What is the XDA used for?

[gman1234]

For those listeners that listen through their home theater rig, they have a DAC built into their pre-pro or receiver... why would they need an outboard? Standalone DAC's are most commonly used in musical networks with digital front ends such as computers, or network servers. At this point we are trying to improve on the built in DAC. These are all 2.0 at this point in the chain. The USP/XDA combination costs $300 dollars less than my PS DIG link III, and does a whole lot more, and will presumably sound as good. Also, I will not need to send it in for an "upgrade" to "remove design compromises" of the PS Audio that retails for $1000.00!
I've got medicine for this "boutique brand insanity", it's call Emotiva. My latest dose is a XDA-1. Just weighing in to say I now have options and I appreciate the ability to use either the
UMC to decode or the new XDA. I'll reserve final opinions until I have the chance to compare the XDA to the PS Audio in my system.
The other Posters do bring up some good points too. Thanks to them.

[jamrock]

"For those listeners that listen through their home theater rig, they have a DAC built into their pre-pro or receiver... why would they need an outboard?"

For the same reason that you proffered .... 'we are trying to improve on the built in DAC'

jamrock

[SticknStones]

Oct 11, 2010 21:15:53 GMT -5 dsnyder0cnn said:

It's a fair question since the UMC-1 obviously has an integrated DAC and since the XDA-1 was unfortunately not designed as thoughtfully as the USP-1 regarding integration with an HT processor like the UMC-1.

For two channel playback of digital sources, the XDA-1 has two huge advantages over the UMC-1. First, it has fully differential high quality DAC chips that (I suspect) were selected and optimized for high resolution two-channel audio compared to the UMC-1 which was designed to decode a wide range of digital audio formats for DVD/blu-ray but presumably with some compromises made for two-channel audio playback (to my ears anyway). Second, the XDA-1 has a vastly superior, perhaps even massively overbuilt, differential analog output stage that can be connected directly to differential amplifiers like the XPA-1/2.

If the XDA-1 had been given an analog HT passthrough input, similar to the USP-1, UMC-1 owners could have placed it between the UMC-1 and their XPA-Series (or other amps with differential XLR inputs) to create a wonderful hybrid two/multi-channel system. Alas, they did not, so you have to just connect the XDA-1's analog outputs to one of the 2-channel analog inputs on your UMC-1 and then move/connect S/PDIF (and possibly USB for a PC/MAC source or AES/EBU for fancy sources) digital sources to the XDA-1. Next, be sure to configure the mode on the analog input that you assign to the XDA-1 to "Direct" for 2-channel analog signals or you will hear NONE of the benefits from using the XDA-1 (the UMC-1 converts analog input signals to digital first, does some processing on them, and then converts them back to analog if left in the default "Stereo" setting. Yuck!).

Although you will not be able to realize the full potential of the upgraded analog output stage on the XDA-1 when using it this way with the UMC-1, it should still provde a substantial upgarde in sound quality for two channel digital sources vs. using the UMC-1's built-in DAC. When used in "Direct" mode, the analog preamp in the UMC-1 is actually pretty darn good, so for $299, the XDA-1 is almost certainly money well spent if you are a 2-channel audio fan and you have lots of two channel digital sources and/or high-resolution digital music.

If your pockets are a little deeper (and you have space left in your audio rack), go ahead and spring for the USP-1 at the same time. Since it _does_ have the HT passthrough feature, it will integrate well with your UMC-1. Move all two-channel analog sources (including the XDA-1 outputs) to the USP-1, which also includes bass management for folks with small front loudspeakers and a sub. As good as the UMC-1's analog preamp is in "Direct" mode, folks tell me that the USP-1 is that much better, so including it with the XDA-1 will get you closer to the sound that you would experience if the XDA-1 was driving your amps directly.

The Emotiva folks are apparently working on a new X-Series preamp with fully balanced inputs (the XSP-1?) that will provide an even cleaner signal path for high performance sources like the XDA-1 for folks like us with hybrid two/multi-channel systems.

