or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY] - Page 548

post #16411 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by reyalP View Post

Unfortunately, I don't have another amp. I thought about ordering another amp to have two to compare side by side but the old lady would pitch a fit if I spent that much money, even temporarily.

Hey: are you sure you even need an amplfier? It looks like your front three speakers are pretty efficient and have active woofers to handle the power-hungry lower and mid-bass frequencies. With the conventional 80 Hz crossover and an additional subwoofer, it's almost the same as adding a power amplifier to your set-up. The higher frequencies simply don't require much power to drive. If you just would like to have one, that's cool too.

I agree that you have probably isolated the noise to the Emotiva.
post #16412 of 17192
I didn't see if you specified earlier - but were those other outlets on the same circuit? The problem might exist at the panel in the breaker, for example.
post #16413 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhskyTangoFoxtrt View Post

Hey: are you sure you even need an amplfier? It looks like your front three speakers are pretty efficient and have active woofers to handle the power-hungry lower and mid-bass frequencies. With the conventional 80 Hz crossover and an additional subwoofer, it's almost the same as adding a power amplifier to your set-up. The higher frequencies simply don't require much power to drive. If you just would like to have one, that's cool too.

I agree that you have probably isolated the noise to the Emotiva.


I have a fairly large room and I could probably get by with just the receiver. I have pretty much thrown in the towel. I've requested an RMA and I'm going to send the amp back. Hopefully, they can test the amp and let me know if they experience the same issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_m_hart View Post

I didn't see if you specified earlier - but were those other outlets on the same circuit? The problem might exist at the panel in the breaker, for example.

Yeah the whole room is on the same circuit. I'm going to see if Emotiva can test the amp and produce the same results. I'm tired of trouble shooting.
post #16414 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

sahmen.

Although I have no experience with the Pre-1 you are correct that you can use it the way you described. I have a Parasound 2100 preamp that has HT Bypass and I'm using it as described above. The one big advantage that the 2100 has over the Pre-1 and the Emotiva USP-1 is that the 2100 doesn't have to be on to use the HT Bypass feature. In other words when the 2100 is off it allows the signal from my Denon 4311 to be passed when I use the 4311 for TV, movies or multi-channel music. Does the Pre-1's manual show the correct way to connect it when used in a HT system? If not here is a link to the 2100 manual and on page 8 it shows how to connect the 2100 in a HT system. It should be similar to the Pre-1.

Bill

Bill: I've got my Pre-1 properly rigged up and kicking now, and I am loving every minute of it. I thought I should say thanks for the help you gave me, especially for the link to the Parasound 2100 manual, which was really helpful.

By the way, 2-channel cd stereo music with the Pre-1 and xpa-5 is kicking some pretty serious butt here... This provides an entirely different listening experience than 5.1 multi-channel stereo via a regular receiver. I am really really thrilled with the investment in the Pre-1. I am now beginning to see all the rage surrounding purely analog connections via preamps for music. Unbelievable! Dios mio This is simply increíble!
Edited by sahmen - 9/28/13 at 11:14am
post #16415 of 17192
I have a few questions that I was hoping your Emo guys could help me with.

First off, how does the UMC-1 compare to the new UMC-200 as a home theater pre/pro? Is the UMC-200 a huge step up in SQ, or is it more of a lateral move?

Second, how would a UMC-1, or, UMC-200 plus 3 Behinger iNuke1000dsp's, one for each LCR, compare to a Denon AVR-3310 with the same amps?

Last but not least...If I call Emotiva with the intent on purchasing a UMC-200, do you think I could negotiate a price discount or otherwise be able to haggle the price at all?


Thanks!
post #16416 of 17192
I sold a UMC-1 and got the 200. Sound is the same not using EQ. The new EQ in the 200 is superior to the original.
The 200 is worth the difference over a used UMC-1 IMO. I have owned Denons including the 4310 and 4311. IMO the UMC-200 sounds better.
post #16417 of 17192
Just in usability alone, the UMC-200 is way above the UMC-1.
The PEQs are worth the price alone if you are a tweaker and don't mind "getting your hands dirty" when dialing in the sound.
If you want set and forget, look elsewhere since virtually any AVR can give you that now.
post #16418 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I have a few questions that I was hoping your Emo guys could help me with.

