Emotiva Airmotiv 6s Powered Speaker Review

[MZKM]

What really surprised me is the nearly perfect vertical directivity match between AMT and midwoofer, as well as the symmetry along the vertical axis. Any thoughts?

What do you mean? There is a large suckout vertically off-axis at the crossover region.

 

[617]

First thought: best measurement report yet, in terms of what is included and what isn't. That balloon graph at the crossover is so cool!



What really surprised me is the nearly perfect vertical directivity match between AMT and midwoofer, as well as the symmetry along the vertical axis. Any thoughts?

The directivity match is doubtless due to the fact that the two drivers aren't that different in size, at least in the vertical axis. Small woofer and big long AMT.

The horizontal match isn't that bad either compared to other speakers with 180 degree waveguides (flat baffles)

I believe Emotiva makes some speakers where these two drivers essentially form an MT unit and they add one or two woofers below. I'd be willing to bet those measure pretty well.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

I’ve heard so much hate about the ribbons of the Emotiva’s being second rate to Adams and this review makes me seriously question that assertion. I just got to wonder how the Adam T7V and A7X stack up? Or maybe, just maybe someone with the ever elusive Emotiva Stealth 6 or 8 will have one to loan for review?

 

[amirm]

I’ve heard so much hate about the ribbons of the Emotiva’s being second rate to Adams and this review makes me seriously question that assertion. I just got to wonder how the Adam T7V and A7X stack up? Or maybe, just maybe someone with the ever elusive Emotiva Stealth 6 or 8 will have one to loan for review?

An Adam S2V is in for review. And a T5V has been promised but it has not arrived.

 

[Bear123]

This argument has been made a few times on various threads =]. I personally do not agree that a high-pass listening test should be the priority, if implemented at all. Mind you, I agree in principle about how people should optimize bass performance in their own systems, but I do not think it is a reasonable or fair approach to evaluating and recommending speakers.

Most people do not listen with a good subwoofer. Well, maybe most ASR members do, but not the average audio enthusiast. If they have more than one speaker system, they might use one for their main system but not their secondary one. So my perspective is a bit different: Most audio reviews pay little attention to bass in favor of things like "resolution" or "transparency," so it's refreshing to see bass be given the priority it deserves. If we ignore bass extension, then it seems there's little reason to appreciate speakers that do reach lower.

I also disagree with "any speaker's bass can, and should, be remedied with a subwoofer." Certainly most passive would benefit from it, but every year there are more active designs that can reach deep into the 20s, with enough headroom for many typical listening situations. The tiny Devialet Phantom Reactor, let alone the bigger ones. The B&W Formation Duo as well, and seemingly Buchardt's upcoming A500. For both the Reactor and Formation Duo, I simply was not able to get crossing the speakers with a sub to sound better than a pair of speakers playing full range - despite both of these being compact bookshelf designs (especially the Reactor). I rarely if ever listen above 75 dB at my listening position 10 feet away and in my home both pairs still have a good 20 dB or so of headroom before compression starts to kick in.

Then there's the problem of assuming someone already should have a subwoofer. If not, a decent subwoofer will set you back at least $500, probably more if you want to go all the way to 20Hz or below. But then you should probably have two to deal with room issues, so now you're set back twice the money. Some people don't have space for a sub - this was the case for much of my audiophile journey - let alone two. And then properly implementing crossovers can be a pain, which is why many people end up giving up on subs. In the majority of cases, decisions on aesthetics, practicality, and financial investment are limiting factors.

Then there's the fact that implementing a high-pass filter will alter the balance of frequencies. Consider the two speakers being discussed - the Emotiva reaches lower, but the 305P has better balanced low mids. I would assume that implementing a filter would unfairly benefit the 305P as the Emotiva would sound comparatively anemic without the extension to "fill out" the timbre. It would also depend on what frequency you choose.

So I say look at the data and decide for yourself what's best if you plan on using a subwoofer. I appreciated the insight in this case about how the bass extension made a difference in preference.

That said @MZKM's implementation of Sean Olive's preference score also includes a metric that ignores low frequency extension. I think that number is probably more useful than a quick informal listening test without an optimized subwoofer implementation.

It's not just about whether a speaker has headroom down to a low enough frequency to satisfy those who don't prioritize sound quality. Speakers without subs are low fidelity, now matter how low they play. Speakers placed for imaging are not optimal for smooth bass response. Properly placed and integrated dual subs with eq applied below 300 Hz or so is necessary for high fidelity.

