|
Post by garbulky on Jul 21, 2012 14:52:42 GMT -5
you can connect two devices per output and use one to go to the sub. This way you don't have to have a sub with a passthrough.
|
|
|
Post by ottaone on Jul 21, 2012 16:34:22 GMT -5
Yes, now I see what I don't use and have forgotten: send full range to sub, set cross-over and enjoy! Righty then. Where do I order?
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on Jul 21, 2012 16:50:39 GMT -5
No kidding... I want them to take my money so I can lock in delivery =P
I have exactly that with my system. Full range to subs and main and just use the subs xover.
|
|
|
Post by shadowlight on Jul 22, 2012 12:02:17 GMT -5
Any addtional information on the XDA2/Pro Dac? DAC chipset, will it have HT bypass (I do not believe so), is Sept still the time frame for availability?
TIA
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on Jul 24, 2012 0:54:11 GMT -5
They haven't said anything yet... Hopefully they will have another podcast soon.
|
|
|
Post by shadowlight on Jul 24, 2012 5:57:36 GMT -5
They haven't said anything yet... Hopefully they will have another podcast soon. Thank You. Will wait for the podcast.
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Jul 30, 2012 3:04:59 GMT -5
When the XDA-1 was released, Emotiva said that the SQ would be the same as with the XSP-1 when using the XDA-1 as a pre directly to a poweramp. Now we know it wasnt the case since the volumecontrol was'nt lossless. But now on the XDA-2 the volumecontrol will be lossless, so I guess it will stand beside the XSP-1 in SQ if you only have digital sources and dont need EQ or bassmanagement?
|
|
|
Post by counterpoint on Aug 11, 2012 10:17:51 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me if the line-out on the XDA-2 switches off when the headphones are plugged in? That functionality would make the most sense to me, but I wouldn't mind if that was configurable either. Also, I would appreciate it if Emo could hint at the headphone amp specs asap. Either way, I can't wait for the XDA-2. I will buy two of them instantly.
Keep up the good work, EMO.
|
|
|
Post by kzone on Aug 11, 2012 11:20:51 GMT -5
When the XDA-1 was released, Emotiva said that the SQ would be the same as with the XSP-1 when using the XDA-1 as a pre directly to a poweramp. Now we know it wasnt the case since the volumecontrol was'nt lossless. But now on the XDA-2 the volumecontrol will be lossless, so I guess it will stand beside the XSP-1 in SQ if you only have digital sources and dont need EQ or bassmanagement? If this is the case, I'll be very disappointed with xsp1. Perhaps emo can give the order of sq between the XDAs, XSP, XMC, USP & UMC for direct stereo. I know it can be subjective and many wud not hear differences in real world listening, but I'd like to know Emo's own ranking.
|
|
|
Post by danny01 on Aug 12, 2012 4:47:38 GMT -5
Man, this wait is killing me... I'm thinking about just buying another XDA-1 to hold me over on my 2ch system.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 12, 2012 5:49:01 GMT -5
Under the old news section there is a new comment from an admin which mentions some new information (not so new, info may have changed by now):
I think the most interesting bit is that the headphone amplifier has a separate volume control and that the design is new from the ground up.
|
|
|
Post by counterpoint on Aug 12, 2012 10:10:19 GMT -5
So can someone explain to me what "lossless" volume is? Will the headphone amp volume control have this feature?
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 12, 2012 10:24:37 GMT -5
My mistake counterpoint, the information posted that I mentioned is a little bit old so this may be outdated. I have no idea if the Headphone amp will be losseless. What I was referring to by losseless volume is that it doesn't lose sound information when it is turned down. Digital volume controls can lose sound information (actual bits!) when turned down from maximimum though there's ways to minimize the loss. The xda-1 had a digital volume control and I noticed that the sound at louder volumes was better than sound at softer volumes though it was hard to describe why. This was a bit of an issue to me as I listen to music at softer volumes. Some people noticed this and others didn't notice it. In this case a losseless volume control is an analog volume control where you still have all the detail. Now analog volume controls also have their own issues depending on implementation but that's another story. ;D
|
|
|
Post by counterpoint on Aug 14, 2012 2:08:33 GMT -5
Ah, so digital volume control is attenuation in the digital domain, whereas analog volume control is attenuation in the electrical domain? Is it possible to have lossless volume control done in the digital domain?
