hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on May 10, 2013 2:36:41 GMT -5
...Does an XDA-1 put out more than 1/4 watt or 1/2 watt of power? Anybody know? Using 12 db attenuators didn't help the clipping situation BTW. So that's more confusing to me. We can discuss the output of the XDA-1 in Volts rather than power (Watts). It is rated at 1V nominal but up to 12V on balanced outs! I surmise you're using the RCA output from your pic above. Have you tried any other preamp? You're supposed to be able to leave the XDA vol at 80 and us the pre's vol control. what happens if you set the pre's pot halfway? Any distortion? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 10, 2013 3:02:26 GMT -5
It is RCA.
Yes distortion at all settings of the analog control on the pre from nearly zero to as high as I dare turn it. Turn the XDA-1 down to 70 then no distortion at any volumes on the analog control. (The 70 volume changes according to the song but stays constant throughout whichever song plays).
I have other "pre-amps" sort of .
The gain knob on the upa-2 does the same thing when turned down from maximum on the volume knob. It gets worse the lower you turn it.
And...
the gain knob on my xenos 3ha headphone amp does the same thing too. The gain knob on my xenos 3ha does it worst of all.
^All those I just mentioned were connected directly to the xda-1 (no passive pre).
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 11, 2013 1:57:23 GMT -5
Using my new toy, I was able to A/B directly with the Xonar essence ST (it lives!) set to full line level output and the xda-1. Well I was a little surprised. On initial listening. The two are very close. I couldn't perfectly level match them as the xda-1 appears to output a bit more power but in terms of SQ they were very close. I couldn't really tell much of a difference. At times it felt the xonar had a slightly fuller sound maybe but that could have been the unequal level matching - I had the XDA-1 playing at a slightly softer volume due to time constraints. Usually it's hard for me to pick out differences in DACS until I have listened to them for extended periods of time. Three second switch tests don't quite reveal much for me. So, time will tell... I am enjoying my journey.  |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on May 11, 2013 11:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 11, 2013 12:06:08 GMT -5
Oooh it certainly looks nice. I use free audacity. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on May 11, 2013 12:26:31 GMT -5
I think they have a cool pricing model. I wish adobe would do the same.
It looks like a really cool piece of software. And the 60 day trial is also cool. I find 30days is often too short.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 13, 2013 5:23:21 GMT -5
A thought.
I can understand why audio enthusiasts spend so much on their hobby sometimes. I always wondered every time I made an upgrade, why spend so much more on a fractional upgrade.
Experiencing this passive pre-amp and the cleanliness of the sound showed tiny errors in sound so much clearer. As things get REALLY good even tiny imperfections show up and can become obvious. Sort of like the uncanny valley in movie CGI. We were able to get past some shoddy effects back then. A lot of times it was very obvious that the effects weer puppets and we were okay with it but give us something incredible looking and we will get bugged on tiny inadequacies.
greenkiwi - it certainly looks nice. My recording background is very amateur and that looks to have more features than I would know what to do with! Right now, I'm figuring out optimal microphone placement for my instruments. Maybe as I get more advanced I shall look into paid software.
Question to emo users:
Any reccomendations for CHEAP UKULELes? I'm talking about $50 max.
I saw the makala dolphin for $45 but played against a regular $100 ukulele the $100 was a clear winner. So any suggestions?
