EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY] - Page 5

My concern is that trying to get the pre/pro to market within the quoted 9-12 month timeframe and at the $1500 price point will end up leading to significant compromises or delays.

First, there's the issue of new technology and the difficulties of "inventing the wheel": HDMI 1.3 is new for everybody right now, so I don't think that a company can just go out and license a proven platform to save on R&D time/costs. The more new features of the 1.3 specs that are going to be incorporated into the pre/pro, the more cost and time that's going to entail.

Second, I get the impression that Emotiva's a relatively small company (or smaller subsidiary of a larger company), so I have some difficulty imagining that they have the manpower or budget to develop a new platform this quickly. I realize that they've already started the process, but even the big manufacturers (Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, etc.) aren't going to have 1.3 products for several more months. And when everyone's trying to buy the same chips to implement HDMI, it's hard to imagine a smaller company being able to outbid/outbuy the big guys.

Third, with all the development and component costs, how much of a profit will Emotiva get from their pre/pro? They will need relative high margins to make their money, because they're not likely to get it by volume of sales. Unfortunately, they also don't have the name recognition of more established brands (Anthem, Rotel, etc.). And of course, there's going to be the cost of paying for returns/ exchanges. And what about support down the road? How much money will there be to continue refining the product, testing and releasing the inevitable firmware updates, etc. Their free shipping and 30-day trials are great for the consumers, but they eat away at the bottom line ...

I applaud Emotiva for their desire to bring high-end products to a wider audience by selling them at "unthinkable" price points. I'm just skeptical that it can be done by a small company, with new technology, in this short timeframe, for this little cost to the end user. In my mind, something's gotta give.

Who has heard the ultra series and how do the sixth and seventh channels sound with only 50 watts per channel? Thank-you!!

You seem a very pragmatic guy Dennis as well as one familiar with technology go to market demands.

I'm rooting for the little guy here, but with perseverance and a little luck Emotiva will deliver on all of their commitments.

Hopefully, the HDMI 1.3 spec chips are stable and well tested so that vendors are only responsible for handling their own features, amping, and testing. I don't know who builds these chips though as I don't follow audio silicon vendors (only networking).

michael

The new items on Emotiva's web site with a February availability/shipping date will be available Mid-March according to Emotiva.

Hi folks, just wanted to follow up on my initial impressions from a cpl weeks ago.
First off, the more I hear this amp the more blown away I am. The sound quality is just outrageous, so much power and headroom its really quite frightening. I had my HT 20x15' just rocking last night for a few hours in multichannel and the amp never got warmer than a little over room temperature. The soundstage is wide and smooth. One thing I have noticed is that from the Yamaha Rx-V2500 AVR which is no slouch in the power dept. is the huge increase in power in the surround channels. The authority that this amp has is just fantastic, watching the film "Open Range" the other evening, the gun fight at the end was a thing of beauty. I have never ever heard gunshots sound so real, convincingly powerfull that you can feel in your body, not from the sub btw. It honestly made me laugh and giggle it was so much fun to hear.
Just loving it, you can bet I will be buying the DMC1 or the new model pre/pro, haven't decided yet.
If you are on the fence about a purchase, jump in with both feet, this is fantastic stuff.
Chris.

I use the 6th/7th channels to power Sonance outdoor speakers and they play as loud and as clear as I dare play them on my 1/3rd acre suburban lot, so I would believe they'll be fine in a HT surround scenario as well.

Similar experience here with the LPA surrounds. They don't have the overall punch and soundstage that the main channels throw, but are more than adequate for smaller speakers, especially in a surround back setup.

There's plenty of information in the audio and acoustics literature on how to do a subjective listening test. I presume you're intelligent enough to find it if so inclined.

But I never claimed any litmus test that the people listening have to be functionally retarded enough to think that different copper or silver strings sound different from one another because they have different brand names or price-tags on them, mind. In fact, I can't say I know many such people. I tend to hang out with smarter people than that. Indeed, the people who "hear" differences in metal strings are not usually very capable listeners, though they are very susceptible to conditioning and peer pressure.

Doesn't hold a candle in what respect? Measured frequency response? Measured distortion? Presence of certain undesirable components in the distortion spectrum at audibly high levels? I'm genuinely interested, because real audible differences (as opposed to audiophool Stockholm-syndromed BS) have causes. Please, none of this nonsensical rambling about "detail."

