|
Post by namikis on May 7, 2017 13:28:34 GMT -5
Hey - just a quick post here about my experience with the above. I had owned the XMC-1 for about 18 months when I decided to add an audiophile 2-channel pre for music with HT bypass because the XMC-1 was not able to get the most of that format for me - so I bought a Channel Islands Audio PLC1 and kept the XMC-1 for HT. That worked great (and still does). Six months later I started getting irritated that the XMC-1 did not have Atmos, and that I would need to send it back if and when Emotiva came out with Atmos board - so I decided to buy a regular AVR and sell my XMC-1 on Ebay. I installed the AVR and did some test runs. Ran Audyssey Platinum (or whatever that was - supposedly the top end) and used the receiver for about a week (the brand and model shall rename anonymous to protect the guilty). I quickly realized that the AVR was a BIG downgrade in sound. Atmos or not, the XMC-1 was able to do tricks in home theater that the AVR could not pull off. So... I calmly packed the receiver and returned it, popped the XMC-1 back in place, and never looked back. Still waiting to upgrade it to Atmos and some point when that is available, but not planning to go back to a receiver any time soon. Sharing in case some of you are feeling the temptation to jump back into receiver land. N
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 7, 2017 13:59:48 GMT -5
Similar experience, I originally had a UMC-1 which I sold to my uncle when he was moving to a smaller house and downsized his audio systems from 3 to 1. I reverted to an AVR that cost 3 times what the UMC-1 cost and the step down was, to put it mildly, unacceptable in every way. I tolerated it, barely, until the UMC-200 arrived, which returned my system to its previous level. Since then I have upgraded from a USP-1 to an XSP-1 for 2.1 stereo music and added a pair of XPA-1L's. Going back to an AVR regardless of specifications is never going to happen again.
Cheers Gary
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on May 7, 2017 14:23:29 GMT -5
Hey - just a quick post here about my experience with the above. I had owned the XMC-1 for about 18 months when I decided to add an audiophile 2-channel pre for music with HT bypass because the XMC-1 was not able to get the most of that format for me - so I bought a Channel Islands Audio PLC1 and kept the XMC-1 for HT. That worked great (and still does). Six months later I started getting irritated that the XMC-1 did not have Atmos, and that I would need to send it back if and when Emotiva came out with Atmos board - so I decided to buy a regular AVR and sell my XMC-1 on Ebay. I installed the AVR and did some test runs. Ran Audyssey Platinum (or whatever that was - supposedly the top end) and used the receiver for about a week (the brand and model shall rename anonymous to protect the guilty). I quickly realized that the AVR was a BIG downgrade in sound. Atmos or not, the XMC-1 was able to do tricks in home theater that the AVR could not pull off. So... I calmly packed the receiver and returned it, popped the XMC-1 back in place, and never looked back. Still waiting to upgrade it to Atmos and some point when that is available, but not planning to go back to a receiver any time soon. Sharing in case some of you are feeling the temptation to jump back into receiver land. N Yes my friend! Im not selling my XMC-1 because I think and AVR would be an upgrade! Its just what I need to do right now. I will be back!! emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/49950/xmc-1-sale-444-44
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on May 7, 2017 16:08:37 GMT -5
For me the XMC-1 is definitely a keeper, not only for HT but for the 2 channels stereo with Dirac this marvelous preamp make an unbelievable and hard to beat job.
|
|
|
Post by htguy on May 7, 2017 16:15:58 GMT -5
What/how many speakers did you use for Atmos and how did you set them up? On ceiling or bouncing sound off ceiling?
When running Audyssey did you use there new app for ipad/iphone/android or did you just let the receiver correct the full curve? One fall of Audyssey is forced correction of whole curve that many including myself do not like.
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on May 7, 2017 16:21:10 GMT -5
A shame you had to go thru all that. As soon as I read what you were trying to accomplish I was not at all surprised where you ended up.
