Pass XA.5 vs XA.8

Mike

Mike

Audioshark
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
30,486
Location
Sarasota, FL
Well, its been a few months since the XA.8's rolled out. What is the consensus? Is the XA.8 an evolution? A misstep? What's the honest consensus of Pass owners?

I recently compared the XA100.5 vs XA100.8 and have my own thoughts - but wanted to see what others have observed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm getting a pair of 100.8 monos at some point, to do a comparison to the 100.5 monos I've had. No idea when, exactly, but should be this summer.
 
I look forward to your impressions Scot. I'm hoping Ian will chime in here. He did an extensive A/B.

Hey Scot - can you tell us a little about the Spatial Hologram speakers you heard? I have Clayton's new Statement speakers on order.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I think the Holograms are fantastic speakers for the money. They do a very neat job of removing the room. You're going to want a sub or 3, though, to get the "down-there", but that's risky -- there's a reason those Holograms do really well, and a good part of it is that they're not boxes.
 
Thanks Scot. The ones I have on order are the new Spatial Lumina Statements. They go down to 15hz by utilizing three 12 inch servo controlled open baffle woofers per speaker (crossed over at 100hz). Bass should be good.

http://www.spatialaudio.us/lumina


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
You're right Joe. Ever since I heard his earlier creations, I was hooked. Talking to him on the phone gives you a great deal of comfort. He's definitely no sales person. He's a brilliant designer and a heck of a nice guy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I've heard the Holograms twice now, and it was with the same gear. Interestingly, the sound was not only good, but (not surprisingly, given the design) completely consistent -- surprising, because the rooms were wildly different. Anyway, I'm a fan. The little Holos were about what I'd expect from a speaker that price, but the fact that they seemed to completely circumvent the room was just nifty.

No idea about the larger ones, though.
 
Mike/Scot...I am assuming also given controlled directivity of the mid- and treble-drivers these things have a tight sweet spot and the sound at different locations in the room is going to be varied?
 
No Cyril. Because they are a point source - their off axis listening is quite good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Got it. They look very interesting Mike. Looking forward to hear your impressions of them.
 
Mike said:
Bump. No xa.5 vs xa.8 thoughts?
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't see this thread until now.

Yes, I did an extensive A/B test with XA160.5/XA160.8 (probably about 6 weeks) and had 3 other audiophiles help me compare the two models. What I'm about to describe would not apply to the 60.5/60.8 as I was told by Pass that the 60 is different.

First of all, out of the 3 audiophiles that helped out, everyone preferred the .8. Two of them came twice to compare (first after a week of break-in, then after a few more weeks). The third person preferred the .8 in every way except for the treble.

Here's what I think the differences are:
1) The .8 has a lot more bass energy. This not only produces deeper, thicker bass but gives a more solid foundation for the midrange.
2) The .8 has much more midrange energy as a result of #1
3) The .8's have more bass control.
4) The .8's have a bit more lower treble energy. I can almost hear a bit of a hump in the frequency region where we hear room ambience. Depending on the speakers used it might come across as a bit forward.
5) The .5's seem to be very recessed in the midrange by comparison. The bass is thinner (sometimes making it appear more articulate) and the highs are more apparent - almost splashy on cymbals in contrast to the .8's which produce a more thicker upper frequency presentation.

When I was first listening to the .8's I thought there was too much bass and that the highs were rolled off. The 'third' audiophile that I mentioned above, who preferred the treble of the .5, also mentioned this. I have since adjusted speaker positioning and cabling and now I have GREAT bass with the .8's and plenty of upper frequency 'air' that I'd feel silly telling another visiting audiophile that I thought the treble was rolled off.

I think a lot of this comes down to synergy. The tonal balance of the two amps are different - otherwise it would be much simpler to compare them (e.g. it could come down to something like "they seem similar except the .8's have better bass control" and life would be simple. Because of the tonal balance change, I think YMMV. I do think the .8 is 'better' but it is indeed subjective and it may simply be just 'different'.

That's why it's so important to audition these beasts in your own home!

Hope this helps!
Ian
 
Thank goodness for Ian. I was thrilled to find this thread; as I might be making an XA-30.5 v. XA-30.8 decision soon.

For a while there...I thought I was going to have to issue an OT warning ;)

EDIT-Hmm...after reading said post; I am left scratching my head, about this statement:

"What I'm about to describe would not apply to the 60.5/60.8 as I was told by Pass that the 60 is different."

I understand...you may not be able to draw the same conclusions, between the 160 and 60; since they are "different". But man...where does that leave me, on the 30; which has got to be "different" still...because it's not even a monoblock :huh:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top