Originally Posted by GusGus748s
If you've only listened to the A3, you won't miss the A5's.
All I know is the A5's sound much better for music then my ex A3's. I don't even know why people say the A3 are more musical when the A5 sound more alive than the A3's.
If you have the money go for the A5's. If not the A3's will do fine.
I don't think anybody has said the A3rx-c is more musical than the A5rx-c. What has been said, and what I've said, is that the A3rx-c is a much more forgiving design wrt music that is less than perfectly recorded (which is most material available today). The A5rx-c was designed to reveal max detail....and when the source material is flawed, sometimes the detail which is revealed is crappy source material
. The A3rx-c is more forgiving and, though it is slightly less revealing than the A5rx-c, it is also more forgiving
. I don't know that I would categorize it as being less alive than the A5rx-c, but to each his own.
FWIW, I've never had my wife tell me to turn the A3rx-c down during movies...can't say the same for the A5rx-c. This is not the fault of the A5rx-c, but it highlights the differences between the two models well. With the simplified crossover of the rx-c tuning, the A3rx-c closed a portion of the gap between it and the A5rx-c (which did not benefit as much from the rx-c revision, as a percentage).
I agree that, if one can afford them, to go with the A5rx-c's. However, unless one is incorporating critical music listening
into their routine, most would be extremely happy with the A3rx-c.
I have also found that the A5rx-c begins to really shine after about 50-100 hours of break-in (and mostly levels-off after that)...and that the A3rx-c's provided increasing amounts of detail all the way up to 150 hours.