advertisement


Exposure XXV 25

M

manwithnonaim

pfm Member
Hi all, anybody got or owned one of these integrated amps . Lookin for some opinions on sound quality compared to the exposure xx which I have owned !

Thanks

Steve
 
I've had both a Super XV and an XXVRC. The passive pre in the 25 gave a softer sound than the 15, so if you are after a similar sound to your 20 you may be disappointed. The 25 is probably more accurate but it lacked the grip and dynamics of the earlier Farlowe era amps for me. Put it this way, if I was to have one of them back it would be the 15. Also, the remote controller chips in the 25 can go wrong which ends up with the amp randomly going into mute. It's a known issue and Exposure can fix it by changing to a later chip - it cost me around £80 not including shipping about 8 years ago.
 
Hi smegger, thanks for your reply, interesting! so how would you rate the `super` which has a bit more power apparently , would it be just a more powerful version than the standard XV ? or does it have a different sound than the standard XV, and just one last question, why does the passive pre make a difference

Many thanks

Steve
 
The Super XV had a bit more power and as far as I know that was it. never heard a standard XV so can't really say much as to any sound difference. Passive preamps often make a difference because of the nature of gain and switching loss. A power amp has to be be quite well engineered to work well across a range of varying inputs.
 
It depends so much on your own taste. Although normally an Exposure Farlowe era fan, I did not get on with the XV at all, preferring the old X. Never heard the XVsuper but thought the XX was closer to a X than a XV.
Having said all that, I place the Claymore above all comers around the time(ish), though never heard the ever popular Obelisk.
 
Back in the day I auditioned the X vs XV and thought the XV was way better. Confirmed again later comparing my XV vs a friends X. I kept the XV for something like 15 years. A very satisfying amp indeed.
 
I've owned a XV super and currently still own 2 XXV's. I wouldn't agree that the XXV is "softer" than the XV super but I guess it depends on how one defines the word. I'd say the 25 is a bit less harsh sounding than the 15 super. Although having said that it's not like I ever thought the 15 super was harsh, only in comparison to the 25 did I feel the 15 super was slightly harsh. If that's what smegger68 meant by the word "softer" then I guess I would agree.

Both have that excellent exposure punch and drive that forces your attention. The 25 does give a bit more detail and as mentioned is a bit less harsh, or more refined.

My impressions held true with Spendor, Royd and Neat speakers.

Regardless of the XV super or the XXV you still need your seat belt when listening, regardless of the model.
 
Hi FrankF, thanks for your input! Was goin to ask you whats your favourite vintage exposure amp but maybe that's obvious(xxv)? do you think the xxv is more laid back than the xx or super xv or just warmer maybe, also have you ever heard the newer 3010 integrated . seems to divide opinion!

Thanks again

Steve
 
cjarchez said:
It depends so much on your own taste. Although normally an Exposure Farlowe era fan, I did not get on with the XV at all, preferring the old X. Never heard the XVsuper but thought the XX was closer to a X than a XV.
Having said all that, I place the Claymore above all comers around the time(ish), though never heard the ever popular Obelisk.
Click to expand...

I rate myself as sort of Farlowe era fan but preferred the XV to the X I had
Perhaps the latter needed service ?
It was quite noisy and coarse if memory serve

They are all pretty old by now.
 
manwithnonaim said:
Hi FrankF, thanks for your input! Was goin to ask you whats your favourite vintage exposure amp but maybe that's obvious(xxv)? do you think the xxv is more laid back than the xx or super xv or just warmer maybe, also have you ever heard the newer 3010 integrated . seems to divide opinion!
Click to expand...

Hi Steve, I re-read my post and see that it may have sounded like I contradicted myself within the same sentence. (wouldn't be a first for me LOL)

I loved my super 15 and the only reason I replaced t with the 25 was for the remote control. No other reason. I could have lived perfectly happy with either. I didn't think they were that much different, except IMO the 25 had slightly more detail and a bit more refinement. But neither difference hit you in the face, they were subtle.

The second 25 came along when I had a chance to grab one simply by being at the right place at the right time. Super 15 and 25 were rare to come by so I grabbed it.

So the answer to your question is that I don't actually have a preference between the 15 super and 25, but others may. I love them both.

