Emotiva vs McIntosh comparison

[audioqueso]

Test Setup:
Source/Pre: HTPC with RME 9632 soundcard/ASIO/flac.
Amp 1: McIntosh MA6800 (used as amp)
Amp 2: Emotiva XPA-5
* All sources switched by matrix switch to prevent less than a second of a gap in the music
**Levels were adjusted one the RME soundcard so that both amps have even dB levels.


Let's start...
Well... I'm very very impressed with Emotiva. There were a lot of things on my mind before I even began this comparison. I was thinking that I will finally see if Emo amps are all hype, or if they really have something special here. I was thinking that I WANT the McIntosh to out-perform the Emo amp in every way. I was thinking that I want the Emotiva to be excellent "for the money" because it's soooooo cheap. I was wanting to mention something negative about Emotiva so that some people *cough* DOUGIE *cough* can come to Emotiva's rescue ha ha :B :B :B . (it's all fun) Before today, there were days where I was already set on McIntosh winning. On other days, I was set on wanting the Emotiva to be just as good as these amps.


Background:
As some of you remember, I recently discovered (in March) what McIntosh was able to do for my 805's... I love the sound! McIntosh really made these speakers come to life. It made a huge difference compared to the Nuforce D-class amp or the Marantz receiver. So I picked up this 2-channel MA6800 this summer. First reason was.. I wanted Mac before I purchased a MC205. Second reason was plans of comparing it to Emotiva before I made my purchase for a MC205.
And let's be fair about this... one could say that Emotiva's 200watts vs McIntosh's 150watts is not fair for McIntosh. Another would say that the XPA-5 is not Emotiva's flagship so it's not fair on that side. But I've seen that quantity does not always mean quality. And I shouldn't have to use a flagship model to compare against this non-flagship model from McIntosh either. So it's a fair fight. :^x


Setting up the room:
I setup up my room as fair as possible to give both amps their best chance to shine. Speakers are about 3 feet from the wall. Both amps are on their own circuit breaker. No large objections in the middle. Both have same and equal length cables, etc, etc. I was very careful to set up everything as fair and perfectly as possible. So if there is anything anyone would like to recommend, please do.


Testing: pretty lengthy
So what I did was picked a BUNCH of albums on my HTPC, grabbed some delicious chocolates, a tasty drink, sat down and relaxed on the couch with my switch on my lap, and randomly switched back and forth as I just listened to music for hours. Sometimes (mostly with R&B or Rap), I got up, walked around, switched, walked around... to get a feel of how their sounds differ in general and not just "in that sweet spot".

I played a lot of music. From George Gershwin, to Bob Marley, Artie Shaw, Norah Jones, Faye Wong, Carrie Underwood, Evanescence... it was a LOT. But to be honest... the majority of the songs sounded SO similar between the Emotiva and McIntosh, that the differences are not even worth mentioning. I'm talking about differences that one would have to listen VERY closely to catch. Like... "did you hear that? right THERE!" That kind. And honestly, if I have to pay THAT much attention to the music, I'm probably not enjoying the music. That's not what I'm about.

But I do want to mention some songs where I did hear a difference. And some where I didn't hear anything at all. I started off with some slow music from Miwa Yoshida (Japanese). Her voice is sweet, elegant, and then very powerful. Acapela, then a full jazz band. In the beginning, my biggest concern with the Emotiva is that it wouldn't be as smooth as the McIntosh. I love that about McIntosh. I asked Glenee that a few months ago when he mentioned Emotiva. A women's voice is the end-all for me in audio equipment. So that portion is really important to me. So... while listening to Miwa's voice, switching between the Emo and Mac sounded basically the same. The only difference that I heard was that her position changed. With the Emo, she sounded like she was right in front of me. With the Mac, her voice seemed to move back just a a bit. But everything else sounded the same. Just as clear, just as smooth. Excellent.

Later I played Erykah Badu's first album... and on the first track, the bass had a noticeable difference. With the Emo, the bass seemed to extend to lower frequencies, but on McIntosh it pushed those low notes harder. It seemed more defined on the McIntosh.

So next I played some Evanescence to hear more deep bass and see if it had the same effect... but every song sounded the same on the Emo and Mac.

Next was Faye Wong (Chinese). She is one of my favorite singers. And her CD's are very well recorded. With one album, the music seemed to have a wider soundstage with the Emotiva (by like 2 sq.ft). The Mac did sound smoother though. Another difference I noticed was with McIntosh's bass. The chello in a few songs sounded more precise. It sounded almost perfectly real on the McIntosh. The same held true for piano solos. Not that the Emotiva sounded bad at all, but it was almost life-like on the McIntosh. Kinda like comparing the background images on a blu-ray vs a dvd. On a DVD you may be able to see that man, but on the blu-ray you can see his wringles and such. The chello and piano were that clear and defined with the Mac.

When I started to play some Fort Minor and Linkin Park, I noticed that the Emotiva had a bit too much sibilance. It was probably the biggest difference I heard all day between the two amps. I didn't like it.

Then I played some GEROGE MICHAEL! ...yeah! ha ha. I found a lot of difference with his songs. In Careless Whisper, the drums sounded more real with the McIntosh. Again, it was like the better resolution example of blu-ray vs dvd. Then with Faith, the snaps and claps sounded much better on the Emotiva. Not over emphasized, but clearer. I didn't quite get this song though. Snaps, claps... Emotiva wins. Nut then when the tambourines played, the tambourines sound soooooo real on the Mac. It sounded like I could hear when they slapped the tambourine, and when they flicked their wrist. (I love this RME soundcard! It's awesome!!!) . The Emotiva didn't have that same clarity. Kinda strange how these differene have an almost double-standard.

Continuing on... we get to Gloria Esteban's Mi Tierra album. The last song, Tradicion, is a great test for separation and soundstage. Both amps sounded identical. However, I did notice that the Emotiva made Gloria's voice just a bit too rapsy. A bit over-emphasized COMPARED to the McIntosh.

Jill Scott. (I just gotta talk about this soundcard again. I love this card! This is one of my favorite albums. I've listened to this album with every speaker that I've ever owned. This soundcard displays so much detail in every song. I never even knew that "Gettin' In The Way" even had any baritone singers before!)

Mongol800 (Japanese punk)
There's a song that I played that had some REALLY fast double bass guitar plucks. I found that the plucks were tighter and more precise on Emotiva. The Emotiva had excellent Excellent control with the double bass guitar.

Going on... Mariah Carey, Norah Jones, Marc Anthony, Whitney Houston... I could not hear any difference. (Man, this Emotiva amp is nice!)

Squirrel Nut Zippers... (I love this stuff). I noticed with their music that the Emotiva had a slightly wider soundstange. Male voices sounded identical, but the maracas sounded more realistic on the McIntosh. The same was true with the saxophones. It seems that somewhere in the midrange, the McIntosh has better "resolution". I don't know how, but it does.

One thing about the Emotiva amp was that on most songs the symbols sounded a bit too emphasized. But then when I played Louis Prima's Sing, Sing, Sing (from Swing Kids soundtrack), I could not here any difference with the symbols at all. Strange. I was expecting it since it did with a lot of other songs.