I agree speakers should be compared high-passed. People that aren't concerned with real sound quality will find plenty of reinforcement of their beliefs on Stereophile and loads of other subjective audiophile sites.

Why pursue sound quality with great speakers that measure well only to end up with low fidelity without subs?

 

[amirm]

Speakers without subs are low fidelity, now matter how low they play.

That's not the case with my speakers. So much so that I have sub that I have yet to plug into the system. I can vibrate every bone on my body at high volumes with them. So while there are benefits to subs, there are floor standing speakers that do low frequencies justice.

 

[Bear123]

That's not the case with my speakers. So much so that I have sub that I have yet to plug into the system. I can vibrate every bone on my body at high volumes with them. So while there are benefits to subs, there are floor standing speakers that do low frequencies justice.

I know there are speakers that can produce a lot of output at low frequency....Salon 2, M2, etc. I don't think it is easy to have good quality bass from a pair of full range speakers regardless of how much output they have. I imagine it can be done, but I haven't seen a pair of speakers that can do this(my average response across all seats of my 9ft wide sectional):

 

[napilopez]

It's not just about whether a speaker has headroom down to a low enough frequency to satisfy those who don't prioritize sound quality. Speakers without subs are low fidelity, now matter how low they play. Speakers placed for imaging are not optimal for smooth bass response. Properly placed and integrated dual subs with eq applied below 300 Hz or so is necessary for high fidelity.

I agree speakers should be compared high-passed. People that aren't concerned with real sound quality will find plenty of reinforcement of their beliefs on Stereophile and loads of other subjective audiophile sites.

Why pursue sound quality with great speakers that measure well only to end up with low fidelity without subs?

I take your point about sub placement for optimizing room response but then why stop at just two subs? Why not three or four? You apparently have a different standards for what is "necessary" for high fidelity system. That's totally fine, but you also imply that the person who can't afford to get two good subs (or a home big enough where that would be feasible) is not able to enjoy "high fidelity" sound.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying subs aren't usually the better solution. I run two small subs myself and and I advocate people get a sub all the time (I frequently argue that bookshelf+subs is better than most towers sans subs). But I'm also not going to hold it against a person if getting four 15-inch subwoofers isn't right for them. I don't think this hobby should be exclusive to the well-off or those willing to sacrifice everything else in the pursuit of good sound.

Besides, other than room optimizations, what exactly makes a full range setup with ample headroom "low fidelity?"
What about speakers like the Dutch and Dutch 8C designed to specially tackle room issues? If you only care about sound quality at the primary listening position, which I suspect covers most audiophiles, you can do plenty with two genuinely full-range speakers. The averaged response you shared above is impressive, but I personally couldn't care less about the bass quality anywhere other than the primary listening position. Usually smoothing the bass response for a wide area leads to compromises at the primary listening seat. See this image from a Sean Olive presentation:

Besides, if you do go full-range, you can always add the subs later when you're ready to 'perfect' the system.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

An Adam S2V is in for review. And a T5V has been promised but it has not arrived.

Not sure if this helps or how backed up your queue is (imagining it is very long at this point), but I can loan either EVE SC207s and/or Focal Shape 65s for the next month until I flip them.

 

[amirm]

Not sure if this helps or how backed up your queue is (imagining it is very long at this point), but I can loan either EVE SC207s and/or Focal Shape 65s for the next month until I flip them.

I love to test them but I am overwhelmed with the number of speakers that have arrived! Let me get through them and then touch base.

 

[digicidal]

Since you've already got the T5V's in and you've got a backlog... I'll hold off for now, but I've got a T7V that sits in the box until I move houses that I can send you whenever you get "bored".

 

[bunnyfuzz]

I'm looking forward to your Adam S2V review.

 

[Bear123]

I take your point about sub placement for optimizing room response but then why stop at just two subs? Why not three or four? You apparently have a different standards for what is "necessary" for high fidelity system. That's totally fine, but you also imply that the person who can't afford to get two good subs (or a home big enough where that would be feasible) is not able to enjoy "high fidelity" sound.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying subs aren't usually the better solution. I run two small subs myself and and I advocate people get a sub all the time (I frequently argue that bookshelf+subs is better than most towers sans subs). But I'm also not going to hold it against a person if getting four 15-inch subwoofers isn't right for them. I don't think this hobby should be exclusive to the well-off or those willing to sacrifice everything else in the pursuit of good sound.

