Jim Salk gives Emotiva as an amp recommendation

pearsall001

headrott wrote: »

Phil, I obviously can't speak for Jim Salk, but ommitting the full quote is grossly misleading. If there are any of our forum members that can't hear a difference between an XPA-2 and a BAT VK-600 then you will need to improve the rest of your gear, or improve your listening skills. They are NOWHERE near the same level. That's just the way it is. Period.

That's an awfully bold statement which of course can't be backed up except as merely being one's opinion. Which by the way is pretty much the norm when it comes to audio. One man's treasure is another man's junk & vise versa.

pearsall001

heiney9 wrote: »

You obviously haven't listened to any Class A, A/B amps in the past 40 years to make a silly blanket statement like that. It's fine to have your preference, but let's not make silly statements to bolster your opinion. It can make one look foolish and uninformed.

H9

Says who...you. LOL!

tonyb

Talk about blowing stuff out of proportion.

For those with a bit of common sense and reading comprehension, Jim Salk mentioned a few amps in given budget categories, in no way did he elude that all amps he mentioned were on the same playing field.....AND AS BUDGET AMPS GO.....new.....Emo is king in that department. which is probably why Jim mentioned them to begin with.

Is that so hard ? Or bad ? Emotiva is what it is, a budget entry level way into separates. Does that make them a giant killer .....no, but an option for moving north of a standard AVR.

The problem as I see it anyway, is when people start improving their gear beyond what is normally considered "budget" or "bang for your buck" gear. They ask for recommendations and Emo is immediately off the list and some take offense to that. If the situation was reversed, and someone asked about downsizing their rig, would you recommend the Bat vk600 ? Of course not.

I realize in audio everyone has their favorites, fanboys and such, but let's use some common sense before taking liberties with articles and trying to read between the lines.

zane77

Great synopsis Tony

Jetmaker737

The OP doctored the Jim Salk quote in order to change Jim's meaning. Why else would that be done except to needlessly stir the pot? The original quote makes sense and places the Emo amp in the proper category: inexpensive, i.e. entry level. As a former Emo owner who has moved on I can concur with that.

heiney9

Phil walked a fine line between paraphrasing and outright omission. That's why one should always do a little research when it's not a direct quote. That was a key piece of information to leave out. Phil just twisted it in the right way to benefit his POV. It's not like Jim Salk didn't recommend Emo, but the context in which he recommended it was completely ignored by Phil. You ever run for political office Phil? :cheesygrin:

And for god sakes many of you people are blowing it way out of proportion. Tony, hammer, nail, head.

H9

Face

BlueFox wrote: »

The article is in the September 2013 issue of the absolute sound, and the page in reference is 104, last paragraph, bottom left. Anyway, the original post mischaracterized what it says. This is the what was said.

"What you ultimately think of this speaker will be a strong function of the partnering power amp, the safest bet being an amp with a high dampening factor. When I asked Jim Salk for amp recommendations he mentioned an inexpensive option such as the Emotiva XPA-2, several of Frank Alstine's designs, and the BAT VK600. To that list I can safety add the expensive Lamm Audio M1.2 reference monoblocks, and the affordable PrimaLuna Dialogue integrated amp operated in triode mode with a pair of KT120."

Thanks again for the clarification.

Phil, turning into a troll?

Habanero Monk

heiney9 wrote: »

Phil walked a fine line between paraphrasing and outright omission. That's why one should always do a little research when it's not a direct quote. That was a key piece of information to leave out. Phil just twisted it in the right way to benefit his POV. It's not like Jim Salk didn't recommend Emo, but the context in which he recommended it was completely ignored by Phil. You ever run for political office Phil? :cheesygrin:

And for god sakes many of you people are blowing it way out of proportion. Tony, hammer, nail, head.

H9

BlueFox wrote: »

When I asked Jim Salk for amp recommendations he mentioned an inexpensive option such as the Emotiva XPA-2, several of Frank Alstine's designs, and the BAT VK600. To that list I can safety add the expensive Lamm Audio M1.2 reference monoblocks, and the affordable PrimaLuna Dialogue integrated amp operated in triode mode with a pair of KT120."

