|
|
Post by nickwin on Oct 25, 2017 9:31:21 GMT -5
A few things Ive noticed multiple people say that are particularly interesting to me:
XPR1 and XPR2 sound better than XPR5: This is to be expected to some degree, more heat sink, capacitance, transformer and more space to physically separate components are all good things. I find the XPA1 sounds better than the XPA5, at least with really hard to drive speakers... Im wondering if the difference in SQ between the XPRs is similar to the difference between XPAs? or is it more pronounced?
XPRs sound laid back (compared to XPA and others). Can anyone elaborate on this? In what way are they laid back? Smoother less pronounced treble? Or is it more in the sense of dynamics across all frequencies?
I have found that the XPA amps sound a little more dynamic and punchy than many other amps. I recently compared a vintage Parasound HCA885 to the UPA500, two amps with identical power ratings, and even though the Parasound will play louder while remaining clean, the UPA500 seemed a little more punchy and dynamic at moderate volumes while the Parasound sounded smoother maybe? Its hard to describe the difference. Initially I took this as a negative for the Parasound but as I spent more time with them Im not so sure, I think they just have a difference delivery. The Parasound seems to smooth out transients relative to the UPA500 and because of it its sometimes less fatiguing. Is this what some of you meant by laid back?
Kind of off topic, but, a lot of people feel Emotiva amps, especially the XPAs, are particularly punchy and dynamic. I wonder why this is from a design standpoint? The logical thing would be lots of capacitance, but they don't seem to have any more capacitance than other "smoother" sounding (less dynamic) amps. I know for example the Parasound amps have lots of current capability, so I don't think its simply that the Emotiva amps throw out more current. Any thoughts?
Has anyone compared the XPR5 to the XPA5?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 25, 2017 9:44:52 GMT -5
To me the XPA-5 Gen 1 was a little more blurred (?) than the XPA-2, XPA-1L and XPA-2 Gen 3 which seem punchier or faster. Not to say the XPA-5 sounded bad. It sounded great but just didn't have the solid punch that I prefer.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorcorps on Oct 25, 2017 9:46:56 GMT -5
It's pretty difficult to describe what is meant by "laid back", with respect to the XPR sound. In my case, I'd say that there isn't any hint of harshness (in the treble). All of the detail is there, and there obviously isn't any strain, control of bass is very tight. Sound is simply clean, powerful, and without any hint of harshness, no matter what kind of music you're listening to. Perhaps the other owners can be a bit more eloquent.  While I do own XPA-2, XPA-5, XPA-100's, etc., and they all offer very clean, dynamic sound (the XPA-2 and XPA-5 are Gen 1), and you don't necessarily realize there is any harshness in the treble when you're listening to them, when you listen to the XPR-1's, you notice that the potential hint of harshness in the treble of the XPA's was there only because of it's absence in the XPR sound. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 25, 2017 10:14:39 GMT -5
That would be the ULTRA HEAVY DUTY drone, right? Originally they were not shipped on pallets, but that changed pretty quickly. Mine were not on pallets originally (they were UPS or FedEx - can't recall, but arrived perfectly safe), but when Emotiva ships them back now as part of warranty service, they are using something akin to half-pallets as was mentioned, via a freight company. The one I got back last Christmas was strapped to one of those molded half-pallets, not the old-school wood-slatted ones. I just dropped my 2nd XPR off with them yesterday, so in a couple of weeks, I'll be looking for a drone shipment, or at least an autonomous vehicle delivery......... |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Oct 25, 2017 10:50:29 GMT -5
Geebo, thats more or less how I would describe the difference too (XPA5 and XPA1 in my case), but Im using a 82db/watt 4 ohm speaker, which is far from typical. In this case the XPA1 seems to have significantly more control.