Besides, other than room optimizations, what exactly makes a full range setup with ample headroom "low fidelity?"
What about speakers like the Dutch and Dutch 8C designed to specially tackle room issues? If you only care about sound quality at the primary listening position, which I suspect covers most audiophiles, you can do plenty with two genuinely full-range speakers. The averaged response you shared above is impressive, but I personally couldn't care less about the bass quality anywhere other than the primary listening position. Usually smoothing the bass response for a wide area leads to compromises at the primary listening seat. See this image from a Sean Olive presentation:
Besides, if you do go full-range, you can always add the subs later when you're ready to 'perfect' the system.

Never meant to imply anything about budget, or home size, or anything of that matter. Stating dual subs are necessary for high fidelity is not a subjective opinion, or any kind of judgment about peoples choices, but rather just an objective statement. L/R speakers placed for imaging will have very poor bass response below 300 Hz and eq cannot fix large nulls or dips in the response. Poor frequency response is not high fidelity. Most of the time, I don't think people *can't afford* or are *unable to place* dual subs. Most often, imo, they choose not to in the pursuit of "pure" sound by using 2 channel with no eq. So it is a bit ironic that, in the quest for the best sound, we purposefully choose lower fidelity by foregoing subs.

As an example, I see many many examples of folks with $2,000/pair+++ speakers running 2.0 without subs. This is a choice that is not about what one can afford. There are plenty of affordable solutions for decent little subs such as the JBL 550p that often goes on sale for $189. It is true, I don't think it makes sense to spend thousands on speakers and gear, obviously in the quest for great sound quality, only to limit fidelity by choosing to run without sub or subs. Obviously, people can set up their systems however they choose, but 2 speakers without subs is not the objectively high fidelity system. So doing so if the goal is sound quality doesn't make sense.

It goes without saying that if someone has a tiny space, apartment or are completely controlled by a spouse, a sub might not be an option. I wouldn't use one if I was in an apartment.

As far as having ideal response at one specific location, that simply comes down to user preference. I could have a "perfect" response at the MLP if I chose to sit completely still in one spot at all times, but I chose to have a very good response at all seats, can sit wherever I choose, move around if I want, and not have a poor response. It sounds great everywhere. But you are absolutely correct that a perfect average response results in a less than perfect response at most positions. But I choose very good everywhere.

 

[FrantzM]

It's not just about whether a speaker has headroom down to a low enough frequency to satisfy those who don't prioritize sound quality. Speakers without subs are low fidelity, now matter how low they play. Speakers placed for imaging are not optimal for smooth bass response. Properly placed and integrated dual subs with eq applied below 300 Hz or so is necessary for high fidelity.

I agree speakers should be compared high-passed. People that aren't concerned with real sound quality will find plenty of reinforcement of their beliefs on Stereophile and loads of other subjective audiophile sites.

Why pursue sound quality with great speakers that measure well only to end up with low fidelity without subs?

I would not go as far as saying it is "low fidelity" but I share your point. You echo what I have written constantly in this forum. It is indeed possible to achieve good low response response at one seat with full range speakers. It remains that, the smoothest lo frequency response is that obtained by using multiple low frequency radiators. This should be a thread in itself. There are full range speakers out there, capable of reaching 20 Hz at -3 dB .. The issue becomes quickly one of headroom: How many full range speakers are truly capable of a sustained 25 Hz at 105 dB SPL at 3 meters? There are a few but .... they likely would be expensive and big and would need considerable amplifier power to do that. Physics is playing against the listener too: Best placement for the rest of the spectrum usually doesn't coincide with the best location for smooth bass.. if ithere is such location at all in the room!! . Even with full range speakers , judicious use of subwoofers provide smoother low frequency response. Knowing that the ear is less sensitive down low, one can see that a bit more bass response and headroom are needed. Something even multiple inexpensive subs can provide. We must be reminded that the process of integrating multiple subs with any mains (full range or else) ,is nor easy, nor straightforward and takes time. It is doable however and well worth the bother, for the results are very, very enjoyable, even if the audiophile is not a bass head.

Peace


P.S. @Bear123 I haven't reach such linearity with Audyssey and I will PM you on this.

 

[aarons915]

I take your point about sub placement for optimizing room response but then why stop at just two subs? Why not three or four? You apparently have a different standards for what is "necessary" for high fidelity system. That's totally fine, but you also imply that the person who can't afford to get two good subs (or a home big enough where that would be feasible) is not able to enjoy "high fidelity" sound.

