|
|
Post by yves on May 20, 2013 15:26:11 GMT -5
The UMC-200, when used in Direct Mode, is exactly the same as an analog passive preamp. Sure, an analog active preamp adds gain, but my separate DAC outputs 2.5 V (RMS) and my XPA-2 has 32 dB of amp gain so, lack of gain is not exactly on my list of problems. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ossif on May 21, 2013 0:59:54 GMT -5
The UMC-200, when used in Direct Mode, is exactly the same as an analog passive preamp. Sure, an analog active preamp adds gain, but my separate DAC outputs 2.5 V (RMS) and my XPA-2 has 32 dB of amp gain so, lack of gain is not exactly on my list of problems. ;D The UMC-200 is far to have the ability to act like a passive design, which by the way does not say anything about SQ. The UMC-200 is a highly integrated one board surround preamp solution. You cannot compare it to the XDA-2. |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Jun 12, 2013 7:49:55 GMT -5
Lucky for me, my UMC-200 has Direct Mode so that the problem of my separate DAC not having HT bypass is completely solved, and I don't want to use a subwoofer when listening to stereo music. As for room correction, I don't want to use that for stereo music either, but I find that what the EmoQ Gen 2 of the UMC-200 does to multichannel sound is phenomenal.Man I agree with all that completely. Subs and room correction are for HT IMHO. I need my stereo as simple and pure as possible. .. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Jun 12, 2013 10:56:59 GMT -5
Lucky for me, my UMC-200 has Direct Mode so that the problem of my separate DAC not having HT bypass is completely solved, and I don't want to use a subwoofer when listening to stereo music. As for room correction, I don't want to use that for stereo music either, but I find that what the EmoQ Gen 2 of the UMC-200 does to multichannel sound is phenomenal.Man I agree with all that completely. Subs and room correction are for HT IMHO. I need my stereo as simple and pure as possible. .. I'd love to understand this mindset? If DRC improves the response of a 2 channel system, what's "pure" got to do with it if it can be applied in a non-destructive manner? Second, if a sub(s) improves the low end of a system, what's the damage. I'm sure that the single full range driver folks might have an argument here, but if you have a 2-way or 3-way speaker system what's the difference? I honestly find HT more forgiving, with a lower need for correction than 2 channel. The only caveat I can see is if you're an analog source(turntable) fan. For me I'm digital and don't intend to return to the old days. If you can apply DRC while staying in the digital domain(before the DAC) and use analog bass management for the sub(s), to me it's a win-win. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 12, 2013 11:13:38 GMT -5
With RC are we talking sub integration (EQing below 200Hz) or full spectrum EQ? (changing the way the speaker sounds so that it measures flat at the listening position) Two different animals IMHO. One attempts to seamlessly blend subs to a stereo pair while the other attempts to make all speakers sound the same.  |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on Jun 12, 2013 11:25:36 GMT -5
I fully agree with Cfelliot, but I'd go even further and apply all the crossovers in the digital domain to implement true bi-amplification. That would output 5 digital channels (left and right high and low + subwoofer); that should go through a 5-channel DAC and onwards to the individual drivers through their respective amps.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 12, 2013 11:52:55 GMT -5
First, even in a digital system, the concept of "pure" has meaning. You can pass all the numbers exactly as they came in, or you can change them. Digital processing can and often does degrade the sound. It is not a fair assumption that, just because a filter is implemented digitally instead of in the analog domain, it won't cause phase shirt, distortion, or other odd artifacts; it may or may not. You CAN make a bad (and bad sounding) digital filter if you do it wrong. That said, assuming you're starting with digital sound, which has already been processed, I see no reason to avoid further processing if it improves the sound (if it's done RIGHT). On that note, I'm curious why you would want ANALOG bass management. It seems to me that any argument that applies to the benefits of digital processing also applies to digital bass management. [The ONLY reason I can see for analog bass management is that you want to use it for some analog source so you can avoiding converting that source to digital and back again. If you're going to do digital processing, then do digital bass management as well.] I will also admit that I'm not a big vinyl fan. To me the annoyances (scratches, record wear, adjusting tonearms and suspension, loading records) are too severe. I am starting in the process of digitizing my last few remaining records so I can go entirely digital. I would very much like to see a music server with full digital bass management - and separate digital outputs to go to the DAC that runs the subwoofer. Man I agree with all that completely. Subs and room correction are for HT IMHO. I need my stereo as simple and pure as possible. .. I'd love to understand this mindset? If DRC improves the response of a 2 channel system, what's "pure" got to do with it if it can be applied in a non-destructive manner? Second, if a sub(s) improves the low end of a system, what's the damage. I'm sure that the single full range driver folks might have an argument here, but if you have a 2-way or 3-way speaker system what's the difference? I honestly find HT more forgiving, with a lower need for correction than 2 channel. The only caveat I can see is if you're an analog source(turntable) fan. For me I'm digital and don't intend to return to the old days. If you can apply DRC while staying in the digital domain(before the DAC) and use analog bass management for the sub(s), to me it's a win-win. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Jun 12, 2013 12:11:18 GMT -5
The big issue is where do you apply volume control?