Why is the emphasis placed on Jim Salk about the Emotiva "he mentioned an inexpensive option" or is it the interviewer interjecting his own commentary?

I would be willing to bet several amps where mentioned and the commentary added later. Be interesting to get the interview transcripts if it was recorded.

I don't believe Mr. Salk is the one using that particular color of paint in this instance. Pearlsal I think is paraphrasing correct context. I can't say that for everyone here and I do have some prime examples of purposeful obfuscation if one really wants to throw rocks.

pearsall001

Face wrote: »

Thanks again for the clarification.

Phil, turning into a troll?

Man oh man you guys are all off the rails! You make for entertaining reading though. Everyone has their opinions & of course nothing is based on fact. It's only audio & everyone hears differently. Keep it coming...I'm out deep sea fishing & when there's a lull in the action I'll check in. Don't dissapoint me now fella's

WLDock

mantis wrote: »

...I have yet to sit down and experience a Emotiva amp or any of their products. Good bad or what have you , I really need to hear one.

Same here....I only continue to read the reviews from others. I have read about some that have replaced amps like McIntosh with them and some that say they are the crappies, piece of junk , audiophile wannabe crap to have ever hit the audiophile marketplace.

There is SO much out there to listen to these days. When I think of the dreamy stuff I want to listen to, Pass Labs , BAT amps , JBL Everest, Salk SoundScape, Wilson Audio, Revel, Quad, etc come to mind. But, on the flip it would be nice to listen to an Emotiva amp driving a set of LSiM703 compared to a Parasound Halo...all product that are within reach.....well a used Halo anyway. The used market is the only way some of us can play...I'm still saving pennies just to get the HT complete so that I can move on to the next thing. The 2 ch system...which might not come to together for awhile...or the next house....I have dreams of a listening room so names the listening loft.

So I get why some go for new Emo stuff....something for everyone....No love, No hate.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Discrete designs give a designer a degree of flexibility and quality control that is unavailable with integrated circuits. Even more important than that, the noise figures of IC's are generally not attractive to designers of high quality amplifiers.

Using lower powered chips typically results in more amplifier stages which typically results in more cumulative noise. This is why the best designs from the "boutique outfits" have a very small number of amplifier stages. For high quality amplification, simpler is better. The fewer components the signal has to pass through, the less damage will be done to it.

Integrated circuits are nice if you are trying to reduce size, weight, and cost. If the intent is to do the least amount of harm to an audio signal, then high quality discrete components with a minimal number of amplification stages is the best way to go.

I think it is of note that they went to a company with a proven history in Signal Processing. After all (outside of the power and analog stage) DAC's are able to obtain extremely low to vanishing noise levels.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You have to be careful about going solely on cost and other people's opinions. Just because a speaker costs $9K and people rave about it does not mean that its design, construction, and sound quality warrant such investment. It may not give you $9K of listening pleasure. The people who rave about the thing might have entirely different listening preferences than yours.

I am speaking in generalities and will let stand what I said how I said it. Generally $9k buys more speaker than $5K. Mileage will vary.

F1nut

The OP doctored the Jim Salk quote in order to change Jim's meaning. Why else would that be done except to needlessly stir the pot?

BINGO.......that's his MO.

B Run

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that it is difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine." -Abraham Lincoln

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

After all (outside of the power and analog stage) DAC's are able to obtain extremely low to vanishing noise levels.

Outside ?? You mean of the 2 most important parts of a dac ?

pearsall001

F1nut wrote: »

BINGO.......that's his MO.

Don't flatter yourselves. You guys are so easy it's embarrassing. LOL!!

brgman

pearsall001 wrote: »

Don't flatter yourselves. You guys are so easy it's embarrassing. LOL!!

Once you posted a manipulated article in order to sway the meme you are pushing you lost all credibility.
You are a farce.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

Outside ?? You mean of the 2 most important parts of a dac ?