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on May 13, 2013 5:45:30 GMT -5
Ah, I remember visiting Russia (as it was known back then) during the early 80s and buying ukuleles from the train attendant! Along with all things Russian we practically cleaned him out and not using money but barter goods from the West. Back on topic, although more money (~$80) the Kalas get more than an honorable mention. Here's one with an EQ! The Lanikais will cost you 3 times more. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on May 13, 2013 15:04:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 13, 2013 15:49:43 GMT -5
Ah, I remember visiting Russia (as it was known back then) during the early 80s and buying ukuleles from the train attendant! Along with all things Russian we practically cleaned him out and not using money but barter goods from the West. Back on topic, although more money (~$80) the Kalas get more than an honorable mention. Here's one with an EQ! The Lanikais will cost you 3 times more. Funny you mentioned the Kalas. That's exactly the uke that outperformed the makala dolphin. From what I'm gathering the makala is the cheap offshoot off its parent Kala company. I'm hoping for around $50 max. Higher than that is too much for me to purhase currently. Just read it Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 15, 2013 2:19:51 GMT -5
Did some more experimenting. I used the passive pre-amp to perform switching. The switching takes about 5 seconds to switch inputs in terms of getting up and doing it. This was a comparison between the $30 UCA 202 vs the XDA-1. 1. First what's instantly obvious is that the xda-1 is a WHOLE lot louder than the line output of the UCA-202 and the Asus Xonar essence ST. It is louder than the UCA 202 at line out with the xda-1 set at output volume 53! The UCA 202 is meant to output a 2V line out signal. The XDA-1 obviously does way more than that. They claim that the xda-1 does a 2V line out via RCA and 1 V nominal. I highly doubt it. This is probably the reason for my input distortion woes on both the UPA-2 and the headphone amplifier. This is a poor design choice IMO. I have no idea why Emotiva did this. If the XDA-2 does that too, then that's rather bad. I wish I had a volt meter to confirm this. I may end up buying the volt meter because I'm quite irritated and want to confirm this. Why would you have a DAC put out a line out that's way more than the voltage of commercial audio devices? 2. Even with a line out signal from the UCA-202 there is a slight distortion on the peaks of Norah Jones come away with me album even at soft volumes on the passive pre-amp. It is way way less than the distortion of the xda-1 at 80 volume control. I did some research on potentiometers and they have watt ratings between 1/4 to 1/2 watt for audio applications. I am of the opinion that the xda-1 is overloading this potentiometer at its full output. Maybe this potentiometer was rated for 1/4 watt and the xda-1 gleefully overloaded it.  I opened up the passive pre-amp to check to make sure there were no loose wires. None at all. BTW, very professional wire connections inside. I also tried switching RCA wires and replacing some wires with shorter ones. The same distortion. 3. The switcher allowed me to compare the two DACS a $400 retail (purchased on sale at around $250) XDA-1 vs a $30 Behringer UCA 202 Which is better.... On initial impressions. The two are close. They are both clear. Have great separation of instruments. However the XDA-1 is the winner but not by much. A bit more realistic sound. A bit better depth. I noted previously that the UCA-202 had a slight upshift to the treble. Well I was wrong. It does not. It is about as neutral as the XDA-1. Is it a difference worth 8X (Sale) to 13 times the price (retail). Ehhhh well if I had to do the same thing over and I had no need of switching inputs, high res audio, and a remote control then I probably wouldn't get the xda-1. But I do need all those things so I guess I would.... It's also hard to overstate how important tiny differences in sound are because it applies to every single minute of your audio listening. And if that's worth the price difference. Yes it is. 4. I had the chance to evaluate the XDA-1's lossy digital volume control vs the analog passive pre-amp. Yes there is a noticeable difference and it should have been picked up on very quickly on listening tests when they were testing the XDA-1 in development. (Also should have been picked up, a lack of an analog resistor control in the circuit schematics. )In fact professional audio reviewers should have picked up on it too in their listening tests. I don't see why they didn't. It's not an awful difference by any means. It still sounds great. But the sound is not as defined. The xda-1 is still better but only by a little. If I did a blind test, I would absolutely fail to identify which one was the source. I may even fail to say