This is the signal chain as I am describing it:
Digital Source->DRC->XDA-2->XSP-1->Power Amp->Speakers
->Power Amp->Subs
If a XDA-3 existed that had Tact and Bass Management then this would work and the XSP-1 could be omitted:
Digital Source->XDA-3->Power Amp->Speakers
->Power Amp->Subs
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 12, 2013 14:23:35 GMT -5
I would very much like to see a music server with full digital bass management - and separate digital outputs to go to the DAC that runs the subwoofer. Is that what the Emotiva Music Server One will have? (EMS-1 - go ahead and use that.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by danr on Jun 12, 2013 14:36:15 GMT -5
I would very much like to see a music server with full digital bass management - and separate digital outputs to go to the DAC that runs the subwoofer. I like this idea, as long as it allows for the use of ALAC...otherwise my Macbook Pro, iPad, iPhone, & Apple TV will have to do. But if I could somehow have a component style music server I can control with my iPad that goes right into, say, an RMC-1 (room correction, subs, etc)...I think I would be game. I really don't feel like re-ripping all of my stuff to FLAC, WAV, etc. so this must integrate with my Apple devices and ALAC. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jun 13, 2013 7:42:23 GMT -5
I will also admit that I'm not a big vinyl fan. To me the annoyances (scratches, record wear, adjusting tonearms and suspension, loading records) are too severe. I am starting in the process of digitizing my last few remaining records so I can go entirely digital. Most of the music I listen to has been digitized from audiophile grade vinyl using a variety of audiophile grade turntable setups. The digitization process eliminates any and all of the annoyances typically associated with vinyl playback, including nasty pop and click sounds because they can be edited out manually with iZotope RX Advanced 2 after zooming in on them in spectrogram mode. Doing this digital cleanup manually, so that it does not harm the music, can be very time consuming. However, the mastering process used on vinyl is very often much better sounding than the one used on the Redbook CD version IMO (and, unfortunately, services like HDTracks.com, for example, do not always offer the solution to that problem, either...). On top of that, IMO the inner complexity and microdetail of some instruments is utterly destroyed by Redbook CD. I have never heard something like for example a cymbal crash sound anywhere "close to the original studio master tape" on Redbook CD, and I find that the three-dimensionality of the soundstage on even the best sounding Redbook CD that I have heard (and I have heard thousands), in direct comparison with what it's like on the best sounding vinyl LPs, is what I think could best be described as "a caricature". It's nearly as bad as if the sound were coming only from inside a wall between both speakers, TBH. As a result, vinyl IMO, although it's definitely not the holy grail of course, is still a relevant, if not THE most relevant, source of recorded music today (except perhaps if all you do is listen to Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber).  |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Jun 13, 2013 7:54:27 GMT -5
Man I agree with all that completely. Subs and room correction are for HT IMHO. I need my stereo as simple and pure as possible. .. I'd love to understand this mindset? If DRC improves the response of a 2 channel system, what's "pure" got to do with it if it can be applied in a non-destructive manner? Second, if a sub(s) improves the low end of a system, what's the damage. I'm sure that the single full range driver folks might have an argument here, but if you have a 2-way or 3-way speaker system what's the difference? If it can be applied in a non-destructive manner... I don't know that room correction CAN be applied in a non-destructive manner. In the time I used an AVR as a stereo preamp, I always used pure direct when listening to two channel. The difference between that and ANY of the DSP modes was incredible! The difference between the AVR and a dedicated stereo preamp is equally incredible. Sub integration into 2 channel generally requires more crossovers to accomplish. That in itself IMHO isn't desirable, and in practice, I think the crossovers in most subs are cheap to say the least. I'll admit I haven't had the opportunity to use a dedicated stereo preamp with QUALITY bass management such as the USP/XSP-1 and that may/should make all the difference with sub integration. I believe simplicity rules in a stereo rig. ... |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Jun 13, 2013 8:18:23 GMT -5
I'd love to understand this mindset? If DRC improves the response of a 2 channel system, what's "pure" got to do with it if it can be applied in a non-destructive manner? Second, if a sub(s) improves the low end of a system, what's the damage. I'm sure that the single full range driver folks might have an argument here, but if you have a 2-way or 3-way speaker system what's the difference? If it can be applied in a non-destructive manner... I don't know that room correction CAN be applied in a non-destructive manner. In the time I used an AVR as a stereo preamp, I always used pure direct when listening to two channel. The difference between that and ANY of the DSP modes was incredible! The difference between the AVR and a dedicated stereo preamp is equally incredible. Sub integration into 2 channel generally requires more crossovers to accomplish. That in itself IMHO isn't desirable, and in practice, I think the crossovers in most subs are cheap to say the least. I'll admit I haven't had the opportunity to use a dedicated stereo preamp with QUALITY bass management such as the USP/XSP-1 and that may/should make all the difference with sub integration. I believe simplicity rules in a stereo rig. ... I think that the result will be dependent on the quality of the equipment used. That and the methodology. Your argument with subs is valid and is the reason I like passive subs. But, as I asked above, how is applying a crossover between a sub and a woofer any different than applying it between a woofer and a mid-range? Keep in mind the direct mode in an AVR sometimes does more than just remove DSP processing. Sometimes it shuts down the video processing that can be a source of noise etc. IMO, DSP audio processing has come a long way in the last few years. And, if applied to a digital signal BEFORE the DAC can correct for a lot. DRC is only part. It can also fix issues with the speaker itself. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on Jun 13, 2013 10:05:40 GMT -5
