When I first upgraded from XA160.5's to XA160.8's I did think the highs were subdued. So did at least one of my audiophile friends, who told me he preferred the highs from the .5's but overall preferred the .8's because it had more 'meat on the bones'.
There was a LOT more bass energy in the .8's and this finds it way up into the midrange where it provides a thicker, more palpable presentation.
It's hard to say whether the treble of the .8's actually has less energy or whether the .5's simply have a thinner (more recessed) midrange. The latter is the impression one gets when going back from the .8's to the .5's (I had both amps in my system for 2 months).
I ended up switching speaker cables and now I don't find any loss in high frequencies (system synergy!).
Hope this helps.
There was a LOT more bass energy in the .8's and this finds it way up into the midrange where it provides a thicker, more palpable presentation.
It's hard to say whether the treble of the .8's actually has less energy or whether the .5's simply have a thinner (more recessed) midrange. The latter is the impression one gets when going back from the .8's to the .5's (I had both amps in my system for 2 months).
I ended up switching speaker cables and now I don't find any loss in high frequencies (system synergy!).
Hope this helps.