As Emotiva has proved with the XMC-1, there should be no reason A top notch AV processor should fall short in the audio department when pitted against a high end 2 channel preamp.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by namikis on May 7, 2017 18:30:13 GMT -5
A shame you had to go thru all that. As soon as I read what you were trying to accomplish I was not at all surprised where you ended up. As Emotiva has proved with the XMC-1, there should be no reason A top notch AV processor should fall short in the audio department when pitted against a high end 2 channel preamp. Bill On two-channel you are leaving some very subtle sound-staging/imaging on the table - I have done the A/B test so many times I get tired just from thinking of all the cable switching involved. It is minor, but it is there. In my case the 2 channel pre is just wires and a volume control (the passive Channel Islands Audio PLC-1). For HT the XMC-1 is a kick ass processor. And Dirac Live IS better than Audyssey by several miles. Being able to set the target curve is huge. I do not see the advantage of Dirac for stereo as much as others, but I think it is more a function of much treatment you have in the room. A treated room needs less help from either Audyssey or Dirac. Jut my take.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 7, 2017 18:47:13 GMT -5
A shame you had to go thru all that. As soon as I read what you were trying to accomplish I was not at all surprised where you ended up. As Emotiva has proved with the XMC-1, there should be no reason A top notch AV processor should fall short in the audio department when pitted against a high end 2 channel preamp. Bill On two-channel you are leaving some very subtle sound-staging/imaging on the table - I have done the A/B test so many times I get tired just from thinking of all the cable switching involved. It is minor, but it is there. In my case the 2 channel pre is just wires and a volume control (the passive Channel Islands Audio PLC-1). For HT the XMC-1 is a kick ass processor. And Dirac Live IS better than Audyssey by several miles. Being able to set the target curve is huge. I do not see the advantage of Dirac for stereo as much as others, but I think it is more a function of much treatment you have in the room. A treated room needs less help from either Audyssey or Dirac. Jut my take. Very very very hard to beat the transparency from a passive preamp. I currently own 5 different passive preamps and just switch between them occasionally just for fun.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 7, 2017 22:06:50 GMT -5
Very very very hard to beat the transparency from a passive preamp. I currently own 5 different passive preamps and just switch between them occasionally just for fun. Personally I just don't understand passive pre amps, fundamentally they are just a switch for changing inputs, some don't even do that, and a volume control. Which is really a volume reducer as a passive pre amp can't actually increase the volume as it has no power to do so. A theoretically perfect pre-amp would have infinite input impedance and zero output impedance. The infinite input impedance would present no load to the source component and the zero output impedance would maintain its output voltage regardless of the interconnects or power amplifiers. A passive pre-amp can't do this since raising the input impedance raises the output impedance. Vive versa, lowering the output impedance would lower the input impedance. Being passive it's not technically possible to have one high and the other low. Succinctly, I see any claim regarding the purity of a passive pre amp is being illogical. For example when playing vinyl, the signal starts as vibration of the needle in the groove and finishes with the movement of a voice coil. Mathematically the signal gain is something around 10,000 and for any given cartridge and speaker sensitivity the gain is fixed. If we have a passive preamp (ie; no gain) then the gain must be added in the phono stage or in the power amplifier. In simple terms all we have accomplished is to move the necessary gain to a different box. That'll get the passive pre amp fanbois jumping Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on May 7, 2017 22:17:57 GMT -5
Also remember if you want to do music 2 channel especially too, the AVR does not do balanced let alone differential balanced on the front left right channels. Come to think of it, AVRs don't do balanced at all.
|
|
|
Post by namikis on May 7, 2017 22:47:57 GMT -5
Very very very hard to beat the transparency from a passive preamp. I currently own 5 different passive preamps and just switch between them occasionally just for fun. Personally I just don't understand passive pre amps, fundamentally they are just a switch for changing inputs, some don't even do that, and a volume control. Which is really a volume reducer as a passive pre amp can't actually increase the volume as it has no power to do so. A theoretically perfect pre-amp would have infinite input impedance and zero output impedance. The infinite input impedance would present no load to the source component and the zero output impedance would maintain its output voltage regardless of the interconnects or power amplifiers. A passive pre-amp can't do this since raising the input impedance raises the output impedance. Vive versa, lowering the output impedance would lower the input impedance. Being passive it's not technically possible to have one high and the other low. Succinctly, I see any claim regarding the purity of a passive pre amp is being illogical. For example when playing vinyl, the signal starts as vibration of the needle in the groove and finishes with the movement of a voice coil. Mathematically the signal gain is something around 10,000 and for any given cartridge and speaker sensitivity the gain is fixed. If we have a passive preamp (ie; no gain) then the gain must be added in the phono stage or in the power amplifier. In simple terms all we have accomplished is to move the necessary gain to a different box. That'll get the passive pre amp fanbois jumping Cheers Gary Gary - Like everything there is a compromise when you go the passive route. You pointed some out. Component matching is tough, and the max volume is not that high with normal efficiency speakers. The bass is a wee bit less that dynamic in the passive. But the holographic imaging is worth it to me!