Conclusion:
The Emotiva amp is nice. Soundstage, separation, clarity... I'll guess that 95% of the time it sounded the same like the McIntosh to me. I know some may not want to hear that (like I didn't before), but it's true. This is a killer deal for an amp this good. One thing I did notice was that at low volumes, the bass is not as clear as the McIntosh. I blasted a note on both amps. No distortion at max levels on either. No ugly noise or buzz. Both have top notch build quality. The biggest difference I found between the two was that sometimes the Emotiva sounded a bit more forward compared to the McIntosh. And yes, there were difference, but all the differences I mentioned were EVER SO SLIGHT. The BIGGEST noticeable difference was that in rock or rap, the Emotiva's high seemed a bit too emphasized compared to the McIntosh. But it was not harsh or anything like that AT ALL, just compared to the McIntosh.

This is not an excellent amp FOR THE MONEY. This is an awesome amp PERIOD. I said it at the beginning, and I'll say it again, I am very very impressed. I was the one that was blown away by what McIntosh did for my 805's a few months ago. And now I know the Emotiva can bring life to my 805's just like McIntosh does. I'm definitely going to keep this one. Great job Emotiva. :T


****************************

If anyone has any specific request on what you'd like me to compare between these two, please let me know.

Tomorrow I will see how they differ with movies.

****************************

[sikoniko]

While I enjoyed the review, but I am about confused on your conclusion. are you keeping the Emotiva and getting rid of the McIntosh?

before I make further comment, I'd like clarification...

[emig5m]

Nice review, this is what I'm talking about. Getting the stuff home and seeing/hearing for yourself what the actual differences are with hands on experience. I wonder how the flagship Emo mono's would fair.... No... No... I don't wonder... must not spend anymore money on hi-fi gear this year... hehe. :E

[Glenee]

Audioqueso,
That was a very simular comparison I had with the MC252 and the XPA-5. I just didn't feel qualified to put it into the words you did, I don't have a Big Audiophile Background like some of the people here, but I know what I like. I do have 35 years plus in messing with this stuff. The Emotiva is not quite as good as the McIntosh MC252 but it is damn close. I think if a person wanted to use the Mac for left and right and a 3-channel Emotiva for the rest in a HT, I don't think they could MISS. I chose to go 3-XPA1 across the front, and it is really good.
But enough of my thought's. I compliment you on your review and want to be the first to Say:
GOOD JOB SIR
Glenee

[audioqueso]

While I enjoyed the review, but I am about confused on your conclusion. are you keeping the Emotiva and getting rid of the McIntosh?

before I make further comment, I'd like clarification...

Oh, I never intended on keeping the MA6800. A few months back, after auditioning the MA7000 at home, I was set on getting the MC205 5ch amp. As I mentioned, I bought the MA6800 because I wanted a Mac now, and because I wanted to play with it before getting the MC205, and then compare it to Emotiva before I purchase the MC205. So if I didn't like the Emotiva, I would have returned the Emo, sold the Mac, and bought a MC205. However, the differences between the XPA-5 and MA6800 are SOOOO subtle that I have decided to stick with the XPA-5. Now I have to buy to look for a pre-amp (my Marantz receiver sucks as a pre-amp).

Seriously, the differences are hardy noticeable. I played music for hours and hours, and the only songs that I heard any differences with are the ones that I wrote about. The biggest thing I could tell is that the McIntosh is like a degree more laid back in the upper frequencies. Like pressing the "darken contrast" button on a laptop one time... that much. Yes, there were some subtle instruments that the Mac made sound incredible, but picking out these 4-5 songs out of hundreds... you know. 8)

Audioqueso,
I just didn't feel qualified to put it into the words you did, I don't have a Big Audiophile Background like some of the people here, but I know what I like.

:unsure: I'm not sure what that means... but you shouldn't feel embarrassed about posting anything. I think people here would only discredit spammers and, those that sign up and instantly start bad talking other products.


Now I understand what Glenee, Dougie, and HD99YR talked about.
Anyone looking for an amp, I would definitely recommend to give Emotiva a try.

[audioqueso]

I'm not sure about the cosmetic looks. The XPA-5 matches very nicely to my HTPC (silver and black), but my furniture is expresso. I liked the Marantz champagne color better. I don't know... it's just a minor thing.

Power Unit.
Here's a difference I just noticed. I accidentally set both amps at the same time to the speakers (the speaker is wired to the switch, the switched is wired to both amps... can't have two ON at the same time). Well, I did set both ON at the same time. The Emo popped a small spike and shut down. The Mac's blue window took a flicker but kept on playing with no disruption to the music. I turn the Emo back on and everything is fine. I'm not sure what that says about either unit. One has a smarter safety unit, the other has a powerful unstoppable unit??? Maybe???? ha ha Either way, just something interesting I discovered.

[Alaric]

I wonder what an XPA-2 would sound like...?
Then again , I'm not a huge Mc fan. Brilliant stuff , but the "house sound" doesn't work for me.

[audioqueso]

Good point Lee.
After comparing an Emotiva amp and a McIntosh, I'm sure the XPA-2 can be just as good as McIntosh's bigger toys as well. But regardless, they do both sound so identical that I guess one would have to like the McIntosh "house sound" to like Emotiva as well.

[audioqueso]

Movies

Well... I just finished watching Matrix blu-ray (of course I'll pick that movie:B). Can't say I really heard any difference. Both did an equally excellent job. I was thinking that the Mac might make gun cocking or a bullet dropping sound a bit more real, but not really. Maybe there is a difference, but not anything I noticed while ENJOYING the movie.

I'm done. I'm happy. Next... processor. :B

[PewterTA]

First off, let me say, great review, I like the way you did things and it goes to show how there isn't a "one thing is standard or different" between two different amps. Thanks, it was fun reading it!

with that said...

Now it makes me wonder if you not hearing the differences has more to do with your Marantz Pre than with which amp was better/worse.

I know when I added a nice big amp to my Yamaha receiver (over the one I was already using) I thought it sounded better, about the same differenes/similarities you noticed, very subtle. That was until I got the Rotel 1098...then I clearly heard the huge differences between the two amps.

Not trying to say one is better than the other when comparing Emotiva or McIntosh...just throwing out there my experiences between two different amps with a "mediocre" Pre. I'm not the type that says "it's McIntosh it has to be better than Emotiva!" I'm all for best sounding for the money!

Course again, not saying the Rotel 1098 is anything fantastic (or extremely high-end), but it's not too shabby either. lol

[Dmantis]

It's nice to find gems out there. They are to be found. Like the Oppo Blu ray player , thats a true gem as well. I have no experience with Emotiva but would like to as I read so many good things about them.

[audioqueso]

Now it makes me wonder if you not hearing the differences has more to do with your Marantz Pre than with which amp was better/worse.

The Marantz wasn't in the mix at all. In my thread comparing the Musical Fidelity V-Dac vs RME 9632 soundcard, I proved that the Marantz receiver acts as a terrible pre-amp. That's why the first thing I wrote on the tread was the test setup used showing that the HTPC was set up as source & pre-amp.