Did I discount their importance? I'm talking about an IC and not the discrete components. I excluded those purposefully so I would not have 5 people all point out the analog output and power section are equally important. We all know that:rolleyes:

Habanero Monk

brgman wrote: »

Once you posted a manipulated article in order to sway the meme you are pushing you lost all credibility.
You are a farce.

So far Phil and Myself are the only ones that get that the "inexpensive amp" comment was with all good probability op ed by the articles author and not something Jim Salk said. Some higher deity wept:frown:

Let's face it that is the crux of this current thread crash.

leftwinger57

I could of sworn there was an old mantra ,spend the most on the best speakers you can afford then everything else downstream would be ok.Now again I'm talkin 70's -80s' lately it's been garbage in garbage out ,but I'm not totally convinced of that either.

Face

pearsall001 wrote: »

Man oh man you guys are all off the rails! You make for entertaining reading though. Everyone has their opinions & of course nothing is based on fact. It's only audio & everyone hears differently. Keep it coming...I'm out deep sea fishing & when there's a lull in the action I'll check in. Don't dissapoint me now fella's

You're fitting the definition perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Monster Jam

mantis wrote: »

It really sucks , I have yet to sit down and experience a Emotiva amp or any of their products. Good bad or what have you , I really need to hear one.

Agree completely.

I am no audiophile, and will never pretend to be. I peruse the Polk message boards because a) I find new information on products or the industry itself and b) I really like Polk products and the company in general and c) for entertainment.

I have a few LSi setups around the house driven by Adcom or Sunfire. If either of these amps take a hard dive, I'm very likely to try Emotiva with an extremely open mind.

Habanero Monk

Face wrote: »

You're fitting the definition perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Accusing Phil of manipulating that article reference is trolling also. Again, IMO, Jim didn't make that statement about inexpensive.

Jim recommended a list of amps and, again IMO, the author put in the reference to price. That after this has been pointed out as a real potential that you continue to gun after him. That's trolling also. You're trying to start something with Phil that doesn't need started.

Go read the item in full again and point out where Jim is a 1st party to saying anything about the affordability of the Emotiva. He just rattled off a list of amps folks.

Face

Quit with the straw man and stop dragging Jim into this.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Habanero Monk

Face wrote: »

Quit with the straw man and stop dragging Jim into this.

All Phil did is point out that a man running a well respected audio shop, that many here would like to own, mentioned among other amps an Emotiva.

Any driving off the cliffs happened because after Phil's paraphrasing someone with poor reading comprehension hasn't yet woken up to the fact that Jim didn't utter the term inexpensive.

At least I didn't insinuate he's a hack. Who's dragging him into this?

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So far Phil and Myself are the only ones that get that the "inexpensive amp" comment was with all good probability op ed by the articles author and not something Jim Salk said. Some higher deity wept:frown:

Let's face it that is the crux of this current thread crash.

Monk, if you remember correctly though, Phil PRESENTED the quote as something Jim Salk implied (that an Emotiva XPA-2 is on par with a BAT VK-600). This was a misleading way of presenting what Jim Salk actually meant. That is the cause of this "thread crash" as you put it. I would not call it a "thread crash", but a "thread correction", because that's what it is. Presenting what Jim Salk actually said in stead of taking what he said out of context and then implying that's what he meant.

heiney9

I don't see a crash (atleast not yet) it's just one of numerous re-hashed discussions. Just because it's not going your way doesn't mean it's a "crashed" thread.

Jetmaker737

The OP virtually admitted to trolling in post #79. Takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make yourself believe the mis-quote is the actual truth.

F1nut

pearsall001 wrote: »

Don't flatter yourselves. You guys are so easy it's embarrassing. LOL!!

Odd response since it's you that has been called out once again for your troll BS. What's really funny is that Monk is still swallowing the bait.

BlueFox

....., the safest bet being an amp with a high dampening factor.

Not to side-track the thread, but what is a "high dampening factor"? What does it do? Is it good or bad? How do you find out if your amp has it? If it seems to let your amp better match your speakers then how do you know if your speakers need a high, low, or flat dampening factor?

Face

Habanero Monk wrote: »

At least I didn't insinuate he's a hack.

I never did either. Grasping at imaginary straws I see.