[Bill]

Yes, good point. I meant to follow up with a bit of a correction / additional info.

The Emerald XL's are ported in the rear near the top of the cabinet. The older Panoramas and Sapphires are ported in the front of the cabinet near the bottom. Not sure why, but they do sound good.

[Bill]

For anyone interested in my planned review of the Emerald XL's as PC speakers, there is going to be a slight delay. Unfortunately, I'm about to get slammed time-wise for a week or so, though I hope to get back to this by the end of this month.

Meanwhile, in case you were wondering, the Emerald XL's are currently pulling duty as my PC speakers of choice. Without question, they are the best speakers ever used with my PC. Audio output is via SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum analog outs into a NAD C325BEE integrated amp. The speakers are connected to the NAD with 14 gauge speaker wire purchased at Lowes. Having listened to the XL's in the big rig, it's obvious that their potential has been compromised, and that likely means additional upgrades, such as:
- an m-audio sound card, with high quality 24/96 analog outs
- DH Labs BL-1 interconnects, sound card to NAD
- DH Labs T-14 speaker wire

But even compromised, they still sound very nice.

The T-14 is a problem -- the NAD only accepts bare wire or pins, so on that front, I may be calling ACI for some advice.

Meanwhile, keep listening and enjoy the music.

[thedeskE]

Hi Eric -- Good to see you still checking out the forums. Still have your ACI gear?

I do, but I might have to let go of the front (Pano&Essence) soon. I'll keep the
Saphires. Money is tight darn it.

[Mike Dzurko]

Hi Eric -- Good to see you still checking out the forums. Still have your ACI gear?

I do, but I might have to let go of the front (Pano&Essence) soon. I'll keep the
Saphires. Money is tight darn it.

I hope it all works out okay for you!

[Bill]

Whew! Sorry about the time lag, folks. I’m back for a while.

Lately, I’ve been spending quite a bit of time listening to the Emerald XLs as PC speakers. Here’s what’s in the audio chain:
• Home built PC running Vista 32-bit SP1, 4G memory, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo
• SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum sound card
• Cheap cable from sound card to integrated amp (mini plug to RCAs
• NAD C-325BEE integrated amp
• 14g speaker wire
• Bare wire connection at speaker and at the amp
The speakers are sitting on my desktop about 6 feet apart, anchored to the surface with blue-tac.

It’s probably no surprise that the XLs sound great. They are, without question, the best PC speakers I’ve ever used. They image well and sound much better than the Swan M-200’s they replaced. Placement limitations are taking away some of the low end. At times, there’s a bit of edginess in the sound that wasn’t present when running these speakers in the big rig.

Are there ways to clean things up a little? I think so. While the Audigy is decent for what it is, a higher end card with better DACs should help. What the heck – I’m a sucker for a cool PC upgrade. In terms of bang for the buck, the m-audio Audiophile 2496 sound card is a pretty good value. It’s seems to be mostly used by professionals, with a handful of non-professionals using it for its good quality analog outs. Also, a good pair of interconnects couldn’t hurt. I can borrow a pair of DH Labs BL-1s from the big rig.

The m-audio card arrived two days ago, and it all appears to be working.

Up Next:   Listening Tests with the m-audio Audiophile 2496 Sound Card

[Bill]

Eric,

Tough times out there, to be sure. I, too, hope it all works out.

-Bill

[DR]

Bill,

What are you listening to on the PC? I-Tunes or the like? The compression alone is enough to provide a huge difference between your computer and the big rig.

Just a thought.

[Bill]

DR -- I'm listening to lossless .wma files. See my next post for more info... and thanks for asking.

[Bill]

Perhaps a couple of words about the m-audio sound card are appropriate. Without getting into price specifics, the m-audio Audiophile 2496 a relatively inexpensive PCI card with a reputation for high quality analog outputs. It seemed unlikely to be as good as a dedicated DAC, or even competitive with the DACs built into my B&K AVR507 receiver, though I’ve never done a comparison. Still, it’s much less expensive than a good outboard DAC, and it seemed worth a try. After all, we’re talking about quality sound for a PC that lives in a spare bedroom.