if there was a difference. This doesn't diminish the sound quality of the xda-1. It's still fantastic. Just that there is a contender to its sound quality in the form of a tiny $30 DAC. It doesn't have a torroidal power supply. It uses USB power (blech). It's main function was not to be a DAC but an ADC for input of a line level signal in digital form to the computer. Which it does very well. It has a headphone amplifier which is better than my xenos 3HA . I've used different sources before. Some of reasonable quality - many many add-on sound cards, Toshiba HD-DVD player, Sony PS3 via analog, multiple ipods, cellphones, iphones, DVD players, and both the xda-1 and the behringer UCA 202 walks all over them. The competition isn't even close. Incredible value. If people had doubts about pro audio behringer DACS, well do try out this $30 unit and make up your own mind. It's pretty darn nice and I still can't believe it's $30. I'm surprised this DAC is not more well known! If the behringer did not exist, I wouldn't have hesitated to call the xda-1 a darn nice value - but it still is but the presence of this $30 DAC competing with it is a little embarassing.... It's hard for me to wrap my head around it. Nobody likes spending more money than they have to. I would have been a little less miffed if I haven't had so many problems with the inputs overloading....now on three units - the upa-2's gain control, passive pre-amp, headphone amplifier. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 15, 2013 11:24:00 GMT -5
I just wanted to comment on a few of your results/conclusions.... 1. It's true that we've been a bit inconsistent with our choice of volume levels. The fact is that there is no actual standard for unbalanced (or balanced) "line level" output levels, and so no "standard" for what you should expect to receive from "commercial audio devices" - but we could be a bit more consistent..... 2. Because of its digital volume control, you get the best sound on the XDA-1 by leaving the volume set to 80 (full). This is not at all true for the XDA-2. With the XDA-2, you can set the volume to anything you like with no loss of resolution (or sound quality), so feel free to pick any level that your other equipment likes. (In fact, since it is possible for the XDA-2 analog stages to clip slightly on very loud content if you peg it at +12, we normally recommend that you set it to 0 dB if you plan to operate it in "fixed gain mode".) 3. Just for the record, ALL digital volume controls lose resolution when you turn them down. Even certain fancy "32 bit" ones, which use a DSP, still end up losing some resolution. In order to make the level lower, you have to change the numbers; there's no way around it. (Since no DAC is linear down to 32 bits, even assuming their math is perfect, they are shifting the overall signal down into a less linear region of the DAC's operation. Also, obviously, NO digital volume control can even theoretically be "bit perfect".) The XDA-1 was originally designed to be used primarily as a DAC, and the volume control was added as a sort of convenience feature. (There were a few misunderstandings early on about that.... our bad.) The loss of resolution with a digital volume control depends on the setting, and whether it will be audible depends on a lot of things. The one on the XDA-1 sounds perfect at full volume, and still sounds pretty good at normal listening levels, which is why some people notice it and others don't 4. A "simple passive preamp" (potentiometer) CANNOT be overloaded - in the sense that it will distort. That's one of their benefits. (They can overheat, but that takes a LOT of signal. If the potentiometer is 5k, which would be a rather low but typical value in that application, 1/4 watt would equate to 35 V of continuous signal input, and 1 watt would require 70 V. A higher value pot would require even more voltage. Power = voltage squared divided by resistance. ) [Some passive volume controls use transformers, which can be overloaded - but they tend to be very expensive.] You've got something else going on there, but I'm not sure what. Maybe your passive preamp has some other sort of protection or other circuitry in it? 5. I will also take this opportunity to agree with your sentiment that "it's all relative" and even minor differences can be important over time. It doesn't shock me that there are cheaper DACs that are close in sound to the XDA (the FiiO E10 isn't bad either, and I rather like several of HRT's little units). Likewise, I still haven't figured out how an $80,000 DAC can be THAT much better than ours - but clearly it doesn't embarrass one manufacturer to at least ask that price; such is the audiophile market. We think the XDA-1 was pretty good value for the money, but time does move on, and the XDA-2 gives you more features and better sound, for not much more than the XDA-1 sold for. Did some more experimenting. I used the passive pre-amp to perform switching. The switching takes about 5 seconds to switch inputs in terms of getting up and doing it. This was a comparison between the $30 UCA 202 vs the XDA-1. 