The "room correction" employed in it is, I grant you, rudimentary. I don't doubt that newer Pioneer products use much better stuff. With every generation, this stuff should be getting better and cheaper. To the delight of audiophiles everywhere, because it allows them to allocate their resources less towards commodities and more on the stuff that matters.

Also, I'm genuinely curious, and you can reply via PM if you wish, do you know what "digital" amp technolgy the EX-500 uses? I assume it's not Tripath or TI Equibit/PurePath, because those logos are not in evidence.


Wow. I believe that is the first time I've heard 12-inch Tannoy Dual Concentrics called "smaller."

Seriously, what would someone who calls, say, a Tannoy 12 DMT II a smaller speaker run? Sound Lab A1's?


Regardless of intent - and due respect, but reading propaganda aimed at the scientifically illiterate isn't going to help me much - the only difference between parametric and "graphic" EQ is that the former is more flexible wrt frequency ranges modified and the range over which the modification applies, whereas the latter is limited to pre-defined frequencies and preset Q-values.


Which is utterly irrelevant to my basic point, which is that amplifiers are commodities today and not imbued with any mythical qualities that make them sound better than one another if they exhibit similar measured performance, function properly, and are used within their designed operating limits. For all practical purposes, that means that all amplifiers that aren't hack-jobs all sound the same.


No it isn't, assuming one starts with well-designed (constant directivity through the mid-tweet crossover region, overall smooth power response) speakers in the first place. If anything, the electronic band-aid approach is better than the passive band-aid approach. Neither, I'll grant you, is a substitute for using well-designed speakers and placing them properly. Or treating the room to get to the source of problem areas rather than band-aided them. Alas, often #2 and #3 in that list are impractical for other reasons.


In the real world, amps sound the same. Except for amps that implement some sort of processing that modifies audible (and measurable) aspects of the waveform. Whether that change is better or not is irrelevant to this discussion, since turning it off returns us to that same basic sameness of sound. Though a good room correction system certainly can improve the sound of most systems overall. Can, not will. But as long as it can be turned off, it's always a feature rather than a bug.


Good, because if you read my posts you would see that I'm not doing anything like that. I'm laying out basic principles supported by over 25 years of science. That just happen to get skipped over by the marketeers because they point to results contrary to the hype.


We are discussing the rampant idiocy that amps sound different from one another, with silly claims about the sonic prowess of the Emotiva amps compared to other commodities as the backdrop.

Wow, you guys are way over my head. I wonder what John Atkinson of Stereophile Magazine would have to say about this all amps sound the same business. The amps he's had on his test bench certainly don't all measure the same, but what do I know, eh?

The Emotiva $900 pair sounds better than a $250 Panny amp.
What is so idiotic about that?

Well blind tests by audiophiles of a 200.00 pioneer receiver compared to $10k plus worth of separates proved just as many couldn't hear the difference as could.

I know shocking but true. Do a google search or I thought I saw a link to it somewhere on this forum. I am doing some higher end upgrades myself this year so I guess I am a dummy too.

I should have clarified that, I'm talking about the 5.1 analogs in.
There's a A to D and D to A conversion on those digital receivers, so one can't just say an amp is an amp in this case.

DS-21,

Sorry I insulted your speakers by calling them small. I assumed they were small because you are driving them with an EX-500 and have subs in the system.

I really can't comment on many of your Pioneer design questions. It isn't public info and I'm still bound by that.

As to differences in amplification, there are major differences in topologies, circuit designs, parts, chassis, that all weigh into sound quality. If you can't hear the differences between amps, then it is a useless conversation. This is all common knowledge and merits no further investigation.

Sure there are measurable differences in amps. Here are the specs for the c500, same as EX-500 taken from the owners manual, all public info.

RMS Power Output
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 W/ch (1 kHz, THD 10 %, 6Ω)
Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 W (1 kHz, THD 10 %, 6Ω)
Surround . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 W/ch (1 kHz, THD 10 %, 6Ω)
Surround back. . . . . . . . . . . . 100 W (1 kHz, THD 10 %, 6Ω)

I really don't know where to begin with this. As I said before, if you can't hear the differences between a good amp and an entry level one, there isn't much to talk about. Don't forget that those specs are each channel driven individually, not all at once, and not a full bandwidth test.