First off, how does the UMC-1 compare to the new UMC-200 as a home theater pre/pro? Is the UMC-200 a huge step up in SQ, or is it more of a lateral move?

Second, how would a UMC-1, or, UMC-200 plus 3 Behinger iNuke1000dsp's, one for each LCR, compare to a Denon AVR-3310 with the same amps?

Last but not least...If I call Emotiva with the intent on purchasing a UMC-200, do you think I could negotiate a price discount or otherwise be able to haggle the price at all?


Thanks!

I have the Sherbourn SR-8100 receiver which is essentially a UMC-200 and a UPA-700 put together. Emotiva is selling these for $549 while supplies last. I could not be more satisfied with this unit.

As to your second point, I have been (among other things) a performing musician for many years and IMO, Behringer is not a name one associates with quality. Their amps are way over rated and usually don't hold up well under stress. The Sherbourn would put out about the same power as the iNuke1000 and sound a lot better.

Can't help you on your third point.
post #16419 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I have a few questions that I was hoping your Emo guys could help me with.

First off, how does the UMC-1 compare to the new UMC-200 as a home theater pre/pro? Is the UMC-200 a huge step up in SQ, or is it more of a lateral move?

Second, how would a UMC-1, or, UMC-200 plus 3 Behinger iNuke1000dsp's, one for each LCR, compare to a Denon AVR-3310 with the same amps?

Last but not least...If I call Emotiva with the intent on purchasing a UMC-200, do you think I could negotiate a price discount or otherwise be able to haggle the price at all?


Thanks!

Question 1- Lateral, BUT EMOQ2 provides you with the opportunity to get dramatically better sound. Many people don't care for EMOQ2's calibration. No problem. I think it's better thought of as a starting point, then tweak to your own personal taste. My system has never sounded better. Apparently it doesn't just eq but makes adjustment to phase and some other things I don't believe they've disclosed. If you trust your own ears, it can be a fantastic tool. If you're looking for an automated setup, then maybe you'll like EMO-Q's calibration, or maybe not.

Question 2 - Dunno


Question 3 - highly unlikely.

Updating the software truly sucks, but it's not necessary often.
post #16420 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post

My system is audio-only, and my only music source is a Logitech Squeezebox Touch, using S/PDIF out. One bug that I noticed by listening is that the UMC-200 is cutting off the first fraction of a second of the first song in a playlist. I have a hokey workaround of a recording of two seconds of silence I made in Audacity, which I put in my favorites and always put first in the playlist. Gapless transitions are fine. I think the UMC-200 is just taking too long to come out of the muted state for the first song played.

Has anyone reported this one?

I have some more information to report on this problem. Just to recap, with S/PDIF input to the UMC-200, I was getting the first second or two of the first song on a playlist cut off, and as a workaround I was putting a two-second recording of silence as the first song in each playlist. This prevents the chopping-off of the sound at the beginning of the first actual music track.

Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to the first song of a playlist. If later songs have a silent portion at the beginning of about 200 msec or less, these additional songs will have their beginning cut off too, though not quite as rudely as the first song of the playlist. This became very noticeable on the album Get Together - The Essential Youngbloods, for which it happened on every song. Very annoying.

Just a couple of days ago, I ran into another related problem. The playlist reached the end of a song, then when it was time to play the next one, the sound just dropped out altogether, then came back in, then dropped out again, then came back in. At first I thought my router might be having problems, as it's a wired network so no problem with wi-fi dropouts. Then I had a look at the song that caused the problem. I was listening to a playlist of randomly-chosen songs, and the culprit was a song ripped from a DVD-A, having 24/96 resolution. The transition from 16/44.1 to 24/96 caused a major dropout, not just a minor glitch. I tried this a second time and it is completely repeatable.

For this reason, if you're using S/PDIF with any regularity, I recommend not getting the UMC-200 until such time as they fix the problem.

I decided to see if this happened using HDMI, so I put some music on my laptop and hooked its HDMI output to one of the UMC-200 HDMI inputs. There was no problem, either with truncating the beginning of the first song, or with changing resolutions and sample rates on the fly with a playlist of mixed file types.
post #16421 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

I sold a UMC-1 and got the 200. Sound is the same not using EQ. The new EQ in the 200 is superior to the original.
The 200 is worth the difference over a used UMC-1 IMO. I have owned Denons including the 4310 and 4311. IMO the UMC-200 sounds better.

