2. amps-preamps
  3. 1272122982

Emotiva vs. some bigger boys

I have just ordered a Emotiva 3 channel amp after testing it against a few better known models. Here's the short story...

My recent gear....Manley Stingray II, Def Tech BP7004 speakers for theater, Magnepan 1.6, Odyssey Stratos, Rogue Metis pre, Rotel 1090, MJ Acoustics Sub, SVS sub...and so on! I typically spend 7-10K on a system and I like to call that the low end of high end....

My buddy bought my latest set of Magnepans 1.6's which were modded with better stands (I'm waiting for my new Merlin TSM-XMr's to mate with my new Stingray II) and he also has the Odyssey/Rogue combo, which he bought after he heard mine. Other speakers in the room: Revel M20's and an old pair of Proac floor standers-not sure of the model.

The amps were the XPA-3 and the XPA-2. Most of the listening was done with the Metis by Rogue.

I'll cut right to it. Both Emotiva amps had less than 100 hours on them and both sounded better than the Rotel 1090 for dynamics, detail and soundstage. Bass was stronger on the Emotiva, but we also thought the Rotel's bass was a bit more true and quick. Space around single instruments was superior on the Emotiva XP3, open and very lifelike. But on some recordings the Emotiva was a tad too bright and in those cases I may have chosen the Rotel for extended listening. Still, with a fine recording, such Lyle Lovett Pontiac, we both agreed the Emotiva was superior to the Rotel.
Next up was the Odyssey, which matches beautifully with the Rogue pre. This was a MUCH closer contest. The Odyssey is well broken in and has a dry accurate bass response that is very hard to beat, better than on some FAR more expensive amps in fact. The Emotiva had a slight edge in the upper midrange, but the Odyssey seemed to offer a smidge more resolution/detail. It was very close. On the Proacs we couldn't even hear much of a difference, but the Magnepans exposed the character of both amps more.
Just to be "complete" we tried my new Manley Stingray II, which is not broken in at under 60 hours. The Stingray could not control dynamics as well as the big amps, but vocals and single instruments were far more "real" and "in the room" sounding. We still felt that the Emotiva would not make music lovers unhappy, especially if mated with a nice tube preamp.
Pitting the 3 channel XP3 against it's more powerful 2 channel sister, we noted very little difference. The 2 channel version MIGHT have created a deeper soundstage, but we were getting sleepy and running out of ear power!

Summary:
I was seeking a used amp in the 2000 dollar range to run my theater, but I have ordered a XPA-3 instead. I will most probably add the 2 channel or monoblocks from Emotiva next. For home theater these are VERY serious amps that give up nothing or very little against pricier stuff. The bonus is that they can be quite musical. With their higher power they even will eclipse some gear that costs more. For example, I've listened to a lot of Bryston gear and I think the Emotiva amps are more musical...and that was with a very low cost Rogue preamp.

So that's my review and opinion. I will post a follow up review when I have the Merlins. I'm very curious to see how the Emotiva will sound on them vs. the far more expensive Stingray. I don't expect the Emotiva to ever be as sweet sounding, but I suspect it will be more dynamic and fun for certain recordings.

Cheers,

Rob
robbob
apostrophe
12 posts
 
Just bought an Emotiva UPA2. Day 2 and breaking it in....frequency sweeps, different recordings etc.. I have a Thorens TT, Oppo SACD/DVD player, Parasound 2100 pre-amp and listen to all formats including Lps.

Emotiva is a GREAT value for money but I think comparing them to W4S is a stretch. W4S (I have the ST 250) has a very sophisticated and delicate presentation (the late John Potis' article on W4S is the best description I've seen of it and the analysis is bang on!) Great detail, bass and sound stage with a slightly rolled-off high. I don't think these are bright at all. Very true Timbres and magical for vocals and even horns (although, IMHO, NOTHING can touch tubes on horns - I used to have a Jolida)! If you like tubes, you will like the W4S. They are indeed VERY musical...and so far, a lot more than Emotiva (remember the emotiva is not broken in yet so have to give em the benfit of doubt). All my doubts about analog switching/digital-based/voltage based amps etc. etc. vanished as soon as I HEARD the W4S. Ultimately proof of the pudding is in the eating.