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Aug 14, 2012 3:02:58 GMT -5
Ah, so digital volume control is attenuation in the digital domain, whereas analog volume control is attenuation in the electrical domain? Is it possible to have lossless volume control done in the digital domain? In a way there is...sort of. There are DACS that upsample to 32bits and then digitally attenuate from there. Like certain saber DACS. I believe Wyred 4 sound uses 32 bit digital attenuation. At 32 bits attenuating the volume leads to a relative loss of very few bits, therefore the effect on the sound may not be as audible or possibly inaudible. However a well designed (EXPENSIVE) analog volume control can still technically better it. However it's not easy to make an analog volume control that can do that so therefore the price is high. There is some sort of attenuation where they use a resistive ladder which is supposed to be losseless. I'm not actually very well versed in most of this. But that's the general idea. Somebody once posted a youtube link about this stuff which was very useful.
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Aug 14, 2012 5:31:30 GMT -5
Perhaps emo can give the order of sq between the XDAs, XSP, XMC, USP & UMC for direct stereo. I know it can be subjective and many wud not hear differences in real world listening, but I'd like to know Emo's own ranking. +1 This is an excellent idea, and one I would like to see Emotiva do as well. Perhaps have Lonnie measure the output signals from all of them to determine how to rank them?
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 14, 2012 9:23:30 GMT -5
Perhaps emo can give the order of sq between the XDAs, XSP, XMC, USP & UMC for direct stereo. I know it can be subjective and many wud not hear differences in real world listening, but I'd like to know Emo's own ranking. +1 This is an excellent idea, and one I would like to see Emotiva do as well. Perhaps have Lonnie measure the output signals from all of them to determine how to rank them? Since all of these except perhaps the XMC-1 will be there at Emofest, why not have a blind session and let the Emofest participants rank them?
|
|
|
Post by kzone on Aug 14, 2012 11:21:25 GMT -5
emo will have all of them in the same room and switch the 6 one after another for many rounds? Perhaps after afew rounds of blind tests, emotiva can then do a demonstration and tell us what the difference should be and to look out for it? Face it, there is a law of diminishing returns and some improvements are minor which there are people who are willing to pay that a lot more for that little bit of improvement. And like wine appreciation, there need to be some kind of direction by the experts
Frankly, i seriously doubt emo will do this cos if the differences are not apparent enough in that setup, it will affect sales of the higher models equipments
|
|
|
Post by kzone on Aug 14, 2012 11:22:11 GMT -5
Since all of these except perhaps the XMC-1 will be there at Emofest, what?? XMC-1 wont be there?
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on Aug 14, 2012 13:19:22 GMT -5
Ah, so digital volume control is attenuation in the digital domain, whereas analog volume control is attenuation in the electrical domain? Is it possible to have lossless volume control done in the digital domain? In a way there is...sort of. There are DACS that upsample to 32bits and then digitally attenuate from there. Like certain saber DACS. I believe Wyred 4 sound uses 32 bit digital attenuation. At 32 bits attenuating the volume leads to a relative loss of very few bits, therefore the effect on the sound may not be as audible or possibly inaudible. However a well designed (EXPENSIVE) analog volume control can still technically better it. However it's not easy to make an analog volume control that can do that so therefore the price is high. There is some sort of attenuation where they use a resistive ladder which is supposed to be losseless. I'm not actually very well versed in most of this. But that's the general idea. Somebody once posted a youtube link about this stuff which was very useful. There are two parts to digital volume control and both can cause data loss. The first is the calculation of new value. You'll see people talking about 32bit or 32bit floating point calculations here. If you don't have enough granularity in your calculations, you can loose information. The second place is the output ability of the DAC, i.e. how much range can it really control. Just a quick note, what is really important isn't the number of bits in the DAC, but it's effective "accurate" bit output. Most 24bit DACs really have an effective bit accuracy of 18-19bits. (Just noise for the last 5-6bits) So you can have some effectively lossless volume control provided you don't shift the "information" into the 'noisy' bits. In practice, you can probably deal with a 4 bit shift w/o a lot of problems. More than that and you'd start to loose information into the noise.
|
|