How did you get reference level and speaker distance settings right? Please see this thread.
post #16422 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

How did you get reference level and speaker distance settings right? Please see this thread.

(insert sassy voice)

Oh no you didn't! !!!

(end of sassy voice)

Now you will tell us that you will be posting in the Lounge with your test results.


...oh God please do. smile.gif
post #16423 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

How did you get reference level and speaker distance settings right? Please see this thread.

I ran Emo and the distances are as close as any AVR or processor that I have used. Using SPL meter to check speaker levels they are matched.

When I originally got the 200 I had Klipsch KG series speakers and the EQ results seemed to be more accurate than with my Revels. First run with Revels the left speaker eq settings were all reduced waay too much. Rerunning gave much better results. In all fairness there is construction work across the street from my house and an occasional loud motorcycle or auto passing when I am trying to calibrate. Guess I will have to try at midnight.
post #16424 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post


I ran Emo and the distances are as close as any AVR or processor that I have used. Using SPL meter to check speaker levels they are matched.

When I originally got the 200 I had Klipsch KG series speakers and the EQ results seemed to be more accurate than with my Revels. First run with Revels the left speaker eq settings were all reduced waay too much. Rerunning gave much better results. In all fairness there is construction work across the street from my house and an occasional loud motorcycle or auto passing when I am trying to calibrate. Guess I will have to try at midnight.

 

You mentioned earlier that the UMC-200 sounds better than both the Denon 4310 and 4311.  Could you elaborate what specifically is superior?  For instance, how does the imaging compare and the highs?  Was this testing side by side or were you going by memory, and was this apples to apples with room correction either applied or not?

 

Sorry for the detailed request, but I'm in the position of wanting to upgade my aging receiver and thought the latest Denons looked pretty good.

post #16425 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

... when I am trying to calibrate. Guess I will have to try at midnight.

I wouldn't wanna be your neighbor smile.gif
post #16426 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio4life View Post

You mentioned earlier that the UMC-200 sounds better than both the Denon 4310 and 4311.  Could you elaborate what specifically is superior?  For instance, how does the imaging compare and the highs?  Was this testing side by side or were you going by memory, and was this apples to apples with room correction either applied or not?

Sorry for the detailed request, but I'm in the position of wanting to upgade my aging receiver and thought the latest Denons looked pretty good.

Whoa. I will get flamed if I say superior.smile.gif With the UMC the sound is more open and natural. The soundstage is broader and deeper. I feel immersed in the surround sound (3D like). Denon was sort of flat and lifeless sounding.
I had the 4310 and UMC-1 at the same time. I had to disconnect all wires to compare (no switcher).
I compare without room correction since I seldom use it. I am not a fan of Audyssey. The new EmoQ has made marginal improvements to my sub.
post #16427 of 17192

Thanks, that's a help to my dilemma!  I use room correction though as it really works in my room so I'll wait and see if anyone has compared EmoQ to Audyssey 32XT.

post #16428 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio4life View Post

Thanks, that's a help to my dilemma!  I use room correction though as it really works in my room so I'll wait and see if anyone has compared EmoQ to Audyssey 32XT.

You are welcome.

Markus probably has compared the two and can give a better report than I.

I prefer Emo if I had to choose one. Audyssey makes the sound clinical IMO.
post #16429 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio4life View Post

Thanks, that's a help to my dilemma!  I use room correction though as it really works in my room so I'll wait and see if anyone has compared EmoQ to Audyssey 32XT.

What do you use know that you currently like?
If it is an older version of Audyssey, x32 is a major improvement over the older versions.
post #16430 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

I ran Emo and the distances are as close as any AVR or processor that I have used. Using SPL meter to check speaker levels they are matched.

While the internal tones might work for getting the satellites into the ballpark relative to each other, they can't be used to set the sub level nor absolut sound level properly. I would need to run another test to see how much they're off.
Please see http://www.avsforum.com/t/1491348/official-emotiva-umc-200-thread#post_23754143
Edited by markus767 - 9/30/13 at 3:00am
post #16431 of 17192
How does the Sherbourn PT 7020a stack up against a regular AVR (Denon x4000) for SQ?