1. First what's instantly obvious is that the xda-1 is a WHOLE lot louder than the line output of the UCA-202 and the Asus Xonar essence ST. It is louder than the UCA 202 at line out with the xda-1 set at output volume 53! The UCA 202 is meant to output a 2V line out signal. The XDA-1 obviously does way more than that. They claim that the xda-1 does a 2V line out via RCA and 1 V nominal. I highly doubt it. This is probably the reason for my input distortion woes on both the UPA-2 and the headphone amplifier. This is a poor design choice IMO. I have no idea why Emotiva did this. If the XDA-2 does that too, then that's rather bad. I wish I had a volt meter to confirm this. I may end up buying the volt meter because I'm quite irritated and want to confirm this. Why would you have a DAC put out a line out that's way more than the voltage of commercial audio devices? 2. Even with a line out signal from the UCA-202 there is a slight distortion on the peaks of Norah Jones come away with me album even at soft volumes on the passive pre-amp. It is way way less than the distortion of the xda-1 at 80 volume control. I did some research on potentiometers and they have watt ratings between 1/4 to 1/2 watt for audio applications. I am of the opinion that the xda-1 is overloading this potentiometer at its full output. Maybe this potentiometer was rated for 1/4 watt and the xda-1 gleefully overloaded it. I opened up the passive pre-amp to check to make sure there were no loose wires. None at all. BTW, very professional wire connections inside. I also tried switching RCA wires and replacing some wires with shorter ones. The same distortion. 3. The switcher allowed me to compare the two DACS a $400 retail (purchased on sale at around $250) XDA-1 vs a $30 Behringer UCA 202 Which is better.... On initial impressions. The two are close. They are both clear. Have great separation of instruments. However the XDA-1 is the winner but not by much. A bit more realistic sound. A bit better depth. I noted previously that the UCA-202 had a slight upshift to the treble. Well I was wrong. It does not. It is about as neutral as the XDA-1. Is it a difference worth 8X (Sale) to 13 times the price (retail). Ehhhh well if I had to do the same thing over and I had no need of switching inputs, high res audio, and a remote control then I probably wouldn't get the xda-1. But I do need all those things so I guess I would.... It's also hard to overstate how important tiny differences in sound are because it applies to every single minute of your audio listening. And if that's worth the price difference. Yes it is. 4. I had the chance to evaluate the XDA-1's lossy digital volume control vs the analog passive pre-amp. Yes there is a noticeable difference and it should have been picked up on very quickly on listening tests when they were testing the XDA-1 in development. (Also should have been picked up, a lack of an analog resistor control in the circuit schematics. )In fact professional audio reviewers should have picked up on it too in their listening tests. I don't see why they didn't. It's not an awful difference by any means. It still sounds great. But the sound is not as defined. The xda-1 is still better but only by a little. If I did a blind test, I would absolutely fail to identify which one was the source. I may even fail to say if there was a difference. This doesn't diminish the sound quality of the xda-1. It's still fantastic. Just that there is a contender to its sound quality in the form of a tiny $30 DAC. It doesn't have a torroidal power supply. It uses USB power (blech). It's main function was not to be a DAC but an ADC for input of a line level signal in digital form to the computer. Which it does very well. It has a headphone amplifier which is better than my xenos 3HA . I've used different sources before. Some of reasonable quality - many many add-on sound cards, Toshiba HD-DVD player, Sony PS3 via analog, multiple ipods, cellphones, iphones, DVD players, and both the xda-1 and the behringer UCA 202 walks all over them. The competition isn't even close. Incredible value. If people had doubts about pro audio behringer DACS, well do try out this $30 unit and make up your own mind. It's pretty darn nice and I still can't believe it's $30. I'm surprised this DAC is not more well known! If the behringer did not exist, I wouldn't have hesitated to call the xda-1 a darn nice value - but it still is but the presence of this $30 DAC competing with it is a little embarassing.... It's hard for me to wrap my head around it. Nobody likes spending more money than they have to. I would have been a little less miffed if I haven't had so many problems with the inputs overloading....now on three units - the upa-2's gain control, passive pre-amp, headphone amplifier. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 15, 2013 11:29:19 GMT -5