[emig5m]

First off, let me say, great review, I like the way you did things and it goes to show how there isn't a "one thing is standard or different" between two different amps. Thanks, it was fun reading it!

with that said...

Now it makes me wonder if you not hearing the differences has more to do with your Marantz Pre than with which amp was better/worse.

I know when I added a nice big amp to my Yamaha receiver (over the one I was already using) I thought it sounded better, about the same differenes/similarities you noticed, very subtle. That was until I got the Rotel 1098...then I clearly heard the huge differences between the two amps.

Not trying to say one is better than the other when comparing Emotiva or McIntosh...just throwing out there my experiences between two different amps with a "mediocre" Pre. I'm not the type that says "it's McIntosh it has to be better than Emotiva!" I'm all for best sounding for the money!

Course again, not saying the Rotel 1098 is anything fantastic (or extremely high-end), but it's not too shabby either. lol

Now this has me thinking, I love the sound of my system, best I've ever owned. But I'm a noob with quality gear compared to all of you. Currently I'm just using a Yamaha RX-663 with my Emotiva XPA-5 since I'm trying to wait for the XMC-1 release before spending any money. What am I missing? I don't know. What I do know is I hear the best sound I've ever heard before in my home (I'm sure the B&W speakers has a lot to do with that, heh).

What's on my mind is, when the Emotiva XMC-1 Pre/Pro comes out, will it truly outperform the Yamaha to where I can hear a noticeable difference? Is the possibility there that I might in fact like the Yamaha "house sound" better than the Emotiva Pre/Pro? Clarity, detail, dynamic range.... what's the difference going to be with using a true pre/pro over a Yamaha receiver? The Yamaha seems to be well designed... like say dedicated Burr Brown Dacs on all channels instead of a single multichannel DAC. It has Pure Direct mode to bypass all the DSP circuits... Decodes all the new HD formats... can't really go wrong for the price.

Compared to other receivers I've owned in the past the Yamaha is the best sounding one I've owned. Sony was the worst - totally un-listenable for 2-channel music. It was a movie machine only. The last real pre I owned was a Carver stereo pre and it was their bottom of the line one to boot.

Opinions on a Yamaha receiver vs something like a Emotiva pre? My dilemma is either get the matching center channel for my 804S's or replace the Yamaha with the Emotiva XMC-1 when it comes out. I absolutely won't be able to spend the money on both this year. It's one or the other - what should I do? Replace the HTM61 with the HTM3S or replace the Yamaha RX-663 with the Emotiva XMC-1?

[audioqueso]

Maybe you can try it out for yourself at home. Do you have any source that can control the volume output? You could connect it directly to the XPA-5, and see how it sounds compared directly connected to it and then compare it with the Yamaha acting as a pre-amp.

Before the XPA-5 came in, I tested conducted a similar test with the Marantz using the McIntosh. From the RME soundcard, I configured dual stereo outputs.

HTPC Output 1 ---> Marantz SR7002 AV receiver via pre-out ---> matrix switch input 1
HTPC Output 2 ---> matrix switch input 2

Since I was using a switch between the two inputs, I was able to switch on the fly between the two setups. The biggest thing I noticed when using the Marantz as a pre-amp was that the soundstage just drops. I had the HTPC+Mac combo, and the music just seemed to float in my room. But when I would switch to the Marantz as the pre-amp, the music seemed limited to the first 3 feet of my room. The definition was also not as clear as the HTPC+Mac combo. Kinda like a veil covering the speakers. Ummm... more like the resolution wasn't as clear as it was without the Marantz in the way.

Funny thing was that earlier this year, I tried a McIntosh MA7000 at home... and I tried comparing the Marantz as a pre-amp. I didn't notice that much of a difference. Then again, it was only for a minute AND I did not have this switch built yet. So I wasn't able to switch on the fly and compare with and without the Marantz instantly. Now that I can, it's very clear to me that the receiver really does bottleneck a lot. I don't know about Yamaha's though.

[Hdale85]

Excellent review I was going to say the XPA-2 should be a decent step up as the XPA-5,3 are based on the modular design still while the XPA-2 is crazy over built. The XPA-1's are basically a fully differential version of the XPA-2 but in a mono block configuration since you need 2 banks of mosfets/transistors to get the differential setup. The XPA-2's PSU is also quite a bit beefier then the modular designs as well as the XPA-1's is quite a bit beefier then the XPA-2. They are all fantastic amps though and you'd be hard pressed to find an equal or better amp for the same money imo.

I took my RPA-2 to the last little get together I had and everyone seemed to love it quite a bit. We had some Nuforce mono's there that we listened to a bit and all of this was running of my Opus DAC which is a Dual Mono Wolfson WM8740 with outboard reclock and jitter reduction. It was a fantastic setup and everyone seemed quite impressed.

[emig5m]

Since I was using a switch between the two inputs, I was able to switch on the fly between the two setups. The biggest thing I noticed when using the Marantz as a pre-amp was that the soundstage just drops. I had the HTPC+Mac combo, and the music just seemed to float in my room. But when I would switch to the Marantz as the pre-amp, the music seemed limited to the first 3 feet of my room. The definition was also not as clear as the HTPC+Mac combo. Kinda like a veil covering the speakers. Ummm... more like the resolution wasn't as clear as it was without the Marantz in the way.

I could use those same exact words to describe the Yamaha's Pure Direct/Straight mode vs the Straight Enhancer DSP mode. I went to press the Pure Direct mode on my remote last night and accidentally hit the DSP mode selector and decided for giggles to cycle through the DSP modes to check them out. Normally 100% of the time I don't like any DSP because even though it might add a cool or neat effect it always sounds funky, unnatural, and colored (like say the fake reverb to expand 2-channel into surround) and then I came across the "Straight Enhancer" mode and was shocked at what I heard!

Literally with the Straight Enhancer DSP it sounds like the very last step to totally erase your room, speakers, and system. When I go back to the way I was listening to it (Pure Direct) just like you said- soundstage just drops, kinda like a veil covering the speakers, and the music seemed limited to the first 3 feet of my room. But mainly the music seemed limited to the first 3 feet of my room.

If anyone out there has a newer Yammie and already has a good sweet spot dialed in, try it with the Straight Enhancer DSP mode on with some of your best 2-channel recordings (something with some good female vocals will really show it off) and be prepared to pick your jaw up off the ground! :T A couple weeks ago I had to pick my fathers jaw off the ground with what he heard what the little 685 could do. This time I had to actually pick my own jaw up off the ground, it's that good! I used to be a total purest, no EQ, tone control, or DSP. Yea, I used to pride myself at how good my system sounded without any EQ'ing or tone adjustments. But now, and I hate to admit it, don't think I could live without the Straight Enhancer mode on the Yamaha after what I've heard! And it's DSP that doesn't sound funkified. The sound literally sounds like the room/system gets totally erased and what's left is a realistically and natural sounding live event before your face! For me, DSP on 2-channel music and natural sounding could never go into the same sentence but I'm a believer now! When I go back to Pure Direct it just sounds dead and lifeless in comparison.

[kmcheng]

What's on my mind is, when the Emotiva XMC-1 Pre/Pro comes out, will it truly outperform the Yamaha to where I can hear a noticeable difference?

