XPA HC-1 review on ASR

[KeithL]

To be quite blunt...
I don't place much credence in advice about audiophile gear from someone who admits that "he doesn't listen to what he reviews".
I don't always agree with reviewers... but at least someone who has listened to a product for themselves has earned the right to have an opinion on how it sounds.
(Imagine if you were to open up an article of wine reviews and read: "I don't actually drink the stuff but, based on my chemical analysis, this should be an excellent vintage".) 

You may be surprised to know that most people don't think that most pro amps sound especially good.
And, of course, there are other things about pro gear that many audiophiles don't like, like the styling, or the almost ubiquitous and often rather annoying fans.
I don't generally listen to pro gear, and some of the pro gear I've heard actually did sound quite good, so I'm not going to say otherwise.
However, it's also no big secret that there's plenty of pro gear available for those who prefer to go that route.
(B&H Photo Video - www.bhphotovideo.com - has an excellent selection... and their prices seem reasonable... )

Of course everyone is also entitled to their own opinions (which is one reason why there is so much gear, from so many companies, to choose from).
However I should point out that I find it a bit surprising that, while you (Boomzilla) don't think that our new XPA Gen3 amps sound especially good...
You do really like the sound of our PA-1's ...
Which are really modern pure Class-D amps based on ICEPower modules ...

Jun 5, 2023 23:30:36 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

“It’s an OK amp…”. Damned with faint praise, to be sure. But Amir asks fair questions - in particular, why can’t Emotiva offer better amps for the money?

At the price of two of these amps, you could buy a “pro amp” for less money that would offer not only more power but better specs.

I’ve said repeatedly that Emotiva’s third generation of power amps don’t sound as good as their earlier models. Now ASR’s measurements verify that opinion. I’ve also said that the decline in amplifier sound quality coincided with Emotiva’s entry into the home theater market. The drain on Emotiva’s engineering department by HT has left the remainder of Emotiva’s products to receive only pro forma updates intended to reduce production costs without sufficient attention to sound quality.

Emotiva CAN sell products that sound great - garbulky ’s XPA1s (generation 2) and my PA-1s both sound excellent, but none of the current products that I’ve heard come close.

I’m certainly not the only critic of Emotiva amplifiers’ current sound, so don’t write my opinion off as an outlier. And even if you are skeptical of subjective opinions such as mine, ASR’s measurements verify my comments.

Will the focus on HT kill Emotiva’s other products? I think it already has. Will the focus on HT kill the whole company? Time will tell. But for MY future amplification needs, I’ll be shopping other brands before I consider Emotiva again.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[cecilg]

As to home theater's impact on Emotiva products, I agree that it has at least taken some of the steam out of non-HT products, but that is good or bad depending on the customer.  My HT requirements were nicely satisfied a decade ago by a pair of Airmotiv 4's, which are still in daily use, driven by a PT-100. My wife and I are quite satisfied by the sound quality, but then, I have no interest in 'realistic' explosions or gunfire or superhero effects, but others of course do. In fact, my favorite movie theater experience of all time was provided by a 16-mm projector at NANA Oilfield Services at Prudhoe Bay, AK back in the early '80s. The movie was Ordinary People, and the sound might have been bad, but the experience was extraordinary, in no small part because of the person I was with (not my current wife); the fact that Pachelbel's canon was her favorite music was an additional bonus. Music is not just sound.

Since the Airmotivs are getting long in the tooth and Emo does not even sell self-powered speakers anymore, I've been worried about what to replace them with when they break. However, when I bought mine I told my brother-in-law about them, and he bought a pair of 4s's, which he rarely used and has now sold to me; they arrive today and my worries are gone -- I should be able to keep 2 working speakers out of the 4 as long as I live. If Emo sold advanced 4's today at an inflation-adjusted price, I would have bought new. Now to worry about the UPA-1's.

[KeithL]

Since you actually asked this I'm going to answer...
(Although please note that I am not trying to start an argument here.)

A desktop DAC is a relatively simple product designed to carry out a single function.
In contrast, a surround sound processor is a very complex device, which is doing a lot of different things at the same time.
Therefore, in terms of complexity, the analogy to the relationship between a bicycle and a sports car there is a fair one.

Now here is my question for you....
If Bicycle Rider's Weekly ran an article berating Lexus for "selling a sports car that doesn't perform nearly as well as a bicycle in their measurements"...
Would you honestly expect Lexus to respond?
And would you expect Lexus to "be a good sport" and try to "get the performance of their cars to be more in line with the performance of a good racing bike"?
Or would you expect Lexus to be relatively disinterested in the opinions of "people whose expertise and interest is clearly bicycles"?
(And would you suspect that Bicycle Rider's Weekly was maybe just trying to grandstand a bit for their fans...?)

In the case of amplifiers...

We have absolutely no objection to someone measuring our products, publishing those measurements, and voicing his opinion about those measurements.
(Although, to be honest, we do consider it to be an odd sort of bias to publish only measurements, to the exclusion of all else.)
However, we are in business to produce products that meet the needs of our customers...
And, for the majority of our customers, their priority is to purchase an excellent sounding product at a good price...
(And, as with any consumer product, things like reliability, and features, and warranty, are also important considerations... )
But specifications and measurements only serve a purpose to the degree that they actually serve that goal...

So, yes, occasionally a reviewer will uncover something interesting, which we will probably choose to address...
But, by and large, we have our own design engineers, so we have limited use for "armchair quarterbacks"...

I should also point out that, while there are obviously a few "widely accepted and measured specifications", they have in fact fallen behind the times.

There are a lot of things which can be measured...