I notice that Sherbourn still has the PT 7020s on sale for an unbeatable price, and as I am also considering a Denon x4000 for a second HT set up, I was wondering whether anyone could help me decide between pre-amp processor and the Denon AVR, especially regarding sq processing. I know the Denon has the advantage of 3d processing but I have a dual hdmi out Samsung BD #3d player than can route the 3d signal directly to the TV an by-pass the receiver or pre-pro entirely. I also have the Sherbourn 7-150 power amp standing by unused. If I should get the PT-7020, I suppose that could make for a kickass combo for sound... One thing I want to know is whether, in spite of the missing 3d capability, the PT-7020 can otherwise do audio processing better than a regular AVR with Audyssey Multeq XT32, such as the Denon x4000 or the Onkyo 818... If the audio can be that better, that could tip my hand... I'm currently using the Sherbourn Pre-1 for 2-channel music inside my HT system, and it does 2-chanmel music better than anything I can get for music from my Onkyo 818, even when the latter is in 5/7.1 mode. If the PT can do similar sound processing, that would be great. If anyone can chime in with some helpful views, that would be great.
post #16432 of 17192
I just got blasted on a different thread for buying a power amplifier. The thread was originally started for another reason (CD transport), but then got derailed into a debate about the effectiveness of power amps. Basically, the opinion there was that anybody who bought a power amp is crazy, all the difference they have heard after upgrading is a figment of imagination, a "feel good" purchase. The whole positive change was discounted to my possibly gaining half a decibel extra with the Emotiva power amp. Louder sound reveals details that are unheard at a lower volume, that is what they think.
There were not any "may be" in their opinions. It does not matter how many times I mentioned that the difference I have heard after getting the XPA-3 was distinct, the reply always was "your unconscious mind is deceiving you to justify the purchase". The thread got heated, a few insults exchanged.
They were highly technical people who knew what they were taking about. One of them posted a link to a Stereo Review magazine article (looks like it was a 1970s or 80s issue) which unequivocally supports their point of view. The blind study proves that people are not able to tell the difference between a 40W garden variety cheepo Pioneer receiver and a $5,000 power amp. About 400 people were tested. This comes from a magazine that I enjoy reading. Their integrity is unquestioned.
Anyway, after a few insults everybody calmed down, but I still have this question.
How many of you can testify to a change for the better after you upgraded to a power amp? More importantly, are there any studies or tests that can prove the sound is better?
I dont need this information to convince myself. I am perfectly happy with the XPA-3. Couldn't be happier in fact. My Pioneer Elite VSX-53 was harsh and strained at high volumes before the upgrade to Emotiva. Besides I got power hungry 4ohm speakers. The sound definitely improved - vivid, detailed, no strain or harshness whatsoever anymore. That is all that matters.
But I would love to go back to those nay-sayers with a counter study that actually proves them wrong as much as the Stereo Review proved their point.
Thanks a lot.
Here is the link to the thread
Here is the link that Stereo Review that renders the entire power amp industry irrelevant
Edited by grigorianvlad - 10/8/13 at 5:27pm
post #16433 of 17192
^Not sure why you would need any article to prove what you are experiencing. Most every multi-channel receiver lacks the ability to drive difficult loads without reaching audible levels of distortion rather quickly. You stated that your speakers are 4 ohm. Many 4 ohm speakers dip below that impedance presenting an even more difficult load on the amp. The XPA-3 will do a much better job of powering your mains to reference levels cleanly and without audible distortion. No blind test needed on this one. If you had high sensitivity speakers requiring very little power to reach reference levels then yes, many competent AVR's can handle this easily and within their limits. This does not seem to be the case in your setup.
post #16434 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by grigorianvlad View Post