The real question here is if the XMC-1 is ever going to be released. It has been delayed for over 1 year now.

Opinions on a Yamaha receiver vs something like a Emotiva pre? My dilemma is either get the matching center channel for my 804S's or replace the Yamaha with the Emotiva XMC-1 when it comes out. I absolutely won't be able to spend the money on both this year. It's one or the other - what should I do? Replace the HTM61 with the HTM3S or replace the Yamaha RX-663 with the Emotiva XMC-1?

I would say a matching center (HTM3S) would be the best bang for your buck.

In terms of the processor, try to get your dealer to let you test drive the Rotel 1069 at home with your 804S. In theory you should hear a difference from the Yamaha, especially with 2-channel music. In practice a lot of it depends on your room and you may not like the differences, if any.

[beden1]

Thanks for the interesting review. While you may have found a great bang-for-the-buck with the Emotiva products, I'm not sure I'm quite convinced with your findings. I do think however, that it is worth while for someone to try and do a test with a system that may be a bit more flushed out. Meaning a well balanced system that someone has put together, and has had considerable time getting to know their house sound.

You mentioned the subtleties in the differences you heard between the two amps in how certain instruments or voices sounded. IMO, it is those subtle differences that make all the difference when I'm intently listening to enjoy the music. It's not the same while watching a movie, as many systems may sound good to most listeners because of the dynamics of the sounds.

[audioqueso]

You mentioned the subtleties in the differences you heard between the two amps in how certain instruments or voices sounded. IMO, it is those subtle differences that make all the difference when I'm intently listening to enjoy the music.

True... but as I mentioned, I heard those difference in ONLY a hand full of songs out of hundreds that I played. Yes, I agree that the changes as you go up the chain are subtle... but generally speaking. The subtle differences I heard were not general. I would say that with something like 95% of the songs that I played there was no differences... even subtle difference. That's why I mentioned that in my original post.

[beden1]

I just read your system again, and I also said to the effect that someone who has a more revealing balanced high end system, and more experience in listening to their system to fully understand it's sound...may be able to offer a clearer viewpoint.

It's like reading a review from Kal at Stereophile. He has a lot of experience with his own system and room dynamics, and when he introduces a new piece to review, he is able to clearly hear and relate the subtle differences.

You have a used amp (condition unknown) from McIntosh that you bought in this past spring. You are also listening through a sound card for your source player and a pre-amp that you said is not that great, if I'm correct in understanding what you listed. I for one would be most interested in hearing what the differences were in listening through a quality pre-amp and a more traditional source like a turntable or quality CD player.

[audioqueso]

Right I understand what you're saying. Like having adapted to that system, right?
I also wrote that was the reason why I bought the MA6800 earlier this year. Because I wanted to get use to the sound in my home. I heard the MA7000 in my home... and I wanted to have a Mac for the time being. It's been more than enough time to have gotten use to the sound.
I don't know why you are question the condition of the McIntosh. I bought it used from the same dealer that lend me the MA7000. Many people here talk about buying used equipment from audiogon. Why are you questioning my piece though? It may not be the case, but you seem as though you are looking for something to be wrong with it.

I also already wrote that the Marantz receiver was NOT part of the mix at all. All I wrote was that I already proved the Marantz receiver does not do well acting as a pre-amp. I didn't say anything about using it then or even for the past months as a pre-amp. I only use my Marantz for movies.

And the RME 9632... don't knock it until you've heard it. I did a lot of research before knowing which step I wanted to take to upgrade my HTPC sound. There are owners that wrote they retired their dedicated CD players in lieu of the RME 9632. I've never compared it to another CD player. I'm sure if I wanted to I can get the same dealer to lend me the Esoteric CD player again and compare the two.

[BWLover]

isnt the mac 16 years old? when was the xpa-5 started?

[Glenee]

Let me chime in here. I had McIntosh MC501's and Mc252 at the same time I aquired Emotiva Amps. I was running B&W 802D's in the same room, same placement, same room acoustics, same electronics, same cabiling, and using the same Spectrum Analyzer. I have been a MacIntosh fan for many years. I know run Emotiva XPA-1s after my stint with the XPA-5. All of my equipment is current. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they are so close, that I can't justify the cost difference between them. I do know this. The XPA-1 amps are as flat across the board (20-20) at low and High output as any amp I have had. You get exactly out what you put in.

[beden1]

Let me chime in here. I had McIntosh MC501's and Mc252 at the same time I aquired Emotiva Amps. I was running B&W 802D's in the same room, same placement, same room acoustics, same electronics, same cabiling, and using the same Spectrum Analyzer. I have been a MacIntosh fan for many years. I know run Emotiva XPA-1s after my stint with the XPA-5. All of my equipment is current. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they are so close, that I can't justify the cost difference between them. I do know this. The XPA-1 amps are as flat across the board (20-20) at low and High output as any amp I have had. You get exactly out what you put in.

I looked at your profile and did not see your system listed. Could you be more specific? I'm just trying to figure out if there is merit to the statements I have read in this section. Sometimes judgements can be clouded when trying to justify one product over another, when there is a significant cost difference involved in the decision making.

I guess the old statement of, "if it sounds too to be true", needs to be considered.

[beden1]

I don't know why you are question the condition of the McIntosh. I bought it used from the same dealer that lend me the MA7000. Many people here talk about buying used equipment from audiogon. Why are you questioning my piece though? It may not be the case, but you seem as though you are looking for something to be wrong with it.

I have purchased numerous pieces of used equipment through Audiogon and Ebay, so I'm not putting down buying used equipment. I have also had to send some of these units back to their manufacturers for overhauls, and to bring them back up to specs. My one amp that I did buy through a dealer, and who said they had it checked out, turned out to have several issues that did impede the sound quality.

[Glenee]

I looked at your profile and did not see your system listed. Could you be more specific? I'm just trying to figure out if there is merit to the statements I have read in this section. Sometimes judgements can be clouded when trying to justify one product over another, when there is a significant cost difference involved in the decision making.

I guess the old statement of, "if it sounds too to be true", needs to be considered.

I take no offense to any one, until I find out that they are not acting in their and my best behalf. I will try my best to to answer any of your Questions, If I can. It may be a question beyond my ability, the reason I say that is that I don't subscribe to the thought and presentation that Audiophile experts use in their reviews. Ask the question that you would like for me to answer ? To answer one of your questions. Yes cost was a consideration, but also I wanted the MacIntosh equipment to be superior in at least 10% of the areas that are important to me. That was just not the case.

[beden1]

I take no offense to any one, until I find out that they are not acting in their and my best behalf. I will try my best to to answer any of your Questions, If I can. It may be a question beyond my ability, the reason I say that is that I don't subscribe to the thought and presentation that Audiophile experts use in their reviews. Ask the question that you would like for me to answer ? To answer one of your questions. Yes cost was a consideration, but also I wanted the MacIntosh equipment to be superior in at least 10% of the areas that are important to me. That was just not the case.

It may be that you are on to something with the Emotiva products offering a good sound for the money, even as compared to your previous McIntosh amps. But, I guess I would like to see if there is some way of comparing apples with apples.