Unfortunately, many of them are difficult to measure, complex to interpret, and not very familiar to the market at large...
Therefore it has become customary "to specify, measure, and report, the common specs that most people are familiar with".
However this is of limited value... since those specifications "fail to tell the whole story" anyway.
And a major part of the problem here is that many people DON'T know how to interpret those numbers...
And, as a result, they simply start ASSUMING that "OF COURSE A PRODUCT WITH BETTER NUMBERS WILL SOUND BETTER" (or something equivalent).
And, on top of that, we tend to end up with "buzz words"... which have little value outside of marketing brochures.
(For some time everyone was advertising "high slew rate"... even though I've never met a customer who knew what that means or when and why it would matter.)

To offer an obvious example....
An amplifier with a THD of 5% will almost certainly sound audibly bad...
And an amplifier with a THD of 0.05% will almost certainly sound better...
And, in point of fact, there actually is no widely-agreed-upon standard for the absolute minimum amount of THD that is audible.
HOWEVER, at the same time, most people I know accept that you almost certainly CANNOT ever hear the difference between 0.05% THD and 0.005% THD.
And this means two things:
1. If you have two amplifiers, one with a THD of 0.05%, and one with a THD of 0.005%, and they sound different, THEN THAT DIFFERENCE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY *NOT* THE REASON.
2. Expending effort to further reduce the THD measurement of the amplifier whose THD is 0.05% is going to be a waste of both your effort and your customers' money.

And, at that point, getting into "an absurd numbers war" is simply counterproductive.
(And it's even more counterproductive to do so merely for the purpose of "producing impressive numbers".)

Jun 14, 2023 8:25:51 GMT -5 bolle said:

Jun 6, 2023 11:12:02 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Amir over at ASR firmly believes that a few measurements tell the entire story.
(So he never considers it worthwhile to actually listen to anything he reviews.)

Amir also has a tendency to compare extremely dissimilar products... like surround sound processors and simple stereo desktop DACs... on equal terms.
(I sort of suspect that, if he were to compare a $700 bicycle to a $100k sports car, he would complain that the bicycle was quieter and got better mileage, but the sports car still cost a lot more.) 

That´s a little bit low Keith, isn´t it?

Amir is measuring, that´s correct. Nothing wrong with that. Measurements are objective, listening is not. Of course the interpretation of measurements is not objective. Amir is here sticking to acclaimed standards, which imho is a good approach.

Amir is using the same measuring process with the same things he does measure for different products. I personally think this is fine and don´t see a problem here. You compare the speed of objects on the same scale (mph) so it makes sense to use the same scale and measures for e.g. noise for different products, right?

A bicyle is quiter than most cars, that´s an objective fact that you can measure.
Most cars are faster (top speed, acceleration) than a bicycle with a standardized cyclist under standardized measuring conditions, that´s also objective and measurable.
Same for the price, weight, etc. etc.

Now how you interpret that measurements - that´s up to you, your use case, requirements, etc..

Personally I would like more sportmanship from Emotiva towards ASR. Other companies did respond better imho and even used the ASR measurements as a starter to improve their products - how cool is that? ;-)

[prem]

I am newbie but let me put my 3 Eurocents here

I own XMC-2 , XPA and DR2 , based on ASR tests I should get rid of them because of poor parameters, THD and who knows what else.

Regretfully for ASR I prefer to listen and not to measure too much.

Probably I could buy something "better" but how much time and effort do I need to get this "good" amp and what reviews should I consider.

We have ca. 4 hifi magazines in Poland (monthly issues) plus couple of online portals. Everybody has his own favourite brand and claims to be "objective"

Surely KPIs, figures etc matter but at the end I have spent my savings to enjoy and not to sit with ruler and meter. 

Let Amirm dig in the cables and resistors , maybe this makes him happy.

I take some Dire Straits or Genesis, sit on my old sofa and forget about busy day

Regards to everyone

[Boomzilla]

Lots of folks DO like the sound of Emotiva Gen. 3 X-series gear.

Lots of folks DO like the price of Emotiva Gen. 3 X-series gear.

I have no objections to the price - it seems fair. And I wouldn't say that the Gen. 3 X-series gear sounds in any way bad. I do say that (having previously owned Gen. 1, Gen. 2, Gen. R, and Gen. 3 Emotiva gear - and quite a lot of it), I, personally prefer the sound of the previous equipment. The difference is subtle, but it's there.

I'd also say that I, personally, prefer the sound of Emotiva's BasX amplifiers to that of the Gen. 3 X-series gear.

Now to qualify what I've said - I don't run exceptionally low-impedance speakers; I don't play my gear very loudly; I'm (more often than not) using high-sensitivity speakers. So I'm effectively listening to the "first watt" of all Emotiva products. That means that my experience won't be applicable to all listeners. Nevertheless, I've expressed what I've heard as honestly and plainly as possible. I have noticed over time that I'm not alone in what I've heard.

I'd certainly expect that here on the Emotiva Lounge, the ratio of fans to critics would be strongly biased toward the sound of Emotiva products, and that's OK. But there are a lot of competitors out there any more that give Emotiva products a run for their money in the sound per dollar race. Many of these competitors are NOT (in KeithL's words "insanely expensive"). The competitors may (or may not) offer the wattage per dollar that Emotiva offers, but in my case that's irrelevant.

As to "pro" amps, some can and do sound amazing on an absolute basis, and even more so when their modest prices are taken into account. But there's little consistency in the world of Pro amps. Three models from the same manufacturer may well sound radically different. So anyone wanting to surf the seas of pro audio had better be able to listen for themselves and discern which amps sound good and which don't. One doesn't have to worry about that with (for example) Emotiva. One Gen. 3 X-Series amp will sound virtually identical to any other. That's a good thing (especially for mixing and matching as a system grows). As to the "quirks" of pro amps (fans, cheap DSP, and Neutrix speaker connectors), you either can live with them or you can't. Personally, I'm fine with fans & Neutrix, but not cheap DSP.

Cheers.

[KeithL]

I absolutely agree with everything you've said...

Even modern audio gear, with excellent specifications, still has subtle differences in sound.