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 8, 2017 0:28:20 GMT -5
Very very very hard to beat the transparency from a passive preamp. I currently own 5 different passive preamps and just switch between them occasionally just for fun. Personally I just don't understand passive pre amps, fundamentally they are just a switch for changing inputs, some don't even do that, and a volume control. Which is really a volume reducer as a passive pre amp can't actually increase the volume as it has no power to do so. A theoretically perfect pre-amp would have infinite input impedance and zero output impedance. The infinite input impedance would present no load to the source component and the zero output impedance would maintain its output voltage regardless of the interconnects or power amplifiers. A passive pre-amp can't do this since raising the input impedance raises the output impedance. Vive versa, lowering the output impedance would lower the input impedance. Being passive it's not technically possible to have one high and the other low. Succinctly, I see any claim regarding the purity of a passive pre amp is being illogical. For example when playing vinyl, the signal starts as vibration of the needle in the groove and finishes with the movement of a voice coil. Mathematically the signal gain is something around 10,000 and for any given cartridge and speaker sensitivity the gain is fixed. If we have a passive preamp (ie; no gain) then the gain must be added in the phono stage or in the power amplifier. In simple terms all we have accomplished is to move the necessary gain to a different box. That'll get the passive pre amp fanbois jumping Cheers Gary Yes is still puzzles me as well. I don't understand it either but my ears love it!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 8, 2017 0:32:19 GMT -5
]Gary - Like everything there is a compromise when you go the passive route. You pointed some out. Component matching is tough, and the max volume is not that high with normal efficiency speakers. The bass is a wee bit less that dynamic in the passive. But the holographic imaging is worth it to me! The holographic imaging from the XSP-1 is quite startling for listeners not used to 3 dimensional staging from a pair of speakers. It's not unusual to find them sticking their head close to the side speakers, used in my 5.1 system, because they don't believe it could possible be just a stereo pair alone. Of course that's not just the pre amp by itself, the rest of the system contributes. That's the fun in this hobby (obsession), plenty of room for personal tastes. Cheers Gary
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,964
|
Post by KeithL on May 8, 2017 9:49:52 GMT -5
It seems to me you actually understand typical passive preamps quite well. They are a simple attenuator. (An attenuator provides no gain, and generally offers a relatively high output impedance. In fact, a potentiometer may actually offer a lower output impedance than its input impedance at some settings, but it will always have a higher output impedance than a wire or an active preamp.) The general argument in favor of passive preamps is simply that all active electronic components add some noise and distortion. Therefore, assuming your phono preamp provides as much gain as you need, or the output level of your CD player is high enough, you can avoid adding another component which will add more noise and distortion by using a passive preamp instead of an active one. Unfortunately, the higher output impedance of passive preamps causes them to be less immune to hum than active preamps, and also causes their output to interact with the electrical characteristics of the interconnect cables you use. (In other words, various interconnects may in fact sound noticeably different when used with a passive preamp - because the capacitance of the cables interacts with the high output impedance of the preamp; the usual result is a treble rolloff which will vary depending on the particular units and cables involved, and may even vary with the setting of the volume control.) (Note that, internally, most preamps consist of an attenuator and one or two buffer stages. From a design perspective, there is a distinct point to using a unity gain buffer with a passive attenuator. A well-designed unity gain buffer can have significantly lower distortion than an equivalent buffer with gain; therefore, if the gain structure works for you, using a unity gain buffer with a passive attenuator has certain theoretical advantages. However, in practice, with modern circuitry, the difference is mostly meaningless,) Also note that there is in fact ANOTHER type of passive preamp. These use a transformer to vary the volume level; and they always include stepped controls, with each step having its own tap on the transformer. This type of "preamp" can actually provide gain, and have a lower output impedance than the potentiometer type, but they also have lots of serious drawbacks: 1) transformers make virtually no noise, but they do make distortion 2) transformers tend to have interesting impedance and frequency response curves (they have inductance, and capacitance, and various resonances) 3) because of their interesting electrical characteristics, transformers tend to interact with both the source and the load impedance 4) because they are