You mentioned using a Spectrum Analyzer in measuring your system. I don't get into that kind of testing, but pretty much just trust my ears as they are all I can really use to listen to music. So, I kind of just read the conclusions where this system sounded better, and why, and in down-to-earth analysis that I can relate to. But, and again, there are many parts of a system that comprise the final result.

I think that professional reviewers offer a constant, once you get to understand their approaches and listening experiences. That's why, when an audio enthusiast layman like myself offers a review, particularly when it points to a possible diamond in the ruff like the Emotiva, all I'd like to understand is how the conclusions were made, and what equipment was used where I have some basis of experience.

This may end up as an interesting and rewarding discussion for many who are building their systems, and where they can save some money in the long run. But, I think we need to somehow figure out how the conclusions are sound, and what are the real world differences in the performance for those who may hear and truly appreciate the differences.

I'm not trying to cause any issues, but am interested in learning about new equipment that may indeed offer a legitimate bang-for-the-buck.

[Glenee]

Beden1, I understand and whole heartly agree. I am not a Audiophile in the sense and I just got this new Wireless keyboard so look out for typo's
One of the things I use a spectrum analyzer for is to see if a Amp in this instance is all ttha they say it is. When you use a Radio Shack SPL meter to set sound levels you are measuring the loudest band in the spectrum ( lets call it one octave). There are not too many Reciever/ Amps on the market today that can not drive one of the bands/ octaves to a very high volume, looks good to see that rat shack meter going to 90db+. Boy what a Amp. Know lets take the same Amp and use a Spectrum Analyzer to adjust the EQ so that the Amp is driving the full spectrum 20 to 20. Now try to get that same inferior Amp to drive your speakers to 90db again on the Radio Shack meter pushing the enitre and 20 to 20. One of two thing usually happens either the Pre/pro goes into overdrive clip, the Amp SMOKES, or the speakers fail or damage from distortion. A good Amp will push the entire spectrum at it rated power output with No Smoke, Pre/Amp clip, or damaging distortion to the speakers. All the good ones do this. The other thing is how much output does the pre/pro have to emit to drive the Amp to full output Very Important since most of todays Reciever/Pre Pro have small V output on the pre outs. Example Yamaha 1.0V, Marantz 1.0V etc. I own a yamaha for HT it can't even begin to drive my XPA-1's to full output even though they are 1.8 and 1.25 (RCA versus XLR) When I did the side by side comparison with the Mac and Emotiva I had to use a McIntosh MX135 Pre/Pro sinc I needed 5V output for the Mac Amps to drive to full load. The things I saw on the Spectrum Analyzer in frequency response from the Mac versus the Emotiva would indicate that the Emotiva performed better under full load at maintaining a constant drive across the spectrum. The Mac and the Emotiva did well on Spike power ( The need for instintanious power for milleseconds for Big peaks in Music) But the Emotiva Kick it Ass on holding the Spectrum at Flat level. If money was not a object I would take the MacIntosh on looks alone, but were not talking looks alone here. They are both WONDERFUL Amps and you got to Love that MacIntosh House Sound. But the Emotiva XPA-1 is a worthy opponent to any 500 watt Mono out there. IN MY OPINION. I'm not very good at this, but this will have to do, I don't have one bit of refinement, class or eloquence about me as you can tell. But in my own words this is the other side of the story.

[beden1]

The things I saw on the Spectrum Analyzer in frequency response from the Mac versus the Emotiva would indicate that the Emotiva performed better under full load at maintaining a constant drive across the spectrum. The Mac and the Emotiva did well on Spike power ( The need for instintanious power for milleseconds for Big peaks in Music) But the Emotiva Kick it Ass on holding the Spectrum at Flat level. If money was not a object I would take the MacIntosh on looks alone, but were not talking looks alone here. They are both WONDERFUL Amps and you got to Love that MacIntosh House Sound. But the Emotiva XPA-1 is a worthy opponent to any 500 watt Mono out there.

I think this article entitled "Why are amplifiers so important?"
September 5th, 2006 -- by Tom Martin
Source: The Absolute Sound,
is very good in describing what I'm trying to express.
The issue regarding the Emotiva mono block amp that you are using, is what character does it present in one's system?

http://www.avguide.com/comparative-review/audio-research-3002-class%C3%A9-ca-m400-mcintosh-mc-501-power-amplifiers

I suggest reading the entire review, but here are a couple of quotes from this down-to-earth article regarding 4 different high powered amplifiers (McIntosh MC 501, Classe CA-M400, Audio Research 300.2, and the Musical Fidelity kW 750):

"So, system-tuning is certainly abetted by amplifier selection. The only problem is that to do this you would be well advised to drop the idea that any given amplifier is better or worse than other amplifiers. In other words, you have to think about certain sonic parameters in a new way—a way that is less good-vs.-bad and more an attempt to get at the qualities being delivered. An example may help. Think of hair. You could think about it in terms of “dirty” or “clean.” One would be bad and the other good. That, I think is the way we normally think about audio equipment. But in the case of hair you could also think of “blonde” and “brunette.” Here we are talking about qualities, not about good and bad. You might have a preference, but it is hard to argue that one is universally better than the other."

"Over time I concluded that amplifiers that don’t get the leading edge right may initially sound more dynamic, but they don’t sound as natural, and they reduce the sense of musical involvement. As the number of instruments increase, this effect gets more problematic, so that massed orchestral works can sound slightly confused or congested."

"I am describing this in technicalsounding terms because our language for small dynamic events is rather threadbare. Language problems aside, the important thing about the connection between dynamics and transparency is that it helps us to understand why transparency may now come without a tradeoff. In fact, better transparency comes with better spatial presentation and better timbre. The lack of a tradeoff makes the best new amplifiers very significant when measured by their impact on musical involvement."

"From the perspective of tuning your system, one or another amplifier might prove a good match. But, for some, that won’t be enough. If you are interested in the quest for musical involvement, then I think you’ll want to start by looking for amplifiers that take a step forward in real transparency and continuousness. It might be that such an amp isn’t the ideal match for your existing system, but you’ll hear new aspects of the music and you probably won’t feel punished by the process as you might have been with amplifiers as recently as a few years ago. Moreover, I would suggest that any tuning mismatch is the fault of some flaw in your other equipment, your setup, or your room, and thus additional changes for the better will be required. This is a harder approach than the tuning approach, but probably the better one."

[Glenee]

Beden1, Very good article. I enjoyed it very much. I think as we get closer to perfection with our Pre/Pro development, that amp difference will be more and more of the talk on these boards. I think almost all good quality Pre/Pro can do 20-20 flat by todays standards. One of the things I have noticed about the XPA-1's is the abiltiy to change things upstream of it and to be noticeably a quicker change in delivery. You don't have to go by the old saying that sound memory is about 40 seconds from a static state to Dynamic. Thank you very much for the article. In my search for the sound I like over the years it all comes down to naturalness. I don't like electronic delivery in my sound and do all I can to get as much of it out as I can. I don't like EQing very much, as a matter of fact as little as possible. I think it sometimes causes a smear or less definition in the music.