I just got blasted on a different thread for buying a power amplifier. The thread was originally started for another reason (CD transport), but then got derailed into a debate about the effectiveness of power amps. Basically, the opinion there was that anybody who bought a power amp is crazy, all the difference they have heard after upgrading is a figment of imagination, a "feel good" purchase. The whole positive change was discounted to my possibly gaining half a decibel extra with the Emotiva power amp. Louder sound reveals details that are unheard at a lower volume, that is what they think.
There were not any "may be" in their opinions. It does not matter how many times I mentioned that the difference I have heard after getting the XPA-3 was distinct, the reply always was "your unconscious mind is deceiving you to justify the purchase". The thread got heated, a few insults exchanged.
They were highly technical people who knew what they were taking about. One of them posted a link to a Stereo Review magazine article (looks like it was a 1970s or 80s issue) which unequivocally supports their point of view. The blind study proves that people are not able to tell the difference between a 40W garden variety cheepo Pioneer receiver and a $5,000 power amp. About 400 people were tested. This comes from a magazine that I enjoy reading. Their integrity is unquestioned.
Anyway, after a few insults everybody calmed down, but I still have this question.
How many of you can testify to a change for the better after you upgraded to a power amp? More importantly, are there any studies or tests that can prove the sound is better?
I dont need this information to convince myself. I am perfectly happy with the XPA-3. Couldn't be happier in fact. My Pioneer Elite VSX-53 was harsh and strained at high volumes before the upgrade to Emotiva. Besides I got power hungry 4ohm speakers. The sound definitely improved - vivid, detailed, no strain or harshness whatsoever anymore. That is all that matters.
But I would love to go back to those nay-sayers with a counter study that actually proves them wrong as much as the Stereo Review proved their point.
Thanks a lot.
Here is the link to the thread
Here is the link that Stereo Review that renders the entire power amp industry irrelevant
My emo amps allowed me to play louder before clipping set in. I destroyed my tweeter three times with two different avr's prior to adding the amps. Sonically there is no discernable difference, my speakers, when not clipping, sound as they did with no additional amp.

You can't change the laws of physics, but placebo and expectation bias are powerful things that can make one believe all sorts of details and nuances are being revealed.

Good luck trying to "win" your argument in the other thread.
post #16435 of 17192
hi all, i believe as you. In my reality XPA5 makes my front stage more ALIVE. but as with you; i was told like a child that having external amp is nonsense. An that i basically stupid. But they used more sophisticated words; and i was reprimanded for responding to it. BUT......I LOVE MY HDTV aka itty bitty MAN CAVE.


Edited by ILOVEMYHDTV - 10/8/13 at 6:16pm
post #16436 of 17192
I heard a difference between two Yamaha receivers when I had to send my newer one in for service. My older one pinch hit during that time and it was notably better, so much that I just picked up an Emo LPA-1
post #16437 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by grigorianvlad View Post

I just got blasted on a different thread for buying a power amplifier. The thread was originally started for another reason (CD transport), but then got derailed into a debate about the effectiveness of power amps. Basically, the opinion there was that anybody who bought a power amp is crazy, all the difference they have heard after upgrading is a figment of imagination, a "feel good" purchase. The whole positive change was discounted to my possibly gaining half a decibel extra with the Emotiva power amp. Louder sound reveals details that are unheard at a lower volume, that is what they think.
There were not any "may be" in their opinions. It does not matter how many times I mentioned that the difference I have heard after getting the XPA-3 was distinct, the reply always was "your unconscious mind is deceiving you to justify the purchase". The thread got heated, a few insults exchanged.
They were highly technical people who knew what they were taking about. One of them posted a link to a Stereo Review magazine article (looks like it was a 1970s or 80s issue) which unequivocally supports their point of view. The blind study proves that people are not able to tell the difference between a 40W garden variety cheepo Pioneer receiver and a $5,000 power amp. About 400 people were tested. This comes from a magazine that I enjoy reading. Their integrity is unquestioned.
Anyway, after a few insults everybody calmed down, but I still have this question.
How many of you can testify to a change for the better after you upgraded to a power amp? More importantly, are there any studies or tests that can prove the sound is better?
I dont need this information to convince myself. I am perfectly happy with the XPA-3. Couldn't be happier in fact. My Pioneer Elite VSX-53 was harsh and strained at high volumes before the upgrade to Emotiva. Besides I got power hungry 4ohm speakers. The sound definitely improved - vivid, detailed, no strain or harshness whatsoever anymore. That is all that matters.
But I would love to go back to those nay-sayers with a counter study that actually proves them wrong as much as the Stereo Review proved their point.
Thanks a lot.
Here is the link to the thread
Here is the link that Stereo Review that renders the entire power amp industry irrelevant

First, remember that back in the 80's Stereo Review had a writer, Julian Hirsch, who wore hearing aids and reviewed, among other things, speakers!