Chuck Elliot I'm with you. I figure dsp done correctly, in the digital domain, pre dac can sound amazing. It can help fix/adjust speakers and it can easily provide the crossover, not just for the sub, but also for active biamping. I think that there are just two very different sets of desires here. Neither is right or wrong. But neither will switch positions or want the other, or be convinced through a forum that they are either right or wrong. There are the set of people who want to have a super simple path with few if any adjustments. And there are the set of people who are happy to explore different solutions and say, "if done right I could have a dsp in my two channel system." For the first set, the dac must be pure, for the second set, drc and dsps are all fair game. I think that there are just two product needs. Maybe it's just putting something like the digital minidsp in front of a few dacs. I might have to give that a try, as I have a few dacs to play with now.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jun 13, 2013 13:37:44 GMT -5
There are the set of people who want to have a super simple path with few if any adjustments. And there are the set of people who are happy to explore different solutions and say, "if done right I could have a dsp in my two channel system." As much as I hate to rain down on your parade, I am sorry to inform you that I am in neither of both camps... I just want the best quality sound that's possible with my two channel system, to my ears, and if that just so happens to imply there can be no EQ then it's got nothing to do with my wanting to have super simplicity of the signal path (I don't), and it's got even less to do with not being happy to explore different solutions (been there, done that...), but it's got everything to do with my being able to hear distortions caused by EQ, as well as my being able to directly compare those distortions with any problems that can be solved with EQ. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on Jun 13, 2013 19:25:22 GMT -5
yves I guess I was talking about people who patently believe that a two channel system shouldn't have a dsp in it. Rather than people who say, I haven't heard a dsp/eq that is right, but if you show me one, I would be happy with it. I don't think that a dsp or eq automatically makes anything better, but it also doesn't automatically make things worse. I think that there are people who say, don't touch the signal. And then there are others who say don't mess up the signal. Those who are willing to explore different solutions. I've heard a couple Tact systems with room correction and they just sounded amazing. This was a number of years back.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jun 14, 2013 9:02:41 GMT -5
yves I guess I was talking about people who patently believe that a two channel system shouldn't have a dsp in it. Rather than people who say, I haven't heard a dsp/eq that is right, but if you show me one, I would be happy with it. I don't think that a dsp or eq automatically makes anything better, but it also doesn't automatically make things worse. I think that there are people who say, don't touch the signal. And then there are others who say don't mess up the signal. Those who are willing to explore different solutions. I've heard a couple Tact systems with room correction and they just sounded amazing. This was a number of years back. Maybe it is that those camps who say no dsp are really saying that they don't want to change the speaker's sound signature by doing a full spectrum EQ? |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 14, 2013 9:14:45 GMT -5
In my experience the most adamant "anti-EQ" and "anti-DSP" crowd have never really experienced it, or at least they have not experienced it done well, and almost certainly not in their systems. They presuppose that any hardware additions to their signal chain is necessarily "bad" and that any alteration to the signal character will somehow destroy the "integrity" of the recording (or my favorite, that it will "suck the life out of the recording," whatever that is.) It's like trying to argue religion with a true-believer: better to not try as their minds are already made up.
There is no system or listening situation that could not be made better through the proper use of EQ of some sort (except those that have already been corrected, of course) and if done in the digital domain EQ can be magnitudes better in terms of accuracy, clarity, s/n and dynamic range impact on the signal than an analog component can attain.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jun 15, 2013 9:30:28 GMT -5
yves I guess I was talking about people who patently believe that a two channel system shouldn't have a dsp in it. Rather than people who say, I haven't heard a dsp/eq that is right, but if you show me one, I would be happy with it. I don't think that a dsp or eq automatically makes anything better, but it also doesn't automatically make things worse. I think that there are people who say, don't touch the signal. And then there are others who say don't mess up the signal. Those who are willing to explore different solutions. I've heard a couple Tact systems with room correction and they just sounded amazing. This was a number of years back. I say don't fix the signal if it ain't broken. |
|
|
|
Post by mam on Jun 28, 2013 1:58:34 GMT -5
i would love the XDA-2 with a real volume knob instead of those slow , up and down buttons ..... wont get the xda-2 ....
|
|
)
