|
|
Post by Dark Ranger on Nov 19, 2012 21:22:12 GMT -5
That is one awesome review, Boomzilla.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 19, 2012 21:26:12 GMT -5
...BTW, if anyone knows, how much of a difference will the XSP make over the UMC multichannel pre/pro? In fact, I've owned both. I sold my UMC-1 because I didn't think it sounded as good for stereo as it should have. On movies, it was fine. Whether or not YOU will hear any difference is something I can't predict. The "weakest link" in your audio chain will determine whether all the others make any difference at all. In other words, if your speakers stink, then even the best preamp in the world won't make them better. Trying to ignore other variables, yes, I think that the XSP-1 does sound better than the UMC-1, but I'm also listening through an Audioquest Dragonfly DAC rather than the internal UMC-1 DAC. Is that difference the cause of what I'm hearing? Clairvoyance costs extra! |
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Nov 20, 2012 2:42:46 GMT -5
Trying to ignore other variables, yes, I think that the XSP-1 does sound better than the UMC-1, but I'm also listening through an Audioquest Dragonfly DAC rather than the internal UMC-1 DAC. Is that difference the cause of what I'm hearing? The Dragonfly used an ESS Sabre DAC chip in it, so that is pretty tough to top. It's too bad that little thing isn't fully balanced.  At it's price point, and for what it does, I am sure it's a steal.  Are you going to be getting an XDA-2 Boom? I would be interested to see how these two devices compare. Like everyone here, I am very interested to see how this will compare to the XDA-1, and the ERC-2. All three of them use the Analog Devices AD1955 DAC chip, but all three of them are in different boxes, with different components surrounding them, different output stages, etc. EDIT: By the way, I also found your review to be amusing, and saw what you were going for. It's nice to see some fun creativity with reviews. When I did my review, I purposely avoided the traditional method of listing source material and giving thoughts on that particular piece of music. I found that writing a review without doing that, can be challenging. Doing a review from the perspective of a prohibition-era gangster was pretty clever IMO. Although, I have to admit, it made it more difficult to read through as fluidly as modern, proper English. Still though, I give you an A for effort. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 20, 2012 11:26:06 GMT -5
Are you going to be getting an XDA-2 Boom? I do plan to, but it will be a while. I emptied my piggy bank for the XSP-1. I'm eager to hear the Dragonfly vs. the XDA-2 shootout as well. My suspicion is that the Dragonfly will prevail because of its better DAC chip, but I could be wrong. The analog sections of a DAC can have as much or more influence on the sound as the digital sections, IMHO. That means that it's at least possible that the XDA-2 could sound better than the Dragonfly despite its "inferior" DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Nov 20, 2012 18:46:02 GMT -5
Are you going to be getting an XDA-2 Boom? I do plan to, but it will be a while. I emptied my piggy bank for the XSP-1. I'm eager to hear the Dragonfly vs. the XDA-2 shootout as well. My suspicion is that the Dragonfly will prevail because of its better DAC chip, but I could be wrong. The analog sections of a DAC can have as much or more influence on the sound as the digital sections, IMHO. That means that it's at least possible that the XDA-2 could sound better than the Dragonfly despite its "inferior" DAC. I think all banks are kind of pigs...  |
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs 
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Nov 20, 2012 19:00:06 GMT -5
Are you going to be getting an XDA-2 Boom? I do plan to, but it will be a while. I emptied my piggy bank for the XSP-1. I'm eager to hear the Dragonfly vs. the XDA-2 shootout as well. My suspicion is that the Dragonfly will prevail because of its better DAC chip, but I could be wrong. The analog sections of a DAC can have as much or more influence on the sound as the digital sections, IMHO. That means that it's at least possible that the XDA-2 could sound better than the Dragonfly despite its "inferior" DAC. Somewhat like the weakest link phenomenon, a more linear DAC does not necessarily guarantee "better sounding" The implementation is about 90% of what you hear from a DAC ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 20, 2012 19:03:16 GMT -5
...I think all banks are kind of pigs... That's why it's good to own some of them. |
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Nov 20, 2012 19:13:33 GMT -5
...I think all banks are kind of pigs... That's why it's good to own some of them. +1, even if it makes ourselves pigs. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 20, 2012 19:34:03 GMT -5