And, even though some exceptionally expensive equipment fails to sound especially good, there is some very low cost gear that sounds very good.

And, yes, we all have our own personal preferences as well...

Now... for a truly interesting question...

(And this one is for everyone reading this...)

Is there anything in the standard specs that we and most other companies publish...

Or in the specs and test results published on ASR...

That would have actually enabled you to tell which of those amps you would prefer the sound of before you heard it?

(If not then those specs and measurements are clearly of extremely limited value... right?)

As far as I'm concerned, when I'm shopping for audio equipment, exceptionally bad measurements can sometimes exclude a certain piece of gear from consideration...

But, beyond that, trying to figure out details of sound quality, based solely on measurements, tends to be futile at best...

In fact, because there are so many other variables involved, attempting to do so can sometimes cross the line from futile to downright misleading...

(Which is why I cannot place much value in rating equipment solely on specifications.)

And, yes, at this point, we are a rather large volume company, so we do have to base our choices on what MOST of our customers prefer or want (not always the same exact thing)...

(Much as it might be fun to do so... we really cannot afford to produce "cool" small-volume products that would only appeal to a limited number of customers.)

Jun 15, 2023 14:29:06 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Lots of folks DO like the sound of Emotiva Gen. 3 X-series gear.

Lots of folks DO like the price of Emotiva Gen. 3 X-series gear.

I have no objections to the price - it seems fair. And I wouldn't say that the Gen. 3 X-series gear sounds in any way bad. I do say that (having previously owned Gen. 1, Gen. 2, Gen. R, and Gen. 3 Emotiva gear - and quite a lot of it), I, personally prefer the sound of the previous equipment. The difference is subtle, but it's there.

I'd also say that I, personally, prefer the sound of Emotiva's BasX amplifiers to that of the Gen. 3 X-series gear.

Now to qualify what I've said - I don't run exceptionally low-impedance speakers; I don't play my gear very loudly; I'm (more often than not) using high-sensitivity speakers. So I'm effectively listening to the "first watt" of all Emotiva products. That means that my experience won't be applicable to all listeners. Nevertheless, I've expressed what I've heard as honestly and plainly as possible. I have noticed over time that I'm not alone in what I've heard.

I'd certainly expect that here on the Emotiva Lounge, the ratio of fans to critics would be strongly biased toward the sound of Emotiva products, and that's OK. But there are a lot of competitors out there any more that give Emotiva products a run for their money in the sound per dollar race. Many of these competitors are NOT (in KeithL 's words "insanely expensive"). The competitors may (or may not) offer the wattage per dollar that Emotiva offers, but in my case that's irrelevant.

As to "pro" amps, some can and do sound amazing on an absolute basis, and even more so when their modest prices are taken into account. But there's little consistency in the world of Pro amps. Three models from the same manufacturer may well sound radically different. So anyone wanting to surf the seas of pro audio had better be able to listen for themselves and discern which amps sound good and which don't. One doesn't have to worry about that with (for example) Emotiva. One Gen. 3 X-Series amp will sound virtually identical to any other. That's a good thing (especially for mixing and matching as a system grows). As to the "quirks" of pro amps (fans, cheap DSP, and Neutrix speaker connectors), you either can live with them or you can't. Personally, I'm fine with fans & Neutrix, but not cheap DSP.

Cheers.

[vcautokid]

I am going to do this take 2. Again Keith, and others are spot on. Ultimately whatever wiz bang dope with an AP is now some empirical God for buy this because some $25,000.00 or whatever says its bitchin. Okay fun, but ultimately how useful is that to you? You thing there. Also Taste is also a you thing. I seek a balance in the decision I make in buying anything. Data points, and the big, am I going to be proud of it, and does it bring me joy, or does it bring less so. Amir, Keith, Dan, Lonnie, or anyone else can't answer that for you. As it should be. It is like the guy who makes wine, and never tastes it. He knows the process is right. Must be good right? You sure? How do know? I get why Amir may not listen in depth with the gear he measures. Time. Probably does this testing that takes some time to do. Being thorough usually means time is consumed. But I think maybe it doesn't matter if he likes it or not, I have seen his measurements and he does have an opinion how it sounds, and what it drives. The Topping A30Pro Headphone amplifier he was gushing. I have one, but it has nothing to do with whether liked it or hated it. It measured well. I am listening to it as I type this. I wanted this amplifier regardless what he said. The test data was nice, but all the other data points, and my gut said yeah, I'll take one. Right or wrong, immaterial. I think it is bitchin'. Case closed.

[ttocs]

Jun 15, 2023 15:39:57 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Is there anything in the standard specs that we and most other companies publish...

Or in the specs and test results published on ASR...

That would have actually enabled you to tell which of those amps you would prefer the sound of before you heard it?

No.

[LCSeminole]

I've been away for the past week and will be for another two weeks for work, however I now know what I must do when I return home. I also know that I've been going about choosing, then buying home theater equipment completely wrong. Now that ASR has shed light on my deficiencies, I will no longer trust my hearing and only choose my future equipment based on Amir's measurement results exclusively. I must admit, this is quite a weight off my shoulders knowing I no longer have to put any effort into auditioning and simply turning to the Audio Science Review website for the definitive answer to what I should buy. I've always wanted this hobby to be mindless and now my wish has been granted. I just wish I had not spent so much of my time(that I'll never get back) listening to really great music and movies over my current "sub-standard" home theater equipment. Forgive me everyone, as I didn't know what I was doing.......

[geebo]

Jun 15, 2023 18:49:40 GMT -5 ttocs said:

Jun 15, 2023 15:39:57 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Is there anything in the standard specs that we and most other companies publish...

Or in the specs and test results published on ASR...

That would have actually enabled you to tell which of those amps you would prefer the sound of before you heard it?

No.

Ditto.