As far as the XX goes I've never heard one so can't comment. But at the time when they were current models, my understanding was that the XX super was identical to the XV super except with no phono board option, line level only.

As far as the 3010 goes, I thought the first generation was a step in the wrong direction. But the 3010s was an improvement over the non "s" model. The 3010s2 was a further improvement, I'd say now on par with the super 15 and 25. The current 3010s2D I've yet to hear and never may because it's difficult, if not impossible, to audition Exposure in Canada.

You asked my favourite vintage exposure amp? If you're referring to the XV super or XXV, as I mentioned I honestly don't have a preference except for remote. If you're referring to all the JF models, of the ones I heard it would be hands down the 16 monos. They were beyond amazing to my ears.

Frank
 
Hi frank, thanks very much for the info on exposure. It was helpful and insightful. Not much options here in Ireland either to audition the newer 3010 amp so buying one blind would be risky. Will maybe lookout for a 25. The remote would be handy also.

Steve
 
It was the XXI, which was fairly new at the time. I was out of the country and stopped in an audio shop who I had heard carried Exposure. The sales rep told me it was my lucky day because they had exposure's top of the line amps, the 16 monos, in the shop for only a few days. First I listened to the 21 with the 4DR which I was very familiar with and only confirmed to myself how great that combo was. Then he connected the 16 monos and I remember wondering how that excellent experience from the 21/4DR combo could be taken to a whole other level.
 
manwithnonaim said:
Hi frank, thanks very much for the info on exposure. It was helpful and insightful. Not much options here in Ireland either to audition the newer 3010 amp so buying one blind would be risky. Will maybe lookout for a 25. The remote would be handy also.
Click to expand...

i purchased a 2010S 'blind' on a lark and it blew the proverbial doors off my Naim olive 62/140 setup - which was already very very good (and much better than my previous 42/140 set). I don't regret it at all - rather, it's nearly the best amplifier i've ever heard.
 
If you are interested in new model, can wait for the Exposure 5010 series. Should be releasing this year. Just not sure when.
 
Jonathan said:
i purchased a 2010S 'blind' on a lark and it blew the proverbial doors off my Naim olive 62/140 setup - which was already very very good (and much better than my previous 42/140 set). I don't regret it at all - rather, it's nearly the best amplifier i've ever heard.
Click to expand...
I always wanted to listen to a 2010s but sadly never had the opportunity. I use to hear nothing but great things about it. Nice to have someone here confirm that it's a great little amp! I may almost be tempted to buy one without listening if one comes along.

cstanpfm said:
If you are interested in new model, can wait for the Exposure 5010 series. Should be releasing this year. Just not sure when.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info... looking forward to the new series.
 
I was rather dissapointed hearing the very first 2010 range, much preferred good old XV/XX and my Naim 62/140 walked over that first 2010 to be honest
Perhaps the 42/140 in mention above needed some attention or other issues

People report the later 2010S/S2 are better
 
PerF said:
I was rather dissapointed hearing the very first 2010 range, much preferred good old XV/XX and my Naim 62/140 walked over that first 2010 to be honest
Perhaps the 42/140 in mention above needed some attention or other issues

People report the later 2010S/S2 are better
Click to expand...

well my 2010s was/is much much better than either the olive 62/140 or the 42/110 - i get slightly heavier (more bloated) bass with the naim gear but better dynamics, smoothness and and 'open' top end (like a cabriolet haha) with the exposure. it feels a bit more refined and integrated somehow - without compromising on anything that the naim can give me. I think the 2010s is very underrated - i have a 3010S2 also but i can't compared them directly at the moment. But the 2010s is very nearly the best amplifier i have ever heard ... it's almost like it's just not there somehow ... as opposed to a naim - which you are very aware of (in terms of it imparting it's own qualities into the mix)

for reference - i also have an exposure XX and 3010S2 (and a IV that really needs service) - all were bought second hand however - i may revise my view after i do a service on the other gear ... but I will be sure to update you if my feelings change on this matter
 
FrankF said:
I always wanted to listen to a 2010s but sadly never had the opportunity. I use to hear nothing but great things about it. Nice to have someone here confirm that it's a great little amp! I may almost be tempted to buy one without listening if one comes along.
Click to expand...

i would recommend it without hesitation personally - but your mileage may vary as they say i guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top