|
|
Post by Golden Ear on Oct 19, 2012 14:12:36 GMT -5
I have XDA-1, UPA-2 and USP-1 and Polk LSi15 tower speaker. When I use XDA as preamp, I hear details even to the smallest part but the digital volume cause to lose resolution and this is why I add USP-1 in the chain so I can use XDA as DAC only. Having USP in the chain not only the volume was aggressive but the fine details were no longer audible. Under XDA, the sound was pronounce and diffuse but having USP the sound become more of in your face and fine detail were gone. Maybe someone can give me an advice what is the problem.
|
|
cgolf
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 4,615
|
Post by cgolf on Oct 19, 2012 15:50:13 GMT -5
This may have already been discussed and if so please forgive me.
Was anyone able to compare 2 channel SQ Between the XMC and XSP at Emofest? If so what were the results?
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Oct 19, 2012 17:24:36 GMT -5
I have XDA-1, UPA-2 and USP-1 and Polk LSi15 tower speaker. When I use XDA as preamp, I hear details even to the smallest part but the digital volume cause to lose resolution and this is why I add USP-1 in the chain so I can use XDA as DAC only. Having USP in the chain not only the volume was aggressive but the fine details were no longer audible. Under XDA, the sound was pronounce and diffuse but having USP the sound become more of in your face and fine detail were gone. Maybe someone can give me an advice what is the problem. A couple of other Lounge members have very similar systems to yours and have reported the performance impact you have noted when adding the USP-1 to the signal path. These individuals have pointed out that they "cured" this lack of detail and harshness by using in-line attenuaters, 12DB I believe. We have many other Lounge members using the XDA-1/USP-1 combo that do not have the lack of detail or the harshness you mention. I think your problem very well may be the fact that the Pok LSi15 speakers are power hungry and your UPA-2 is not able to provide power need to satisfy the LSi15. When the UPA-2 struggles to meet the power demand they start to distort, hence the harsh sounds. Most of the other Lounge members who report excellent combined performance of the XDA-1/USP-1 with power hungry speakers have more powerful power amps. I don't recall reading any of them reporting the harshness and lack of details. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 19, 2012 17:39:45 GMT -5
A direct comparison was not available at Emofest. The systems were in different rooms with different equipment (amps, speakers, sources, etc). The XMC was set up in a small theater for people to listen to HT and the XSP was set up in a different room for people to listen to 2-channel.
But, I will say this about listening at Emofest...
In 2-channel, I heard great things from the XSP-1 that indicated it would be a big advance over the USP-1. In my experience at home - it is.
In multi-channel, I heard great things from the XMC-1 that indicated it would be a big advance over the UMC-1.
Of course, nobody has heard an XMC in their home vs. a USP, but based on what I heard - I expect as big of a change for the XMC over the UMC as I now know exists for the XSP vs. USP.
But - to compare the XSP and XMC for 2-channel at this point...pure speculation.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Oct 19, 2012 17:49:09 GMT -5
I've also found that the Mercury Living Presence group of CD's is very well recorded. The recordings are from the 50's and 60's and were transferred to CD by the person who originally did the LP engineering and they are amazing. The only "drawback" is the tape hiss, but these recordings have superb dynamic range, detail and overall quality - much better than much of the stuff being done now. It was all done with only 3 microphones, if I remember correctly. Maybe 2, but no more than 3. Some of them were done using 35 mm film as the recording medium. Can you provide any more detail on which cd's you feel are worthwhile? Thanks If you really want to know just how good CD sound can be check out the offerings from Reference Recordings. They are the best recorded/mastered music I have had the pleasure of hearing. They have a large selection of Samplers for only $9.98 and most of them have over 70 minutes of music taken from a variety of albums in their library. In the two year since I discovered RR I have purchased about 100 of their albums. Everyone of them are "demo" type recordings when you are shopping for new gear. www.referencerecordings.com/SAMPLE.aspYou will want to bookmark this site as you will visit it often after listening to the quality of their product. I have stopped shopping for SACD albums because RR's HDCD encoded media is as good, if not better, and is at a fraction of the price. |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Oct 19, 2012 18:00:54 GMT -5