[fbczar]

Jun 15, 2023 19:34:55 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

I've been away for the past week and will be for another two weeks for work, however I now know what I must do when I return home. I also know that I've been going about choosing, then buying home theater equipment completely wrong. Now that ASR has shed light on my deficiencies, I will no longer trust my hearing and only choose my future equipment based on Amir's measurement results exclusively. I must admit, this is quite a weight of my shoulders knowing I no longer have to put any effort into auditioning and simply turning to the Audio Science Review website for the definitive answer to what I should buy. I've always wanted this hobby to be mindless and now my wish has been granted. I just wish I had not spent so much of my time(that I'll never get back) listening to really great music and movies over my current "sub-standard" home theater equipment. Forgive me everyone, as I didn't know what I was doing.......

After you acquire the ASR based system you could also refuse to listen to the new system. That way you would have the pleasure of "knowing" how it sounds while lowering the expectation bias in your life.

[geebo]

Jun 15, 2023 19:34:55 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

I've been away for the past week and will be for another two weeks for work, however I now know what I must do when I return home. I also know that I've been going about choosing, then buying home theater equipment completely wrong. Now that ASR has shed light on my deficiencies, I will no longer trust my hearing and only choose my future equipment based on Amir's measurement results exclusively. I must admit, this is quite a weight of my shoulders knowing I no longer have to put any effort into auditioning and simply turning to the Audio Science Review website for the definitive answer to what I should buy. I've always wanted this hobby to be mindless and now my wish has been granted. I just wish I had not spent so much of my time(that I'll never get back) listening to really great music and movies over my current "sub-standard" home theater equipment. Forgive me everyone, as I didn't know what I was doing.......

Anyone with a DR-2 should immediately sell it and get a Topping PA5 @ $349. The SINAD tells all. 106 vs 65!

I hope he never tests my SA-250 because I'd hate to learn it doesn't sound as good as it does.

[tchaik]

My 2 cents goes to listening bias and priorities.

as a judge for numerous piano competitions each year on the collegiate and pre-collegiate level, I am amazed at how each piano adjudicator (all professional performers) will hear completely different things in their attempt to determine first, second and third place when awarding prizes. it is almost as if we are hearing completely different performers at the same time. obviously, that is because of our bias and what we consider most important in judging piano performance.

having said that....

all audiophiles come to the task of evaluating equipment with a long list of specifics that we deem most important in our listening experience. none of us share the same list which is why listening to the equipment is always the final arbiter of what sounds best to us. even the best equipment still falls short of the "live" experience and evaluation of specs will only provide a starting point for many of us. if amir doesn't like emo amps because of their spec score and boomzilla feels the earlier xpa series sounds better than the current one, then that speaks to a different set of sonic priorities for them than others might have. i find it amusing when one says something sounds better (or worse) than the other without citing with specificity what parameter they consider better or worse. Nonetheless, I do enjoy reading contrasting reviews because both will tell me something about the equipment reviewed and something about the reviewer themselves. as for priorities, if the equipment does not provide the visceral dynamic impact that I feel when attacking the piano keys, it will never sound 'good' to me.

yes, I realize comparing musical performance to sonic characteristics of a piece of audio gear is not a perfect comparison, but my issue is about priorities and bias in our listening evaluation. having said all that, the XPR amps give me all the visceral impact I would ever want. when one goes bad, I will most likely replace with the XPA/DR series.


just so you know I am not blowing smoke, here is a performance you might enjoy with my piano duo partner dr. margarita denenburg. if you can't tell who is who, margarita is the beautiful one. the young ladies are students of mine. tough job, isn't it.

youtu.be/iVmmZ61g3dQ


tchaik............

[cawgijoe]

Jun 15, 2023 19:34:55 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

I've been away for the past week and will be for another two weeks for work, however I now know what I must do when I return home. I also know that I've been going about choosing, then buying home theater equipment completely wrong. Now that ASR has shed light on my deficiencies, I will no longer trust my hearing and only choose my future equipment based on Amir's measurement results exclusively. I must admit, this is quite a weight off my shoulders knowing I no longer have to put any effort into auditioning and simply turning to the Audio Science Review website for the definitive answer to what I should buy. I've always wanted this hobby to be mindless and now my wish has been granted. I just wish I had not spent so much of my time(that I'll never get back) listening to really great music and movies over my current "sub-standard" home theater equipment. Forgive me everyone, as I didn't know what I was doing.......

Unfortunately many do exactly as you stated.

[tropicallutefisk]

Jun 15, 2023 22:11:35 GMT -5 tchaik said:

My 2 cents goes to listening bias and priorities.

as a judge for numerous piano competitions each year on the collegiate and pre-collegiate level, I am amazed at how each piano adjudicator (all professional performers) will hear completely different things in their attempt to determine first, second and third place when awarding prizes. it is almost as if we are hearing completely different performers at the same time. obviously, that is because of our bias and what we consider most important in judging piano performance.

having said that....

all audiophiles come to the task of evaluating equipment with a long list of specifics that we deem most important in our listening experience. none of us share the same list which is why listening to the equipment is always the final arbiter of what sounds best to us. even the best equipment still falls short of the "live" experience and evaluation of specs will only provide a starting point for many of us. if amir doesn't like emo amps because of their spec score and boomzilla feels the earlier xpa series sounds better than the current one, then that speaks to a different set of sonic priorities for them than others might have. i find it amusing when one says something sounds better (or worse) than the other without citing with specificity what parameter they consider better or worse. Nonetheless, I do enjoy reading contrasting reviews because both will tell me something about the equipment reviewed and something about the reviewer themselves. as for priorities, if the equipment does not provide the visceral dynamic impact that I feel when attacking the piano keys, it will never sound 'good' to me.

yes, I realize comparing musical performance to sonic characteristics of a piece of audio gear is not a perfect comparison, but my issue is about priorities and bias in our listening evaluation. having said all that, the XPR amps give me all the visceral impact I would ever want. when one goes bad, I will most likely replace with the XPA/DR series.


just so you know I am not blowing smoke, here is a performance you might enjoy with my piano duo partner dr. margarita denenburg. if you can't tell who is who, margarita is the beautiful one. the young ladies are students of mine. tough job, isn't it.

youtu.be/iVmmZ61g3dQ


tchaik............

