|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 6, 2010 22:27:06 GMT -5
Question for Lonnie (or anyone else with insider knowledge):
I have a system with only one input (a Squeezebox Classic) and no desire to add any other inputs. Which of these 2 setups would yield the best sound quality?
A) Squeezebox -> XDA-1 -> XPA-2
OR
B) Squeezebox -> XDA-1 -> XSP-1 -> XPA-2
Or would they sound the same? I don't need or desire any extra inputs, bass management etc... All I care about is the best sound (and saving money if I can)....
|
|
|
|
Post by briank on Sept 6, 2010 22:45:55 GMT -5
If you don't have any analog sources, the XDA-1 to XPA-2 would be the way to go. The XSP-1 would be added if you had some analog sources in the mix or wanted to combine your 2 channel and home theater set-ups by using the XSP-1's home theater bypass.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 6, 2010 23:12:21 GMT -5
Question for Lonnie (or anyone else with insider knowledge): I have a system with only one input (a Squeezebox Classic) and no desire to add any other inputs. Which of these 2 setups would yield the best sound quality? A) Squeezebox -> XDA-1 -> XPA-2 OR B) Squeezebox -> XDA-1 -> XSP-1 -> XPA-2 Or would they sound the same? I don't need or desire any extra inputs, bass management etc... All I care about is the best sound (and saving money if I can).... I'm not an insider but path A above would be sufficient. The XDA has its own volume control so adding the XSP to the path would not be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by morgain on Sept 7, 2010 8:56:21 GMT -5
If one would like tone controll in a setup like above, would adding the XSP-1 be the only way to go?
|
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 7, 2010 18:08:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses. I know Lonnie had compared the XDA-1 (using its Digital Volume Control) and the USP-1 and found the XDA-1 plugged directly into the XPA-2 to sound best... So I was just wondering if maybe the upgrading circuits in the XSP-1 would make it better than the direct pat of XDA-1 to XPA-2...
Based on the responses so far I'd expect the XDA-1 direct to XPA-2 to sound at least as good (if not better) than adding the XSP-1 as a middleman... I still hope to hear if Lonnie has done a test of the two options....
|
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Sept 7, 2010 18:18:07 GMT -5
Most generally, the shorter and "straighter" the path, the better signal you will have. The difference in sound quality will rely on the input and output stages of the XSP-1 and how they compare to the input and output stages on the XDA-1.. The XSP-1 would be the best piece of gear on the planet if it had DAC built in, even if it only had an optical and digital coax input, it would be PERFECT for almost everyones audio only setups....(hint to Lonnie)   ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 8, 2010 11:04:58 GMT -5
Most generally, the shorter and "straighter" the path, the better signal you will have. The difference in sound quality will rely on the input and output stages of the XSP-1 and how they compare to the input and output stages on the XDA-1.. That's what I thought... XDA direct to XPA would be a nice short signal path and remove all the unnecessary features (for my purposes) and cut the cost significantly too! I suspect you meant to say just the output stages of the XDA-1 versus the input and output of the XSP-1 (as I would be using the XDA-1 as a source in either configuration, so its input wouldn't be relevant to the decision of whether to 'bypass' its preamplifier section) The XSP-1 would be the best piece of gear on the planet if it had DAC built in, even if it only had an optical and digital coax input, it would be PERFECT for almost everyones audio only setups....(hint to Lonnie) ;D It would be pretty sweet, though it would probably hurt sales of both the analog only XSP and the XDA.... |
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Sept 8, 2010 11:20:41 GMT -5
I suspect you meant to say just the output stages of the XDA-1 versus the input and output of the XSP-1 (as I would be using the XDA-1 as a source in either configuration, so its input wouldn't be relevant to the decision of whether to 'bypass' its preamplifier section) Yes, sorry, you are correct. I wasn't thinking hard enough when I typed that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Sept 9, 2010 18:56:18 GMT -5
Just in case it isn't clear, the XDA-1, XSP-1, and XMC-1 all use the same output circuit; and, in direct mode, they would all have the same sound quality... with a short, straight-wire signal path. They all share the same volume control scheme having a 130 dB Signal to Noise Ratio. State-of-the-art sound quality no matter which of the three components you choose to use. This should help make picking the appropriate solution easier since all three of these solutions give you the same output.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 9, 2010 19:26:34 GMT -5
