|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 28, 2010 10:33:33 GMT -5
Bill, you have touched on something worthy of discussion here. Each time you add a component to the signal path there is either loss or distortion. As well, each time amplification or gain is made to the signal, there is added distortion. So adding a preamp with the DAC should still add some distortion to the signal. I am sure it is the intention of the XSP to add as little as possible. I am curious as to how else this may be implemented into a preamp. Even if there is some sort of a hard bypass (as in what is supposed to be in the XMC-1), I would assume that gain would still be applied to the signal. It would just allow for better integration of systems, but still have some compromises. Great points. I feel as though, basically, if the pot/volume control/attenuator, depending on implementation, call it what you will, is implemented without distortion, then you use it as close to the source as possible, then get as quickly to your amp/speakers as you can. If the XSP-1 can be implemented such that its volume control releases a higher quality resolution than that in the XDA-1, and the signal path is so clean that it adds no significant additional distortion, then you could use it to resolve the issue of mixing the XDA-1 into your system. I think that's pretty unlikely (unless the XDA-1 attenuator really isn't that good). So, most likely, if you want that last ounce of goodness from the XDA-1, it will be a stand-alone implementation / cable-swapping every time. |
|
|
|
Post by frankv on Apr 29, 2010 0:33:26 GMT -5
Bill, your site states the following:
"Expected 2-channel analog sound quality, starting with the best: XSP-1, USP-1, XMC-1, USP-1"
Is this your opinion or coming from Emotiva, and which of the two "USP-1"s should be replaced by "UMC-1"?
Regards,
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 29, 2010 8:31:15 GMT -5
Bill, your site states the following: "Expected 2-channel analog sound quality, starting with the best: XSP-1, USP-1, XMC-1, USP-1" Is this your opinion or coming from Emotiva, and which of the two "USP-1"s should be replaced by "UMC-1"? Regards, Frank <laugh> I love typos. That line is on a few different pages, so I'll have to hunt it down and find it. The last one should be the UMC-1, and this is all per Lonnie's explanation of the various systems. Ok, I changed the wording and fixed the line on the XSP-1 and XMC-1 pages. Since I've only heard the UMC-1, I can't possibly offer a first-hand opinion. I can say that it would be difficult to best the UMC-1. I would guess I might not be able to hear an improvement from a USP-1, but it's apples to oranges since I use my UMC-1 exclusively with digital content. So, it's possible analog in to USP-1 is better than UMC-1, but I really wouldn't know. There are those that own both, and I'd be really interested if any of them could perform a blind comparison and see if they can actually hear a difference. |
|
MikeWI
Emo VIPs 
DC-1, ERC-1, USP-1, UPA-2, Sub 10, Emotiva 4S
Posts: 346
|
Post by MikeWI on May 26, 2010 11:14:27 GMT -5
Good point, and fair enough. I guess I just misinterpreted or got the wrong vibe from the wording. You do often offer lots of advice, suggestions, so I probably should have assumed differently. I think if the XSP-1 already existed and had incredible sonic performance it would sure be a lot easier to say, hey, just add an XSP-1 if you want that level of performance and features. So, your suggestion of looking elsewhere is a good idea, as well. Hopefully, some day, it will all exist at once, and we can get a killer, all-Emotiva package for HT and 2-channel. Righto, where to start? ... Firstly jlafrenz, I hear exactly where you are coming from, and I actually agree with you when taking this thread from a certain point of view. WIll get to that shortly. And thanks for responding to Bill and keeping things amicable. It is easy to throw up the wrong vibe somethimes, joys of one-way communication I guess  Bill, thank you for stepping in and keeping things in perspective. Glad you got the context of this thread, always great to receive your input.  