|
|
Post by boscobear on May 14, 2014 6:46:59 GMT -5
I see that there are two different brands of DACs used in the two pieces of audio equipment. I did a small amount of investigation in the two brands, and did not find anything that I understood. I have come to the personal conclusion that the XMC-1 has a real good DAC, even two of them, and an external DAC would not be needed. This is at best a logical guess by me, with no data, or listening experience. I ask the lounge what their beliefs are with the different brands.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,854
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 14, 2014 7:45:06 GMT -5
I'm by no means an expert on DAC's or where certain models rank in their prospective company line, but I do know the implementation in the electronics they will be used in is quite an important factor and I trust Dan/Lonnie/Ray to have optimized the XMC-1's. I personally think the DC-1 is a fantastic sounding DAC being that I listen to it on a daily basis, so I'd expect the XMC-1's DAC implementation to be every bit as good.
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on May 14, 2014 9:05:11 GMT -5
On one hand I hope June and mass shipping comes soon, so we can get our hands on the XMC-1, and do our own personal listening tests.
On the other hand I need time to finish my basement by June 16th, as I promised my son.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 14, 2014 9:45:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 14, 2014 11:28:28 GMT -5
According to Emotiva products sight and AudioHTIT's chart, The XMC-1 doesn't have the twin Analog Devices AD1955 DACs that the DC-1 has. Instead it has Burr-Brown DSD1793s, which is the next generation newer of the Burr-Brown DSD1791s that the, um, ahem, PT-7030 uses. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 14, 2014 11:31:48 GMT -5
The DC-1 uses one DAC per left and right channel in differential mode. The XMC-1 does not.
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 14, 2014 11:38:33 GMT -5
The DC-1 uses one DAC per left and right channel in differential mode. The XMC-1 does not. That's interesting because the PT-7030 does. It just doesn't keep the balanced signal into the preamp section. I got a reply from Keith @ Emotiva... clarifying that the DACs are Burr Brown DSD1791, the output is fully balanced and is comparable to any other competitor... I've asked for clarification on whether there are 4 DAC chips because the DSD1791 is a stereo DAC... its not clear which topology of balancing is used. This being the case - its quite perplexing that these are all not proudly touted on the website... May be the tech team and the web-content writing team didn't completely synch-up. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 14, 2014 11:51:37 GMT -5
The DC-1 uses one DAC per left and right channel in differential mode. The XMC-1 does not. That's interesting because the PT-7030 does. It just doesn't keep the balanced signal into the preamp section. I got a reply from Keith @ Emotiva... clarifying that the DACs are Burr Brown DSD1791, the output is fully balanced and is comparable to any other competitor... I've asked for clarification on whether there are 4 DAC chips because the DSD1791 is a stereo DAC... its not clear which topology of balancing is used. This being the case - its quite perplexing that these are all not proudly touted on the website... May be the tech team and the web-content writing team didn't completely synch-up. I think the XMC-1 is balanced in stereo mode too. But it doesn't use two dacs to produce stereo. One per channel. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2014 12:05:11 GMT -5
Yeah but man does this thread open a can of worms I had thought about a long time ago. Well, maybe not a can of worms, but it raises questions. If the DC-1 and ERC-3 are so great, why did they not stick with that sort of format? Burr Brown are highly regarded for many people (just not usually the audiophile snobs), so I'm not fearing anything. I just find it odd myself. Is there something that doesn't allow the techniques used in the DC-1 & ERC-3 to function in a multi-channel processor? Was it impossible? Was it cost? Was it so the rumored up and coming RMC could raise the bar by having the DC-1 & ERC-3 signature? Now this is an area where I think a detailed explanation from Emotiva could be useful. Although I'm sure some tech savvy person here on this forum can probably answer this for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 14, 2014 12:33:38 GMT -5
Yeah but man does this thread open a can of worms I had thought about a long time ago. Well, maybe not a can of worms, but it raises questions. If the DC-1 and ERC-3 are so great, why did they not stick with that sort of format? Burr Brown are highly regarded for many people (just not usually the audiophile snobs), so I'm not fearing anything. I just find it odd myself. Is there something that doesn't allow the techniques used in the DC-1 & ERC-3 to function in a multi-channel processor? Was it impossible? Was it cost? Was it so the rumored up and coming RMC could raise the bar by having the DC-1 & ERC-3 signature? Now this is an area where I think a detailed explanation from Emotiva could be useful. Although I'm sure some tech savvy person here on this forum can probably answer this for me. If you want it to be identical in design to the DC-1 by taking the idea of a DAC per channel.... Then the 7.2 XMC-1 would need to have 7 (or 9 for twin sub) DACs plus the corresponding analog line stage (and power supplies if need be). Plus whatever processors needed for the room correction processing. Make it as good in performance - is a different question. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 14, 2014 12:40:05 GMT -5
