|
|
Post by kauai82 on Sept 13, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5
great preamp. I was lucky enough to score a used one on the emporium board for a fantastic price. I have both the USP-1 and the Sherbourn Pre 1 (both which are great preamps for the price ) but I must say I was impressed with the depth of sound of the XSP-1. Instruments that were in the background or not heard at all on some of my CD's, and High Rez files where heard more clearly or for the first time. Great 3d depth. You can tell where the instrument was located to the mic in the recording session on a good recording. Although I am sure that the Generation 2 XSP-1 is better, but for this retired fixed income individual that can not drop $1000 for a new one a used one is a great way to go. I have noticed that there are more XSP-1 gen 1 for sale lately. The local emporium board usually has the better prices than eBay but I would check both. You will not be disappointed in the sound quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 13, 2014 12:51:31 GMT -5
Thank you, and yes, the XSP-1 gen 1 is a phenomenal value for what it brings to sound and music.
The gen 2 is only a bit better IMHO But for the premium may not necessarily be the best value for those on a tighter budget.
I've had/have both units but not at the same time, my upgrade was of minimal cost to me or I would not have done it just to find out the difference between the two.
So happy I could help, as always.
novisnick
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Sept 13, 2014 12:57:44 GMT -5
The XSP-1 gen 1 is a gem, I don't think we can hear a difference between the gen 1 and 2. I own a XSP-1 gen 1 and I compared a few time with the analog section of the XMC-1 that it's supposed to be a bit superior on paper and it is very hard to hear difference. I suspect that the small difference a heard between the two is coming from the different analog interconnect the ERC-2 feed the the XMC-1 via RCA and XSP-1 via XLR.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Sept 13, 2014 13:06:59 GMT -5
Thank you, and yes, the XSP-1 gen 1 is a phenomenal value for what it brings to sound and music. The gen 2 is only a bit better IMHO But for the premium may not necessarily be the best value for those on a tighter budget. I've had/have both units but not at the same time, my upgrade was of minimal cost to me or I would not have done it just to find out the difference between the two. So happy I could help, as always. novisnick With all the respect I have for you Nick, I must remind you that you did not compared the gen 1 and 2 directly (A B testing) but instead only by long terms memory, so your heart may have bias your appreciation.  |
|
kse
Emo VIPs 
Hello me, meet the real me.
Posts: 1,947
|
Post by kse on Sept 13, 2014 13:24:53 GMT -5
OP, congrats on your XSP-1, it is a fine preamp. I too have one and really enjoy it.
Honestly though, you heard instruments thru your XSP-1 that can't be heard thru a USP-1 or PRE-1? Really?
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 13, 2014 14:15:10 GMT -5
Thank you, and yes, the XSP-1 gen 1 is a phenomenal value for what it brings to sound and music. The gen 2 is only a bit better IMHO But for the premium may not necessarily be the best value for those on a tighter budget. I've had/have both units but not at the same time, my upgrade was of minimal cost to me or I would not have done it just to find out the difference between the two. So happy I could help, as always. novisnick With all the respect I have for you Nick, I must remind you that you did not compared the gen 1 and 2 directly (A B testing) but instead only by long terms memory, so your heart may have bias your appreciation. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 13, 2014 14:22:27 GMT -5
If I understand Emotiva correctly, the major change between the Gen. 1 & Gen. 2 preamp was better optimization of the second generation for XLR sources. Therefore, if you're running RCA inputs / outputs, there might be NO difference between the two. Of course, there might be too, and I just don't know about it. I owned the USP-1, XSP-1 (generations 1 & 2), the UPA-1, and a Sherbourn preamp. Of the bunch, the one that impressed me the most was the second XSP-1. I still like a tube preamp better, but that's just my preference.
Based on my own recollections (so they're bound to be right, LOL), the first generation XSP-1 offered 95% plus of the second generation performance. No matter how you slice it, that makes the first generation XSP-1 a real bargain!
