Once again, I had the great pleasure of being hosted by mr and mrs B'zila for a very enjoyable evening.
If anybody knows B'zilla, you know he likes to try out new stuff and how fantastic was what I saw?
An XSP-1 gen 2 and two XPA-1 L's coupled to an Oppo 105 running fully balanced end to end with short cables connecting the monoblocks to the axiom m80 v4's.
Bass energy was kindly provided by the very potent PSA XV15 sitting quietly to the left.
On a personal note, my dream system upgrade just so happens to include - pretty much these EXACT components - namely the XSP-1 gen 2 and XPA-1 L's coupled to an axiom m80 V3. So I was VERY interested in seeing how it would perform.
The good news: it did exactly as I was hoping to. My dream upgrades are still very much firmly seated.
He sat me down and played a BBC big band hit. And the first thing that hit me was the druming is very powerful. Followed by when the trumpet player took off, good god! It was really heaven. There was no harshness, weakness in the treble, just a full BLAART trumpet sound. It was glorious!
So let's describe it.
I had some concerns with the XPA-1 L before I heard them. Mainly because it used a 450 VA transformer vs the more beefier 600VA of the XPA-2. I was hoping for something along those lines when they released it. But turns out it was no matter as they sounded GREAT! I couldn't tell how they did full range as it was crossed over by the XSP-1.
The axioms aren't easy speakers to get sounding at their full potential. Most amps WILL sound good with them, but just not make them sound amazing. Luckily Emotiva amps tend to mate quite nicely with these speakers but my observations are that a (good) standalone pre-amp is a must with these speakers. Maybe it's the impedance swing or the many drivers it's got but without this combination there is a slight weakness to the sound.
Luckily the XSP-1 and XPA-1L's are up to feeding these bad boys.
So the sound.
We had the XPA-1 L's in class A mode.
Firs thing I noticed was that the sweet spot or the left to right illusion was wider or at least more seamless. With my UPA-2 and pretty much most non monoblocks s (minus maybe the XPR-2) the sweet spot with the axioms always required a very exact reasonably narrow location. You had to scooch till you found it.
With the XPA-1 L's this issue isn't quite there. Maybe it's monoblocks, or moar powah, the sound left to right was just easy to find a good place to sit.
That's what it felt like the entire sound was sown together just WELL. There was some SERIOUS dynamics. The XSP-1 has what I call a sophisticated sound signature. It does have a signature of its own, but it's a good one. Just slightly laid back in treble but it doesn't lack for high end extension. And in the mid-range it's nice and rich sounding. IT also does depth quite nicely.
When you get to this level of reproduction, one's analysing of the sound automatically gets kicked up many notches and also one becomes more critical and nitpicky - because otherwise....there would be nothing to say as the sound really is FANTASTIC. Forr instance, I was thinking during this reviews more in terms of "realness", tone, roundness, fullness, musicality, ambience etc rather than clarity, treble, bass. Because it's already beyond the regular things that we normally notice in hearing equipment that stands out. So I am forced to go beyond.
What I got was an immersive soundstage
There was lots of clarity, and all the instruments had their unique placement.
The XSP-1 XPA-1 L combo WORKS. I sat through all 7 and a half minutes of the big band orchestra track because it just sounded so enjoyable. There were many drum solos and trumpets and they were reporoduced very well.
The bass quality was richer too I felt. Just a bit better controlled than I'd heard before.
We then pulled up my go to audition track: come away with me.
Here's where it got interesting. The song sounded slightly different from what I was used to. I noticed a small cymbal at the very end which I never noticed before. During some guitar solos, I noticed a second guitar off to the left which I didn't realize there was. Really small details just came through very naturally.
Also of interest the upright bass has sections where it does a sort of slide "growl" to it. Here the center of tone went lower, it sounded fuller and the growl was also equally heard.
For instance on the yamaha RX reciever: the bass was more agressive or pushed forward which I felt was slightly off to the song's intention. Also the center of tone was much higher and though there was a lot of growl, you didn't hear the round low end quite as well.
Comparing:
XPA-2 gen 1. The XPA-2 gen 1 had a slightly more forward sound than the XPA-1 L's did. It may have been an artifact of the dac used at the time. But I found myself preferring the XPA-1 L's due to what I felt sounded a bit more natural. I hesitate to say which is the better amp as the XPA-2 was no slouch and has an intoxicating speed to it.