Thanks for sharing that performance. Truly incredible talent on display

[marcl]

Jun 15, 2023 22:11:35 GMT -5 tchaik said:

My 2 cents goes to listening bias and priorities.

as a judge for numerous piano competitions each year on the collegiate and pre-collegiate level, I am amazed at how each piano adjudicator (all professional performers) will hear completely different things in their attempt to determine first, second and third place when awarding prizes. it is almost as if we are hearing completely different performers at the same time. obviously, that is because of our bias and what we consider most important in judging piano performance.

having said that....

all audiophiles come to the task of evaluating equipment with a long list of specifics that we deem most important in our listening experience. none of us share the same list which is why listening to the equipment is always the final arbiter of what sounds best to us. even the best equipment still falls short of the "live" experience and evaluation of specs will only provide a starting point for many of us. if amir doesn't like emo amps because of their spec score and boomzilla feels the earlier xpa series sounds better than the current one, then that speaks to a different set of sonic priorities for them than others might have. i find it amusing when one says something sounds better (or worse) than the other without citing with specificity what parameter they consider better or worse. Nonetheless, I do enjoy reading contrasting reviews because both will tell me something about the equipment reviewed and something about the reviewer themselves. as for priorities, if the equipment does not provide the visceral dynamic impact that I feel when attacking the piano keys, it will never sound 'good' to me.

yes, I realize comparing musical performance to sonic characteristics of a piece of audio gear is not a perfect comparison, but my issue is about priorities and bias in our listening evaluation. having said all that, the XPR amps give me all the visceral impact I would ever want. when one goes bad, I will most likely replace with the XPA/DR series.


just so you know I am not blowing smoke, here is a performance you might enjoy with my piano duo partner dr. margarita denenburg. if you can't tell who is who, margarita is the beautiful one. the young ladies are students of mine. tough job, isn't it.

youtu.be/iVmmZ61g3dQ


tchaik............

Very interesting perspective!  And yes, very cool to see your performance too!

I agree with your views about individual bias.  I also wonder if the scenario of judging musical performances can be skewed by the listening perspective of the judge ... their unconscious perception of the sound of the piano itself could have them hearing one performance differently from another ... especially if they are at different times of day or on different days or on different pianos.  

And then there's the musician's perspective.  We know what our personal instrument sounds like ... we know what many other instances of our instrument sound like ... we know our instrument sounds different on different days in different rooms.  We have a perspective of what other instruments sound like from hearing them around us in a performance, as well as other situations.

And so ... I have heard non-musicians comment about the sound of certain instruments in a particular recording or heard on a particular system.  And there have been times when I felt their perception was inconsistent with my perception of how an instrument can or should sound.  For example, I once heard a guy comment on the lack of impact of a snare drum strike ... the drummer was using a brush, not a stick.  I hear people refer to cymbal sounds as a good reference for how high frequencies and transients are rendered ... but I know every cymbal sounds different and also depending how and with what implement it is struck.

And then ... it comes down to what Floyd Toole referred to as a "circle of confusion" ... recording engineers listening through various preamps, amps and speakers in various rooms, to mix recordings that the rest of us use to evaluate various other preamps, amps and speakers in various other rooms.

Boil this down and I ask one question:  Irrespective of whether measurements have any value in an absolute sense, do they have value in a relative sense across the spectrum of components?  Can we say that two components that measure somewhat close to each other on several parameters will not sound much different, but as two components diverge from each other there may be a relative difference in sound ... and at some point it will likely be audible?

Toole found that the speaker that measured the best in the "spinorama" tended to be judged as sounding the best by listeners in a reference listening room.  And when several speakers were evaluated in rooms with very different acoustic properties, the best speaker still sounded the best overall ... as judged by the listeners.

Finally ... can you offer any recommendations of piano recordings, from the perspective of the sound of the instrument?   Mine are Oscar Peterson: Unmistakable - Zenph Re-performance, and Bach - Inside Polyphony, Christian Grovlen 2L Records.

[geebo]

Jun 15, 2023 19:34:55 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

I've been away for the past week and will be for another two weeks for work, however I now know what I must do when I return home. I also know that I've been going about choosing, then buying home theater equipment completely wrong. Now that ASR has shed light on my deficiencies, I will no longer trust my hearing and only choose my future equipment based on Amir's measurement results exclusively. I must admit, this is quite a weight off my shoulders knowing I no longer have to put any effort into auditioning and simply turning to the Audio Science Review website for the definitive answer to what I should buy. I've always wanted this hobby to be mindless and now my wish has been granted. I just wish I had not spent so much of my time(that I'll never get back) listening to really great music and movies over my current "sub-standard" home theater equipment. Forgive me everyone, as I didn't know what I was doing.......

Maybe we could get ASR to assign a number to music, too. That way we could buy not only the gear based on a number but the music as well. Then we wouldn't have to waste time listening to stuff to know what we have sounds good. If friends come over we can show them the numbers and not have to waste electricity or time.

[KeithL]

I absolutely agree with you - as to what the question is.

The problem is that the question itself is far from simple - and so doesn't have a simple answer.

We surely each have specific things that we notice, or focus on, and things that we don't.

But our attention also operates a lot like a spotlight... once we notice something we become more likely to notice it the next time it shows up.  
For example, that tiny little scratch or fleck of dirt on the window, which "we just can't un-notice once we've noticed it".
(For example all vinyl produces an audible amount of surface noise... yet most people didn't notice it, or find it annoying, until digital content with much lower levels of background noise became common.)
This is especially true when it comes to complex devices like DACs...
Where we often find tiny or subtle differences that only occur with specific sounds and which "you probably wouldn't notice until someone points them out to you".