Audacity is rather "clunky". If you ever consider spending the money... Adobe Audition is VERY nice (but it's about $300, although they do a sort of "lease" thing now). It's way more intuitive than Audacity, and does a lot more. (Don't believe the hype that Audacity "does the same thing for a lot less". It does the same basic stuff, but it's like comparing a piper cub to a Learjet. Audition is remarkably smooth and un-annoying to use, although there is a steep learning curve.) You can try it free for a month if you're curious. I think they have a cool pricing model. I wish adobe would do the same. It looks like a really cool piece of software. And the 60 day trial is also cool. I find 30days is often too short. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 15, 2013 12:14:26 GMT -5
I just wanted to comment on a few of your results/conclusions.... 1. It's true that we've been a bit inconsistent with our choice of volume levels. The fact is that there is no actual standard for unbalanced (or balanced) "line level" output levels, and so no "standard" for what you should expect to receive from "commercial audio devices" - but we could be a bit more consistent..... 2. Because of its digital volume control, you get the best sound on the XDA-1 by leaving the volume set to 80 (full). This is not at all true for the XDA-2. With the XDA-2, you can set the volume to anything you like with no loss of resolution (or sound quality), so feel free to pick any level that your other equipment likes. (In fact, since it is possible for the XDA-2 analog stages to clip slightly on very loud content if you peg it at +12, we normally recommend that you set it to 0 dB if you plan to operate it in "fixed gain mode".) 3. Just for the record, ALL digital volume controls lose resolution when you turn them down. Even certain fancy "32 bit" ones, which use a DSP, still end up losing some resolution. In order to make the level lower, you have to change the numbers; there's no way around it. (Since no DAC is linear down to 32 bits, even assuming their math is perfect, they are shifting the overall signal down into a less linear region of the DAC's operation. Also, obviously, NO digital volume control can even theoretically be "bit perfect".) The XDA-1 was originally designed to be used primarily as a DAC, and the volume control was added as a sort of convenience feature. (There were a few misunderstandings early on about that.... our bad.) The loss of resolution with a digital volume control depends on the setting, and whether it will be audible depends on a lot of things. The one on the XDA-1 sounds perfect at full volume, and still sounds pretty good at normal listening levels, which is why some people notice it and others don't 4. A "simple passive preamp" (potentiometer) CANNOT be overloaded - in the sense that it will distort. That's one of their benefits. (They can overheat, but that takes a LOT of signal. If the potentiometer is 5k, which would be a rather low but typical value in that application, 1/4 watt would equate to 35 V of continuous signal input, and 1 watt would require 70 V. A higher value pot would require even more voltage. Power = voltage squared divided by resistance. ) [Some passive volume controls use transformers, which can be overloaded - but they tend to be very expensive.] You've got something else going on there, but I'm not sure what. Maybe your passive preamp has some other sort of protection or other circuitry in it? 5. I will also take this opportunity to agree with your sentiment that "it's all relative" and even minor differences can be important over time. It doesn't shock me that there are cheaper DACs that are close in sound to the XDA (the FiiO E10 isn't bad either, and I rather like several of HRT's little units). Likewise, I still haven't figured out how an $80,000 DAC can be THAT much better than ours - but clearly it doesn't embarrass one manufacturer to at least ask that price; such is the audiophile market. We think the XDA-1 was pretty good value for the money, but time does move on, and the XDA-2 gives you more features and better sound, for not much more than the XDA-1 sold for. Did some more experimenting. I used the passive pre-amp to perform switching. The switching takes about 5 seconds to switch inputs in terms of getting up and doing it. This was a comparison between the $30 UCA 202 vs the XDA-1. 