[sikoniko]

while I did not feel like reading all the back and forth at this time, I tend to agree with Beden. You spend 20% of your money on the first 80% and 80% of your money on the next 20%.

In the end, it depends on the person whether the cost is justified. Some people are willing to spend the extra money to get that last 2%, and indeed feel that is where the magic happens. Ultimately, what I think everyone should walk away from this exercise with is that no 2 amps are the same. As neutral as most claim an amp should be, they just aren't. Everyone will find a model that suits his or her needs ideally. Unfortunately, that model is not always in our price range, and thus we all have to make compromises. It just depends on where and on what you are will to make it on. Very rarely is money no object and not a factor into the system. Aldo might be the only one on this board, to my knowledge, that has not compromised on equipment, and yet he doesn't have a dedicated room (unless things have changed, he hasn't been on in a while)... so even he compromises.

[Freddie40]

Well said sikoniko

[mal01]

Thanks Audio for your thoughtful review. First, let me say that i own 3 xpa-1`s and have not owned any other amps. I know this fact will make some dismiss my opinion and that`s fine. I am just a regular middle class guy and have spent ALOT of $$$ this year on gear, so when i decided to go into separates i had to go budget. I love the xpa-1`s with my 802D`s. Would other more known amps be better? maybe, but i`m happy with what i have.

As i continue to read positive after positive review from people who have owned other "high end" amps on Emotiva`s performance i continue to feel good about the choice i made to get these.

Will i ever get another brand of amp? Maybe, but for now these amps serve me very well.

Thanks again.


Lee

[audioqueso]

Hmmm, some interesting findings today.
So the other day I watched the Matrix in blu-ray. Today I watched Tokyo Drift in blu-ray. Setups were different. When I watched the Matrix, it was 2-channel only as I was playing it through my HTPC with RME card.
Today I hooked up the XPA-5 to the Marantz SR7002's preouts so that I could watch Tokyo Drift in DolbyHD. With the 805/HTM2/FPM2 combo, it sounds very dynamic... but a bit too much on the highs. I would suspect that the addition of the Marantz receiver in the mix would effect the sound... but Marantz is not known for over-emphasized highs. Marantz carries a warm signature sound. Did I like the way the movie played? Yes... but some of the highs stood out a bit too much.

[Orb]

Hmmm, some interesting findings today.
So the other day I watched the Matrix in blu-ray. Today I watched Tokyo Drift in blu-ray. Setups were different. When I watched the Matrix, it was 2-channel only as I was playing it through my HTPC with RME card.
Today I hooked up the XPA-5 to the Marantz SR7002's preouts so that I could watch Tokyo Drift in DolbyHD. Maybe the 805/HTM2/FPM2 very dynamic... but a bit too much on the highs. I would suspect that the addition of the Marantz receiver in the mix would effect the sound... but Marantz is not known for over-emphasized highs. Marantz carries a warm signature sound. Did I like the way the movie played? Yes... but some of the highs stood out a bit too much.

Have you tried comparing the same film on both the HPTC and Marantz?
Sorry if you have but I am reading this as your comparing different products with different films/audio content, to be able to get a reference you need as much as possible to be identical apart from the one product your changing.

Cheers and enjoying the thread
At least its a discussion here unlike some other forums.

Cheers
Orb

[Orb]

Beden1, I understand and whole heartly agree. I am not a Audiophile in the sense and I just got this new Wireless keyboard so look out for typo's
One of the things I use a spectrum analyzer for is to see if a Amp in this instance is all ttha they say it is. When you use a Radio Shack SPL meter to set sound levels you are measuring the loudest band in the spectrum ( lets call it one octave). There are not too many Reciever/ Amps on the market today that can not drive one of the bands/ octaves to a very high volume, looks good to see that rat shack meter going to 90db+. Boy what a Amp. Know lets take the same Amp and use a Spectrum Analyzer to adjust the EQ so that the Amp is driving the full spectrum 20 to 20. Now try to get that same inferior Amp to drive your speakers to 90db again on the Radio Shack meter pushing the enitre and 20 to 20. One of two thing usually happens either the Pre/pro goes into overdrive clip, the Amp SMOKES, or the speakers fail or damage from distortion. A good Amp will push the entire spectrum at it rated power output with No Smoke, Pre/Amp clip, or damaging distortion to the speakers. All the good ones do this. The other thing is how much output does the pre/pro have to emit to drive the Amp to full output Very Important since most of todays Reciever/Pre Pro have small V output on the pre outs. Example Yamaha 1.0V, Marantz 1.0V etc. I own a yamaha for HT it can't even begin to drive my XPA-1's to full output even though they are 1.8 and 1.25 (RCA versus XLR) When I did the side by side comparison with the Mac and Emotiva I had to use a McIntosh MX135 Pre/Pro sinc I needed 5V output for the Mac Amps to drive to full load. The things I saw on the Spectrum Analyzer in frequency response from the Mac versus the Emotiva would indicate that the Emotiva performed better under full load at maintaining a constant drive across the spectrum. The Mac and the Emotiva did well on Spike power ( The need for instintanious power for milleseconds for Big peaks in Music) But the Emotiva Kick it Ass on holding the Spectrum at Flat level. If money was not a object I would take the MacIntosh on looks alone, but were not talking looks alone here. They are both WONDERFUL Amps and you got to Love that MacIntosh House Sound. But the Emotiva XPA-1 is a worthy opponent to any 500 watt Mono out there. IN MY OPINION. I'm not very good at this, but this will have to do, I don't have one bit of refinement, class or eloquence about me as you can tell. But in my own words this is the other side of the story.

Heya Glenee.
Just clarifying from your experience you see that when the amp is pushed in terms of loudness the FR across say 20Hz to 20kHz will/can dip noticably at certain points?
This is interesting and I do not dispute this as from what I can tell most measurements are done at 1Watt/2.83volts in reviews.
However it does make me think that in the age old argument throughout modern amp history that this would help to prove and end the discussion about "all amps sound the same", which even design engineers have put down to possibly other aspects and not this such as the various feedback loops/power supply/etc.

There are dips caused by the relationship of an amp's output impedence when matched with a speaker's impedance as both of these vary over a FR.
I am using a quote on a Stereophile measurement to show what I mean:

The output impedance was a very low 0.047 ohm at low and middle frequencies, rising slightly but inconsequentially to 0.075 ohm at 20kHz. As a result, any modification of the amplifier's frequency response by the way in which the partnering loudspeaker's impedance changes with frequency will be minimal. For example, with our standard simulated speaker, the response changed by just ±0.05dB (fig.1, top trace at 2kHz). The amplifier's response was flat to 20kHz into 8 and 4 ohms, but dropped by 0.2dB at 20kHz into 2 ohms.

Still, it is interesting what you raise and I definitely would like to know what happens when the amp and speaker are pushed.
The only analysed engineer testing I have seen was looking at how solid state behaves in comparison to tube based amps when both are pushed.

http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/tech_amp_peak_01.shtml

http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/tech_amp_peak_02.shtml

Hope this is helpful to some and that I have not de-railed the discussion.
Cheers
Orb

Edit:
Just to say Peter van Willenswaard who is the author of that article is a well respected engineer who is in business with two very respected engineers who are Bruno Putzeys, Guido Tent, both who have had massive and successful designs and careers in engineering.

