XSP-1

[erniejade]

Islandman, Neutrality even before the unit is burned in, I can say goes to the XSP-1. Very nutral where the p5 sounds warmer then my AR sp16 running telefunken tubes. It was sounding a little thin off the bat, I feel its just needs time to open up more. I didnt listen to it yestrday but, its still running with jriver running through it. I imagine the p3 would be on the warmer side as well.

My "wish list" on the remote or front of the unit, I am glad its not just me that thinks this. I wish for it on the remote so you dont have to get up, to to the unit or corner of the room, then you have to wait a few min if your doing slight turns of the knobs. Huge kudo's on the tone though. Usually it hurts it all but, this unit doesnt seem to do that. Its nautral sounding instead of artifical when using them. I have set aside a few hours to listen to it more Wed. That should be around the 100 hour mark.

This one is going to boil down to personal preference. Some would perfer the warmer p5 especially if you have a bright sounding amp, or the nutral sound on the xsp. Seems on my end since my amp is a little on the warmer side, the xsp mates quite well with the McIntosh MC402 amp and W4s dac2.

[danny01]

Sept 27, 2014 15:53:35 GMT -5 @islandman2020 said:

Ernie, thanks for the time it took to write this review......very much appreciated! I have been contemplating the Parasound P3 vs the Emo XSP-1. So, it is great to me for someone to be comparing these two brands. I don't want or need an internal DAC. The DAC technology is moving too fast. A DAC will be outdated long before a good preamp. So, the things that you mention about the P5 I think I can apply towards the sound of the P3.

Neutrality or transparency of a preamp is my main consideration. Flexibility is second. Active preamps are of a little concern because even in bypass mode they can affect the sound. So, I haven't really made up my mind on active vs passive. I am considering a Stereo Knight Silvertone Passive Preamp (also made in TN), but the fact it has no XLR connects makes it a possible deal breaker.

Good point on the sub volume on the XSP-1.....makes a lot of sense. I think Emo should consider that. I have dual subs, but it would necessitate I also wish that Emo would put a 3 way toggle on the outs to select: XLR, RCA, or both. I have a reason in mind for that, but too long to explain for now.

As far as the input/output flexibility of the two preamps beyond what you have mentioned so far are there any other things where one has an advantage over the other? Let us know if you think of anything. Thanks again!

The P3 lacks bass management and HT bypass. Richard Schram has said that the non halo 2100 is superior to the P3. I think the P5 is comparable to the XSP-1, and both are superior to the P3. I've had the 2100 and it is comparable to the xsp-1 gen2.

[erniejade]

Did you find the 2100 warm? The p5 definately has a certain sonic signature that I find on the warmer side.

[rob80b]

Sept 24, 2014 16:56:20 GMT -5 rob80b said:

Hi Guys

Took a while but I've finally got an XSP-1 Gen II on the way to replace my USP-1, thanks to the current Secret Warehouse Sale.
emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/39041/secret-warehouse-sale

XSP-1 Gen 2 in the house but I'll not give my impressions until early next week, sorry.

[erniejade]

Nice looking setup!

[rob80b]

Oct 2, 2014 14:55:11 GMT -5 erniejade said:

Nice looking setup!

Thanks Ernie

Here's a wider shot but from 2013 prior to upgrading my sub, turntable and of coarse the USP-1 to the XSP-1, basically my multipurpose room.


 And the back wall, which  has also seen a few changes since this photo was taken, the XSP-200 to power the surrounds is hiding below the sofa.

I'm looking forward to see what XSP-1 Gen II brings to the table and getting back to balanced inputs and outputs which I forfeited with the USP-1.
The volume control is obviously completely different over the USP-1 offering a lot more lead way between moderate to loud, and am very curious as to how the phono section performs.

[erniejade]

Nice!! So far the xsp I received is burning in nice. Believe it or not, so far the soundstage and tone of the unit is close to my AR sp16. The top end I am finding smooth and clean. I like having the bass management but, again, I wish they would have put the sub level on the front. Also, the crossover spread is too hard to get set right. Its a lot of guess work on where it is. If it wasn't for bub posting what he did on page 117, I would have been even more off then I was. After bub posted it, i got it to dial in a little better.

