Emotiva XPA 2 vs Onkyo TX-SR706 for a 2.1 system!?!?!?!

[Fish]

Audible difference can be subjective....we all have opinions....human belief systems not likely to be altered as best I can tell.If I were them I would suggest you try both in your home and decide for yourself since you are the only one that can decide what works for you.There is nothing wrong with the belief they all sound the same given etc....I. submit that is a question that can't be answered until one has tried every unit considered.Then one will have only answered that question for themselves.

What we like is what we like ,even science can't account for taste.

[StephenM]

Audible difference can be subjective....we all have opinions....human belief systems not likely to be altered as best I can tell.If I were them I would suggest you try both in your home and decide for yourself since you are the only one that can decide what works for you.

All fine and good for someone who just wants to know if they will sound different.

I have asked for the technical reason why their amplifiers would sound different, given the referenced measurements, if they say yes it should in fact sound different. Amplifiers are a result of science and engineering, not black magic. If Emotiva claims there would be an audible difference, they should be able to point to a reason as to why there would be an audible difference. Anything else is taking a dangerous step towards these guys:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/

Let me tell you though, their teleportation tweak is the real deal. You just need to spend $60 to find out for yourself []

[Fish]

If every maker of audio gear could prove or justify their claims I would be more than flabbergasted.I can't imagine taking time from a busy day to convince someone of anything audio unless for fun.Next contact a cable maker and ask them to prove their marketing line, good luck, then is all digital the same??? These are old discussions that the internet is full of, still no resolution.

Don't get me wrong, discussion is good but why single out Emotiva? I presume they are one of the few that there is a snowballs chance would even read the ?Rotel or Parasound would be interesting too, maybe shoot them an email and let us know what they say.

[StephenM]

If every maker of audio gear could prove or justify their claims I would be more than flabbergasted.I can't imagine taking time from a busy day to convince someone of anything audio unless for fun.Next contact a cable maker and ask them to prove their marketing line, good luck

I wouldn't expect every maker of audio gear to be able to prove their claims for the fact that many are, as far as I'm concerned, snake oil salesmen. Case in point, my above link. Being able to put forth a solid evidence based on real science of how and why your product works is what separates people like PWK from people like George Cardas. In fact, I would actually say Emotiva does well in this regard with their published Audio Precision tests showing why their products are in fact so good. I also don't see any particularly outlandish claims from them. Just a boatload of power at a reasonable price.

then is all digital the same???

Depends on what you mean. If I have a CD, I can make a bit perfect copy of it on my computer. I can stream said copy to my Airport Express and output it via optical, again bit perfectly (as evidenced by the Stereophile review of the product).

Don't get me wrong, discussion is good but why single out Emotiva?

I'm really not trying to pick on Emotiva. I can readily acknowledge that they are a great value and an inexpensive way to get a hell of a powerful amplifier. The reason I picked them is only because numerous detailed measurements were published. If you want though, you can laugh at this poor Rotel's THD+N measurements:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/amplifier_product_reviews/power_amplifier/2007-01-rotel-rb-1092-amplifier-thd-vs-frequency-20-volts-product-reviews.gif

[StephenM]

Got a response:

Hello
the additional damping control vs. the Onkyo would yield a tighter bass
response for instance, and also due to the massive power supply
reserves vs. the Onkyo, it will retrieve dynamics much more convincingly
vs. the Onkyo.

With which I responded:

Hello the additional damping control vs. the Onkyo would yield a tighter bass response for instance
I'm unsure about this.
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/damptoole.htm
According
to Dr. Floyd Toole, "So far as the damping of speaker transients is
concerned, a damping factor of 20 or more will ensure that everything
possible has been done." The Onkyo is specified to have a damping factor
of 60 on the front channels into an 8 ohm load, which will of course
mean that it drops to a still adequate 30 for the RF-5s 4 ohm minimum.
Out of curiosity, what is the damping factor of the XPA-2? Do you have
evidence to show that the additional damping factor makes a difference?

also due to the massive power supply reserves vs. the Onkyo, it will retrieve dynamics much more convincingly vs. the Onkyo.
Again,
I'm unsure as to why this would be an issue when we're talking about
sub-watt levels, even for peaks. If my speakers were 10dB less efficient
and I wanted full reference level, I could understand. In my
situation,why would an amplifier that has been bench tested to very
cleanly put out 50 watts into 8 ohms and 100 watts into 4 ohms have any
problems with dynamics when it is only called to put out a fraction of a
watt, peak??? I would also note that as the Onkyo is a THX Select 2
receiver, THX certifies that it can swing up to a 50 volt peak on the
front channels, equating to 312.5 watts into 8 ohms and 625 watts at 4
ohms. Can you expand further?

[StephenM]

One more response:

Hello
Stephen, the damping factor more than 500. I do not have evidence to
support. It is just my experience predominately. I am not a
theoretician. So I cannot comment on your points.

To which I asked him if he could forward it off to the technical side/engineers.

[Fish]

[*-)][^o)][:|][].

[StephenM]

[pi][8]

That about sums up my evening plans.

[Fish]

Looks pretty good, rock on.

[CECAA850]

[D][~] for me.

[cornfedksboy]

You obviously have found everything you could ever want in your Onkyo. Why do you care how the Emo compares? Second question. If you do care, why don't you listen to one? Final question. What does a dampening factor of 60 sound like to you?

[StephenM]

You obviously have found everything you could ever want in your Onkyo. Why do you care how the Emo compares?

Obviously I'm not overly worried about it. However, it's good food for thought, and it is something people interested in this hobby should think about IMO.

Second question. If you do care, why don't you listen to one?