[Orb]

Maybe you can try it out for yourself at home. Do you have any source that can control the volume output? You could connect it directly to the XPA-5, and see how it sounds compared directly connected to it and then compare it with the Yamaha acting as a pre-amp.

Before the XPA-5 came in, I tested conducted a similar test with the Marantz using the McIntosh. From the RME soundcard, I configured dual stereo outputs.

HTPC Output 1 ---> Marantz SR7002 AV receiver via pre-out ---> matrix switch input 1
HTPC Output 2 ---> matrix switch input 2

Since I was using a switch between the two inputs, I was able to switch on the fly between the two setups. The biggest thing I noticed when using the Marantz as a pre-amp was that the soundstage just drops. I had the HTPC+Mac combo, and the music just seemed to float in my room. But when I would switch to the Marantz as the pre-amp, the music seemed limited to the first 3 feet of my room. The definition was also not as clear as the HTPC+Mac combo. Kinda like a veil covering the speakers. Ummm... more like the resolution wasn't as clear as it was without the Marantz in the way.

Funny thing was that earlier this year, I tried a McIntosh MA7000 at home... and I tried comparing the Marantz as a pre-amp. I didn't notice that much of a difference. Then again, it was only for a minute AND I did not have this switch built yet. So I wasn't able to switch on the fly and compare with and without the Marantz instantly. Now that I can, it's very clear to me that the receiver really does bottleneck a lot. I don't know about Yamaha's though.

Audioqueso thanks for taking the time to do the posting and showing the approach of blind testing combined with AbX.
Like music and equipment, how we test equipment is a personal flavour and there will always be some who may disagree/agree or prefer a different approach.
But at least here I believe we can all feel comfortable posting whatever our listening experience is, and there is always something for each of us to take away from someone elses experience.

I believe that sighted testing has been proved to skewer our listening both from a practical standpoint (Floyd Toole test with Harman employees and their speakers) and more recently from a measured perspective (expectation bias has now been measured and is related to mOFC that boosts our enjoyment and reduces negatives such as pain/etc - more research required though).

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.full.pdf

So the benefits of blind testing is pretty clear, still like others I must admit I do enjoy the laid back putting your feet up type of testing more often than not
Sighted testing can still work and is important though as one aspect that I notice is ignored often is identifying negative traits of a system and this can only be done accurately while sighted.
A negative trait takes time to identify as it is impacted by not only the associated equipment but importantly by the music played, so the hardest part is initially identifying those negative aspects that may require a worst case scenario to understand and train the ear to pick up when its triggered.
From this it is then possible to then structure various music selection and either amps or speakers to see if other products have the same challenge.

This may seem unimportant, but just read those review threads on various forums where they outline briefly some negatives, then focus on the positives in greater detail and base their selection purely on plus side.
Then 1 to 6 months later they then have the itch to replace the equipment, I know this from my own experience and also from following others closely online who became friends.

However next point is important and applies to this thread in my own opinion of course.
For me one of the most critical factors that I feel is missing from those experiences and it seems that way to me with the AbX testing here is the loss of long term satisfaction - the ability to enjoy a system and the music played for say 2 hours at a time without doing anything else apart from listening and relaxing (no reading/chatting/etc).
In this instance it is not about focusing on the negatives or positives, or even what product A is or product B.
If the urge is to turn the sytem off or jump between music often or to want to read/etc while it is playing to me this suggests something is potentially wrong with the system and what satisfies you as a person.
This type of test listening is lengthy and eventually if there is a difference between two products the one you do not enjoy will be removed from the sytem quicker and quicker over the period.

However this does not fit in with an AbX test environment and nor does identifying and engineering the choice of music and system setup for exploring negative traits and niggles that we may subtly be picking up and yet ignoring for the subjective positives.

Sorry for the lengthy posting but just wanted to give my flavour and thoughts on how the AbX could skew ones perspectives, and how in my experience that I could not tell two different interconnect cables that well apart in AbX but when tested blind in my system over 5 weeks it was surprising to see consistently one cable being preferred and that the trend was wanting to have the "lesser" cable removed from my system quicker and quicker once sitting down and starting a listening session.

Just to add from my perspective level matching is critical for the quicker AbX testing to resolve potential identification of a product and also to stop the listener from being made de-sensitised to the quieter system (which is why the louder one comes out on top) and that takes time to recover from when considering quick switching or length of time with louder system and its volume.
I must admit a louder system does not sound better to me or my friends when tested without our knowing that this was the change, however maybe this is down to listening training for pitch and loudness (these friends are musicians and myself was trained for pitch/loudness/chords/etc at a young age by a member of the London Symphony Orchestra), or maybe most are not preferenced to loudness unless desensitised.

Cheers
Orb

[audioqueso]

Orb

Regarding the movies, these are movies that I've watched several times. I know what I'm used to hearing.

In regards to the level matching, yes they were level matched.

Though I can agree to your statement about blind testing vs sighted testing, I do strongly believe that it's more psychological more than anything else. If one WANTS to believe one is better, when they see that it's been swapped to that favored item, they'll start to look for better things. I had reason for wanting both to sound better than the other. I really can't say I was bias at the time of auditioning.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, that is the reason why I just relaxed during my time while listening to the music. I woke up at 6:30 that morning, cleaned up the whole house, continue to pile more music to the already huge playlist that I had ready for that day, and then took the time to analy set up the speakers and amps perfectly. And when I was done setting everything up, I grabbed a drink, grabbed some chocolates, sat back, and relaxed. I kept the remote on one hand to skip/FF tracks, and the switch on the other hand. A toggle between my index finger and middle finger would switch between the two amps.

Was it timed? No.
Did I memorize which amp position it was on? No.
I just wanted to listen to my music and see if I even heard any difference.
Yes, I know that good high quality amps, differences are subtle, but like I mentioned, I'm not one of those guys that say "did you hear that? right THERE!". Really... if I have to pay THAT CLOSE to the music just to hear a difference, it's not worth it to me. It's the same thing I did earlier this year with the McIntosh and Nuforce. I just enjoyed the music, switched back and forth, and if I heard any difference, then I swapped back and forth some more and pay attention to which amp sounded better to me.

[sikoniko]

sometimes I think people get to hung up on the whole double blind test, level matching, yadda yadda yadda.

This goes against the grain, but I do on most things anyways... but I'm of the opinion that either you hear a difference or you don't. Whether it is sub-conscious or real, a fresh ear is more likely to differentiate than one that has gone through extensive periods of time of critical listening. after a while, it will all blur, whether you fatigue or not.

my position on a/bing is a casual experience at your preferred listening levels (by hearing, not measuring). You're either going to hear a difference or you are not. of course give both amps time to warm up and all that... If you spend too much time thinking about it, you're going to start hearing what you want to hear.

scientific? no. but I think it is just as accurate.

[george_k]

Thanks for the review audioqueso, as I Mac owner myself, upon beginning to read your post I wasn't expecting you to reach the conclusion you did but I can relate an experience I had on a different product. About a year ago I purchased a slim devices transporter as an upgrade to the squeezebox, the same 95% observation you commented about applied to me as well.