[AudioHTIT]

Oct 3, 2014 11:17:45 GMT -5 erniejade said:

Nice!! So far the xsp I received is burning in nice. Believe it or not, so far the soundstage and tone of the unit is close to my AR sp16. The top end I am finding smooth and clean.

I also moved from an Audio Research SP-16 to the XSP-1 and felt the sound very comparable, with the XSP having much more flexibility (and in my system switching to balanced connections was a definite improvement).

[danny01]

Sept 29, 2014 16:50:32 GMT -5 erniejade said:

Did you find the 2100 warm? The p5 definately has a certain sonic signature that I find on the warmer side.

Yes. It was on the warmer side of neutral. But very smooth sounding. I liked it better than the USP-1, but the channel tracking was pretty bad.

Sent from my SM-P600 using proboards

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 11:17:45 GMT -5 erniejade said:

Nice!! So far the xsp I received is burning in nice. Believe it or not, so far the soundstage and tone of the unit is close to my AR sp16. The top end I am finding smooth and clean. I like having the bass management but, again, I wish they would have put the sub level on the front. Also, the crossover spread is too hard to get set right. Its a lot of guess work on where it is. If it wasn't for bub posting what he did on page 117, I would have been even more off then I was. After bub posted it, i got it to dial in a little better.

Ernie, I have been following and enjoying your reviews of the P5 vs XSP-1. T hey seem quite objective, and this really helps to understand the equipment that's being evaluated.  Good approach!  In a nutshell, if you had to list one main advantage that the P5 has over the XSP-1 or, vice versa :  a) sound wise, b) feature wise, what would those be?

On bass management, I hear ya.   Subs are so difficult to integrate correctly (manually especially) that without the gear having a digital XO readout that can accurately set the XO point within a hz or two,  it becomes really frustrating with a small twist knob where you are largely guessing it to be in the ballpark of what you want.

The THX generic house curve standard is subs crossed over at 80hz.  Most auto EQ RC systems hoover around this frequency as a XO point from mains to subs. But I have found this to not be the best frequency in my listening room with my subs for music.

Without some kind of room analyzation equipment like REW, Dual Core 2.0, etc., I do not see how the crossover from subs to mains can be accurately set in the correct place.   For movies, for me, just get the big low end boom, boom with without too much worry about articulation, and definition. The mine explosions on U-571, and cannonball explosions on Master and Commander will sound just fine with subs at 80hz XO, lol!

But with music.....such different story bro.  On my Polk Lsi9s Polk says they have a useable low frequency extension to 40hz. That's wrong. That is about as accurate as saying 80hz is the XO point that you should use for your subs.  At best, it is only a starting point.  XO frequency should be mostlyly determined from the readout from your analyzation equipment when the speakers are in the place you want then in in your room.  Uh...ummm.   XO frequency should be mostly determined from the readout from your analyzation equipment when the speakers are in the place you want them in your room.

The pic below (photo from the calibration screen of my DC 2.0 unit) shows the frequency response of my
Polk Lsi9s as they are set up in the front corners of my room. What do you see?   For one thing,  pretty darn good low frequency extension from bookshelf speakers!  But more importantly, they are flat almost to 30hz.  That is really revealing some useful information here.   No wonder when I crossed over my subs before at 80hz my low end did not sound very clear, and accurate for music!   I was double reproducing frequencies in the 30hz - 80hz range.  For me, this translated into "mud and bloom" in those frequencies.  I would have never understood fully what was causing the problem until I saw it in graph form.  My lowest XO setting on my Micropro 4000's is 40hz, and this is where they are crossed over at now.  Tremendous difference in low end on my music now. 

So, how does this rabbit trail relate to Ernie's assessment of using the XO knobs on the back of the XSP-1 (or any other piece of gear that sets XO frequencies this way).   1)  Find out what the responses are of your speakers in the place they are located in your room, and NOT by manufacturer specs, nor necessarily use the THX 80hz generic XO setting,  and  2)  using gear, or DSP RC software,  that shows the OX point with a digital numeric read out is usually always better than guessing with the XO twist knob. 