stepped, and each tap adds coat and complexity, they tend to have relatively few volume steps 5) even decent transformers are expensive, and good ones, which are still far from perfect, can be VERY expensive Because of their "interesting" electrical characteristics, transformer-based passive preamps almost always have their own individual "sound", and usually interact to a significant degree with what they're connected to. This makes them one of those components that has a distinct "personality"... which provides for endless discussion about "synergy" and "interactions" and "how different transformer cores and winding schemes sound". (If you agree with Gary's definition of the ideal preamp, which I do, then they are quite far from it. However, if your sole criterion is "gain without noise", and you don't mind your preamp having a distinct sound, then they work pretty well.) Very very very hard to beat the transparency from a passive preamp. I currently own 5 different passive preamps and just switch between them occasionally just for fun. Personally I just don't understand passive pre amps, fundamentally they are just a switch for changing inputs, some don't even do that, and a volume control. Which is really a volume reducer as a passive pre amp can't actually increase the volume as it has no power to do so. A theoretically perfect pre-amp would have infinite input impedance and zero output impedance. The infinite input impedance would present no load to the source component and the zero output impedance would maintain its output voltage regardless of the interconnects or power amplifiers. A passive pre-amp can't do this since raising the input impedance raises the output impedance. Vive versa, lowering the output impedance would lower the input impedance. Being passive it's not technically possible to have one high and the other low. Succinctly, I see any claim regarding the purity of a passive pre amp is being illogical. For example when playing vinyl, the signal starts as vibration of the needle in the groove and finishes with the movement of a voice coil. Mathematically the signal gain is something around 10,000 and for any given cartridge and speaker sensitivity the gain is fixed. If we have a passive preamp (ie; no gain) then the gain must be added in the phono stage or in the power amplifier. In simple terms all we have accomplished is to move the necessary gain to a different box. That'll get the passive pre amp fanbois jumping Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by junchoon on May 10, 2017 20:06:21 GMT -5
a little ot to talk about passive preamp, but here is another jab:
have u guys tried passive LDR preamp, like the ones from tortuga audio? seems to get rave reviews amongst my friends.
thanks.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 10, 2017 22:26:15 GMT -5
Very very very hard to beat the transparency from a passive preamp. I currently own 5 different passive preamps and just switch between them occasionally just for fun. Personally I just don't understand passive pre amps, fundamentally they are just a switch for changing inputs, some don't even do that, and a volume control. Which is really a volume reducer as a passive pre amp can't actually increase the volume as it has no power to do so. A theoretically perfect pre-amp would have infinite input impedance and zero output impedance. The infinite input impedance would present no load to the source component and the zero output impedance would maintain its output voltage regardless of the interconnects or power amplifiers. A passive pre-amp can't do this since raising the input impedance raises the output impedance. Vive versa, lowering the output impedance would lower the input impedance. Being passive it's not technically possible to have one high and the other low. Succinctly, I see any claim regarding the purity of a passive pre amp is being illogical. For example when playing vinyl, the signal starts as vibration of the needle in the groove and finishes with the movement of a voice coil. Mathematically the signal gain is something around 10,000 and for any given cartridge and speaker sensitivity the gain is fixed. If we have a passive preamp (ie; no gain) then the gain must be added in the phono stage or in the power amplifier. In simple terms all we have accomplished is to move the necessary gain to a different box. That'll get the passive pre amp fanbois jumping Cheers Gary You don't really move the gain to another place...unless you already have a DAC with a volume control which may make things just a wee bit redundant if you are using it. Usually you are outputting a line level signal and then reducing it. You're not adding gain if it's already fixed. Now an active preamp most of the time isn't actually working in its pre- AMP functionality. Most of the time, it too is reducing from line level, not amping. Passive preamps have an interesting quality to them...the very few I've tried. There is a change in tonal balance though. But there is something very pleasing to some of them. I've only tried relatively cheap ones. It would be interesting to see what a very high quality unit does.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 11, 2017 3:23:32 GMT -5