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 13, 2014 15:03:41 GMT -5
If I understand Emotiva correctly, the major change between the Gen. 1 & Gen. 2 preamp was better optimization of the second generation for XLR sources. Therefore, if you're running RCA inputs / outputs, there might be NO difference between the two. Of course, there might be too, and I just don't know about it. I owned the USP-1, XSP-1 (generations 1 & 2), the UPA-1, and a Sherbourn preamp. Of the bunch, the one that impressed me the most was the second XSP-1. I still like a tube preamp better, but that's just my preference. Based on my own recollections (so they're bound to be right, LOL), the first generation XSP-1 offered 95% plus of the second generation performance. No matter how you slice it, that makes the first generation XSP-1 a real bargain! By George, I think he's got it!!! ill agree to agree with you B'zilla!!  |
|
|
|
Post by jackpine on Sept 13, 2014 15:05:20 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward?
|
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Sept 13, 2014 15:06:53 GMT -5
If I understand Emotiva correctly, the major change between the Gen. 1 & Gen. 2 preamp was better optimization of the second generation for XLR sources. Therefore, if you're running RCA inputs / outputs, there might be NO difference between the two. Of course, there might be too, and I just don't know about it. I owned the USP-1, XSP-1 (generations 1 & 2), the UPA-1, and a Sherbourn preamp. Of the bunch, the one that impressed me the most was the second XSP-1. I still like a tube preamp better, but that's just my preference. Based on my own recollections (so they're bound to be right, LOL), the first generation XSP-1 offered 95% plus of the second generation performance. No matter how you slice it, that makes the first generation XSP-1 a real bargain! only 95% plus... not 97% plus..  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 13, 2014 15:16:19 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward? In short, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 13, 2014 16:10:16 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward? Be careful how you use the term "bright" as for some people it means "accurate." |
|
|
|
Post by jackpine on Sept 13, 2014 16:46:51 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward? Be careful how you use the term "bright" as for some people it means "accurate." I don't think anyone would think that I'm asking if the XSP-1 is less "accurate". |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 13, 2014 16:57:43 GMT -5
Be careful how you use the term "bright" as for some people it means "accurate." I don't think anyone would think that I'm asking if the XSP-1 is less "accurate". Well, like I already mentioned that will depend on who you asking.... |
|
kse
Emo VIPs
Hello me, meet the real me.
Posts: 1,947
|
Post by kse on Sept 13, 2014 17:07:47 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward? It has a 'hotter' gain, yes. Where the USP-1 benefitted greatly from the addition of 12db attenuators, the XSP does not need them. |
|
|
|
Post by clearear on Sept 13, 2014 20:37:04 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward? It has a 'hotter' gain, yes. Where the USP-1 benefitted greatly from the addition of 12db attenuators, the XSP does not need them. A used USP-1 and a pair of attenuators would be less costly than a used XSP-1. Better way to go? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 13, 2014 21:37:11 GMT -5
It has a 'hotter' gain, yes. Where the USP-1 benefitted greatly from the addition of 12db attenuators, the XSP does not need them. A used USP-1 and a pair of attenuators would be less costly than a used XSP-1. Better way to go? From all of my reading and history of Emo pre amps, adding attenuators does not a great pre amp make. At least not as good /great as the XSP-1! With all due respect of course. Edit: I have had a deep appreciation for the Sherbourn Pre -1 which I still own and use and it is a capable pre amp, still it's no XSP-1. |
|
kse
Emo VIPs
Hello me, meet the real me.
Posts: 1,947
|
Post by kse on Sept 13, 2014 21:50:42 GMT -5
It has a 'hotter' gain, yes. Where the USP-1 benefitted greatly from the addition of 12db attenuators, the XSP does not need them. A used USP-1 and a pair of attenuators would be less costly than a used XSP-1. Better way to go? I wouldn't say it's a better way to go, however I wouldn't say it a worse way to go either. They are different animals, but they are both excellent. I ran a USP-1 w/ attenuators in my system for a few years and it was fantastic. If you are looking for a nice stereo preamp with HT-bypass and want to keep a few bucks in your pocket, a USP-1 is a great way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 13, 2014 21:52:33 GMT -5
To those that have tried the USP-1 and XSP-1, do you find the XSP-1 less bright/forward? Yes. to the latter (forward). It's a superior pre-amp. Not that the USP-1 was shabby.... The USP-1 may have a slightly "stronger" sound - I suspect it had tons of power behind it, but inevitably the XSP-1 wins out by balancing things out and giving a heck of a good sound. Slight veiling of the treble's in the area of microphone/room hiss, but only very very slight and only at lower volumes. Still better than the alternative (DAC direct) imo. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 14, 2014 0:02:08 GMT -5
I would love a dedicated stereo preamp...No HT bypass or tone controls or crossover stuff...When I had the USP-1 I could definitely hear a difference running my speakers at full range and running them using the HT bypass input crossed at 50hz.
|
|