Attachment Deleted

[garbulky]

Hi island man. I've heard the LSi9's. They don't do 30 hz not the way it should - at least in a larger room. There's a difference between hearing 30hz and HEARING 30 hz, if that helps One is just the note. The other is the properly reproduced sound of it. I've heard speakers do 25hz. But that is nowhere near an actual 25 hz reproduction. What I would suggest is trying out different positions for the subs first and trying to see if you can integrate them better, maybe try out some bass traps.

[Deleted]

I hear ya, and agree that might be the case in some rooms, but the Lsi9's bass response is so good, and powerful in my listening space I mostly do not use subs when listening to music. I am talking here about good clean powerful bass with speed, articulation, and slam. No one believes that I am not running subs when they hear the Lsi9s.....hell, I can't even believe it, lol. In comparison, my OMD-15s do not have nearly the same bass quality, and depth of bass no matter what I try, or where I place them and they are rated down to 33hz. The low end reproduction differences are also inherently caused by the speaker/cab design.

I think the best thing that Polk ever invented was this patented Power Port technology. This is such a innovative way to approach bass reproduction. It is a shame that they don't incorporate it into their sub design someone. I believe that including this on even a 10" sub would be amazing.

All in all, what you say about the Lsi9s vs my experience with them shows how dependent speaker performance is on room interaction. Look at what Ernie says about his Legacy speakers. It doesn't add up until you start considering room interaction.

[garbulky]

Oct 3, 2014 14:02:21 GMT -5 @islandman2020 said:

I hear ya, and agree that might be the case in some rooms, but the Lsi9's bass response is so good, and powerful in my listening space I mostly do not use subs when listening to music. I am talking here about good clean powerful bass with speed, articulation, and slam. No one believes that I am not running subs when they hear the Lsi9s.....hell, I can't even believe it, lol. In comparison, my OMD-15s do not have nearly the same bass quality, and depth of bass no matter what I try, or where I place them and they are rated down to 33hz. The low end reproduction differences are also inherently caused by the speaker/cab design.

I think the best thing that Polk ever invented was this patented Power Port technology. This is such a innovative way to approach bass reproduction. It is a shame that they don't incorporate it into their sub design someone. I believe that including this on even a 10" sub would be amazing.

All in all, what you say about the Lsi9s vs my experience with them shows how dependent speaker performance is on room interaction. Look at what Ernie says about his Legacy speakers. It doesn't add up until you start considering room interaction.

My m80's which are rated down to the 30's +/-3 db don't need a sub in my room and will happily throw me around in the low 40 hz range. No shortage of bass probably because I have a small living room.
But in a larger room they are lucky if they get down to 60-70hz with authority. A sub is essential for those types of rooms. I concur with what you say about the kind of room.

[Deleted]

I've heard great things about the M80's! So, you like them pretty well?

[Deleted]

Whooops....sorry. I just realized this is not about the XSP-1 anymore. My bad!

[erniejade]

The 9's sound way better than the legacys did in the room only after I crossed it over. My velodyne spl1200 goes down to 40 on the built in crossover but, I have no way of knowing what my real in room bass response is at my listening position. Because the 9's are easier to move around vs a 185 lb speaker, I did find something interesting out. I put this on the other board so I am going to copy and paste part of it " I will say this right now, using the velodyne with the built in crossover on either unit made the 9’s sound a lot better. Some of the bass just didn’t sound quite right on their own. I am discovering in my room, unless I have the speakers over 1/2 way on a 10 foot side of the room, the bass just hangs back. I tried moving them to the other side of the room and I got the same problem so it didn’t matter what wall I had them on, I still had the bass issues that I had with the legacy’s! Dang I need to learn about room treatments before I go completely crazy. Anyway with the velo in the mix, not just in the bass range but, even the lower mid and upper bass just seemed to be tighter in general" Ya know I should re-read before I poste up. What I mean by the bass hangs back is it doesnt go too much past the front of the speaker and just hangs out behind it or the sides. When I put the speakers 1/2 way in the room bass was strong. It didnt matter what side of the room I put them on, unless they were 1/2 way or over in the room the bass was bad.Now 10 feet cut in 1/2, couch no way possible unless I am 2-3 feet infront of the speaker and no sub was needed when they were at that 1/2 way point or less.