[audioqueso]

You're either going to hear a difference or you are not. of course give both amps time to warm up and all that... If you spend too much time thinking about it, you're going to start hearing what you want to hear.

Exactly.

[Tweir]

sometimes I think people get to hung up on the whole double blind test, level matching, yadda yadda yadda.

This goes against the grain, but I do on most things anyways... but I'm of the opinion that either you hear a difference or you don't. Whether it is sub-conscious or real, a fresh ear is more likely to differentiate than one that has gone through extensive periods of time of critical listening. after a while, it will all blur, whether you fatigue or not.

my position on a/bing is a casual experience at your preferred listening levels (by hearing, not measuring). You're either going to hear a difference or you are not. of course give both amps time to warm up and all that... If you spend too much time thinking about it, you're going to start hearing what you want to hear.

scientific? no. but I think it is just as accurate.

Its like comparing two cars and driving both at 55mph. Which one is better? Amps
for me are how they sound at low volumes, at high volumes, different type of music.
I have a system where neutrik connections are used and I can demo the mc501 vs the
cam400 in 2 seconds. At the same level that quick they sound the same. Spending time with each I find the mcintosh is a little sweeter up top and the classe has better control of bass and bit deeper. For me it is hard to have two products level matched at the same db and give it go...

[Tweir]

Just recently we tested the ma7000 vs the rxz7 on 802d's and 805s. We used a mvp871 xlr on the ma7000 and the digital coax to the rxz9 and for wire the audio quest Gibraltar single biwire. We would play a song on the yamaha first then the mcintosh and also changed the order but would play each song from a dead quite level to a comfortable level. What we found was the yamaha sounded pretty close at first but over time we could hear the yamaha was brighter in the sense that anything and everything above 8k seemed twice as loud. They say the yamaha is pretty flat but it sounded very bright. The bass was decent for its claimed 140 watts but the mac clearly won in this area. When we drove the amps harder the yamaha would shut down saying check speakers. Of course the wiring was perfect just couldn't hang at the higher levels. The 805 sounded bad all the way around, from a speaker that has awesome bass for the size on the yamaha it disappeared and sounded hollow on the ma7000 the 805 just rocked. The last test was a project record player using the phono pre on the ma7000 and the yamaha. The brightness of the yamaha actually sounded good on the vinyl and then we found that the vinyl that had been played alot and worn down this was true. When we put a newer record on the mc sounded way better. But at the end listening to higher levels the mcintosh was softer not as piercing as the yamaha and gave us the feeling to keep turning it up.

[beden1]

I think this is a healthy discussion, particularly for those who are trying to figure out how to build a system, and for those looking to upgrade.

I'm not surprised to read that a Yamaha receiver sounds on the bright side, as so did my Pioneer Elite receiver with 140 watts per channel. This brightness seemed to come from both an inability to meet the current and peak output demands (clipping and distortion problems), as well as the pre-amp section was just not satisfying for more than watching DVDs. I found it too bright, and it did not match the B&W speakers at all. I also found the sound too thin at lower output levels.

Adding an outboard multi-channel power amp to the receiver helped quite a bit, and I thought it sounded very good, until I added a Classe pre-amp to the mix and experienced how much better my B&W speakers could and did sound.

I then added dedicated mono amps for my main speakers, and playing stereo through these amps and the Classe pre-amp was a big step forward, IMO.

I later added the Classe SSP-800, and everything just came together like it was meant to be, at least for me.

Of course, I added a quality CD player in order to provide a good signal stream to the processor. But, and I'd hate to admit to it, I've also come to enjoy just listening to my iPod hooked up to the system using stereo RCA connections, as the rest of the system enables the iPod to sound very good.

It's interesting to read that the Emotiva mono amps sound very good. It may be because mono amps in general are really up to the task of more than adequately powering somewhat demanding speakers. I have found my Classe CAM-350 mono amps to be excellent for my ears in listening to music. They present a soundstage that provides the illusion that there is an on-stage performance. They provide me with a full body and depth of sound at all volume settings, and the mids and highs are smooth and never bright, yet the music comes through lively and not dull. I find that they helped my system sound very natural and transparent.

I guess the question becomes regarding the Emotiva amp, is does it contribute to a bright forward sound that I personally believe does not match well with B&W speakers? IMO, B&W speakers can tend to be very accurate, having a nature that is a bit forward, and are less forgiving of recordings that are not the best. I think my Classe amps help to keep the B&W speakers in check and balanced, so, I would like to learn if anyone is able to determine where the Emotiva's personality falls...more forward and bright, or more natural yet lively and transparent?

[audioqueso]

Adding an outboard multi-channel power amp to the receiver helped quite a bit, and I thought it sounded very good, until I added a Classe pre-amp to the mix and experienced how much better my B&W speakers could and did sound.

So very true...

Of course, I added a quality CD player in order to provide a good signal stream to the processor.

..it wasn't until last (while comparing the 805 to 704 again) when I got a chance to listen to a lot of different amps, pre-amps, and CD players that I TRULY got a first-hand experience of what a difference different components made.
Switching between pre-amps really showed the difference in how much one pre can bottleneck the signal compared to another pre.
And switching between sources (CD players in this case) showed how important it is to have equal grade components.

Example,
Your source is the root of it all.
If you have a really great CD players with a regular pre/pro combo, your pre is going to bottleneck what the CD player can do.
At the same time, if you have a really great pre/pro combo with a poor CD player, no matter how good the pre/pro may be at transferring that signal to the speakers, you're still giving it a poor signal from the CD player to begin with.

I like to look at the audio order like a car.
Amp is like the horsepower reaching the tires. That's where the real power is put to use.
Pre-amp is like the drivetrain. It can make or break how much of that horsepower you're giving the tires (amp).
Source is like your engine. The root of it all. No matter how great your engine may be, if you run it through a poor drivetrain and then to poor tires, you're not getting all the performance the engine is capable of outputting, and vice versa.

B&W speakers can tend to be very accurate, having a nature that is a bit forward, and are less forgiving of recordings that are not the best. I think my Classe amps help to keep the B&W speakers in check and balanced, so, I would like to learn if anyone is able to determine where the Emotiva's personality falls...more forward and bright, or more natural yet lively and transparent?

Well, you can see if your opinion compares.
Rotel/Classe - laid back and polite
Parasound - neutral but a bit forward from mid-range on up
ATI - neutral and a tad bit warm sounding
Marantz - warm sounding
McIntosh - neutral and silky highs

Emotiva - neutral and slight emphasis on very high upper frequencies.
Foward sounding it's not. Very transparent. Bright... I COULD use that word because to me it seems to emphasize just a tad on the very upper ends. But I usually associate bright with components that tend to over-emphasize on all high frequencies in general, so I wouldn't really say Bright in general. The designers at Emotiva say that they designed it to be as transparent as possible. Someone mentioned that maybe they did, and because it's so transparent, we may associate those newly found highs as over-emphasized to us. That is a possibility. But compared to what I've heard, that is how I would describe Emotiva's amps.

If you can describe any of the other brands with the same words, then you may find the Emotiva the same way I described it as well.