Crown amp: The XPA-1 L's simply do a more natural balanced job. It's a superior amp as it should be.
XPA-5: The sound signature of the XPA-1 L is very similar to the XPA-5. However it is more uh, clear and a bit better imo. If I had to choose which amp I wanted I would pick the XPA-1 L very easily due to the enjoyment of the sound though I wouldn't be able to articulate the difference clearly as the sound signature really is similar.
XPR-2: This is I think where the XPA-1 L I think should be compared.
I heard the XPR-2 in this exact setup with the XSP-1. The XPR-2 appeared to have a slightly fuller sound but also there was some sort of very mild "wooliness" to the sound. A roundness. This is not a bad thing. It had a slightly better 3d effect where it had a certain amount of body to the sound. I found these to be more of which flavor do you like rather than which is the better amp. The sound IS different. Just depends which you prefer. Some might like the extra warmth and body of the XPR-2 but be turned of by what they may consider a slight wooliness or fuzz while the XPA-1 L felt a little leaner but still very competent and had some nice
Comparison to my setup
(note it's not a current pic of my setup)
Interestingly I have an older version of the m80's which are the v2's with v3 componenents. coupled to a DC-1 with a UPA-2.
I think the monoblocks did significantly better in terms of clarity and also the seamless left to right soundstage including the sweet spot. Also due to the larger space, in B'zilla's room, I felt instruments were able to breathe and be laid out in a significantly different manner (a larger area if you will) than mine was able to do. My setup due to its close to listener nature is a bit more like chamber music while B'zilla's is more similar to being in a nice hall with more spatial information available for the instruments. At my space, the music is a little more "intimate" while some would say a bit too close. Hence my preference for folk music and acapella where it feels like the singers are large and right next to you.
In B'zilla's setup, they can project INTO his living room more so larger instrumental with more instruments appear more realistic.
The mid-range was also superior imo with B'zilla's setup just more uh sophisticated sound signature for want of a better word.
The XSP-1 is slightly laid back with a very subtle dark rich sound which helps things imo.
Speaking of sophisticated, musical sounds, I noted this exact thing in XSP-1 gen 2 review, so I imagine the XSP-1 really helps that feel to the music out quite a bit.
If anybody is interested - more detailed impressions of the XSP-1 can be found here
emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/632631/threadWhen I get the chance, I hope to bring the DC-1 to see if it benefits from the XSP-1.
Suggestions:
The only real critic I had was that though I felt the bass was well integrated there may be some tweaking needed. It felt like certain bits made some of the mids and highs - especially the voices not quite as dominating as it should have been. I fully believe just some tweaking would nearly completely allieviate any small issue like that.
it has been suggested apparently by an emotiva message that 8:30 is equivalent to 80hz crossover. I think this is innacurate but an honest mistake.
A recent poster's bass graph done at 12 O clock cross over shows a more realistic picture of an 80hz crossover. So I reccomend going to 12 o clock instead.
I think the slightly higher crossover (or possibly lower, not a 100% on thios) may help warm up the sound just a hair. Maybe toeing the speakers out a bit could make the soundstage wider and even more encompassing.
In the end, I found the sound really good. So good that I had to really push myself to think what am I actually missing. Sort of when one gets near the uncanny valley. It is significantly superior to my system and ranks as best sound I've heard pretty much right alongside the XPR-2 XSP-1 experience.
What cannot be communicated via this analysis was just how enjoyable, natural and just plain nice the sound was.
This is a potent combo and should not be ignored!
novisnick[/a]
novisnicknovisnick visited one time before. He should make the trip out again as there is an improvement over when he heard it last!
A few more things about the XPA-1 L. The size cannot be ignored. It's size is MUCH more manageable with the form factor of the old U-series. I like my amps big and bulky but seeing the size in real life makes it appealing than say - the backbreaking XPA-2.
lonnie knew what he was doing with the XPA-1 L. I asked B'zilla "and how much are they selling for again."
He said "$350" and I said, "that's insane" because it is. If you were considering these amps. Let me tell you, they don't sound exactly like XPA-100's (or at least the UPA-1's and UPA-2 I had), the XPA-2, or the XPR-2. They are different and GOOD.
At the end, I headed out but not before we decided on a biking adventure! I also got some other music related goodies, many thanks to my kind friend.
Thanks again for the good company and music!
P.S.:
boomzilla Can you email me some pics so I can link them on this post?