If the DC-1 and ERC-3 are so great, why did they not stick with that sort of format? IMHO, if your analog implementation is top notch, the dac choice is almost trivial. However, not many here and around the net really want to believe that and this is why the new "dac flavor of the month" help drive new DAC sales. That is my take on DACs and I'm sticking with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2014 12:42:08 GMT -5
Sounds like it could be a matter of a lot of things. In the end it would be nice to hear from Emotiva on what the factors were and why certain decisions were made. But unlike many here, I respect their right not to go into all those details with us. Nice, but not necessary. Just more curious myself. The end all will be the sound for sure. If I were a going to be a troll like, I'd say it was so they don't hurt their own sales of the ERC-3. It's a catch 22 with a player and processor. If one is better than the other, you don't need both. Make the XMC-1 just like the ERC-3 and any old CD/DVD/BLu-ray player used as a transport will do. This is not just an Emotiva issue, as all companies that produce both know. A brand like Oppo only has to do one. Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2014 12:45:43 GMT -5
If the DC-1 and ERC-3 are so great, why did they not stick with that sort of format? IMHO, if your analog implementation is top notch, the dac choice is almost trivial. However, not many here and around the net really want to believe that and this is why the new "dac flavor of the month" help drive new DAC sales. That is my take on DACs and I'm sticking with it. I agree with most of that. DAC's are certainly the talk of the town right now. 20+ years ago when Sony put out their 2 box CD transport / DAC most people laughed at them. Now, not so much. It's a double edged sword here. What if the XMC-1 sounds better than the ERC-3 and DC-1, or vice-versa? Not a position I'd like to be in. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 14, 2014 12:55:04 GMT -5
IMHO, if your analog implementation is top notch, the dac choice is almost trivial. However, not many here and around the net really want to believe that and this is why the new "dac flavor of the month" help drive new DAC sales. That is my take on DACs and I'm sticking with it. I agree with most of that. DAC's are certainly the talk of the town right now. 20+ years ago when Sony put out their 2 box CD transport / DAC most people laughed at them. Now, not so much. It's a double edged sword here. What if the XMC-1 sounds better than the ERC-3 and DC-1, or vice-versa? Not a position I'd like to be in. I don't see that as a "problem". Think about it. Used in a 2CH system you want the best at the source. For HT use you kind of what that at the prepro. Why would it be bad to have both? Because with the option of pure analog pass through you can. (and even satisfy those that do want the DAC flavor of the month! win/win) |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 14, 2014 12:59:55 GMT -5
IMHO, if your analog implementation is top notch, the dac choice is almost trivial. However, not many here and around the net really want to believe that and this is why the new "dac flavor of the month" help drive new DAC sales. That is my take on DACs and I'm sticking with it. I agree with most of that. DAC's are certainly the talk of the town right now. 20+ years ago when Sony put out their 2 box CD transport / DAC most people laughed at them. Now, not so much. It's a double edged sword here. What if the XMC-1 sounds better than the ERC-3 and DC-1, or vice-versa? Not a position I'd like to be in. I wondered that too. But the XMC-1 retails at 2k putting it in a different price bracket than the other units. So even if they offered comparable quality, it would still require a person who wants to spend 2k and wants multichannel sound. So even though there is an overlap, it may not be enough to damp significant sales. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2014 13:04:07 GMT -5
I agree with most of that. DAC's are certainly the talk of the town right now. 20+ years ago when Sony put out their 2 box CD transport / DAC most people laughed at them. Now, not so much. It's a double edged sword here. What if the XMC-1 sounds better than the ERC-3 and DC-1, or vice-versa? Not a position I'd like to be in. I don't see that as a "problem". Think about it. Used in a 2CH system you want the best at the source. For HT use you kind of what that at the prepro. Why would it be bad to have both? Because with the option of pure analog pass through you can. (and even satisfy those that do want the DAC flavor of the month! win/win) Not bad to have both, just more expensive since you are paying for hi-end at both ends. There are a lot of multi-channel folks out there that don't really care about having the ultimate 2 channel. I'm with ya, but the expense and for what many will see as redundancy, it will lead to people having one or the other, not both. Not bad for you and me, just less purchasing of both Emotiva products. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2014 13:05:32 GMT -5
So even though there is an overlap, it may not be enough to damp significant sales. That would be a good thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on May 14, 2014 14:39:41 GMT -5
I think the DAC issue breaks down into 2 camps.