Just in case it isn't clear, the XDA-1, XSP-1, and XMC-1 all use the same output circuit; and, in direct mode, they would all have the same sound quality... with a short, straight-wire signal path. They all share the same volume control scheme having a 130 dB Signal to Noise Ratio. State-of-the-art sound quality no matter which of the three components you choose to use. This should make help make picking the appropriate solution easier since all three of these solutions give you the same output. Good info! Thanks... I guess the only issue that remains with XDA versus XSP is that one uses digital volume control while the other uses analog... I've seen all manner of opinions on whether digital volume is good or degrades the sound quality, but I also note that a lot of HiFi brands are implementing digital volume controls in their DACs and claiming excellent results... |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Sept 9, 2010 22:28:20 GMT -5
Just in case it isn't clear, the XDA-1, XSP-1, and XMC-1 all use the same output circuit; and, in direct mode, they would all have the same sound quality... with a short, straight-wire signal path. They all share the same volume control scheme having a 130 dB Signal to Noise Ratio. State-of-the-art sound quality no matter which of the three components you choose to use. This should make help make picking the appropriate solution easier since all three of these solutions give you the same output. Good info! Thanks... I guess the only issue that remains with XDA versus XSP is that one uses digital volume control while the other uses analog... I've seen all manner of opinions on whether digital volume is good or degrades the sound quality, but I also note that a lot of HiFi brands are implementing digital volume controls in their DACs and claiming excellent results... The volume control was discussed in my post. All three pieces of gear use the same "digital" volume control chip that Lonnie talked about in another thread last week. Below is a cut and paste of what Lonnie said. "The volume control we are using in the XSP is a MUSES72320. This is a pure analog resister ladder which is individually addressable. Flat out to 100Khz, and will easily support 4vrms through it and it has a S/N right at 130db. This is one hot rod chip."The Muse digitally controls adding individually addressable "pure analog resistor ladders" that provides very precise volume control that is flat from 1 Hz to beyond 100 KHz while provieding 4V RMS output at a Signal to Noise Ratio of 130 dB. The Muse Volume Control weds the best of the digital world with the best of the analog world. Whether you call it a Digital Volume Control or an Analog Volume Control you get one super high quality Volume Control solution. |
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 9, 2010 23:52:42 GMT -5
Good info! Thanks... I guess the only issue that remains with XDA versus XSP is that one uses digital volume control while the other uses analog... I've seen all manner of opinions on whether digital volume is good or degrades the sound quality, but I also note that a lot of HiFi brands are implementing digital volume controls in their DACs and claiming excellent results... The volume control was discussed in my post. All three pieces of gear use the same "digital" volume control chip that Lonnie talked about in another thread last week. Below is a cut and paste of what Lonnie said. "The volume control we are using in the XSP is a MUSES72320. This is a pure analog resister ladder which is individually addressable. Flat out to 100Khz, and will easily support 4vrms through it and it has a S/N right at 130db. This is one hot rod chip."The Muse digitally controls adding individually addressable "pure analog resistor ladders" that provides very precise volume control that is flat from 1 Hz to beyond 100 KHz while provieding 4V RMS output at a Signal to Noise Ratio of 130 dB. The Muse Volume Control weds the best of the digital world with the best of the analog world. Whether you call it a Digital Volume Control or an Analog Volume Control you get one super high quality Volume Control solution. ooooooh, that is interesting... my bad... I though the output stage of all 3 was the same, but the actual method of changing volume was different (if that makes sense)... if all 3 use the exact same volume control, then I'd just get the XDA... Thanks again! |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Sept 10, 2010 0:38:14 GMT -5
ajani,
It all depends on the other gear you own and what you are trying to do with it. Each of the three pieces have very distinct advantages and you should purchase the one which best matches what you are trying to accomplish. Until you know specifically what other gear you will be connecting to your system and what your output goals are it is impossible to say which piece you should use. The great thing is that no matter which piece turns out to best serve your needs you will have excellent sound quality and control. This allows you to focus your attention toward identifying your end-goal as the sound quality and control issues will take care of themselves because all three use identical circuit design in the key areas. Win/win results are guaranteed. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by phyzar on Sept 10, 2010 3:16:23 GMT -5