1. First what's instantly obvious is that the xda-1 is a WHOLE lot louder than the line output of the UCA-202 and the Asus Xonar essence ST. It is louder than the UCA 202 at line out with the xda-1 set at output volume 53! The UCA 202 is meant to output a 2V line out signal. The XDA-1 obviously does way more than that. They claim that the xda-1 does a 2V line out via RCA and 1 V nominal. I highly doubt it. This is probably the reason for my input distortion woes on both the UPA-2 and the headphone amplifier. This is a poor design choice IMO. I have no idea why Emotiva did this. If the XDA-2 does that too, then that's rather bad. I wish I had a volt meter to confirm this. I may end up buying the volt meter because I'm quite irritated and want to confirm this. Why would you have a DAC put out a line out that's way more than the voltage of commercial audio devices? 2. Even with a line out signal from the UCA-202 there is a slight distortion on the peaks of Norah Jones come away with me album even at soft volumes on the passive pre-amp. It is way way less than the distortion of the xda-1 at 80 volume control. I did some research on potentiometers and they have watt ratings between 1/4 to 1/2 watt for audio applications. I am of the opinion that the xda-1 is overloading this potentiometer at its full output. Maybe this potentiometer was rated for 1/4 watt and the xda-1 gleefully overloaded it. I opened up the passive pre-amp to check to make sure there were no loose wires. None at all. BTW, very professional wire connections inside. I also tried switching RCA wires and replacing some wires with shorter ones. The same distortion. 3. The switcher allowed me to compare the two DACS a $400 retail (purchased on sale at around $250) XDA-1 vs a $30 Behringer UCA 202 Which is better.... On initial impressions. The two are close. They are both clear. Have great separation of instruments. However the XDA-1 is the winner but not by much. A bit more realistic sound. A bit better depth. I noted previously that the UCA-202 had a slight upshift to the treble. Well I was wrong. It does not. It is about as neutral as the XDA-1. Is it a difference worth 8X (Sale) to 13 times the price (retail). Ehhhh well if I had to do the same thing over and I had no need of switching inputs, high res audio, and a remote control then I probably wouldn't get the xda-1. But I do need all those things so I guess I would.... It's also hard to overstate how important tiny differences in sound are because it applies to every single minute of your audio listening. And if that's worth the price difference. Yes it is. 4. I had the chance to evaluate the XDA-1's lossy digital volume control vs the analog passive pre-amp. Yes there is a noticeable difference and it should have been picked up on very quickly on listening tests when they were testing the XDA-1 in development. (Also should have been picked up, a lack of an analog resistor control in the circuit schematics. )In fact professional audio reviewers should have picked up on it too in their listening tests. I don't see why they didn't. It's not an awful difference by any means. It still sounds great. But the sound is not as defined. The xda-1 is still better but only by a little. If I did a blind test, I would absolutely fail to identify which one was the source. I may even fail to say if there was a difference. This doesn't diminish the sound quality of the xda-1. It's still fantastic. Just that there is a contender to its sound quality in the form of a tiny $30 DAC. It doesn't have a torroidal power supply. It uses USB power (blech). It's main function was not to be a DAC but an ADC for input of a line level signal in digital form to the computer. Which it does very well. It has a headphone amplifier which is better than my xenos 3HA . I've used different sources before. Some of reasonable quality - many many add-on sound cards, Toshiba HD-DVD player, Sony PS3 via analog, multiple ipods, cellphones, iphones, DVD players, and both the xda-1 and the behringer UCA 202 walks all over them. The competition isn't even close. Incredible value. If people had doubts about pro audio behringer DACS, well do try out this $30 unit and make up your own mind. It's pretty darn nice and I still can't believe it's $30. I'm surprised this DAC is not more well known! If the behringer did not exist, I wouldn't have hesitated to call the xda-1 a darn nice value - but it still is but the presence of this $30 DAC competing with it is a little embarassing.... It's hard for me to wrap my head around it. Nobody likes spending more money than they have to. I would have been a little less miffed if I haven't had so many problems with the inputs overloading....now on three units - the upa-2's gain control, passive pre-amp, headphone amplifier. Thanks for your reply Keith. As for audio standards. Yes, there is a general 2V standard. There is also a 1V standard used on AV pre-amps. It's not set in stone but the standard 1V or 2V is pretty widely known AFAIK. For instance my asus xonar essence st and the behringer UCA 202, Toshiba HD-DVD player, PS3, Ipod touch, JDS labs ODAC have got around the same volume maxed out (ipod touch a little lower than the rest), all of which are significantly lower than the XDA-1's. The Behringer UCA 202 specifically states it is designed for line level outputs and inputs of 2V. There