Thorcorps, agreed, these things are hard to describe. Ive been trying to articulate the difference in sound between the UPA500 and HCA885 for a few months now and its not easy. Like I said before the HCA seems seems a little less dynamic but not necessarily in a bad way. Less intense transients yes, but the HCA also comes across as slightly less harsh-fatuiging, especially in the treble. The only thing I can say for sure is they do sound different.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 25, 2017 12:32:42 GMT -5
Okay let's elaborate. SUBJECTIVE LISTENING opinions using no level matched tests or anything even close to it! The XPR-2 sounds better than the XPA-2 gen 1. The XPA-2 gen 1 was very fast. But there was something just a whee bit off about the way it did things - not by much. The XPA-2 gen 2's sound quite a bit better than the gen 1 closer in sound to the xpa-1 gen 2. Two excelllent amps imo. I have also heard the XPR-1 though in a less familiar system for a shorter period of time. The system also had quite fine speakers which had more bass capability than my speakers so it's harder to make an "amp" comparison. But I shall do so!  In that system the XPR-1 had serious horsepower reserves. It was punching like a champion. I wasn't too sure about the treble which I preferred on the XPA series but then again two different systems. The way the XPR-2 sounds is that it souds like a UPA-2 (not UPA-200). But imagine a UPA-2 made much better, more sophisticated but still retaining that smooth tone in the treble - a coloration. But it's a very well done coloration that adds to the amp. So a laid back treble which sounds very nice - if you will. Also it had tons of power but a certain ease with which it did it. The sound is "full" in body. Giving a 3d sense to things. The XPA-2 gen 2 was more neutral across the band including the treble. Betwee the XPR-2 ad the XPA-2 gen 2 it's hard to find a pick. I would lean towards the XPA-2 gen 2 because I am very critical of tone. The XPA-1 gen 2 is similar to the XPA-2 gen 2 just adds that next level of refinement with the class A switch. A more knit together soundstage. Its magic is producsing room dimensios of the recording in an amazing 3d soudstage. With this amp you could tell the difference betwee the DC-1 delta sigma and the Schiit Gungnir multibit. The thing is so 3d that I noticed a sense of vertical height in the body of the instruments. The Gungnir multibit produced a taller fuller body of the instrument playing - for example a violin seemed bigger or a paino seemed bigger vertically. While the DC-1 the instrument was also portrayed with amazing detail but more like the sound came through a narrower opening on the vertical plane. I also noticed a slight veilig in the toe compared to the Gungnir. Having said that the DC-1 was able to produce superior room dimensions and resolution of the recording overall. The dynamics and bass extesion are really top notch. The sounds appear. While on the XPR-2 they also appeared sounding like it was with ease - but on the XPA-1 gen 2, they just appeared as in it was very fast doing it. I felt like it happened faster especially in the treble. The best amp I've heard so far has been the XPA-1 gen 2 with its win coming with the 3 dimensioal soundstage and room dimensions in class a mode. However, like I said I have heard other amps that come close to it or excell in slightly different things but I found them more colored than the XPA-1 gen 2 though here it's really a matter of preference. Here's how I would differetiate. If you want that slam you in the face throw you around the XPR-1 would have no problem whatsoever doing that. The XPA-1 can do it too ....just probably not quite as well - not that I've been able to max it out. But when listening to real acoustic instruments at life scale volumes I trust the XPA-1 gen 2 to do a better job at the nuances. If I had to pick I would go with XPA-1 gen 2. Or if possible two pairs of XPA-1 gen 2 for even more goodness! XPA-5 - what a deal for a 5 chanel amp with huge power. Nothing wrong with it. Has a nice soud to it. But the XPA-1 really does show its stripes here if you compare it. UPA-x00 series and the basx A-300 amps : Nothing wrong with the sound. Nothing great about it either. Its strength is neutral in tone. But the problem is there was nothing great about it. All the other amps were able to involve me with the sound. this one didn't really do any of it. It's a classic example of a utilitarian amp. I won't go talking about room dimensions in it or stunning dynamics or appealing sound or female voices sounded amazing on it or any of that flowery talk. I would say it played without sounding bad or calling itself out for any errors but not much more. UPA-2, UPA-1 - slightly smeared micro-dynamics that is only noticeable when listening to much better amps. Slightly dark laid back sound - which sounds really nice imo. The way it presents the sound makes it a decent notch above the UPA X-00 series and the basx A-300 amp though the basx a-300 didn't quite smear the dynamics. Very musical. I wish I heard an XPA-200 to see what it can do. Despite the dynamic smear in the long run the UPA-2 and UPA-1 will hold your attention and make you want to keep playing the music. Let's put it this way - I heard a lot of really good expensive amps. The only amp that made me want to "must buy" over my UPA-2 was the XPA-2 and the XPA-1 gen 2. The XPR-1 and the XPR-2 didn't push me enough though they were clearly better. TLDR : XPR-2 has fabulous sound. Slightly laid back. XPR-1 quite nice too. Lots of power not enough evaluation here. XPA-1 gen 2 is my top pick least colored, very transparent. Do run it fully balanced and in class A! XPA-2 gen 2 quite a fab deal for what you get. Depends on the sound you like between an XPR-2 and XPA-2 gen 2. UPA-2, UPA-1: Really musical amps. Just a hint of a darker laid back sound not necessarily a weakness. Weakess is dynamic smear. It'll play loud but not do it as fast as some of the better amps. Lots of enjoyment to be had at the price. Basx A-300, UPA-200, UPA-500: Utilitarian amps that don't do anything wrong. But also don't do much in terms of greatness. A "boring" amp compared to the other choices though perhaps that's slightly harsh wording. |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Oct 25, 2017 12:52:09 GMT -5
JMHO-Emotiva does amplifiers right.