But, beyond even that, and what I consider to be a major problem, is that MOST specifications are actually oversimplifications.
For example "THD" is TOTAL Harmonic Distortion, which is exactly what it sounds like, the TOTAL of all the unwanted harmonic content added together. 
The catch is that, in reality, different harmonics sound very different, and some are far more unpleasant than others.
And, when we read that number, we tend to interpret how it correlates with sound quality BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE AND EXPECTATIONS.

So, for example, an amplifier with 0.1% THD - mostly third harmonic - would sound quite good (or at least pretty good)...
But an amplifier with 0.1% THD - mostly tenth harmonic - would sound really awful...
And, for some fans of "single-ended triode amplifiers", adding some second harmonic distortion might actually "improve how it sounds"..
(And you and I would know enough to "read that number differently" if we were reading about a solid state amplifier, or a tube amplifier, or a DAC.)
 
Therefore, by itself, a single THD specification may or may not tell you much about how an amplifier will sound.
(And, depending on your level of experience and technical knowledge, could also be very misleading.)
A more complete option would be a graph of the "harmonic spectrum of the output with a specific test signal"...
Although, since these will be different with different test signals, and at different levels, you would want several of them...
And now we're getting into several rather complex measurements... which can be tricky for even experts to interpret...

Likewise "noise" is a combination of many things... which vary widely in terms of how noticeable or annoying they are...
The obvious example there is dithering... where we actually add noise of one sort to suppress noise that, while actually at a lower level, is far more audibly unpleasant.

I would suggest that the answer to your question is only really widely useful in the obverse...
The most I would say is that two components will probably sound noticeably different if they diverge widely in certain specific measurements, in certain specific ways, and under certain specific conditions...

For example....
- I would WOULD NOT expect to hear a difference between two amplifiers, one with a S/N of 110 dB, and one with a S/N of 120 dB... based on the limits of human hearing and typical rooms
- but I WOULD expect to hear a difference between an amplifier with a S/N of 85 dB and one with a S/N of 110 dB... when playing a well recorded digital file
- but I WOULD NOT expect to hear a difference between an amplifier with a S/N of 85 dB and one with a S/N of 110 dB... when playing a vinyl album
- (although I WOULD expect to hear a difference in the level of hiss coming from the speakers with those last two after I lift the stylus off the record) 

To reference the actual wording Floyd Toole's used in his quote...
You can use "the circle of confusion" to calculate things like the depth of field on a photo...
However, while that will tell you which parts of the photo will be sharp, a lot of different things will determine what the bokeh looks like in the blurry parts...
And, even with the same "overall amount of blur", different types of bokeh will look very different, and will be more or less pleasing to different people...

I also like your reference to the way cymbals sound... because that's one of the things I listen for with DACs...
I find that, with certain DACs, and certain filter choices, "wire brushed cymbals sound more like metal and less like the hiss from a steam valve"...
I imagine that the sounds of the individual wires hitting metal seem more metallic and more distinctive...
I also fancy that, in some cases, with some DACs and filters, I am more able to notice a difference between plucking on metal and nylon guitar strings...
And, yes, I only find this to be the case with certain specific recordings...
And on certain speakers or headphones...
(I also really hate "poetic descriptions" but, while I know what I at least think I hear, I cannot come up with a more accurate description for it...) 

As to your last question...
I'm afraid I'm not much of a classical music listener... 
Nor do I spend much time listening to other types of relatively unprocessed acoustic recordings...
So I absolutely defer to those who do when it comes to piano recordings. 
The most I would say is that I find that most piano recordings seem to me to fail to capture the full dynamics of a live piano played even somewhat loudly...
(We have a piano here in the lobby and, while I cannot personally play anything useful, I do know what it should sound like when I bang on the keys.)

Jun 16, 2023 6:57:02 GMT -5 marcl said:

Jun 15, 2023 22:11:35 GMT -5 tchaik said:

............................

Very interesting perspective!  And yes, very cool to see your performance too!

I agree with your views about individual bias.  I also wonder if the scenario of judging musical performances can be skewed by the listening perspective of the judge ... their unconscious perception of the sound of the piano itself could have them hearing one performance differently from another ... especially if they are at different times of day or on different days or on different pianos.  

And then there's the musician's perspective.  We know what our personal instrument sounds like ... we know what many other instances of our instrument sound like ... we know our instrument sounds different on different days in different rooms.  We have a perspective of what other instruments sound like from hearing them around us in a performance, as well as other situations.

And so ... I have heard non-musicians comment about the sound of certain instruments in a particular recording or heard on a particular system.  And there have been times when I felt their perception was inconsistent with my perception of how an instrument can or should sound.  For example, I once heard a guy comment on the lack of impact of a snare drum strike ... the drummer was using a brush, not a stick.  I hear people refer to cymbal sounds as a good reference for how high frequencies and transients are rendered ... but I know every cymbal sounds different and also depending how and with what implement it is struck.

And then ... it comes down to what Floyd Toole referred to as a "circle of confusion" ... recording engineers listening through various preamps, amps and speakers in various rooms, to mix recordings that the rest of us use to evaluate various other preamps, amps and speakers in various other rooms.

Boil this down and I ask one question:  Irrespective of whether measurements have any value in an absolute sense, do they have value in a relative sense across the spectrum of components?  Can we say that two components that measure somewhat close to each other on several parameters will not sound much different, but as two components diverge from each other there may be a relative difference in sound ... and at some point it will likely be audible?

Toole found that the speaker that measured the best in the "spinorama" tended to be judged as sounding the best by listeners in a reference listening room.  And when several speakers were evaluated in rooms with very different acoustic properties, the best speaker still sounded the best overall ... as judged by the listeners.