are a lot of DACS that ignore the 2V and I don't understand why or what the point is. Also it appears to distort even the UPA-2's own gain control. You can try it yourself. Put on Norah Jones come away with me CD, put the XDA-1 in DAC mode at 80 and turn down the gain control on the UPA-2. You will hear audible distortion where you don't have to strain at all to hear it. At least you'll know I'm not blowing hot air. ;D So, at the very least it needs to work with emotiva's own products IMO. I haven't encountered a product where it doesn't distort it - granted my gear is not very varied. I've noticed some USP-1 owners mentioning they prefer the sound of their XDA-1 at 70 rather than 80 as well on the emo forums so I have to wonder if this is happening but to a lesser extent with the USP-1 manifesting in the terms of a more compressed sound vs outright clipping at 80. This is the emo literature "In addition to being a state of the art 24Bit/192kHz DAC, the XDA-1 can operate as a digital preamplifier and source selector in a digitally based reference level audio system." The way I read it is this is supposed to deliver reference level audio when using the digital pre-amplifier. If a passive pre-amp with about $15 in parts outperforms it with a $2 potentiometer - despite the clipping -, then I'm not sure what's reference or state of the art about it. I do understand all digital attenuators are lossy however a properly designed 32 bit design is significantly less lossy than a digital attenuation design that Lonnie said he wasn't aware was even in there on the forums and he is its chief designer.. If I can hear it enough to bug me off a set of $1200 speakers and a $350 amplifier, then I disagree about it just being for a very specific few that can hear the difference. Some people may not care. Good for them. But I do because it's clear to me and that's not how it was advertised. Anyway, I apolgize for the rant, but I do have to live with this device as I am on a limited budget and it doesn't even seem to work perfectly with the UPA-2 using a passive pre-amp. So I am aggravated. But I do appreciate the time you took to respond to my post and your honesty. I really do. The passive pre-amp (I opened it up) has a switch on it to switch inputs. There is nothing in between the inputs and the outputs except for the switch and the potentiometer. Just insulated wire and soldier. The wires were not loose or frayed and the soldier was still in place. The wires are also separated from each other and do not touch. The second input that is activated by the switch (and is not used) is actually two inputs wired in parralel. So in essence there are three inputs but only two inputs can be used at a time. I use the input that is not wired and goes as I described. What do you think is going on? I was wondering if the rating of 1/4 to 1/2 watt is before the impedance lowers the wattage? I agree with you on what is the difference worth to one. And as I mentioned both these DACs sound amazing to me and stomp all over anything else I have tried except for the asus xonar essence ST which competes very well too. I like the XDA-1's digital inputs as I can use it for a huge varied number of things and the remote control (what a piece of work that is!)  I would like a paid for commercial DAW but at this stage budget and my actual needs are bothg limited. I have little need for serious editing/moidification. I'm mainly looking for a single stereo track with maybe a few layers in it, none equalized or anything. So pretty simple really. The audacity does have a few flaws. It doesn't seem to be able to utilize multiple devices, use WASAPI, and their stereo recording has a bug in it where if you try to record a stereo input in mono it doesn't give you the full 0db signal. I will probably purchase one in the future as my needs get more complex and pocketbook larger. Do you have tips on how to stereo mic a piano with condenser microphones? Thanks again for your reply. |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on May 15, 2013 13:47:39 GMT -5
Ah, I remember visiting Russia (as it was known back then) during the early 80s and buying ukuleles from the train attendant! Off topic, but since you brought it up... In the early 80's (in fact from just after the revolution until 1991) the area you are referring to was known as the U.S.S.R. It's actually called Russia today. Here's a brief timeline if anyone give a darn: In Tsarist times (circa 1500 - 1917) the country was called the Russian Empire. After the October Revolution (1917) the country was re-named as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (as of July 10th 1918). Government - Communist. This is the nearest that the name of the country comes to being called Soviet Russia. After the country was re-organised in 1922 the Soviets created more or less homogeneous national republics and regions for the various nationalities, Russia was the largest of those republics. It is incorrect to call the country Russia, or the people Russians, after the creation of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic - the successor state to the Soviet Union - was renamed as the Russian Federation. The other 14 republics splintered off from the USSR and became independent countries. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 17, 2013 1:46:47 GMT -5