Sounds like a winner pardner. I would love to come over sometime in December to take a listen if you would be so obliging. I've always wanted to hear some REAL Klipsch or thiels. Alas, I'll be out of town most of the month on business. Perhaps another time? Sounds good to me. |
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Nov 21, 2012 0:16:49 GMT -5
I do plan to, but it will be a while. I emptied my piggy bank for the XSP-1. I'm eager to hear the Dragonfly vs. the XDA-2 shootout as well. My suspicion is that the Dragonfly will prevail because of its better DAC chip, but I could be wrong. The analog sections of a DAC can have as much or more influence on the sound as the digital sections, IMHO. That means that it's at least possible that the XDA-2 could sound better than the Dragonfly despite its "inferior" DAC. Somewhat like the weakest link phenomenon, a more linear DAC does not necessarily guarantee "better sounding" The implementation is about 90% of what you hear from a DAC ;D While I am not sure about the percentage, I do agree that the sound of a component doesn't rest entirely on the DAC chip used inside. All of the surrounding electronics must be taken into account as well. While DACs may measure the same, I do believe they can impart their own sonic signature (or timbre) on the sound. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 21, 2012 7:43:12 GMT -5
+1, even if it makes ourselves pigs. ;D "We are what we own...?" |
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Nov 21, 2012 18:59:57 GMT -5
ffffffeeeewwwwwwwwww, you reassure me. |
|
|
|
Post by hawk14 on Dec 14, 2012 10:01:56 GMT -5
I appreciated the humor. Its refreshing to read something without being bogged down by techie-audiophile related babble all the time. Nice job!
|
|
|
|
Post by hawk14 on Dec 14, 2012 10:03:57 GMT -5
Boomzilla, have you, or anyone else for that matter, ever used a tube preamp in your system and preferred the XSP-1?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 31, 2012 8:57:13 GMT -5
Boomzilla, have you...ever used a tube preamp in your system and preferred the XSP-1? Yes, I'm familiar with tube preamps. I've owned Dynaco, McIntosh, Conrad Johnson, Eico, Harmon Kardon, and Audio Research tube preamps over the years. I had none of the above on hand to directly compare to the XSP-1. I did have a tube/solid-state hybrid Qinpu A-6000 integrated amp at the same time, though. I could definitely hear the "tube sound" with the Qinpu. It was pleasant enough, but not what I wanted, so I sent it back (to Audio Advisor). I'd say that I strongly prefer the sound of the XPA-1 over the older tube preamps because, unlike those, the XPA-1 does not add any coloration. In other words, by just listening to the XPA-1, I couldn't say whether it was a solid state or a contemporary (top of the line) tube preamplifier. I could, however, immediately tell (and I think I could do so even in a double blind test) that the XPA-1 was NOT any of the older tube preamps. I think that the XPA-1 is the best preamp I've owned. Of course, if you WANT tube sound from your preamp, the XPA-1 is not the unit for you. If, however, like me you want nothing but honesty from your preamp, then the XPA-1 is the best around, IMHO. Cordially - Boomzilla |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 11:50:04 GMT -5
Boomzilla, have you...ever used a tube preamp in your system and preferred the XSP-1? Yes, I'm familiar with tube preamps. I've owned Dynaco, McIntosh, Conrad Johnson, Eico, Harmon Kardon, and Audio Research tube preamps over the years. I had none of the above on hand to directly compare to the XSP-1. I did have a tube/solid-state hybrid Qinpu A-6000 integrated amp at the same time, though. I could definitely hear the "tube sound" with the Qinpu. It was pleasant enough, but not what I wanted, so I sent it back (to Audio Advisor). I'd say that I strongly prefer the sound of the XSP-1 over the older tube preamps because, unlike those, the XSP-1 does not add any coloration. In other words, by just listening to the XSP-1, I couldn't say whether it was a solid state or a contemporary (top of the line) tube preamplifier. I could, however, immediately tell (and I think I could do so even in a double blind test) that the XSP-1 was NOT any of the older tube preamps. I think that the XSP-1 is the best preamp I've owned. Of course, if you WANT tube sound from your preamp, the XSP-1 is not the unit for you. If, however, like me you want nothing but honesty from your preamp, then the XSP-1 is the best around, IMHO. Cordially - Boomzilla Fixed it for ya |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 31, 2012 12:54:10 GMT -5
Fixed it for ya Thank you VERY kindly - I appreciate it. I'm often confused between those three-letter model numbers. Why couldn't they have called them the "Dragon," and the "Lizard," or something more distinctive... |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Dec 31, 2012 14:06:50 GMT -5
Why couldn't they have called them the "Dragon" and the "Lizard", or something more distinctive... Now your just bragging! |
|