A direct comparison was not available at Emofest. The systems were in different rooms with different equipment (amps, speakers, sources, etc). The XMC was set up in a small theater for people to listen to HT and the XSP was set up in a different room for people to listen to 2-channel. But, I will say this about listening at Emofest... In 2-channel, I heard great things from the XSP-1 that indicated it would be a big advance over the USP-1. In my experience at home - it is. In multi-channel, I heard great things from the XMC-1 that indicated it would be a big advance over the UMC-1. Of course, nobody has heard an XMC in their home vs. a USP, but based on what I heard - I expect as big of a change for the XMC over the UMC as I now know exists for the XSP vs. USP. But - to compare the XSP and XMC for 2-channel at this point...pure speculation. Mark When I spoke with Lonnie and Ray at Emofest about the sound quality comparison between the XMC and the XSP they said that for casual listening most people would hear no difference between the two; but for serious critical listening the XSP-1 will take you to the next level of enjoyment. Ray also pointed out that to really take advantage of the XSP-1 the user will need high-end source, amplification, and speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Oct 19, 2012 21:39:40 GMT -5
Can you provide any more detail on which cd's you feel are worthwhile? Thanks If you really want to know just how good CD sound can be check out the offerings from Reference Recordings. They are the best recorded/mastered music I have had the pleasure of hearing. They have a large selection of Samplers for only $9.98 and most of them have over 70 minutes of music taken from a variety of albums in their library. In the two year since I discovered RR I have purchased about 100 of their albums. Everyone of them are "demo" type recordings when you are shopping for new gear. www.referencerecordings.com/SAMPLE.aspYou will want to bookmark this site as you will visit it often after listening to the quality of their product. I have stopped shopping for SACD albums because RR's HDCD encoded media is as good, if not better, and is at a fraction of the price. I figure someone is bound to disagree with your statement about HDCD and Reference Recordings being better than SACD but regardless, you are right. Their quality is excellent and there's a very nice range from which to choose. |
|
cgolf
Emo VIPs
Posts: 4,615
|
Post by cgolf on Oct 19, 2012 22:31:23 GMT -5
A direct comparison was not available at Emofest. The systems were in different rooms with different equipment (amps, speakers, sources, etc). The XMC was set up in a small theater for people to listen to HT and the XSP was set up in a different room for people to listen to 2-channel. But, I will say this about listening at Emofest... In 2-channel, I heard great things from the XSP-1 that indicated it would be a big advance over the USP-1. In my experience at home - it is. In multi-channel, I heard great things from the XMC-1 that indicated it would be a big advance over the UMC-1. Of course, nobody has heard an XMC in their home vs. a USP, but based on what I heard - I expect as big of a change for the XMC over the UMC as I now know exists for the XSP vs. USP.But - to compare the XSP and XMC for 2-channel at this point...pure speculation.Mark Mark, thanks. Obviously I'm trying to avoid purchasing both the XSP and XMC and I'm banking on using the XMC for both 2 channel and HT. If it works that way.... ;D |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 20, 2012 6:24:20 GMT -5
I would like to also...but, I won't...I'll just get both!
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by wcparks on Oct 20, 2012 13:12:08 GMT -5
I for one was hoping for the trims but as it turns out I don't need them. It sounds fantastic without them. As my daughter said, who is a Lady Gaga fan, "It sounds so much more real.
That sums it up there for me along with Marks more technical review. Spot on.
Now I'm just waiting for the XPA-1Ls to replace my x-100.
Thanks Emo. You did it right and was worth the wait.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 20, 2012 22:45:32 GMT -5
Great to hear that even your daughter can hear the difference + that you don't need the trims. I think most people will find they don't really need them.
Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2012 5:10:43 GMT -5
I figure someone is bound to disagree with your statement about HDCD and Reference Recordings being better than SACD but regardless, you are right. Their quality is excellent and there's a very nice range from which to choose. Yeah, I would have sworn that SACD and DVD-Audio are usually in multi-channel format, at least the discs that are important to me (see below). As far as pure ultimate 2 channel stereo sound quality within the limits of the format, I would believe that SACD is slightly superior to HDCD and again to the Redbook CD. However, as important or more important is the recording quality which can vary from superb to dreadful on any CD. The consistent extra high quality care in recording for HDCD is obvious as well as those Redbook CD's from Telarc, Chesky, etc. Here is a hybrid SACD from Reference that has the CD layer in HDCD. With this disc you can do a comparison between HDCD and SACD for yourself. www.referencerecordings.com/906SACD_DETAIL.asp(Tutti is also available as an HDCD, RR-906 HDCD $9.98) Audiophile Audition found the SACD layer superior to the HDCD layer. audaud.com/2008/08/" A quick A/B comparison with the CD layer of this hybrid disc shows again the sometimes subtle but often shockingly major enhancement that the higher-res format provides even in two channels. One element is the more extended, tighter and increased physical sensation of the lowest bass drum or tympani hits in such selections as the Firebird excerpts, the Scherzo of Bruckner’s Ninth, or the concluding Great Gate at Kiev. Another is the analog-like quality of “air” around all the performers; one doesn’t appreciate fully its lack on most standard CDs until you do a comparison such as this. Reference Recordings’ compatible HDCD encoding (of which their chief engineer Keith Johnson was co-inventor) does add a noticeable enhancement to the 44.1K sonics when properly decoded, and I was listening via my Benchmark DAC1 which upsamples to 110K. But in spite of this the CD layer sounded like that “air” had been pumped out in comparison." As far as this old fart goes, I far prefer multi-channel playback of high quality 2 channel sources. I'm not talking about demo SACD's that have different instruments in each channel as a gimmick presentation. I'm talking about the SACD/DVD-Audio multi-channel version versus the Redbook 2 channel version. I don't care how much clever mic placements and the marvelous acoustics of the recording venue or the super soundstaging and imaging of ones equipment and speakers. To me the natural spatial ambience of the live performance cannot be duplicated in 2 channel compared to 5 or more channels. Check out The Beatles Love (CD + Audio DVD), track one - Because for a magnificent example. I also prefer in most cases Dolby Pro Logic II playback versus the straight 2 channel version (OMG Batman! Audiophile Blasphemy!).  I am so sad that Mulit-Channel music seems to be going by the wayside. What about all those folks who claim to have the golden ears. Instead they continue to listen to their MP3 sources as well as scratchy old and new vinyl. Don't get me wrong I still enjoy my old LP's (including very fine high end ones) but none of them hold a candle to high end 2 or multi-channel digital sources, IMO. (More Blasphemy!) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 21, 2012 8:23:41 GMT -5
Well the only blasphemy I heard was doby pro-logic. How could you chuckie? ;D
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Oct 21, 2012 9:36:38 GMT -5
As my daughter said, who is a Lady Gaga fan, "It sounds so much more real. Well, let's hope it's just a faze. ;D My (18 yo) girl OTOH, pointed me last week to a Massive Attack album called Heligoland, which I missed completely. A very nice listen indeed as it turned out... So all those years of playing various quality music definitively payed off.  |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 21, 2012 17:42:22 GMT -5
I have removed the USP-1 (and XPA-2) from my stereo stand! Next up - I need to clean up the rat's nest of cables behind it and move the UMC-1 over to the side. This will prep the stand to be ready for the XMC-1!
Mark
|
|
emovac
Emo VIPs
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Oct 21, 2012 18:43:20 GMT -5
I have removed the USP-1 (and XPA-2) from my stereo stand! Next up - I need to clean up the rat's nest of cables behind it and move the UMC-1 over to the side. This will prep the stand to be ready for the XMC-1! Mark Wishful thinking that the XMC-1 will be available soon? Hope so.  |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 21, 2012 19:07:46 GMT -5
"soon" is a relative term. Current projection for version w/o Tact is before 1/1/13. If it's that, great...if not...I'm in no hurry. I love my UMC-1. My only interest is deciding what to do w/my XPA-2...learning toward selling it and buying a UPA-500 to pair w/my UMC-1 in HT #2 in our home.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Oct 22, 2012 6:52:47 GMT -5