Whew. I guess my previous post was one big rant. I apologize for my tone. I know Keith tried to help and I really appreciate his time on the forums. I was having a long day and my new findings on something I had been struggling with for a long long time made me react badly. Anyway. I did have a new suggestion that it may be an RCA jack that is loose. The distortion does start on the left channel before spreading everywhere (nearly instantly). Recently I had to jiggle the wire (tried different ones) on the left channel because it cut out. So I will investigate further. Today was a long day. But I got to try my microphones in a live setting with my wife's students end of the year concert - a 100 of them! So first attempt at live public recording! I had several limitations. 1. The biggest being that I had to record in a corner well away from the stage on to one side. 2. Second was that it was right next to the PA speaker that was playing the music than near the kids. 3. Third was everybody thought it was fine to have their kids plunk down on my tripods and mics ?!? And the audience squeezed in right next to me like this was normal. Excuse me don't you see tree tripods, microphones, laptop and recording equipment?! What makes you think I want you anywhere near me and your kids sitting in front of me on my equipment? The kids didn't want to do it until their parent specifically forced them to sit in that exact spot. One person looked at me surrounded by my equipment and mics and then asked me, "are you recording?" No, these are my fashion accessories.  4. One lady sighed and said loudly "ugh not another song "- in the middle of the musical program just 14 minutes into it - there were only five 2 minute songs in the play! What were you expecting?! " Well thanks lady whose kid worked hard on that performance, I'm sure my wife's students would love to hear that's what she though of all their hard work ON THE RECORDING. Don't mind me, I'm just right next to you obviously recording. Then she went ahead and played with her iphone the whole time. Anyway, how did it come out? Well the audience was captured very nicely. Very nice stereo field for better or worse. The kids not so much. Most of it was capturing the sound of the PA speaker and the hall acoustics (terrible) rather than focusing on the kids voices. But it was not terrible and sounded remarkably balanced in stereo for where the sound was essentially recorded coming from one side. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on May 17, 2013 7:15:13 GMT -5
Audacity is rather "clunky". If you ever consider spending the money... Adobe Audition is VERY nice (but it's about $300, although they do a sort of "lease" thing now). It's way more intuitive than Audacity, and does a lot more. (Don't believe the hype that Audacity "does the same thing for a lot less". It does the same basic stuff, but it's like comparing a piper cub to a Learjet. Audition is remarkably smooth and un-annoying to use, although there is a steep learning curve.) You can try it free for a month if you're curious. I think they have a cool pricing model. I wish adobe would do the same. It looks like a really cool piece of software. And the 60 day trial is also cool. I find 30days is often too short. Makes me think of the comments about using GIMP instead of photoshop. I'm going to give reaper a try next week and see how it is. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 28, 2013 1:42:44 GMT -5
I have a new idea for an experiment to test out why the distortion on the passive pre-amp is happening when the xda-1 volume is at 80.
Maybe some sort of ground loop is piggybacking from the laptops power supply through the USB into the XDA-1 even when the USB option is not selected.
My goal is to just use the asus xonar essence st from my desktop into the xda-1 and see if the distortion happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 28, 2013 1:51:44 GMT -5
I have a new idea for an experiment to test out why the distortion on the passive pre-amp is happening when the xda-1 volume is at 80. Maybe some sort of ground loop is piggybacking from the laptops power supply through the USB into the XDA-1 even when the USB option is not selected. My goal is to just use the asus xonar essence st from my desktop into the xda-1 and see if the distortion happens. Unplug the lap top power supply? Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 28, 2013 1:57:25 GMT -5
Already tried that. Also without the battery to see. No change in either.
|
|