Before starting this test, I replaced the cheap interconnects from the sound card to the NAD with a pair of DH Labs BL-1’s. The audio tracks used for the tests were lossless .wma files ripped from my CD collection, and the samples were run via Windows Media Player. Content included rock, jazz, bluegrass, blues, classical, pop, and new age. Recording quality ranged from average to excellent.

Out of the gate, the m-audio card sounded worse than the Audigy. Being new to this card and its software, I’d missed an adjustment to the output level, and the initial setting was at ‘max output’. It sounded choppy and distorted, kind of like oversaturation of the signal when recording to cassette tape, if you remember those days. Backing off the output level to about 50% cleaned things up.

Restarting the test, the XLs sounded better, a heck of a lot better; clean and non-fatiguing. IMO, the analog outs on this card are much better than the Audigy. I was able to listen for longer sessions at higher dB levels with no trouble. As a sound source, this card is on par with inputs on the big rig. No, it doesn’t have the LF range of that system at point of output. More interestingly, the slight edge to the XLs that I’d heard before was gone. Where did it go? Here’s my speculation: the XLs like a smaller room size. Pushing them hard in a big room is just not their forte. But they filled my spare bedroom with great sound, and imaging was excellent, too.

One of the metrics I use during equipment evaluation is whether it draws me into the music. After doing some basic adjustments, I tried to do some critical listening tests, with emphasis on the “tried” part. The music was compelling and my attention kept drifting from analysis to enjoyment. It’s good to get past analysis and on to listening. There’s no question in my mind, this combo is very musical. My only gripe, and it’s a small one, is that there’s not as much LF as I’d like, but that’s the nature of this speaker.

So, in summary, the XLs really came to life in a smaller room with the m-audio card. The equipment in this test is perhaps borderline high-end, meaning it was fairly cheap, and that means it could make a very nice high-end budget system. In my house, the XLs have found their new home attached to my PC, but it’s easy to see how the XLs would be a satisfying 5.1 bedroom system. Great stuff.

Up Next:   iPod Nano Source, Sony HD Radio Source

[Bill]

I don’t know that there will be any revelations with these tests. After all, the XLs sound great with the m-audio sound card. But I have these sources on hand, so why not? On with the tests…

Some time ago, Stereophile reviewed the iPod as a source component in a high end audio system, and it got high marks. That was reason enough to do additional test with the Emerald XLs.

The iPod Nano I used for this test is an 8G model, and it’s physically connected to the NAD integrated amp via a mini plug patch cord from the iPod into a connector labeled “MP3”. All music was first ripped to lossless .wma files on my PC hard drive, and then downloaded to the iPod in Apple’s lossless format. If the DAC in the iPod is decent enough, it should sound pretty good. The source to beat, however, is the m-audio sound card.

So, how did it sound? Pretty good, but it’s not up to the level of the m-audio card. In some ways, the iPod comes off a bit tinny and more artificial sounding, but for casual listening, it’s still nice. If I had a choice, though, it would be the m-audio. The problem here is that it’s difficult to know what the source of the issue is. Is it the MP3 input on the NAD, or the input cable? I don’t know. All that’s certain is the XLs exposed the performance for what it was: a cut below.

On to the Sony HD radio source…

Maybe a few words about what this thing is are in order. The Sony XDRF1HD HD Radio Tuner is one of several brands of new tuner that support AM, FM, and Hybrid Digital radio transmissions. Known as HD radio, it’s a digital transmission that some stations broadcast along with their analog signal. The theory is that AM-HD can sound as good as plain old FM, and FM-HD can sound as good as a CD. In practice, though, it's not that simple. It depends on what the broadcaster does at the point of transmission, signal strength, and equipment in the audio chain. The Sony unit has a reputation for sounding pretty good, for being inexpensive, and for having a few quirks. Some have favorably compared its sound quality with Sirius and XM. Not having either of those, I have no opinion, just questions.