Even the cult end of the hobby has to agree they do nothing wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 25, 2017 13:03:49 GMT -5
JMHO-Emotiva does amplifiers right. Even the cult end of the hobby has to agree they do nothing wrong They really do vneal . I am consistently impressed by Emotiva amps. Even their baby amp the A-100 is such a behemoth with its headphone stage Hopefully I will feel the same way with the gen 3 XPA amps. Right now, from the reviews and measurements it's not looking good. But since it is Emotiva, I'm sure it sounds fine. |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Oct 25, 2017 13:11:35 GMT -5
Okay let's elaborate. SUBJECTIVE LISTENING opinions using no level matched tests or anything even close to it! The XPR-2 sounds better than the XPA-2 gen 1. The XPA-2 gen 1 was very fast. But there was something just a whee bit off about the way it did things - not by much. The XPA-2 gen 2's sound quite a bit better than the gen 1 closer in sound to the xpa-1 gen 2. Two excelllent amps imo. I have also heard the XPR-1 though in a less familiar system for a shorter period of time. The system also had quite fine speakers which had more bass capability than my speakers so it's harder to make an "amp" comparison. But I shall do so! In that system the XPR-1 had serious horsepower reserves. It was punching like a champion. I wasn't too sure about the treble which I preferred on the XPA series but then again two different systems. The way the XPR-2 sounds is that it souds like a UPA-2 (not UPA-200). But imagine a UPA-2 made much better, more sophisticated but still retaining that smooth tone in the treble - a coloration. But it's a very well done coloration that adds to the amp. So a laid back treble which sounds very nice - if you will. Also it had tons of power but a certain ease with which it did it. The sound is "full" in body. Giving a 3d sense to things. The XPA-2 gen 2 was more neutral across the band including the treble. Betwee the XPR-2 ad the XPA-2 gen 2 it's hard to find a pick. I would lean towards the XPA-2 gen 2 because I am very critical of tone. The XPA-1 gen 2 is similar to the XPA-2 gen 2 just adds that next level of refinement with the class A switch. A more knit together soundstage. Its magic is producsing room dimensios of the recording in an amazing 3d soudstage. With this amp you could tell the difference betwee the DC-1 delta sigma and the Schiit Gungnir multibit. The thing is so 3d that I noticed a sense of vertical height in the body of the instruments. The Gungnir multibit produced a taller fuller body of the instrument playing - for example a violin seemed bigger or a paino seemed bigger vertically. While the DC-1 the instrument was also portrayed with amazing detail but more like the sound came through a narrower opening on the vertical plane. I also noticed a slight veilig in the toe compared to the Gungnir. Having said that the DC-1 was able to produce superior room dimensions and resolution of the recording overall. The dynamics and bass extesion are really top notch. The sounds appear. While on the XPR-2 they also appeared sounding like it was with ease - but on the XPA-1 gen 2, they just appeared as in it was very fast doing it. I felt like it happened faster especially in the treble. The best amp I've heard so far has been the XPA-1 gen 2 with its win coming with the 3 dimensioal soundstage and room dimensions in class a mode. However, like I said I have heard other amps that come close to it or excell in slightly different things but I found them more colored than the XPA-1 gen 2 though here it's really a matter of preference. Here's how I would differetiate. If you want that slam you in the face throw you around the XPR-1 would have no problem whatsoever doing that. The XPA-1 can do it too ....just probably not quite as well - not that I've been able to max it out. But when listening to real acoustic instruments at life scale volumes I trust the XPA-1 gen 2 to do a better job at the nuances. If I had to pick I would go with XPA-1 gen 2. Or if possible two pairs of XPA-1 gen 2 for even more goodness! XPA-5 - what a deal for a 5 chanel amp with huge power. Nothing wrong with it. Has a nice soud to it. But the XPA-1 really does show its stripes here if you compare it. UPA-x00 series and the basx A-300 amps : Nothing wrong with the sound. Nothing great about it either. Its strength is neutral in tone. But the problem is there was nothing great about it. All the other amps were able to involve me with the sound. this one didn't really do any of it. It's a classic example of a utilitarian amp. I won't go talking