As far as room eqs, again there are major differences in how room eqs are implemented in the real world. Your arguments are again completely theoretical and you have no knowledge of what the products actually do.

Yes, you are stating plenty of age old acoustical theories, but there is a large difference between theory and what gets implemented/designed in a product. Since you have no idea what the room eq circuits actually do and won't really listen to anything that has been written in literature or on this forum, then I can't have an intelligent conversation with you. I would suggest you read the YPOA, Auduessy, or even MCACC threads. What you'll find is that there are some that are happy, while for others the system didn't help, only hurt. If your original theory was correct about a mediocre receiver with room correction besting countless, more expensive setups, then wouldn't everyone be happy?

Again, please have some actual experience with Emotiva products before applying all your home grown product theories. Maybe even some experience with a "properly implemented" room eq would help too.

DS-21 and others (you know who you really are)

Would you please stop the crap and quit clogging up this thread with your pissing contest. I am here for info on the Emotiva line so i may compare it to others. I am tired of this and you are not helping this thread. Go start one for your fight. Or just go away please. far away.

DS-21 ... You first made this claim. I asked you twice for information regarding this claim. You clearly stated that you compared your XR55 and EX-500 against the Marantz/Adcom AND more expensive set ups than the Marantz/Adcom pair.

YOUR words:


This was a 2nd request for you to give specifics.


and THIS is your response to that question:


Your answer has nothing to do with the question.

You never did a blind test between all these components with this mystery panel of people who claimed to hear the differences in wires, DID you ?

With some people, I would be surprised, but with you, I am not.

To those who are looking for info on Emotiva, apologies for the side track here. They make some excellent gear, and that $499 amp is an absolute gem.

uhoh DS is in trouble and on the ropes!

one word for some of you guys... DORKS! (with all due respect)

Whatever... if it sounds good to you and it costs $2, GREAT! If it costs $2M great and god bless you for being able to afford it.

All this debate is lame and you should ask yourself if it's really worth your time.

Can we now get back on subject and continue to learn about the Emotiva products?

Thanks.

With all due respect, Starting off by labeling the group here as DORKS! is not going to win you any friends. This discussion WAS about Emotiva, and one guy decided to barge in spewing nonsense.

Next time, take on the problem, not the honest participants, ok Mr. Dork ?

I have a Pioneer 1014 with Ascend Acoustic speakers in a 5.1 set up. I am considering getting the LPA-1 (second time now!) and wanted your input on this. I am thinking of just using the LPA-1 for the L/C/R channels and the 1014 for the two surrounds.

Opinions please.....Thanks

Gov - I think you will be pretty happy, especially if you have 340's. The layout you described should be great.

Craig,

Thanks I know you have already chimed in on this earlier with me. Yes, I have the 340's for L/C/R and 200's for SL/SR. So just using the LPA-1 for the front three speakers would obviously lessen the load on the amp, but would it even matter that much? Or would it be better to just connect all five?

I forgot to add, I never run any of my speakers full range. Always "small" XO 80hz

Second that.

Have fun with it - try it both ways. Decide which works best for you. The LPA-1 will easily drive all 5 channels, but you may like using the receiver for the rears, and taking that load off the amp.

I say use all the LPA-1's channels, not just the three. It's much more capable of delivering the power than the receiver.

craigsub,

I hear what you are saying...

However, I was only referring to "some" of the people on here.

Moreover, I myself have been called worse than a "dork" from some of my very best friends.

Hey, I call it like I see it.

It was not meant in a viscious way. More like... "come on guys, lets not waste our time with meaningless debates that end up no where..."

-Phil

I have an ascend 7 channel setup ( 340s and 170s) powered by an emotiva dcm-1 and gemstone 7 channel amp. Just for fun i tried my spare onkyo 501 receiver with this system. there is no contest whatsoever as to which sounds better. The difference is like going from vhs tapes to hd dvd imo. I am sure there are some people who would not be able to hear a difference but i doubt any of those people frequent this forum.
As to the emotiva amp, i have not heard any but considering the outstanding dcm-1 i would have to say the amps are also very good for the money and will easily outperform a pioneer 1014 ( which i have owned ).