BTW, I’m not a fan of the name. It’s too easy to think it means High Def radio, which it isn’t. It was a good marketing strategy, though.

The Sony tuner is connected to the NAD integrated amp via DH Labs BL-1 interconnects. For reception, it’s using a simple loop antenna for AM broadcast, and a T-shaped antenna for FM. These are definitely less than optimal antennas, but I only needed a couple of decent stations to do the evaluation with the Emerald XLs.

There are three AM-HD stations in my area. Cutting to the chase, they all sounded pretty bad… a big disappointment.

There are 17 FM-HD stations in my area, and quality is all over the map. With some stations, the quality is very high. At times, it sounds like some low-end Magnum Dynalab tuners I’ve heard. Yes, it can be that good. The XLs did fine with this source, too. Did any of the HD radio sound as good as CD, or in this case, the m-audio .wma files? No, though the best stations were close. Most of them were very listenable.


Up Next: Summary & Conclusions

[Bill]

First, let me say that it has been interesting and educational to do these different tests with the Emerald XLs. Thanks for coming along for the ride.

Here are my conclusions about the Emerald XLs:

PRO
• A very good match for modestly sized rooms
• They sound good, are very musical, with a good level of detail
• They work well with a variety of relatively inexpensive upstream components
• Physically, they look great
• A strong tight-budget contender

CON
• Not a good match for a big room
• Not much LF

IMO, this is a good example of value at a price point. Sure, the Emerald XLs are not as good as the Sapphires, and the Sapphires are not as good as the Panoramas. But the Emerald XLs are about half the cost of Sapphires, and the Sapphires are about half the cost of Panoramas. There is no reason that they should be as good as their more costly brethren. It's a question of having the right expectations at a given price. In the right application, the Emerald XLs rock.

Would I buy them again? You bet. Once again, my hat is off to ACI for making another fine product

[DR]

Bill,

Your reviews were very interesting and thorough. Thanks for sharing with everyone!

[Bill]

Thanks, DR. This was also a good learning exercise but I'm glad to be onto the listening and enjoying part.

I keep waiting for the listening fatigue to set in, but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen. And the imaging on these little guys is seriously good. They really rock in this application.

The only change in the works is replacing the zip cord with some T-14. I'll try to post something about that soon.

[Bill]

As mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve been planning to add DH Labs T-14 speaker wire to my small system as the last step in a series of audio upgrades associated with the Emerald XLs. I finally got around to doing the work last night.

I bought my T-14 in bulk, so that meant terminating it myself. Stripping T-14 cable to attach terminations isn’t too difficult. If you can strip coaxial cable and use a soldering gun, this won’t pose any insurmountable challenges.

So, how did it sound in my system?

The topic of cabling is controversial. Some people will swear that $3,000 speaker cables were the final piece that made their system musical, and others will swear just as passionately that zip cord from Home Depot sounds just as good. There have been lots of flame wars on this subject, and creating another one is not my intent, but I will say this much. My opinion about cabling is somewhere between the extremes, i.e., some speaker cables seem to sound better than others. I don’t know why and I could be deluding myself. My tests were not double blind, so this is a purely subjective evaluation.

After hooking it up, I spent some time running through different audio tracks. In my opinion, in my system, in my room, etc. (add your favorite caveats), I believe that it does sound better. Is it like a serious component upgrade? No. It’s more subtle, more of a useful tweak. A friend once compared audio upgrades and tweaks to looking out a window through multiple layers of glass, where each upgrade cleaned a pane of glass. This was kind of like that. I think it cleaned up some graininess. If this sounds interesting, you might enjoy experimenting to form your own opinion. Given the cost of the speakers, however, some will view the cost of T-14 as a poor investment. For me, the T-14 will remain in my system.

That’s the end of my journey. Thanks for coming along for the ride.