isn't so great either. 