roadrunner: Are you sure about the MUSES72320 for the XDA? Lonnie mentioned a few weeks ago, that the XDA uses the attenuators of the DAC-Chip for volume control. Cheers Wieland
|
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 10, 2010 8:49:12 GMT -5
roadrunner: Are you sure about the MUSES72320 for the XDA? Lonnie mentioned a few weeks ago, that the XDA uses the attenuators of the DAC-Chip for volume control. Cheers Wieland That's what I had read about the XDA originally... I hope Lonnie drops by to confirm... |
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Sept 10, 2010 8:53:03 GMT -5
ajani, It all depends on the other gear you own and what you are trying to do with it. Each of the three pieces have very distinct advantages and you should purchase the one which best matches what you are trying to accomplish. Until you know specifically what other gear you will be connecting to your system and what your output goals are it is impossible to say which piece you should use. The great thing is that no matter which piece turns out to best serve your needs you will have excellent sound quality and control. This allows you to focus your attention toward identifying your end-goal as the sound quality and control issues will take care of themselves because all three use identical circuit design in the key areas. Win/win results are guaranteed. ;D ;D ;D My decision to go solely with the XDA is not a bash of either the XSP or XMC but merely recognition of the fact that they don't suit my needs (offer me features I don't have any use for, at increased prices). For someone who needs the additional features, then I'm sure the XSP and XMC will be fine values for money... |
|
|
|
Post by Poodleluvr on Sept 10, 2010 10:37:28 GMT -5
As far as my feedback, I'm a savvy consumer and do not purchase components just for the sake of having more stuff.... I do love my current Emo products but plan to incorporate the XDA-1 into my Emo electronic system first. In addition, if desired, I could purchase the Emo XLR spliter to runs subs in this set-up. The XSP-1 along with an XDA-1 will have to provide a positive sonic difference to retain after the trial period, and the judge of that home audition will be my own ears much thanks to the Emo return policy. Now, the XSP-1 has more features but I'm personally not in favor of a 'reference preamp' per say that offers tone controls. In addition, I think Emo did a great job of design isolation with the ERC-1. On the XSP-1, I'm not seeing this but I'll wait to here the design perspective from Mr. Lonnie or literature. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some design isolation much like the Parasound JC2, but as said, I'm open minded for review of further engineer info and a home audition. Please see Parasound JC2 internals: www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/308para/index1.html |
|
|
|
Post by Poodleluvr on Sept 10, 2010 12:20:41 GMT -5
Generally Speaking...
You can make some of the people happy some of the time but you can't make everybody happy all of the time....
If it is attempted to make everybody happy, the end result is compromise.---In some cases, folks may say that mediocrity has been attained....
|
|
|
|
Post by shawmcbigdis on Sept 10, 2010 12:29:32 GMT -5
Just in case it isn't clear, the XDA-1, XSP-1, and XMC-1 all use the same output circuit; and, in direct mode, they would all have the same sound quality... with a short, straight-wire signal path. They all share the same volume control scheme having a 130 dB Signal to Noise Ratio. State-of-the-art sound quality no matter which of the three components you choose to use. This should help make picking the appropriate solution easier since all three of these solutions give you the same output. So would this mean then that in a combo HT/stereo rig, that there would be no need for the XDA if you got the XMC? Does the XMC us the same DAC's as the XDA? I was planning on getting the XDA and hooking the ERC up to it, then going XLR to my UPA-1's, and just using the switch on the back of the amps to go from 2 channel mode to XLR to the XDA to HT mode using the RCA's to my Onkyo receiver. Kind of a hassle for sure. But if the XMC would give me the same quality, albeit for 3x the price, but a lot more options as well as a lot more ease of use, it may be the way to go for me. |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Sept 10, 2010 12:33:19 GMT -5
roadrunner: Are you sure about the MUSES72320 for the XDA? Lonnie mentioned a few weeks ago, that the XDA uses the attenuators of the DAC-Chip for volume control. Cheers Wieland I double checked my notes and you are correct. The XSP and the XMC both use the Muse S72320. My notes showed that Dan said all three pieces used extremely low noise Volume Control and all three used the same output circuits that Lonnie had raved about when comparing the sound quality of the XDA to the USP. Thanks for catching my mistake. Considering all the pain meds I took last night, I am lucky I didn't make even more mistakes. ;D ;D ;D Phyzar, do you want to be my official proof reader?  |
|
;D