On first impressions, I suspect the Emotiva (the UPA anyway, haven't heard XPA series) is a little too "muscular" and the bass comes at the expense of the all important mid-range (So have to agree with Mrkoven here). The upper end is fine again and so is instrument timbre. The vocals are flat-ish and bass just overpowers it. I can't hear things like the creaking of a double-bass bridge because again, that bass just muscles it's way in! The soundstage is not too bad actually. I do hear some of the transistor edginess which W4S just doesn't seem to have! I suspect that Emos have more of an HT application than music but will reserve final judgment till day 30. At any rate, for 299/- this is definitely a keeper...I'm still shaking my head about the build quality...unbelievable! Whatever the outcome, they are certainly built by honest, well-intentioned engineers! The question is ...will it survive on my front channels or get ultimately demoted to surrounds? With W4S, it has some big "budget audiophile" shoes to fill and then again, not really, since it's only 1/3 the price.
robbob OP
273 posts
 
UPA2 is quite a ways down the food chain from a pair of UPA-1 Monoblocks or the XPA series from Emotiva. I use a UPA-1 for rear channel. I find it the least musical amp from Emotiva, though the value is insane and coupled with good associated gear it still does very well.

Rob
apostrophe
12 posts
 
OK folks...wanted to take up where I last left off and make up to the Emotiva UPA-2 a little. Must say I have warmed up to the Emotiva significantly over the past month or so. Many of my initial doubts were addressed and wanted to set the record straight at least as it pertains to my experience and assessment. As a disclaimer, I must admit I have not gone back and forth between the W4S and Emo UPA-2 since I first switched it out so it is possible that I have just gotten more used to the sound but I doubt that is the case.

Surprisingly, I found the Emo more musically engaging and I was engrossed more with the music than the sound. I think there might be a reason for that -- The Emo is a more laid back amp compared to the W4S. It’s the kind that has the power and doesn't break a sweat doesn't try to prove a point. The W4S is a bit of a "show-off" in that regard if you will...

The W4S has more detail and snap -- the attack of notes is sharper the certain things like the plucking of a bass or the decay of a piano note just seem to be more detailed. The Emo, on the other hand, is a little less detailed but very COHESIVE in that it feels like the music is very TOGETHER – Roy Hall of music hall explains somewhere how few components do this. Could that be because too much detail makes you listen to the parts and not the whole…who knows?

The mid-range has come significantly alive since I first got it. And that's really important to me. Interestingly though, low level voices seem to be presented with startling clarity -- more so than the W4S (note: voices do sound better on the W4S but in a tubey kinda way….tubeheads will know what I mean --- warmth at the cost of detail. The best analogy I can think of is the comparison of 5751 vs. 12ax7 on Joe’s tube lore. It could also be a dynamic range thing….if you’ve listened to Telefunken or Ei 12ax7s you will know exactly what I mean.

One cool feature is the daisy chain/pass-through taps. So I don’t have to utilize bass management from my parasound 2100 preamp anymore. I just let it all through my preamp and out through the Emo amp and manage cross-overs just on the subwoofers. I find that make the music sounds more cohesive that way. The speakers are now running full range and the +/- 3db issue is addressed by judicious subwoofer levels. So essentially the same amp now drives the subs and the speakers – hence the cohesiveness of the bass? Perhaps this is why REL advises that that the same amp drive both the speakers and their sub? I do not know.

Net-Net, I still think they are both superb budget amps and each has its strengths - I love them both. But, at that price the Emo is a real over-achiever. I hope this helps and that I have provided a balanced assessment of the Emotiva UPA-2 based on my experience. I think it definitely deserves that much.
gopher
499 posts
 
"Wyred 4 Sound amps sound much better than Emotiva. My friend owns both, it's no comparison, the W4S is actually musical, the Emotiva is just globs of power but dull sounding."

I agree with your assessment of Emotiva gear. I've heard their cd player, preamp and amp at length at my parents house (don't recall model numbers but I think they are current). My father uses this gear to drive a pair of Clearfield Continentals and I'm not a fan of what I hear. He is loving where his system is going, so I don't offer him much in terms of my opinions, but having heard McIntosh and Plinius SS amplification in this rig, this sound is pretty dull.

I haven't heard the W4S gear, but interestingly I am trying to plant the idea of giving them a try in my dad's head based on reviews I've read and seemingly fair pricing.
robbob OP
273 posts
 
Well, as you can read, both Emo and the W4S have fans. Two points. Not all Emo amps are great sounding. The 200 watt monoblocks are the most musical and at their best with 8 ohm speakers. A tube pre-amp works very well with them.

Amps like the XPA series are more suited for home theater, but sound surprisingly fine with the Rogue pre.

In the price range of the W4S I prefer several other amps, such as the Odyssey. In the Emo range? Forget it.

Rob
More to discover