about room dimensions in it or stunning dynamics or appealing sound or female voices sounded amazing on it or any of that flowery talk. I would say it played without sounding bad or calling itself out for any errors but not much more. UPA-2, UPA-1 - slightly smeared micro-dynamics that is only noticeable when listening to much better amps. Slightly dark laid back sound - which sounds really nice imo. The way it presents the sound makes it a decent notch above the UPA X-00 series and the basx A-300 amp though the basx a-300 didn't quite smear the dynamics. Very musical. I wish I heard an XPA-200 to see what it can do. Despite the dynamic smear in the long run the UPA-2 and UPA-1 will hold your attention and make you want to keep playing the music. Let's put it this way - I heard a lot of really good expensive amps. The only amp that made me want to "must buy" over my UPA-2 was the XPA-2 and the XPA-1 gen 2. The XPR-1 and the XPR-2 didn't push me enough though they were clearly better. TLDR : XPR-2 has fabulous sound. Slightly laid back. XPR-1 quite nice too. Lots of power not enough evaluation here. XPA-1 gen 2 is my top pick least colored, very transparent. Do run it fully balanced and in class A! XPA-2 gen 2 quite a fab deal for what you get. Depends on the sound you like between an XPR-2 and XPA-2 gen 2. UPA-2, UPA-1: Really musical amps. Just a hint of a darker laid back sound not necessarily a weakness. Weakess is dynamic smear. It'll play loud but not do it as fast as some of the better amps. Lots of enjoyment to be had at the price. Basx A-300, UPA-200, UPA-500: Utilitarian amps that don't do anything wrong. But also don't do much in terms of greatness. A "boring" amp compared to the other choices though perhaps that's slightly harsh wording. Wow, thanks for the in-depth subjectve comparo! You have really made the rounds through the Emotiva lineup. Your comments on the XPA1 gen 2 don’t surprise me st all. I don’t have nearly as big a base to compare it too but I can tell it’s something special. |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Oct 25, 2017 13:22:48 GMT -5
JMHO-Emotiva does amplifiers right. Even the cult end of the hobby has to agree they do nothing wrong I fully expect to get attacked for saying this but you could make the argument that there power supplies tend to be on the small side for there rated power. A lot of the more expensive amps have transformers 2-3x the size. Not saying this is evident is use but it is in theory and in measurements. Even so, when you bring price into the equation I think they are pretty much unmatched. conservatively rated or not, they still put out more real watts per $ than just about anything. Obviously corners have to be cut to bring prices down but they seem to know exactly where to cut them so that so that it doesn’t seem to be much of a detriment to the final product in real world use. I think this is a testament to there engineering expertise. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,093
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 25, 2017 14:07:06 GMT -5
Obviously corners have to be cut to bring prices down but they seem to know exactly where to cut them so that so that it doesn’t seem to be much of a detriment to the final product in real world use. I think this is a testament to there engineering expertise. You hit the nail on the head with this comment about them knowing where to cut. I think this is their strength overall. They find a price point they want to hit, and engineer products to deliver that at the best sound they can. While some might go overkill all around, Emotiva knows that carries a cost and doesn't necessarily always add value. Couple the mainly internet direct model, and the result is a great value. I am loving my new A-100, too...a very fine little amp. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Oct 25, 2017 19:07:16 GMT -5
. . . . . . . TLDR : XPR-2 has fabulous sound. Slightly laid back. XPR-1 quite nice too. Lots of power not enough evaluation here. XPA-1 gen 2 is my top pick least colored, very transparent. Do run it fully balanced and in class A! XPA-2 gen 2 quite a fab deal for what you get. Depends on the sound you like between an XPR-2 and XPA-2 gen 2. UPA-2, UPA-1: Really musical amps. Just a hint of a darker laid back sound not necessarily a weakness. Weakess is dynamic smear. It'll play loud but not do it as fast as some of the better amps. Lots of enjoyment to be had at the price. Basx A-300, UPA-200, UPA-500: Utilitarian amps that don't do anything wrong. But also don't do much in terms of greatness. A "boring" amp compared to the other choices though perhaps that's slightly harsh wording. Leonski isn't going to like how you can hear so much difference between Emo amps....  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 25, 2017 20:14:18 GMT -5
