EMP Tek Impression Series E5TiR Floorstanding Loudspeaker Review

[krzywica]

"Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it."

A Snatch quote...Groovy!

 

[myke]

I have these speakers and really like them and agree with the positive posts on the forum.

My only gripe (as others have mentioned) is they dont stand well. I have them with the carpet spikes sitting wobbly. Hard wood Im thinking they would work good flat.

 

[Imitation]

I have these speakers and really like them and agree with the positive posts on the forum.

My only gripe (as others have mentioned) is they dont stand well. I have them with the carpet spikes sitting wobbly. Hard wood Im thinking they would work good flat.

I found that if i wiggled the speakers after I got them where i wanted them I could work the spikes into my carpet and also flatten the carpet underneath the speaker some. Once I did this my speakers seemed to be sturdier. The cat hasn't knocked one over yet, but i still worry whenever he's near one of them.

 

[ArVee]

Awaiting my EMP E5Ti - Looking for inputs on 6 and 8 ohm mix

Hi - I just ordered my EMP E5Ti pair of fronts from Audioholics - after reading the many positive reviews - this is for the family room that already has the Klipsch Quintet III and Klipsch 10" Sub running off a Yamaha HTR-5940:

I believe the Quintet are 8 ohms spkrs and the EMP's are 6 ohm - any concerns with this matchup ? The HTR-5940 can apparently adjust to a 6 ohm min but am not sure if this will impact the sound out of the Klipsch sorrounds and center ?

Thanks for your inputs & comments - I found this thread very helpful in making my decision.. RV

 

[fightinkraut]

Hi - I just ordered my EMP E5Ti pair of fronts from Audioholics - after reading the many positive reviews - this is for the family room that already has the Klipsch Quintet III and Klipsch 10" Sub running off a Yamaha HTR-5940:

I believe the Quintet are 8 ohms spkrs and the EMP's are 6 ohm - any concerns with this matchup ? The HTR-5940 can apparently adjust to a 6 ohm min but am not sure if this will impact the sound out of the Klipsch sorrounds and center ?

Thanks for your inputs & comments - I found this thread very helpful in making my decision.. RV

I don't see quite the detailed specs on that receiver I'd like to confidently say one way or another, but it looks like it's putting out 85watts per channel, unfortunately with unknown distortion. Sort of a toss up for me, but I'd say you might have trouble powering them...mixing 6 and 8 ohms is no problem, but I'd like to see more info on the 6ohm power ratings from that yamaha before passing judgement.

Best I can say is if you have the owners manual and it states it handles a 6ohm load ok then hook them up and see how they sound to you! If you notice any clipping or distortion at the levels you'll be using them at then you'll likely want to look into selling the yamaha and purchasing a new receiver, perhaps a refurb from accessories4less for $300 or so.

 

[ozmedia]

Enjoy

I'd be curious to see what EMP could do with a higher end version of these.

It's called RBH.

RBH uses EMP as their more entry level, on line brand. For tighter overall sound and incredible detail, check out the MC-6CT, sweeeeeet! And, cash permitting, you can look into the Signature or T-Series, dare to dream.

But you have one thing right, EMP is an astounding value for money and to thier improvement on it would cost you 3X more, and that's just for the MC's!

When Audioholics had the clone EMP 5.1 system of the RBH TK series on clearance for $200.00 (sorry, the EMP model #s slip my mind right now) I told friends in the US, who instantly bought a set. Needless to say they are all thrilled.

Glad you're happy, your ears will get used to the tonal changes from your last speakers and I find RBH's drivers do mellow and smooth out over a bit of time, I'll assume the same goes for thier EMP line too.

 

[ozmedia]

I'm confused with what I thought was basic. A speaker performed what it could do at +/- 3db. Even ignoring the >20db drop a bit below 200, there seems to be a >10db range on this speaker throughout the prime listening area (92db at around 1KHz, 82db at around 400Hz)

When they publish such specs, there is really no standard or regulation for it. Therefore they just pick two points, one high and one low to base a spec on. Another company I know of, actually advertises a speaker with a tiny driver and a really low frequency range listed at -6dB +/-3dB. The 3dB is taken from two points in the frequency range, the -6dB is used with the "estimated low end frequency" because they say most speakers end up corner loading(right from their own mouths) or sounding bigger in a normal livingroom. An actual, accurate test would take a MASSIVE room, like an airplane hanger but twice as high, to perform.

 

[JerryLove]

When they publish such specs, there is really no standard or regulation for it. Therefore they just pick two points, one high and one low to base a spec on. Another company I know of, actually advertises a speaker with a tiny driver and a really low frequency range listed at -6dB +/-3dB. The 3dB is taken from two points in the frequency range, the -6dB is used with the "estimated low end frequency" because they say most speakers end up corner loading(right from their own mouths) or sounding bigger in a normal livingroom. An actual, accurate test would take a MASSIVE room, like an airplane hanger but twice as high, to perform.

I'm pretty sure, properly, that a test is done by putting a speaker in an anechoic chamber, setting a mic 1m directly in front of it, and running a waveform through it at 1w across the test range.

 

[gene]

I'm pretty sure, properly, that a test is done by putting a speaker in an anechoic chamber, setting a mic 1m directly in front of it, and running a waveform through it at 1w across the test range.

