|
|
 |
|
02-19-2013, 08:15 AM
|
#26
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,976
|
i just got an Integra 50.4 with MultEQ XT32. I think it sounds better than my denon with the MultEQ XT. It's pretty damn amazing how it can change the sound
__________________
unus botulus per foramen
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 08:52 AM
|
#27
|
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,566
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number1
Exactly, MultEQ XT will give you vastly superior sound correction for you specific environment, a no brainner really.
I own a Denon 1712 with MultEQ XT, love it.
|
My 7002 has Audessey version 1 or some old version and I even though I tried it several times I never noticed a difference for the better but that receiver is 7 years old.
__________________
"this is Jim Kiler step away from the window" -Robert Culp as Jim Kiler in Outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 08:56 AM
|
#28
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,976
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimKiler
My 7002 has Audessey version 1 or some old version and I even though I tried it several times I never noticed a difference for the better but that receiver is 7 years old.
|
I felt the same with the early renditions of audessey. It has gotten pretty good
__________________
unus botulus per foramen
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 10:29 AM
|
#29
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gone fishin'
Posts: 3,660
|
__________________
Heat
Ebay
"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
-Christopher Dawson
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 11:50 AM
|
#30
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,345
|
I have found it usually doesn't really matter... For regular home use with most (but not all) home speakers, a Yamaha or Denon or Onkyo will all be fine. Sure, they won't be outputting true 100 W/ch on all 5 channels simultaneously, but that's not necessary for most people.
One brand that is noticeably less powered than the above in real-world use is Sony. Ironically, I own three Sony receivers mainly because they were the cheapest at the time, with the desired amount of inputs, and even for my main home theatre (Paradigm Reference speakers across the front), they are sufficient. At the time, if you wanted a Yamaha or Onkyo with more HDMI inputs, you'd have to go with a physically larger and more expensive model, whereas with Sony you could stick with a lower end inexpensive model that had a smaller footprint... hence the lower oomph output.
I have noticed no audio difference going to a cheap Sony receiver. However, I could see it becoming a problem even with regular home use if you have really inefficient speakers in a large room, and you like to crank it.
Note however, most of my bass is separately powered. My SVS PB13-Ultra has a built-in amp of course.
__________________
OS X & iOS: 27" iMac Core i7 870 | 13" MacBook Pro C2D 2.26 P8400 + SSD | 13" MacBook C2D 2.4 T8300 + SSD | iPad 2
Windows: X3400 Athlon II X3 435 | 11.6" 1810TZ Pentium SU4100 + SSD | Revo R3610 Atom 330 + SSD
Android: RAZR HD | Nexus 7
Last edited by Eug; 02-19-2013 at 11:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 12:27 PM
|
#31
|
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,566
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meghan54
|
They tout how:
Don’t compare the XPA-5 with receivers. The typical "audiophile" receiver can deliver only 120 to 140 watts of "channel power." What this means is that only one or two channels can produce that 120 watts, not all channels driven, simultaneously, at rated power, all the time, like we can with our XPA-5. Our amps produce their full rated power, with all channels driven - no excuses, no compromises, and no double-talk.
Yet the specs show RMS power 40w per channel
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)
How are they not lying?
__________________
"this is Jim Kiler step away from the window" -Robert Culp as Jim Kiler in Outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 12:35 PM
|
#32
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,037
|
Er, isn't the real poor comparison the fact that the XPA-5 is just a power amp with absolutely no audio/video circuitry to speak of? Not much use when your AVR is broken.
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 02:11 PM
|
#33
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 270
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimKiler
Yet the specs show RMS power 40w per channel
|
where? I dont see this anywhere in the specs
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 03:12 PM
|
#34
|
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,566
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by weez82
where? I dont see this anywhere in the specs
|
Power output (all channels driven):
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)
divide that by 5.
__________________
"this is Jim Kiler step away from the window" -Robert Culp as Jim Kiler in Outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 03:25 PM
|
#35
|
|
No Lifer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Anger is a gift!
Posts: 70,640
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimKiler
Power output (all channels driven):
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)
divide that by 5.
|
each channel is on its own amp so it actually gets ~200 WPC
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 04:21 PM
|
#36
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,334
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteaus
Just a side note, but if you are going to eventually use it for home theater I recommend you hold off until later this year if you can. HDMI 2.0 was recently announced and expectly do go into production this spring. You're going to want HDMI 2.0 to have full 4k support in the future. If video is never going to be an issue, then just ignore this. Good luck.
|
Well, the great thing about HDMI is the ability to use a HDMI matrix switch which allows you do connect X number of inputs and Y number of outputs. This means a simple 4x2 matrix switch will allow you to send your audio to your receiver and your video to your TV. While obviously HDMI 2.0 matrix switches do not exist, they will soon and that will allow you to hook up one output to your 2.0 compliant TV with 4K video and the other to your older 1.x audio receiver and still get the digital audio, since there is nothing new in the 2.0 spec for audio other then greater than 7.1 audio (but most home setups will never be able to take advantage of that anyway, so unless you have plans for a 11.1 or 13.1 speaker configuration, 2.0 doesn't really give you any benefits).
__________________
We were all warned of MS problems many years ago; remember how the Magic 8 Ball always said: "Outlook not so good"?
Server
HTPC
Last edited by Fallen Kell; 02-19-2013 at 04:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 05:29 PM
|
#37
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 45,836
|
The only thing I'm going to say is that you do want to spring for a receiver that has MultEQ XT32 and Sub EQ HT. Don't settle for less.
Last edited by Howard; 02-19-2013 at 05:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 08:04 PM
|
#38
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,168
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard
The only thing I'm going to say is that you do want to spring for a receiver that has MultEQ XT32 and Sub EQ HT. Don't settle for less.
|
pretty sure he's not getting that for $400-$500.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 08:10 PM
|
#39
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of Tonto, ON
Posts: 46,530
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meghan54
|
That amp ain't going to decode DTS-HD 
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 08:11 PM
|
#40
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of Tonto, ON
Posts: 46,530
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimKiler
They tout how:
Don’t compare the XPA-5 with receivers. The typical "audiophile" receiver can deliver only 120 to 140 watts of "channel power." What this means is that only one or two channels can produce that 120 watts, not all channels driven, simultaneously, at rated power, all the time, like we can with our XPA-5. Our amps produce their full rated power, with all channels driven - no excuses, no compromises, and no double-talk.
Yet the specs show RMS power 40w per channel
200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)
How are they not lying?
|
200w per channel.
My Outlaw 750 is 165wx5 @ 8ohms with THD < 0.05% and FTC 20-20KHz
Last edited by sdifox; 02-19-2013 at 08:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 08:37 PM
|
#41
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,037
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by purbeast0
pretty sure he's not getting that for $400-$500.
|
Not to mention... he probably only has one sub.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2013, 09:18 PM
|
#42
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 45,836
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by s44
Not to mention... he probably only has one sub.
|
He might get another!
|
|
|
|
|
02-20-2013, 08:57 AM
|
#43
|
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,566
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard
He might get another!
|
No need for a second sub, if anything i would replace my current Paradigm low end sub.
__________________
"this is Jim Kiler step away from the window" -Robert Culp as Jim Kiler in Outrage.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.
|
- Rubycon 