. . . . . . . TLDR : XPR-2 has fabulous sound. Slightly laid back. XPR-1 quite nice too. Lots of power not enough evaluation here. XPA-1 gen 2 is my top pick least colored, very transparent. Do run it fully balanced and in class A! XPA-2 gen 2 quite a fab deal for what you get. Depends on the sound you like between an XPR-2 and XPA-2 gen 2. UPA-2, UPA-1: Really musical amps. Just a hint of a darker laid back sound not necessarily a weakness. Weakess is dynamic smear. It'll play loud but not do it as fast as some of the better amps. Lots of enjoyment to be had at the price. Basx A-300, UPA-200, UPA-500: Utilitarian amps that don't do anything wrong. But also don't do much in terms of greatness. A "boring" amp compared to the other choices though perhaps that's slightly harsh wording. Leonski isn't going to like how you can hear so much difference between Emo amps.... is on a whole another level . He's got so much electronic know how I'm not sure what's going on! |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Oct 25, 2017 22:44:30 GMT -5
No Problemo. Amps DO sound different, and in proportion to 2 factors: 1: Difficulty of load and 2: Ability to DRIVE such loads. You aren't hearing just the 'amp', but rather the amp and speaker. So, take 2 amps of the same power (rating) and reasonable distortion. Than hook 'em to a difficult speaker. NO, not anything from most HT, but say a REAL nightmare load, like maybe an Electrostat or maybe an old Apogee Scintilla, which had a 1 ohm rating at some frequencies. One amp goes up in smoke. The other sounds OK, but also runs real warm. Than hook up an older KRELL from the KSA or  ? series. Now you're talkin'! I had soem REAl serious stereophile buddies back in the early 80s. Built their own amps and were working on a TT. They had some Magnepan MG-1s for sale. I took 'em home with me and have never looked back. Amazing sound. But I stuck around while they tested the 'new' speakers. Amp emitted this REALLY high pitched 'chirp' that went right thru your head. That was IT. So Sorry. I don't remember the test speaker, and the amp was home-brew. But man, that sure was an ugly outcome. When I left my buddies were staring at the amp like it was going to tell 'em what happened. But I'd suspect that run without clipping and into a moderate load, yeah, it's gonna get tough tellin' em apart. I know it took me a couple years to decide to junk out my 'D' amps. Something about the high frequencies. Just not RIGHT. Couldn't even hazard a guess WHY, but the cure was a pair of conventional A/B amps with Linear PS. Nothing $$$ but well constructed. Measurements can tell a lot, but not how it's gonna sound, and you really have to be a SEER to understand in advance how 2 pieces might interact. That's why I've been calling specs 'advisory' for quite a while now. HT guys have 2 things going for 'em. MOST HT speakers are not awful from the electrical standpoint. EMO makes a reasonable amp which works well in those applicaitons. A buddy of mine has a pair of monos driving the bass end of his MG-20s And it is some of the best bass I've ever heard. |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Nov 6, 2017 10:50:42 GMT -5
I have never been able to understand the "all amps sound the same" philosophy. I acknowledge that its hard to observe difference is amplifier measurements that would explain big differences in sound (I can't explain it from an engineering standpoint), but I just hear too much difference to deny it. There is no question in my mind that I hear difference between amps, sometimes its obvious and sometimes its subtle. With speakers its generally less obvious which makes sense when you consider how many variables are coming into play in a listening room. I find it more noticeable near field and hard to ignore with headphones where most of the variables are removed. With headphones you have a source, an amp and a speaker (headphones), thats it. I find that simply removing room acoustics from the equation makes small changed in sound from electronics much more obvious. Some of the differences I hear from just changing the amp in my headphone setup make me wonder "how could anyone not notice this? Have they ever even tried?". In these cases all the amps should be well below clipping. That said, I wonder if clipping transients are responsible for some of the differences I hear? Now, being the reasonable open minded person I am , I can't deny the possibility that I am experiencing is the most intense case of placebo I have ever had, but I am confident its not. Ive tried to fool myself in blind tests and could always hear differences, but I have never done a true blind abx test. I would love to try sometime though if anyone in the Michigan area wants to help me set one up! Anyways, I realize this is kind of off topic but this has been on my mind for a while. Ive feel like the "all amps sound the same" camp tends to be more vocal than "amps sound different" camp so I thought I would bring some balance to the debate . Still looking for XPR5 vs XPA5 feedback if anyone has heard both! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 6, 2017 12:25:49 GMT -5
I have never been able to understand the "all amps sound the same" philosophy. I acknowledge that its hard to observe difference is amplifier measurements that would explain audible differences in sound (I can't explain it from an engineering standpoint), but I just hear too much difference to deny it. There is no question in my mind that I hear difference between amps, sometimes its obvious and sometimes its subtle. With speakers its generally less obvious, which makes sense when you consider how many variables are coming into play in a listening room. I find it more noticeable near field and hard to ignore with headphones where most of the variables are removed. With headphones you have a source an amp and a speaker (headphones), thats it. I find that simply removing room acoustics from the equation makes small changed in sound from electronics much more obvious. Some of the differences I hear from just changing the amp in my headphone setup make me wonder "how could anyone not notice this?". In these cases all the amps should be well below clipping. That said, I wonder if clipping transients are responsible for some of the differences I hear? Also, like Leonski said, amplifiers don't produce "sound" so they cannot sound the same or different. When people talk about the sound of an amp they are of course really talking about the amp-speaker combination. Now, I can't deny the possibility that I am experiencing is the most intense case of placebo I have ever had, but I am confident its not. Ive tried to fool myself in blind tests and could always hear differences, but I have never done a true blind abx test. I would love to try sometime though if anyone in the Michigan area wants to help me set one up! Anyways, I realize this is kind of off topic but this has been on my mind for a while. Ive feel like the "all amps sound the same" camp tends to be more vocal than "amps sound different" camp so I thought I would bring some balance to the debate . Still looking for XPR5 vs XPA5 feedback if anyone has heard both! I don't think it's placebo. I too wonder why everybody talks about all amps sound the same. I think they all have their character and stregnths - some subtle, some not so subtle. I know it is TRUE that all decent amps measure to amounts that we "should" not hear a difference. And I also know that the varying load of a speaker can make amps sound different. But I don't understand how this would make different amps sound different in to the same speaker. Also I don't understand why I've never seen any kind of measurements showing the "difference" when run in to a speaker. You would think amp manufacturers would be all about it. If they have a beef amp, they take a non beefy amp and show the measured output vs their own amp which does better. Etc. Or amp manufacturers would have checked what improves the alterations in output and then had big campaigns about them. "Our amp has big capacitance which is shown to blah blah on this speaker." Definitely would make a selling point. |
|
|
|
Post by autobot on Apr 20, 2018 18:38:04 GMT -5
Ive been really curious about the XPR amps since they were first released. I read some of the early "previews" and reviews but I haven't heard much about them since. Im just curious to hear from XPR owners about what they like about them and whats not so hot. Does anyone know why they where discontinued so quickly? How is the reliability? Ive noticed that a few of the ones I have seen come up on the used market have problems with the front LEDs, is that common with these? Any other common issues? How do they sound? Has anyone noticed a difference in SQ compared to other Emotiva amps? I own an XPA5 gen 1 and a XPA1 gen 2 and Im most interested in the XPR5. Very curious how these compare In terms of sound and real world power. Anything else I should know about these? Thanks! |
|
? series. Now you're talkin'! 