Most companies don't do this and an experienced designer knows how to do a summed nearfield response of their loudspeaker to take the room out the equation. Anechoic chambers simply make it easier to measure a loudspeaker but they aren't necessary for design or specing a product.

 

[jamie2112]

I'm pretty sure, properly, that a test is done by putting a speaker in an anechoic chamber, setting a mic 1m directly in front of it, and running a waveform through it at 1w across the test range.

Just FYI JL that is not even close to being a correct statement.That is how its done by all speaker companies huh? I am sorry,but only a few companies have that type of testing chamber,and as Gene said the anechoic chamber really just helps the measurement but its totally not needed..........

 

[JerryLove]

Just FYI JL that is not even close to being a correct statement.That is how its done by all speaker companies huh?

I don't believe that I claimed even a single company did that. I merely claimed it to be proper.

I am sorry,but only a few companies have that type of testing chamber,and as Gene said the anechoic chamber really just helps the measurement but its totally not needed..........

McIntosh has one, which potentially means Denon, Marantz, Snell, Boston Acustics, and Esicent.

I'm pretty certain Infinity had one, which means Harmon Kardon, JBL, Mark Levenson, and Revel have access as well.

Paradigm uses one (http://www.cepro.com/slideshow/image/2864/).
I believe that several of the Canadian companies have been cited as using a national chamber (Energy comes to mind), but could be mistaken.

But more to the point: I didn't say any used it. I asserted it was a proper standard. Any other method of measurment, and feel free to correct me, which discusses speaker output, it attempting to guess/computer/approximate what would be measured under the conditions I described.

 

[WmAx]

An anechoic chamber is able to do more thorough testing as compared to using time gated random noise/MLSS measurements. Things that are possible in an anechoic chamber that can not be done otherwise: (1) full-range frequency response, mid or far field, without splicing multiple measurements(which leads to errors). (2) Resonance/energy decay analysis of the speaker at mid and far field distances at frequencies under roughly 1,000 Hz.

-Chris

 

[ozmedia]

I think all the comments simply display the fact that there is no regulation behind such specifications and different manufacturer's use different methods of measuring and estimating actual responses; the problem is that they are all compared by most consumer as equally tested.

For JL, you're right in that you didn't mention that most companies use an anechoic chamber, but the mere handful mentioned are a minisclue propotion to the hundreds of speaker brands on the market now (even though there are many others who properly measure responses too). I can't see companies using proper chamber measurements for low end products but perhaps in thier higher end models where the R&D costs are realistically recovered. I don't believe that an Energy product sold in a bog box store for 20 points margin (tops) is going to have such definitive testing.

 

[Imitation]

It's called RBH.

RBH uses EMP as their more entry level, on line brand. For tighter overall sound and incredible detail, check out the MC-6CT, sweeeeeet! And, cash permitting, you can look into the Signature or T-Series, dare to dream.

But you have one thing right, EMP is an astounding value for money and to thier improvement on it would cost you 3X more, and that's just for the MC's!

When Audioholics had the clone EMP 5.1 system of the RBH TK series on clearance for $200.00 (sorry, the EMP model #s slip my mind right now) I told friends in the US, who instantly bought a set. Needless to say they are all thrilled.

Glad you're happy, your ears will get used to the tonal changes from your last speakers and I find RBH's drivers do mellow and smooth out over a bit of time, I'll assume the same goes for thier EMP line too.

Yeah the only issue i've got with rbh is most of those designs are all box designs and not as waf friendly as these emp's. Wife wasn't excited at all about some of the "boxey" speakers I've thought sounded good. It's sad, but sometimes compromise is required.

 

[gene]

The importance of anechoic chambers for testing loudspeakers is highly over stated and lately used as a marketing ploy by many companies claiming their products are better for that very reason.

A good loudspeaker engineer knows how to properly measure their speakers without one.

That being said, I wish I had access to one as it would make measuring so much easier.

The best way to measure subs is still groundplane and on a pole assuming good weather conditions.

Even with anechoic chambers, manufacturers are at liberty to spec their speakers anyway they like. There is no set standard so don't let a smooth anechoic response fool you. At what power level did they take those measurements? What about distortion?

LMS does a horrible job measuring distortion and I almost never see loudspeaker companies disclose distortion with any other testing method.

 

[ArVee]

EMP with Yamaha AV and Klipsch sprrounds

I don't see quite the detailed specs on that receiver I'd like to confidently say one way or another, but it looks like it's putting out 85watts per channel, unfortunately with unknown distortion. Sort of a toss up for me, but I'd say you might have trouble powering them...mixing 6 and 8 ohms is no problem, but I'd like to see more info on the 6ohm power ratings from that yamaha before passing judgement.

Best I can say is if you have the owners manual and it states it handles a 6ohm load ok then hook them up and see how they sound to you! If you notice any clipping or distortion at the levels you'll be using them at then you'll likely want to look into selling the yamaha and purchasing a new receiver, perhaps a refurb from accessories4less for $300 or so.

Thanks fightinkraut, my 16kg of L and R will arrive on the weekend, says Fedex..I will hook up and see .. my first test is the first drum lead in and beginning of "Southbound Again" by Dire Straits - I find most system muddy up that roll intro and cant keep the bass and drums distinct..