Emotiva UL series...Sore subject??

Who knows why? I remember the "discussions" that happened in the past couple of years. But they (ULs) are interesting and I was going to get them. I am just looking ahead at the DTS-HD and other formats coming out.


They also just respecified alot of the gripes people had like (Bass mgmt, video conversion). The amp is a killer for the money. (225 watts into 4 ohms)

The UL pre-pro price drop of $200 would have seemingly caused somewhat of a stir here, but curiously not a peep.

Without trying to sound like a jerk, I really don't see a point to it. What does it offer that a decent receiver can't? In fact, many receivers around that price point actually have a few more inputs and a couple more features. Then factor in that a receiver is giving you some free amplification as well, and I just don't see the point.

If a guy invested in a 5 channel amp and Dolby Digital pre-pro about 5 or 6 years ago that has served him well but now wants to upgrade for whatever reason... well, theres your answer.

Quote:


This applies if you are in the camp of "there is no advantage of separates over receivers". I am not in that camp and am on the pre-order list for the ULs and am pretty excited, especially given the recent list of upgrades.


Pat

Quote:
Umm, but a few similarly priced receivers offer more inputs and features.

Quote:
If it sounds better, then ok, I see the point. I don't have my mind made up yet either way on this topic, but will be blind testing an HK receiver vs an Audio Refinement pre/pro in the next few months, then I will have my answer.

Are you of the opinion Steve that the amp section of said $500 A/V receiver is going to be near or above the caliber of those used by the Emotiva UL purchasers?

Quote:
Sound quality as well as options for the future. Say you decide to upgrade your receiver/processor once the current SS formats become obsolete. With a receiver, you have to replace the amplification all over again. With separates, you can upgrade the pre/pro without replacing the amp.


Did I mention sound quality?

Quote:
No, but how does that relate? The pre/pro is $500 and the receiver is $500 - for dedicated pre/pro use out of either, seperate amps will be needed.


One advantage of the free amplification with a receiver is that in all honesty, only a high power 2 channel amp is needed for the mains - the 50-75 watts a receiver puts out will be more than enough for the center and surrounds. So you can get a few more inputs, a few more features, and free amplification for the center and surrounds using a receiver as a pre/pro.


The only thing the pre/pro would have going for it is if it did indeed sound better. I'm waiting to do my own testing, but the only other impressions I'd take the least bit seriously would be unsighted level matched, not the reviews put out in stuff like stereophile and the like.

Quote:
Umm, you're missing the whole idea here. If the pre/pro costs the same as the receiver, this doesn't matter in the least bit. You aren't paying "extra" for the amplification, it's essentially free.

Quote:
As I mentioned, I'm taking a wait and see approach to this. Audio marketing is usually BS, so I won't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
The UL pre/pro and amp combo are meant to compete with receivers in the $1,000 range and above (Not a $500 stand alone pre/pro vs. $500 receiver which you are thinking). So the logic is why buy a $1,000+ receiver when you can get separates for the same price? I'll agree that a lot of receivers in this price range will have a more advanced feature-set than the ULs. However, the ULs will offer better SQ and the ability to upgrade the pre/pro function without needing to discard the amplification later on down the road.

Ok but now you are talking about something different. See my first post in this thread, I'm talking about using a receiver in the $500 range as a comparable pre/pro to this Emo unit.


To take it one step further, let the receiver power the center and surrounds and just buy a discrete 2 channel amp to power the mains.

Quote:
I'd be legitimately interested in any unsighted level matched testing you have done between a pre/pro and decent receiver.

I agree 100% with buddha33 but it seems I get yelled at when I say that same exact thing. separates in the same price range will sound better than receivers in the same price range and above.i have been saying for a while now and then people on this board LOST THIER MINDS AT THE VERY THOUGHT! Well I'm saying it again. J.h.

You might take a look at my opinions on a very similar subject at:

http://processors.dblattman.com


It wasn't a blind test but the levels were matched and there was not just a small difference. My wife, who argues with most things I think improve my system easily noticed the difference as well.

Those results do not surprise me one bit. I have been saying this for a while now through experience I have found separates just sound better in every aspect of music and movie watching and listening. Will separates have all those useless bells and whistles? No but in the end who cares its the sound that drives the industry. Its the sound that drives us all. J.H.

Interesting - I'll hold out for my own testing though. First we will be testing not knowing which is which only to see if there is a discernable difference. IF we can successfully pass that, we will then label one A and the other B. We will then continue testing blind, but we will be told if we are hearing A or B and then we will decide which one we prefer. Seems about as unbiased as I can think of.


J.H. - in your testing, did you use the same amp with the receiver as you did with the pre/pro, or did you use the amplification of the receiver?

I had a Yamaha,JVC and Denon receiver. I had a Parasound amp and a Marantz processor now I have a Parasound amp and processor. I have listened to many of both and in my experience separates just sound better. tHere a spatial quality to them. A receiver quite frankly sounds like your stuck in an imaginary box. These are just my opinions. There an air of openess from separates that you just don't get from receivers. There also power issues with receivers. Sharing a single power Chord issues not to mention overall power ratings issues. Most separates amps and rated lower than there actual total power where as receiver are rated high than thier actual real power ratings. Therefore in my opinion separates sound better. J.H.

Quote:
I have, but it was an unfair comparison: An $800 HK receiver vs. a $3K Emotiva pre/pro.

Well I'm asking if you used the receiver as a pre/pro and connected it to a discrete amp. It sounds like you compared a receiver using its own amplification to a pre/pro with a discrete amp. That's a pretty unfair comparison as I wouldn't expect the amp section in a receiver to hold up as well with dynamic music to a discrete amp. I will be testing a pre/pro and a receiver with them both using the same amplifier - basically we are testing the sound quality of the DACs in a pre/pro vs those of a midline receiver - amplification is a whole seperate issue.


And no worries, I'm not trying to blast you or anything like that. I'm trying to get listening experience with both for myself before I say anything definitively one way or the other.