I hope this helps some...

David, I think you did such a good job at answering the original question that the rest of the thread is a bit off course discussing new configurations for new offerings and such.

Nice answer to the question.

[CrazyBlue]

Others have made excellent suggestions on how to integrate the XDA into a home theater system and I may try it out in mine when I get it.

Exactly.

It's worth another few hundred to get a preamp, passive preamp or other method (less expensive than say, a full-blown XSP-1) to integrate the DAC into a HT for some kind of bypass.

Since you'll still be at 1/2 the price of many comparable (and lesser) DAC's.

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to have one with bass management. For a 2.1 (2.2) system. It's all that's lacking for my desires. But only so much can be done for $300 and they chose to keep quality high and complexity low. I can always add the XSP-1 or something later. It provides a desired (if you're honest with yourself) and reasonable upgrade path.

Also, the XDA-1 is another step into the computer-based market, with the USB thing. Lot of 2 channel guys in that crowd, me included. I'm not going to run the XDA-1 via USB, but it'll be fed a digital signal from a Musiland Monitor 02 US. My only other source will most likely be my DVD player. DirecTV is getting the boot in the spring.

It's all about balance. I think Dan and Lonnie and the gang achieved it nicely with the XDA-1.

[gman1234]

IMO, THERE'S A BETTER CHANCE OF IMPROVING ON THE DAC OF A COMPUTER FRONT END OR
SQUEEZEBOX, ETC, THAN IMPROVING ON THE DAC IN A QUALITY PREPRO OR RECEIVER. THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. FOR EXAMPLE, MY SQUEEZEBOX'S ANALOG STAGE IS VERY WEAK, AND BENEFITS GREATLY BY ADDITION OF A DAC. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO I DON'T KNOW IF BASS MANAGEMENT AND A SUB OUT (OR TWO) IS FEASABLE. I KNOW ONE THING, EMO HAS GIVEN ME FAR MORE THAN THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

[blessingx]

Oct 16, 2010 13:17:05 GMT -5 jamrock said:

Because the A/V world have changed and some folks seems unable or unwilling to let go of the past.
...
I want integration without the need for add-ons and additional cost, or potential sound degredation just like you. ;D

jamrock

Jamrock do you see any advantage to 2 channel systems in any situation? Can't tell from your comment. And how is the release of a two channel DAC an affront to more channel users? Every product doesn't have to be for them does it? And surely to see your comparison between both sides not wanting additional costs as not equal, right?

[jamrock]

Oct 17, 2010 22:42:16 GMT -5 blessingx said:

Oct 16, 2010 13:17:05 GMT -5 jamrock said:

Because the A/V world have changed and some folks seems unable or unwilling to let go of the past.
...
I want integration without the need for add-ons and additional cost, or potential sound degredation just like you. ;D

jamrock

Jamrock do you see any advantage to 2 channel systems in any situation? Can't tell from your comment. And how is the release of a two channel DAC an affront to more channel users? Every product doesn't have to be for them does it? And surely to see your comparison between both sides not wanting additional costs as not equal, right?

I don't believe that I understand your first question. Advantage over what? Personally, I like my music to be expansive and enveloping at all times. It might not be convenient in all situations, but that is my preference. A stereo reproduction cannot come close to doing so like a multi-channel presentation. And, I believe that a true surround presentation (music encoded with multiple channels and reproduced using the same amount of channels) is superior to stereo IMHO.

As to your 2nd question, all that Emo needed to do was to include a H/T bypass on the XDA-1, and both groups could use it equally. And, remember that just about all multichannel components (power amps, pre/pros, AVRs, etc.) can be used for stereo presentation. Even multi-channel music can be down mixed to stereo. The opposite is not true.

Therefore, generally speaking, when something is designed for multi-channel use, everybody wins.

jamrock