You don't really need to spend a lot of money on subs, less than the difference between bookshelf speakers and the tower version most of the time. In my extreme case I bought some cheap Polk PSW 505 subs a few years ago for 200 each and have EQ'd them flat from 20-100Hz in my room. So for about $1400 for 2 Bookshelf speakers and 2 Subs, I have good response from 20-20k, no tower is going to come close to that. I don't have much room for subs myself but I made it work by placing short stands on my subs and putting my speakers on top, you lose some of the placement benefits of the subs but it's still better than towers without subs.

For the record, I'm not saying a 2 Channel setup without subs is going to sound terrible or anything but it's just not possible to match a proper multi-sub setup if you're going for the smoothest response.

 

[Darkweb]

Never meant to imply anything about budget, or home size, or anything of that matter. Stating dual subs are necessary for high fidelity is not a subjective opinion, or any kind of judgment about peoples choices, but rather just an objective statement. L/R speakers placed for imaging will have very poor bass response below 300 Hz and eq cannot fix large nulls or dips in the response. Poor frequency response is not high fidelity. Most of the time, I don't think people *can't afford* or are *unable to place* dual subs. Most often, imo, they choose not to in the pursuit of "pure" sound by using 2 channel with no eq. So it is a bit ironic that, in the quest for the best sound, we purposefully choose lower fidelity by foregoing subs.

As an example, I see many many examples of folks with $2,000/pair+++ speakers running 2.0 without subs. This is a choice that is not about what one can afford. There are plenty of affordable solutions for decent little subs such as the JBL 550p that often goes on sale for $189. It is true, I don't think it makes sense to spend thousands on speakers and gear, obviously in the quest for great sound quality, only to limit fidelity by choosing to run without sub or subs. Obviously, people can set up their systems however they choose, but 2 speakers without subs is not the objectively high fidelity system. So doing so if the goal is sound quality doesn't make sense.

It goes without saying that if someone has a tiny space, apartment or are completely controlled by a spouse, a sub might not be an option. I wouldn't use one if I was in an apartment.

As far as having ideal response at one specific location, that simply comes down to user preference. I could have a "perfect" response at the MLP if I chose to sit completely still in one spot at all times, but I chose to have a very good response at all seats, can sit wherever I choose, move around if I want, and not have a poor response. It sounds great everywhere. But you are absolutely correct that a perfect average response results in a less than perfect response at most positions. But I choose very good everywhere.

Sorry but adding $189 subwoofers doesn’t make your system “high fidelity”. Those cheap boxes farting out bass would make my DSP’d full size towers sound worse.

 

[edechamps]

Sorry but adding $189 subwoofers doesn’t make your system “high fidelity”. Those cheap boxes farting out bass would make my DSP’d full size towers sound worse.

Well, I don't know. The problem is very few budget subwoofers have published measurements, so it's hard to tell exactly what's missing (if any). That's why I'm looking forward to @amirm eventually reviewing subwoofers

 

[raistlin65]

Sorry but adding $189 subwoofers doesn’t make your system “high fidelity”. Those cheap boxes farting out bass would make my DSP’d full size towers sound worse.

While there are no published measurements for it, the JBL 550P appears to perform better than your average $200 subwoofer. Audioholics has a discussion thread for it where someone did a breakdown. Apparently the driver is much better than what you would normally see in this budget range.

 

[aarons915]

Sorry but adding $189 subwoofers doesn’t make your system “high fidelity”. Those cheap boxes farting out bass would make my DSP’d full size towers sound worse.

I have probably even worse subs in the Polk PSW505 and they are EQ'd flat from 20-100Hz. As most know, the room is really what determines what your bass is going to look like, so regardless of a sub's measured response you will need to EQ them to work in your room and integrate with your other speakers. I can turn my cheap "fart boxes" into subjectively tight and extended bass with about 8 filters and a mini dsp.

 

[FrantzM]

Sorry but adding $189 subwoofers doesn’t make your system “high fidelity”. Those cheap boxes farting out bass would make my DSP’d full size towers sound worse.

THis is OT, nonetheless an interesting and important discussion.

Adding more low frequency radiators in the room , increases the smoothness and quantity of bass in that space. Moreover it decreases the relative demand on each low frequency radiator. Please read this article by Amir and this paper by Welti and Devantier
Earl Geddes has a slightly different take, He suggests using 3 subwoofer in a quasi random positions in the room and even suggest different subs. This is the path I took.
A video:

You may be surprised by what 4 cheap subwoofers can bring to the overall quality of your audio reproduction, each costing around $200. Lot of work but will likely surpass what your main can produce.