So I'll try to clear things up. Indeed my XDA1-bypass query was triggered by Lonnies 'pre-amp' comments, and that it could be used on it's own without an additional pre-amp. But it is now clear that this 'pre-amp' feature is purley designed for 2-channel use ONLY. period. This is what makes jlafrenz's comment regarding the purpose of seperates a very valid point. My thoughts on using the pre-amp feature of the XDA-1 as part of a more complex setup is obviosly taking the XDA-1 beyond it's intended purpose. It's a DAC afterall... you add one to your system to further refine/specialise a major element (being the DAC) within the audio path. After much thought, it dawned on me... Whether subliminal or direct, perhaps the 'pre-amp' feature of the XDA-1 has been a little over-hyped? and although the pre-amp feature does make for a very capable pre-amp, it is not THE ultimate solution to 2-channel audio. Adding a U/XSP-1 for analogue pre-amp duties should further improve the system correct? After all, in accordance with the 'separates' argument, the U/XSP-1 should provide an even more superior pre-amp, as that it's specialty right?... just as Digital-Analogue-Conversion is the specialty of the XDA-1. Therefore the addition of a U/XSP-1 should not 'degrade', but improve the overall audio path. I realise, I'm probably stating the obvious, but I do believe that this approach or way of thinking clears up most question many will have regarding the use of the XDA-1 as a pre-amp. Hey, If I'm completely wrong regarding the assumption that a separate pre-amp (U/XSP-1) will do a better job than the XDA-1's pre-amp, then please sing out. That's what this is all about, good healthy discussion and ideas, and I'm wrapped that the likes of BillBauman and jlafreanz are getting involved as it is clear these guys offer valuable feedback for the forum. I'm relatively new to the world of real audio gear and I'm absorbing truck loads of knowledge every day (Brain candy), that's my nature. Although I'm a newb, I'm not afraid to post questions if it helps find answers. I will do my best to offer my own knowledge when I feel it's relevant, and I'll throw up ideas like this and receive constructive debate. Sometimes it not the direct answers that help, but the exchange of different advise and perspectives such ideas generate... Brain candy for ear candy ;D and pssst ...I'm ordering my very first Emo gear tomorrow...two USP-1s ...and so it begins  Shane Good thread and discussion. I am interested in how to integrate (or not...) the XDA-1 DAC into my current office system (replacing a High Resolution Technologies Music Streamer - HRT MS DAC). Just curious -- why two (2) USP-1's? Two different systems? Mike |
|
|
|
Post by orangeLollies on May 26, 2010 19:04:28 GMT -5
Good thread and discussion. I am interested in how to integrate (or not...) the XDA-1 DAC into my current office system (replacing a High Resolution Technologies Music Streamer - HRT MS DAC). Just curious -- why two (2) USP-1's? Two different systems? Mike DOH!! ...was mean to read two UPA-1s ...guess I was just too excited aye ;D ...have edited that post... |
|
|
|
Post by jonas79 on Dec 8, 2010 4:00:59 GMT -5
OMG, a thread created under processor/preamps that aint about a UMC-1  ...I felt the XDA-1 with it's preamp'ishness fits in this catagory. I realise this is possibly a bit premature, as the XDA hasnt been released yet, and we have no exact specs on it, as far as I'm aware... But I'll throw throw this up anyways...cos it's fun to have these discussions and draw schematics, which I've added to make things clearer to understand... I'm a visual guy... ;D Here goes... As the XDA has a digital attenuator (volume control) it can be fed directly into a power amp--> front L/R speakers for the cleanest and most dierct audio path. Problem for me (and I'd guess many others) with this setup is, how do our AVRs hook into the same amp(s) feeding the front speakers?.... Option 1. The XDA needs an analogue HT-bypass input, like the USP-1 has...  Option 2. Otherwise, we are going to have to feed the XDA output through our AVRs (requires bypassing the XDA volume attenuation), which is just adding another, rather chunky circuit into the mix, we loose the advantages of the XDA's "Dual Differential Input Stage" (DDIS) for two-channel listening, which is a shame.  Option 3. Of course some might say, add a USP-1 and send the XDA and AVR-L&R channels through that, as it'll be better than sending your XDA via the AVR.... But that's a whole other piece of gear to falk out $$$ for...and again, adds more circuitry to the audio path, and you loose the DDIS advantage.  For me, Option 1 is the most preferable...Anyone else got any thoughts on this, or should we just be boring and wait 'n' see what the 'actual' specs will be...?  I also have another question regarding the USB input, but will put that in another thread ...tomorrow ...it's past my bedtime... cheers Shane How will this se out if as i have the XPA-3 in my system and have this with rca now. Do i by XLR and have this between XDA-1 and the XPA-3 on two channels to use the preamp in the XDA-1 and change to balanced mode for music listening on the computer ?? What is the easiest way to solve this ?? |
|
...I felt the XDA-1 with it's preamp'ishness fits in this catagory.