The first case is that external DAC outputs analog and it stays that way out to the speaker. This is a two channel only system.
XDA-2->XSP-1-> XPA-2
The second case breaks down into A, B & C. All case 2s are using a pre/pro. Let’s assume the XMC-1 and we’re talking 2 channel only although the rest of the channels are there for HT.
In case 2A we use a pure/direct mode and by-pass the all the DSP processing in the pre/pro. No bass management and assumes the L/R speakers are full range and the sub(s) are not used.
XDA-2->XMC-1-> XPA-2(L+R)
In case 2B we use DSP processing in the XMC-1, Dirac in this case. But since the input is analog from the external DAC the signal must first be converted back to digital for processing. Full bass management and DRC are available.
XDA-2->XMC-1-> XPA-2(L+R)
In case 2C we remove the external DAC and supply the digital signal directly to the XMC-1. This removes the need for the ADC stage.
SPDIF/USB->XMC-1-> XPA-2(L+R)
The HT bypass of the XSP/USP-1 opens up a whole other can of worms that’s outside the scope of what I’m trying to explain.
I know that YMMV regarding your views, but I’m looking at 2C as my solution retiring the XDA-1 that I currently have in my HT system. The DAC of importance becomes the DAC in the XMC-1.
I wish that we had more info on the XMC-1, but I’m willing to wait. Example: Are all digital signals re-sampled to one rate for processing (e.g. 96/24). I hope the flood gates of info open once released.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 14, 2014 17:06:09 GMT -5
In case 2B we use DSP processing in the XMC-1, Dirac in this case. But since the input is analog from the external DAC the signal must first be converted back to digital for processing. Full bass management and DRC are available. XDA-2->XMC-1-> XPA-2(L+R) I love to have as many hook up options as possible. I just learned the other day that there was a way to hook up my Denon receiver to bi-amp. In more up to date models Denon added this feature, but in mine it was a trick (definitely not listed in the manual). A crazy trick. But it was cool to learn, although a little late since I know have Emotiva amps. I think your list fits your bill, but I think there are others out there with different needs, including me. The amount of analog inputs has bugged me on the XMC-1 since the beginning, but there has already been a ton of discussion about that, so no need to go there. But because of this, I've been trying to think creatively about it. The one big thing we don't yet know is out of all the inputs, how many are in fact directly assignable. This will make a huge difference, but we will have to wait and see. Anyway, regarding your Case B, I guess this would be an option if you had to use room correction, but I would never hook it up this way for my use. If you really wanted to use the DSP in the XMC-1 on a dedicated 2 channel system, could you not hook your digital input in direct, then use the processing, then send the digital signal to the external DAC, then to the amps? Don't know, just asking. This seems crazy to me too because you would basically need different speakers for 2 channels vs surround in the same room, but I'm sure people do it. Or perhaps you could go crazy, route the DAC signal BACK into the XMC-1, and use the Zone 2 outputs out to the amp. It's this sort of thinking that allows my receiver to bi-amp. Don't know, just talking out my butt out loud. This relatively new fad with the external DAC (and others like the Oppo 105) is creating new possibilities we didn't have before, and that's good. Everyone will have different needs for it. For example, I use CD's, DVD-As, SACD's and Blu-rays to listen to my music. I do not have any computer connection to my main system. None. (I might in the future, but right now as it is I have no need, and quite frankly, I find it less convenient than CD's. Everything about it is less convenient for me. My 23,000 song Ipod goes mostly unused (I bought it for work and the car and I very rarely use it). I find it harder to pick something I want to hear, not easier.) The only reason I am currently considering an external DAC is so I can still use my old Sony CD player as a transport, and get the new modern DAC sound quality. But if the XMC-1 sounds as good as say, the DC-1, then the external DAC is waste of money for me. So would buying a new ERC-3. And that brings us round circle to exactly what I was saying above. There could be some unintended negative things in the way of sales at Emotiva. If the XMC-1 sounds as good as the EMC-3, why buy one? Etc etc. Anyway, only time will tell here. Cheers --- Bonzo  |
|
|
|
Post by GreenKiwi on May 14, 2014 17:50:06 GMT -5
So my guess is that the DC-1 might have a slight edge in pure sound quality, based purely on the fact that more of the budget of the DC-1 is going toward 2 channel playback.
That being said, I am thinking that I'll be using an XMC-1 (or future dac+dsp) and have room/speaker correction. I think that speaker correction + DAC in the XMC-1 will be better than no speaker/room correction + DC-1.
|
|