Personally I just don't understand passive pre amps, fundamentally they are just a switch for changing inputs, some don't even do that, and a volume control. Which is really a volume reducer as a passive pre amp can't actually increase the volume as it has no power to do so. A theoretically perfect pre-amp would have infinite input impedance and zero output impedance. The infinite input impedance would present no load to the source component and the zero output impedance would maintain its output voltage regardless of the interconnects or power amplifiers. A passive pre-amp can't do this since raising the input impedance raises the output impedance. Vive versa, lowering the output impedance would lower the input impedance. Being passive it's not technically possible to have one high and the other low. Succinctly, I see any claim regarding the purity of a passive pre amp is being illogical. For example when playing vinyl, the signal starts as vibration of the needle in the groove and finishes with the movement of a voice coil. Mathematically the signal gain is something around 10,000 and for any given cartridge and speaker sensitivity the gain is fixed. If we have a passive preamp (ie; no gain) then the gain must be added in the phono stage or in the power amplifier. In simple terms all we have accomplished is to move the necessary gain to a different box. That'll get the passive pre amp fanbois jumping You don't really move the gain to another place...unless you already have a DAC with a volume control which may make things just a wee bit redundant if you are using it. Usually you are outputting a line level signal and then reducing it. You're not adding gain if it's already fixed. Now an active preamp most of the time isn't actually working in its pre- AMP functionality. Most of the time, it too is reducing from line level, not amping. Passive preamps have an interesting quality to them...the very few I've tried. There is a change in tonal balance though. But there is something very pleasing to some of them. I've only tried relatively cheap ones. It would be interesting to see what a very high quality unit does. Do the maths on your own gear gar, add the gain from your phono stage to the gain from your amp, then subtract the efficiency of your speakers. Then compare that to the preferred listening volume in your usual seating position. Obviously the passive pre amp has no gain and many phono stages don't have sufficient output to drive many power amplifiers to that volume. What's your choices, a higher gain phono amp or a higher gain power amp. That's what I meant by "moving the gain". Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 11, 2017 12:33:23 GMT -5
a little ot to talk about passive preamp, but here is another jab: have u guys tried passive LDR preamp, like the ones from tortuga audio? seems to get rave reviews amongst my friends. thanks. I haven't try the Tortuga but I do have two of the most popular ones, the Lightspeed and the Stereo Coffee. I mostly use the Stereo Coffee because it has three inputs. The Stereo Coffee is trully a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by namikis on May 11, 2017 12:51:36 GMT -5
a little ot to talk about passive preamp, but here is another jab: have u guys tried passive LDR preamp, like the ones from tortuga audio? seems to get rave reviews amongst my friends. thanks. I haven't try the Tortuga but I do have two of the most popular ones, the Lightspeed and the Stereo Coffee. I mostly use the Stereo Coffee because it has three inputs. The Stereo Coffee is trully a bargain. I have tried a few DIY designs - including one using a a 4 pole 24 step attenuator that sells on ebay for 20 bucks and sounds AMAZING (and consists of an attenuator, a couple pf RCA terminals, a couple of toggle switches and wire). The best of the commercial ones for me is the Channel Islands Audio PLC1, with its great remote and HT bypass. If for some reason you are not happy enough with the XMC-1 in two channel mode, the above will work and the silky highs will mesmerize you. Just be aware that the bass may not be as dynamic and the highest volume may not be that high. Namikis
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 11, 2017 13:06:21 GMT -5
AVRs are built to a price point - Period. They are NOT optimized for high quality sound because the manufacturers know that the majority of purchasers are buying the items for "Gee-Whiz!" sound effects.
No (or very little) optimization of parts quality is done for AVRs because it is assumed by the manufacturers that the product will become obsolete far sooner than it wears out.
I suspect that the main costs that go into an AVR are R&D and licensing of the various CODECs and proprietary algorithms required for certifications. The hardware, therefore, is created at the lowest possible cost to maximize profits for the manufacturer. This margin MUST be maximized because the only way to make money on an AVR is to sell huge (HUGE) numbers of them.
So even the most modest separates, despite their potentially higher cost, normally trounce AVRs for sound quality. This applies even for the "top of the line" AVRs. AVR manufacturers may try a little harder on their flagship products, but I'd still wager on the separates to sound better. Now every once in a while, an AVR may (almost accidentally) sound far better than expected, but trying to predict which one(s) may have some internal "synergy" is an impossible task.
My two cents...
Boom
|
|