Finally ... can you offer any recommendations of piano recordings, from the perspective of the sound of the instrument?   Mine are Oscar Peterson: Unmistakable - Zenph Re-performance, and Bach - Inside Polyphony, Christian Grovlen 2L Records.

[KeithL]

That was very impressive... spectacular even... and I don't normally listen to much classical music. 

Jun 15, 2023 22:11:35 GMT -5 tchaik said:

My 2 cents goes to listening bias and priorities.

as a judge for numerous piano competitions each year on the collegiate and pre-collegiate level, I am amazed at how each piano adjudicator (all professional performers) will hear completely different things in their attempt to determine first, second and third place when awarding prizes. it is almost as if we are hearing completely different performers at the same time. obviously, that is because of our bias and what we consider most important in judging piano performance.

having said that....

all audiophiles come to the task of evaluating equipment with a long list of specifics that we deem most important in our listening experience. none of us share the same list which is why listening to the equipment is always the final arbiter of what sounds best to us. even the best equipment still falls short of the "live" experience and evaluation of specs will only provide a starting point for many of us. if amir doesn't like emo amps because of their spec score and boomzilla feels the earlier xpa series sounds better than the current one, then that speaks to a different set of sonic priorities for them than others might have. i find it amusing when one says something sounds better (or worse) than the other without citing with specificity what parameter they consider better or worse. Nonetheless, I do enjoy reading contrasting reviews because both will tell me something about the equipment reviewed and something about the reviewer themselves. as for priorities, if the equipment does not provide the visceral dynamic impact that I feel when attacking the piano keys, it will never sound 'good' to me.

yes, I realize comparing musical performance to sonic characteristics of a piece of audio gear is not a perfect comparison, but my issue is about priorities and bias in our listening evaluation. having said all that, the XPR amps give me all the visceral impact I would ever want. when one goes bad, I will most likely replace with the XPA/DR series.


just so you know I am not blowing smoke, here is a performance you might enjoy with my piano duo partner dr. margarita denenburg. if you can't tell who is who, margarita is the beautiful one. the young ladies are students of mine. tough job, isn't it.

youtu.be/iVmmZ61g3dQ


tchaik............

[marcl]

Jun 16, 2023 10:35:02 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I absolutely agree with you - as to what the question is.

The problem is that the question itself is far from simple - and so doesn't have a simple answer.

We surely each have specific things that we notice, or focus on, and things that we don't.

But our attention also operates a lot like a spotlight... once we notice something we become more likely to notice it the next time it shows up.  
For example, that tiny little scratch or fleck of dirt on the window, which "we just can't un-notice once we've noticed it".
(For example all vinyl produces an audible amount of surface noise... yet most people didn't notice it, or find it annoying, until digital content with much lower levels of background noise became common.)
This is especially true when it comes to complex devices like DACs...
Where we often find tiny or subtle differences that only occur with specific sounds and which "you probably wouldn't notice until someone points them out to you".

But, beyond even that, and what I consider to be a major problem, is that MOST specifications are actually oversimplifications.
For example "THD" is TOTAL Harmonic Distortion, which is exactly what it sounds like, the TOTAL of all the unwanted harmonic content added together. 
The catch is that, in reality, different harmonics sound very different, and some are far more unpleasant than others.
And, when we read that number, we tend to interpret how it correlates with sound quality BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE AND EXPECTATIONS.

So, for example, an amplifier with 0.1% THD - mostly third harmonic - would sound quite good (or at least pretty good)...
But an amplifier with 0.1% THD - mostly tenth harmonic - would sound really awful...
And, for some fans of "single-ended triode amplifiers", adding some second harmonic distortion might actually "improve how it sounds"..
(And you and I would know enough to "read that number differently" if we were reading about a solid state amplifier, or a tube amplifier, or a DAC.)
 
Therefore, by itself, a single THD specification may or may not tell you much about how an amplifier will sound.
(And, depending on your level of experience and technical knowledge, could also be very misleading.)
A more complete option would be a graph of the "harmonic spectrum of the output with a specific test signal"...
Although, since these will be different with different test signals, and at different levels, you would want several of them...
And now we're getting into several rather complex measurements... which can be tricky for even experts to interpret...

Likewise "noise" is a combination of many things... which vary widely in terms of how noticeable or annoying they are...
The obvious example there is dithering... where we actually add noise of one sort to suppress noise that, while actually at a lower level, is far more audibly unpleasant.

I would suggest that the answer to your question is only really widely useful in the obverse...
The most I would say is that two components will probably sound noticeably different if they diverge widely in certain specific measurements, in certain specific ways, and under certain specific conditions...

For example....
- I would WOULD NOT expect to hear a difference between two amplifiers, one with a S/N of 110 dB, and one with a S/N of 120 dB... based on the limits of human hearing and typical rooms
- but I WOULD expect to hear a difference between an amplifier with a S/N of 85 dB and one with a S/N of 110 dB... when playing a well recorded digital file
- but I WOULD NOT expect to hear a difference between an amplifier with a S/N of 85 dB and one with a S/N of 110 dB... when playing a vinyl album
- (although I WOULD expect to hear a difference in the level of hiss coming from the speakers with those last two after I lift the stylus off the record) 

To reference the actual wording Floyd Toole's used in his quote...
You can use "the circle of confusion" to calculate things like the depth of field on a photo...
However, while that will tell you which parts of the photo will be sharp, a lot of different things will determine what the bokeh looks like in the blurry parts...
And, even with the same "overall amount of blur", different types of bokeh will look very different, and will be more or less pleasing to different people...

I also like your reference to the way cymbals sound... because that's one of the things I listen for with DACs...
I find that, with certain DACs, and certain filter choices, "wire brushed cymbals sound more like metal and less like the hiss from a steam valve"...
I imagine that the sounds of the individual wires hitting metal seem more metallic and more distinctive...
I also fancy that, in some cases, with some DACs and filters, I am more able to notice a difference between plucking on metal and nylon guitar strings...
And, yes, I only find this to be the case with certain specific recordings...
And on certain speakers or headphones...
(I also really hate "poetic descriptions" but, while I know what I at least think I hear, I cannot come up with a more accurate description for it...) 