I figure someone is bound to disagree with your statement about HDCD and Reference Recordings being better than SACD but regardless, you are right. Their quality is excellent and there's a very nice range from which to choose. Yeah, I would have sworn that SACD and DVD-Audio are usually in multi-channel format, at least the discs that are important to me (see below). As far as pure ultimate 2 channel stereo sound quality within the limits of the format, I would believe that SACD is slightly superior to HDCD and again to the Redbook CD. However, as important or more important is the recording quality which can vary from superb to dreadful on any CD. The consistent extra high quality care in recording for HDCD is obvious as well as those Redbook CD's from Telarc, Chesky, etc. Here is a hybrid SACD from Reference that has the CD layer in HDCD. With this disc you can do a comparison between HDCD and SACD for yourself. www.referencerecordings.com/906SACD_DETAIL.asp(Tutti is also available as an HDCD, RR-906 HDCD $9.98) Audiophile Audition found the SACD layer superior to the HDCD layer. audaud.com/2008/08/" A quick A/B comparison with the CD layer of this hybrid disc shows again the sometimes subtle but often shockingly major enhancement that the higher-res format provides even in two channels. One element is the more extended, tighter and increased physical sensation of the lowest bass drum or tympani hits in such selections as the Firebird excerpts, the Scherzo of Bruckner’s Ninth, or the concluding Great Gate at Kiev. Another is the analog-like quality of “air” around all the performers; one doesn’t appreciate fully its lack on most standard CDs until you do a comparison such as this. Reference Recordings’ compatible HDCD encoding (of which their chief engineer Keith Johnson was co-inventor) does add a noticeable enhancement to the 44.1K sonics when properly decoded, and I was listening via my Benchmark DAC1 which upsamples to 110K. But in spite of this the CD layer sounded like that “air” had been pumped out in comparison." As far as this old fart goes, I far prefer multi-channel playback of high quality 2 channel sources. I'm not talking about demo SACD's that have different instruments in each channel as a gimmick presentation. I'm talking about the SACD/DVD-Audio multi-channel version versus the Redbook 2 channel version. I don't care how much clever mic placements and the marvelous acoustics of the recording venue or the super soundstaging and imaging of ones equipment and speakers. To me the natural spatial ambience of the live performance cannot be duplicated in 2 channel compared to 5 or more channels. Check out The Beatles Love (CD + Audio DVD), track one - Because for a magnificent example. I also prefer in most cases Dolby Pro Logic II playback versus the straight 2 channel version (OMG Batman! Audiophile Blasphemy!). I am so sad that Mulit-Channel music seems to be going by the wayside. What about all those folks who claim to have the golden ears. Instead they continue to listen to their MP3 sources as well as scratchy old and new vinyl. Don't get me wrong I still enjoy my old LP's (including very fine high end ones) but none of them hold a candle to high end 2 or multi-channel digital sources, IMO. (More Blasphemy!) ;D Blasphemy! Every bit of it is pure blasphemy! ;D ;D ;D ;D I kid, of course. The way I see it is this. If you like to listen to your music with various DSPs engaged, then why not enjoy? We all have different tastes, different rooms, different, ears, etc. While I have never been a fan of any room emulation on my receivers, I have had fun playing around with them while listening to stereo music...just to see what it does. I always go back to straight stereo "pure direct" mode, as the room emulation and DSP modes always seem to add odd artificial echoes and things IMO. I find it distracting when I listen like that.  Oh well, to each his/her own. Have fun and enjoy the music! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 22, 2012 15:44:07 GMT -5
OK - Let's cut to the chase:
The XSP-1 is LOTS more expensive than the USP-1. Consensus seems to be that yes, it sounds better (and it should). The question is does it sound 50% better than the USP-1?
The $500 to $1,000 solid-state preamp market is CROWDED with contenders. Audio Advisor alone lists about five preamps at or below the price of the XSP-1 including names like Parasound, NuForce, and Vincent. Other "top rated" preamps listed by either Stereophile or TAS magazines include models in the range. This ignores (for the moment) the used market.
So the question is: How does the XSP-1 compare with the competition at large, and more to the point, why should I buy Emotiva rather than the competition?
Assuming I'm willing to part with the $$$ for an XSP-1 (which I actually MAY be), how does the XSP-1 compare with the same prices on used gear? Currently on e-Bay, I see the following for the same or less than the XSP-1:
Crown SL2
McIntosh MX-113
McIntosh C-712
Threshold Coda 02
Audible Illusions Modulus 3A
Some of these were rated as "best in the world" at the time of their introduction.
So, Emotivites, convince me. WHY should I buy a XSP-1 instead of any of the used competition (including USP-1s)?? Enquiring minds want to know...
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Oct 22, 2012 17:13:46 GMT -5
Tell me again who has a balanced preamp with a full complement of XLR outs AND ins, phono (MM & MC), bass management, tone controls, high quality parts & build, 5 yr warranty for under $1000. If I were buying a preamp I would be looking for most of those things which would let the USP-1 out for me, many other preamps as well. As for sound, we can only go by the reports and knowledge of what's out there. But make sure you're comparing apples to apples before you start.
|
|