I'd like to some day, among other things that I would like the opportunity to hear. However, I'd just assume not have to buy one to do it. Even with the return policy, I assume I'd be out shipping, and Emotiva would get an amplifier they can no longer sell as new. I'm not interested in a lose/lose situation just to satisfy a little curiosity.

Final question. What does a dampening factor of 60 sound like to you?

Not sure how one can separate that from the rest of the Onkyo's performance. Suffice it to say, the Onkyo sounds excellent to my ears.

[cornfedksboy]

You obviously have found everything you could ever want in your Onkyo. Why do you care how the Emo compares?

Obviously I'm not overly worried about it. However, it's good food for thought, and it is something people interested in this hobby should think about IMO.

For me, I want to know how they sound, not how they graph out. I too would like to hear an Emo at some point. I will say that my 30 year old Marantz that produces/produced 38 wpc sounds better than my Onkyo TX-NR708.

[StephenM]

I will say that my 30 year old Marantz that produces/produced 38 wpc sounds better than my Onkyo TX-NR708.

Some people love the sound of low powered, high distortion SET amplifiers as well and feel the sound of even the finest solid state amps is cold and lifeless. That these people prefer their SETs doesn't make SETs inordinately accurate. I'm after accuracy. If an Onkyo is bench tested to reproduce a voltage waveform with a high degree of accuracy, then it is accurate, regardless of whether or not you like it.

Of course, if you're convinced of the superiority of your Marantz or a XPA-2, you could enter something like this:

www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

[Fish]

I have an old Marantz from the 70's, in my sons garage that is.The new digital units can't compete for music.Steve may be correct about distortion etc..or not but what sounds good is all important.We need not convince anyone but ourselves.

[StephenM]

I have an old Marantz from the 70's, in my sons garage that is.The new digital units can't compete for music.Steve may be correct about distortion etc..or not but what sounds good is all important.We need not convince anyone but ourselves.

True enough Fish. Whatever works for you is what you should stick with. I've got my system which works for me, you have yours that works for you, and in the end we're all happy (hopefully).

[cornfedksboy]

My Marantz is not flat. It has additional peaks at around 60 Hz which push the bass in my very average WF-35 low end. Also, it trails off at the top end starting at around 10 KHz which is helpful to tame zippy horn tweeters. This type of curved frequency response mates well with high efficiency horn speakers. That is the HK/Marantz warmth that many folks love. I'm sure that given an expensive EQ that I could duplicate that sound after hours or days of trial, but why bother when there's already a beautiful amp ready to go.

[StephenM]

Ever try disabling the Audyssey EQ in the Onkyo and applying its manual EQ? It would be nice if they gave you a few more bands, but just curious.

[cornfedksboy]

Ever try disabling the Audyssey EQ in the Onkyo and applying its manual EQ? It would be nice if they gave you a few more bands, but just curious.

I did, but I quickly grew frustrated trying to get the frequencies correct. I got something I was more appreciative of for 2-channel music, but then when I flipped it over to movie mode the center was all out of whack. Unfortunately, it's not the easiest to just flip between Audyssey and manual EQ so I leave it on Audyssey 90% of the time.

From reading Youthman's review of the Emo Pre/Pro, I like the idea of having multiple EQ modes for different usage modes.

I do have one more question after reading a few more posts. Since you are after a flat frequency response from your receiver; why don't you use electrostat speakers? They are supposed to also be very flat IIR, whereas even the best horn designs will tend to add some coloration. The cool thing about the Marantz versust the numerous other receivers I've owned is that I plug it in and leave all the settings on the receiver as "neutral." As I mentioned before, the Marantz is anything but flat. It's kinda cool. It's like it is already EQd to go with my Klipsch.

[StephenM]

I did, but I quickly grew frustrated trying to get the frequencies correct. I got something I was more appreciative of for 2-channel music, but then when I flipped it over to movie mode the center was all out of whack. Unfortunately, it's not the easiest to just flip between Audyssey and manual EQ so I leave it on Audyssey 90% of the time.

Fair enough. That is a nice feature of the Emo, as well as the ability to edit the autosetup's EQ curve.

Since you are after a flat frequency response from your receiver; why don't you use electrostat speakers? They are supposed to also be very flat IIR, whereas even the best horn designs will tend to add some coloration.

Couple thoughts here:

1. Audyssey does help to flatten FR response out; I would ultimately like to try something with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 which IIRC delivers 4x the resolution on the subwoofer's filters and 256x the resolution on the satellite channels (fronts, center, surrounds).

2. Its a lot easier to get an amplifier right than a speaker. That Emotiva can put out something like an XPA-5 which puts out a clean continuous 200 watts per channel into 8 ohms with all channels driven for a mere $900 should be reasonable evidence of this. You do have to pay for more power, but realistically, something like a dirt cheap Dayton T-amp probably measures pretty well within its specified power envelope.

Any speaker, regardless of price, is rather flawed by comparison, so it becomes a question of tradeoffs. I was interested in higher sensitivity and the trademark Klipsch dynamic punch when I purchased the RF-5s from craigslist. Electrostats, for what advantages they do have, fall flat in this area when driven to moderately high levels and beyond, at least from what I've heard. RF-5s may (or may not) be perfectly flat in FR, but combined with Audyssey, I'd bet are they acceptably close. If Audyssey XT32 comes down to lower priced receivers some day, they can come even closer!

3. My bedroom bookshelf speakers actually do have employ a ribbon tweeter (not the same as an electrostat, but similar concept) which is ohh so sweet!

The cool thing about the Marantz versust the numerous other receivers I've owned is that I plug it in and leave all the settings on the receiver as "neutral." As I mentioned before, the Marantz is anything but flat. It's kinda cool. It's like it is already EQd to go with my Klipsch.

Good stuff!