As to your last question...
I'm afraid I'm not much of a classical music listener... 
Nor do I spend much time listening to other types of relatively unprocessed acoustic recordings...
So I absolutely defer to those who do when it comes to piano recordings. 
The most I would say is that I find that most piano recordings seem to me to fail to capture the full dynamics of a live piano played even somewhat loudly...
(We have a piano here in the lobby and, while I cannot personally play anything useful, I do know what it should sound like when I bang on the keys.)

Jun 16, 2023 6:57:02 GMT -5 marcl said:

Very interesting perspective!  And yes, very cool to see your performance too!

I agree with your views about individual bias.  I also wonder if the scenario of judging musical performances can be skewed by the listening perspective of the judge ... their unconscious perception of the sound of the piano itself could have them hearing one performance differently from another ... especially if they are at different times of day or on different days or on different pianos.  

And then there's the musician's perspective.  We know what our personal instrument sounds like ... we know what many other instances of our instrument sound like ... we know our instrument sounds different on different days in different rooms.  We have a perspective of what other instruments sound like from hearing them around us in a performance, as well as other situations.

And so ... I have heard non-musicians comment about the sound of certain instruments in a particular recording or heard on a particular system.  And there have been times when I felt their perception was inconsistent with my perception of how an instrument can or should sound.  For example, I once heard a guy comment on the lack of impact of a snare drum strike ... the drummer was using a brush, not a stick.  I hear people refer to cymbal sounds as a good reference for how high frequencies and transients are rendered ... but I know every cymbal sounds different and also depending how and with what implement it is struck.

And then ... it comes down to what Floyd Toole referred to as a "circle of confusion" ... recording engineers listening through various preamps, amps and speakers in various rooms, to mix recordings that the rest of us use to evaluate various other preamps, amps and speakers in various other rooms.

Boil this down and I ask one question:  Irrespective of whether measurements have any value in an absolute sense, do they have value in a relative sense across the spectrum of components?  Can we say that two components that measure somewhat close to each other on several parameters will not sound much different, but as two components diverge from each other there may be a relative difference in sound ... and at some point it will likely be audible?

Toole found that the speaker that measured the best in the "spinorama" tended to be judged as sounding the best by listeners in a reference listening room.  And when several speakers were evaluated in rooms with very different acoustic properties, the best speaker still sounded the best overall ... as judged by the listeners.

Finally ... can you offer any recommendations of piano recordings, from the perspective of the sound of the instrument?   Mine are Oscar Peterson: Unmistakable - Zenph Re-performance, and Bach - Inside Polyphony, Christian Grovlen 2L Records.

Amir's review speaks to the question of relative significance.  Maybe I missed it, but has Emotiva responded that the below-par measurement are not typical, and the amp may have a problem?  If that's the case then that's the issue to be resolved.  But if not ... the review places the amp in a class of other amps ... maybe they all sound "okay" but the ones at the top of the heap sound better?

Toole's circle of confusion and the photography CoC are completely different concepts, though your point about the quality of the blur is relevant.  It's like saying certain types of distortion are more audible or more unpleasant than others.  Toole is just saying there is a "circular" nature to using equipment to mix music and equipment to listen to music that introduces significant error into the process of making comparisons. 

As an aside ... CoC in photography has traditionally been based on a "standard" that had to do with the sharpness of a certain physical portion of a piece of 35mm film as it related to a person's ability to perceive sharpness on an 8-10 print held at arm's length.  Depth of Field and Hyperfocal Distance calculations are based on this unbelievably vague measure, and yet photographers have used these calculations for decades.  So now we have digital cameras with resolution many times greater than that of film, and we need to make the CoC a physically much smaller number in order to get accurate DoF and Hyperfocal results (26 microns for an 8Mp sensor - roughly equivalent to film - vs 10.4 microns for a 50Mp sensor).

But now that I think of it, this relates kind of directly to your analogy of whether you could hear a S/N difference with a high resolution digital recording vs a vinyl record.  Also regarding audible distortion, because a digital recording is more capable of driving an amp into distortion than a vinyl record - in theory - because the potential dynamic range of digital could be 30db higher.  And, I once tried to do the Philips Golden Ear Challenge and I got stuck at the end of Silver and could not advance to the Gold test because I could not tell the difference between the various MP3 bitrates.  What made this so difficult was that the music chosen for this test was a very low quality recording of narrow bandwidth, narrow dynamic range, stupid music.  I could not find any attribute to focus on that would reveal a difference.  Many others agreed, BTW, and said the only way they got past it was to keep guessing.

I could go on and on about cymbals    Avedis Zyldian cymbals are machine made and generally sound brighter, while old Kerope Zydian cymbals hand-hammered in Turkey have a darker sound, but after they started making the "K" cymbals in the US there was less difference.  That said, it's to be expected that Zyldian cymbals of a type and size (e.g. 20" Medium Ride) will still all sound different.  Paiste cymbals tend to have a much more consistent sound for each model of a size and type.  There are now many more manufacturers of cymbals and many, many more models.  Bosphorus is a newer brand and I really like the way they sound ... and they have models much thinner than cymbals made in the past, as well as some heavier and darker sounding models.  And this is crazy ... you can listen to sound files of various actual specific cymbals of different types and weights here and decide what to buy!  (BTW, I could not buy a cymbal this way ... I have to hit it myself with a stick, for a couple minutes, in different places and with different amounts of force)

www.cymbalsonly.com/cymbals/Bos/bos.htm

Now consider ... wood tip or nylpn tip stick; pointed or round tip; heavy or light stick; steel wire brush or brass ... etc.   THEN let's listen to two DACs