Islandman, I was on the fence if I should post my listening from the other day and last night on here. I know a few people might be on both boards and I didn't want to just put the same stuff everywhere but, I have no probelm posting all of it up in both. A few things the p5 does a little bit better, 1 easier to see the crossover points. 2 sub level on the front. ( Still better if on the remote but, ya know ) 3 it sounds big. Like really big.

The emo is close to my SP16 on the tops and mids, soundstage, how deep the sound is but, a hair thin. Maybe when it hits 200 hours? AudioHTIT, THANK YOU!!! I thought I was crazy that the emo sounded like the sp16 but, you saying it also, I feel much better. The P5 actually has more bass, bloom, tube sound then my tubes! Now for thoes who have heard AR in the last 15 years understands their tube products are not "tubbey" sounding.

Im on the fence on what is staying and going. The emo sounds darn good but so does the P5, just a different sound.

[Deleted]

No, I think it is fine to re-post what you posted on another forum. For us lazy fellers it saves huntin' and peckin' for stuff, lol.

On the XSP-1 sounding a little thin on the bottom, does the low EQ volume change things any? That may, or may not be a concern of me as the DC 2.0 can do a tilt/boost curve of up to 6db in the bass region. Also, it's 16 band PEQ can further tailor bass response by boosting (or cutting) the frequencies of your choosing.

But given a choice I do like fatter thicker sound as long as transparency is not sacrificed.

[linvincible]

Sept 25, 2014 7:41:16 GMT -5 linvincible said:

another crossover question for XSP-1

I use bi amplification and did not touch the filters on my speakers, so I chose not to use the crossover from the XSP-1
I let the switches in the FULL RANGE position, the one on the left for highs goes to the left and the one on the right for lows goes to the right (when looking at the rear pannel.
I wanted to switch the amps connected to bass and trebles, as a friend of mine doing bi-amp as well told me that after a couple of years his amps could only do what they had been doing for the past year and became very bad when switched. He recommended a regular switch between the amps.
So I just inverted the XLR connectors on the rear of the XSP-1 : the ones that used to go to the highs went to the lows and vice-versa.
The highs immediately were filtered!
To check if my amps were affected I also inverted the speakers cables, and sound resumed normally. So the amps are still fine

I was to upset to touch anything any more, but is there a known issue with crossover switch for highs being inverted?
(I did not go through the 117 pages of this thread but did read the 4 pages of messages including "crossover")

Or am I stupid and this is what it should do for some other reason?

thanks in advance!

Hello, more on that after a few tests
it does not happen on BAL1 input
it only happens on HC Passthrough (BAL2 in my case)
so it looks like on the HT passthrough  or BAL2 there is a filter to split treble from bass whatever the position of the switches are
I'll contact Emotiva to get more details

[rob80b]

Still early in the game as I’m still in the midst of incorporating the XSP-1 Gen II in my system.

My Dynaudio Special 25s are placed 4’ from the front wall so not a lot of bass reinforcement and at the centre listening position have a roll off between 80 & 100HZ regardless of the crossover setting but I have set the crossover at 8:30 on the dial, which we’ve been told so far is the 80Hz point. (?)

Also setting the Velodyne DD12 at 80HZ leaves somewhat of a depression at the same listening position as shown and when combined with the mains, also what is interesting is that the sub had to be set a 180 degrees out of phase as where with the USP-1 it was at 0.


It'll take a few days to get things properly dialed in for the sweet spot but the truth is, one is always confronted with a compromise, moving the mike a few inches here or there will give different results.

So far though the XSP-1 does sound very good, slightly more refined than the USP-1 with CDs and vinyl, and it's nice having a more workable range with the volume setting.

[rob80b]

In comparison to my previous photos here's a shot with the crossover on the XSP-1 set at 12 o'clock or higher for the sub, which may indicate that the 8.30 setting is much lower than 80Hz as previously told. (do wish the crossover controls were on the front or sides, or even digitally adjusted like the volume control, would make adjustments that much easier)