Actually, it has everything to do with it. There's plenty of literature out there on how to do a serious subjective listening test. If you're too lazy to find it, that is your problem and not mine.


As I wrote earlier, I don't generally hang out with the functionally retarded, which is what anyone who hears imaginary differences in hunks of copper is. Nor did I ever claim to have conducted any test that required mentally unfit listeners.

Y'all might want to check out the AV123 forum. Emotiva is addressing the remaining bugs/fixes of the LMC-1. Personally I don't care if someone can't hear any difference between audio components, I can. So sign me up for a LMC-2/LPA-2 this summer/fall!

You didn't insult anything, except your own ability to view and process the profile to which you were directed before commenting on someone else's gear.


That is a collection of assertions that, in over a quarter century of serious subjective listening tests have been largely found to be false. An extraordinary claim requires something we reality-based people call evidence, and you have not supplied any of that.

Moreover, you're obsessed with process (topology, component parts, etc.) when what you should really be looking at is results, i.e. does that sound different from whatever else in a serious subjective listening test? The data in that respect are overwhelming and clear. Not to say that there aren't reasons for choosing parts that have nothing to do with sound quality, or that it's impossible to design a hack-job amp no matter how much is spent on parts. Conrad Johnson and Audio Note, to call out two, do it all the time...


Of course, that says nothing about the quality of the amp. The only thing the stuff you've posted tells me is that the marketing people wanted a big round number on the box, and were willing to accept stupid levels of distortion in the test to get it. It tells me nothing about how the amp actually performs in the situation I use it, which is a quasi-nearfield setup at the Herman Miller desk in my home office. Especially when the least-efficient speaker to which it is connected is 94dB/w/m with a minimum impedance of about 6.5ohms, and is 6' from the listener's head. How much power per channel do you think I'm actually using? Assume 106dB peaks, which is probably louder than I ever listen, and you get a figure of 16W total power required. Actually, a little bit less, because you have to halve output for every 3dB difference so at 6' it would technically be 32W, but then you have at least three and often five speakers operating, and each one gives about 3dB. Obviously, people with less efficient speakers and/or bigger rooms need more power to reach Mahler-8-at-seventh-row-center-in-the-Musikverein peaks. And people with speakers that have nasty impedance curves need something with a stouter power supply, because otherwise there will be sonic differences. But the numbers you've posted tell the educated person effectively nothing.


It's great to build up strawmen and tear them down, but it does not further the discussion any.

You tell me to go back and read. How about you go back and read what I've actually written, which is that assuming nonbroken amplifiers and components used within their designed limits, the two setups will not sound different with the correction software turned off. However, the correction software can be an improvement.

Moreover, I've dabbled in those threads, and in every case I recall reading about differences between the two was in sighted listening. We all know that sighted listening is the least accurate way to determine any kind of differences at all. Given the massive audiophool hatred of EQ, who's to say what actually sounded better when someone applies EQ knowing that s/he is doing so? I'm not saying that they're wrong that the room correction did not improve their systems, only that they chose a methodology so worthless that one cannot say anything pro or con based on such comments.


I assume that the Emotiva stuff is a decent commodity, and $499 is a pretty good price, though if one opens up their $499 amp I doubt it will look much different from a $350-400 receiver's amp section due to economies of scale and the like. As such, it will sound the same as other amps. Now, if one prefers the style, or believes they use construction techniques that allow for greater durability, prefers to support a small company whose principles share one's interests over a large monolithic corporation, or just wants to believe that expensive speakers need separate amps, those are all fine reasons to choose these products. (You seem to think that I'm against the boutique audio industry. I'm not at all. I'm only against idiotic claims of sonic superiority that have no basis in reality.) But upgrading from one commodity to another is not going to be a path to better sound, any more than going from one refrigerator that can maintain a given constant temperature to another fridge that can do the same is going to make the food inside it last any longer or taste any better. And the valid reasons for choosing one commodity (an amp) are astoundingly similar to those for choosing another commodity (a fridge): capacity (WPC in an amp, cubic units in a fridge), energy efficiency, ergonomics, appearance, perceived quality/durability, maker/marketer's willingness to stand behind the product if there's a problem, brand image, etc.