Second, how much musical detail you can hear is limited by the weakest link in the chain from source to speaker.

Third, trust your own ears. They are your ears and it is your wallet.

Fourth, for many folks good enough is fine. Anything better just doesn't seem to make any difference to them.

I have been engaged in the High Fidelity hobby for more than 50 years. First as a music lover and for the past 10 years or so as a consultant to a number of individuals and households.

One of the mistakes that many of those who say the Amps in your AVR are fine and using a stand alone amp doesn't make any difference outside of a lighter wallet is a failure to understand that a speaker is a reactive load on the Amp. There is a good deal more than the power output of an Amp involved.

The biggest problem with the Amps in an AVR is the size of the power supply supplying 7 or more amps. Hook up 4 Ohm speakers to the AVR and listen at reference levels. I don't think you would find the results pleasant.

Lift your AVR. Now lift your XPA-3. Which do you think is more capable of driving your front and center channels?

Your ears have already told you and this is NOT your mind playing tricks.
post #16438 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDHolmes View Post

First, remember that back in the 80's Stereo Review had a writer, Julian Hirsch, who wore hearing aids and reviewed, among other things, speakers!

Second, how much musical detail you can hear is limited by the weakest link in the chain from source to speaker.

Third, trust your own ears. They are your ears and it is your wallet.

Fourth, for many folks good enough is fine. Anything better just doesn't seem to make any difference to them.

I have been engaged in the High Fidelity hobby for more than 50 years. First as a music lover and for the past 10 years or so as a consultant to a number of individuals and households.

One of the mistakes that many of those who say the Amps in your AVR are fine and using a stand alone amp doesn't make any difference outside of a lighter wallet is a failure to understand that a speaker is a reactive load on the Amp. There is a good deal more than the power output of an Amp involved.

The biggest problem with the Amps in an AVR is the size of the power supply supplying 7 or more amps. Hook up 4 Ohm speakers to the AVR and listen at reference levels. I don't think you would find the results pleasant.

Lift your AVR. Now lift your XPA-3. Which do you think is more capable of driving your front and center channels?

Your ears have already told you and this is NOT your mind playing tricks.

True, every word of it. Thanks
post #16439 of 17192
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDHolmes View Post

First, remember that back in the 80's Stereo Review had a writer, Julian Hirsch, who wore hearing aids and reviewed, among other things, speakers!

Second, how much musical detail you can hear is limited by the weakest link in the chain from source to speaker.

Third, trust your own ears. They are your ears and it is your wallet.

Fourth, for many folks good enough is fine. Anything better just doesn't seem to make any difference to them.

I have been engaged in the High Fidelity hobby for more than 50 years. First as a music lover and for the past 10 years or so as a consultant to a number of individuals and households.

One of the mistakes that many of those who say the Amps in your AVR are fine and using a stand alone amp doesn't make any difference outside of a lighter wallet is a failure to understand that a speaker is a reactive load on the Amp. There is a good deal more than the power output of an Amp involved.

The biggest problem with the Amps in an AVR is the size of the power supply supplying 7 or more amps. Hook up 4 Ohm speakers to the AVR and listen at reference levels. I don't think you would find the results pleasant.

Lift your AVR. Now lift your XPA-3. Which do you think is more capable of driving your front and center channels?

Your ears have already told you and this is NOT your mind playing tricks.

RDHolmes, I wish I said there what you said above and how you said it. I would like you paste your post in that forum as a reply (with your name in it, of course). Let me know if that is OK.
post #16440 of 17192
In the world of inexpensive speakers amps really do not make that much of a difference.
When you get into much more advanced designs (that then turn into difficult loads due to various crossover choices) then the amp starts to become important.
Current popular speakers are designed to be an easy load on the amp (since they are marketed towards those with AVRs) which in effect renders any sound differences extremely hard to detect.

Use some Wilson Watt speakers as your reference point then come back to me and tell me your 30W AVR sounds the same as a MC452 at any realistic sound level. wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY]