|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Oct 7, 2014 9:29:47 GMT -5
Adding a digitally controlled front end would then have brought out a bunch of howls and complaints about introducing an analog to digital back to analog conversion into the chain. One of the main selling points of the XSP-1 is the purity of the signal chain - all analog. I agree with you, while the bass management is cumbersome it is adequate. No matter what, here's another case of DIYD, DIYD. Although a digitally controlled front end would add a lot of cost and I'm not advocating doing so, it would not interfere with the analog signal path. There is a device called a digital analog switch that could control a resistor ladder. Signal remains totally analog with only switches being thrown digitally. A far bigger problem with this is correct power supply and chassis design to prevent digital noise getting into the analog section - More $$$$ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 9:35:49 GMT -5
What do you think Emotiva should have done? The only possibilities are: 1. Add a stepped potentiometer systems to control the crossover points; 2. Provide a digitally controlled front end to perform the function. What would the cost of the XSP-1 be then? ===================================================================================== Actually Chuck, it may not have increased the cost. The Parasound P5 has a stepped XO and it is in the price range of the XSP-1, so it could have been done it seems. I do however agree with Boom that for such a reference level, and innovative world class preamp, the XSP-1's lack of an accurately stepped potentiometer system is really short sighted (along with placing the XO adjustments on the back). Not to be melodramatic, but to me it's like swimming across the English Channel, and then drowning 20ft from the shoreline, lol. It just shouldn't be.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 9:49:42 GMT -5
"So even if the crossover settings are clearly marked and exactly delineated would still make them redundant and a reference point only and similar to what is already implemented."
Rob I agree if the user has test equipment similar to what you and I have. But most do not. So, to be able to use a) test tones, as myself and ansat have expressed, along with an b) accurately delineated XO system, would get most users much closer to integration than they otherwise could. But you must have both a), and b) if you do not have any other test gear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 10:00:46 GMT -5
Also, while everyone is passionate about this topic, someone start a poll about what features they would like changed or added to the XSP-1 like Mark did on the XMC-1. For me the top 2 considerations would be 1) XO controls on the front, 2) Delineated XO. That seems to be where conversation is centered here, but is there anything else?
I'm sure Emotiva would like to know what things we all would like to add/change on the XSP-1 Gen III!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 10:12:43 GMT -5
(Off topic, but...) Big thanks to Rob for starting this thread! Because of it I have now hit 1000 posts! Yahoooooo! Been waiting for this "landmark" for years! OK.... just had to chime in a moment with my excitement! Uh...ummm. Ok, carry on gentlemen!
|
|
|
|
Post by rob80b on Oct 7, 2014 10:31:14 GMT -5
Rob I agree if the user has test equipment similar to what you and I have. But most do not. So, to be able to use a) test tones, as myself and ansat have expressed, along with an b) accurately delineated XO system, would get most users much closer to integration than they otherwise could. But you must have both a), and b) if you do not have any other test gear. Like all involved in hobbies, and this indeed a hobby, one does unfortunately needs to invest in some tools, there is no simple way around it. Adding a sub is not just augmenting the bottom end, properly employed it opens up the sound stage, increases overall dynamics and extremely rewarding with regards to appreciating real music “reproduction” in ones home. Much like the source, garbage in garbage out, the speakers and subwoofer are the final frontier and if not properly integrated into ones room makes any upstream stream changes, source, processor, amp impractical and idealistic. Yes we need some help along the way but the aspiring audiophile needs to understand that acquiring some tools is the price of admission. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Oct 7, 2014 10:34:26 GMT -5
Just go to the emporium and buy the preamp I have for sale! You will be glad you did!
|
|
|
|
Post by rob80b on Oct 7, 2014 10:37:57 GMT -5
Just go to the emporium and buy the preamp I have for sale! You will be glad you did! 2.1 bass management and HT bypass? |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Oct 7, 2014 10:43:18 GMT -5
Just go to the emporium and buy the preamp I have for sale! You will be glad you did! 2.1 bass management and HT bypass? It has HT bypass but not bass management. It is a preamp build exclusively for 2 channel listening. I use outboard crossovers for integration with the subs. Now, ask me what preamp I used to have and I replaced with the one I am selling...  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 7, 2014 14:19:04 GMT -5
It's not fraudulent. As much as you want it to be fraudulent, it's not fraudulent. We can agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 7, 2014 14:27:50 GMT -5
OK - May I kindly ask for some forum assistance? Since Emotiva refuses to be forthcoming, could I ask one of the forum members who has not only an interface device but also the proper software to do the following:
Using your XSP-1 (generation 2) - Put the low and high pass pots at each of the "reference marks" and note the frequency at which the signal is 12 dB down from the reference level. The turnover point for that reference mark is 1/2 the frequency where the signal is 12 dB down (for low pass) and 2x the frequency from where the the signal is 12 dB down (for high pass).
Once these frequencies are measured and posted (a one-time effort), this whole thread is settled. We'll now have enough info to make practical use of the Emotiva bass management scheme.
I'd do it myself, but I lack the equipment. Emotiva should have done it themselves, but they're choosing to be deliberately obtuse.
Thanks - Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Oct 7, 2014 14:28:01 GMT -5
It's not fraudulent. As much as you want it to be fraudulent, it's not fraudulent. We can agree to disagree. Making an accusation of fraud is serious business. In this case you are accusing Emotiva of deliberately intending to misrepresent their product for the purpose of financial gain, which resulted in harm being done to those who purchased the product. In other words, this is a criminal offense if what you say is true. You are going to continue to insist that what Emotiva did was in fact fraudulent? Those are some mighty strong words and that's a mighty strong accusation to be making. Personally I think you are grandstanding and are speaking irresponsibly. An AVR manufacturer who lists their product as putting out 100 watts per channel when in fact with all channels driven it is unable to do so in my book is more guilty of fraud than is Emotiva. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 7, 2014 14:28:37 GMT -5
It's not fraudulent. As much as you want it to be fraudulent, it's not fraudulent. We can agree to disagree. Agree or disagree, it isn't fraud leaving numbers off a dial. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 7, 2014 14:49:09 GMT -5
Making an accusation of fraud is serious business. In this case you are accusing Emotiva of deliberately intending to misrepresent their product for the purpose of financial gain, which resulted in harm being done to those who purchased the product. In other words, this is a criminal offense if what you say is true. You are going to continue to insist that what Emotiva did was in fact fraudulent? Those are some mighty strong words and that's a mighty strong accusation to be making. Personally I think you are grandstanding and are speaking irresponsibly. An AVR manufacturer who lists their product as putting out 100 watts per channel when in fact with all channels driven it is unable to do so in my book is more guilty of fraud than is Emotiva. Points taken, thank you. I am exaggerating. It is not fraud. Emotiva does not deliberately misrepresent the product. They just don't give enough information for the average consumer to use it. Again, the question arises - WHY? Emotiva has the equipment to measure the frequencies of their "reference points" and to (easily) provide that information. Why, then, do they withhold it? Give me any rational explanation, please. |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Oct 7, 2014 15:05:58 GMT -5
Boom, this is squarely a guess, But I suspect that the only real reference is when the pot is fully open. I would think that the way its set up (HPF and LPF on a analog signal) each pot one would be a little different (kinda like the pot on a subwoofers amp LPF is). Given that you are making adjustments to low voltage signals, tiny variances can add up to vastly different results. Even if someone were to measure each dot, it would only provide a rough estimate. The only thing I could think that emotiva could do differently is to QC each unit and test each pot and mark 80hz as a reference point. But that sounds like a ton of work for the few that really take issue.
I wonder if you could work something out with emotiva to have your crossover point marked by them? You would have to call Keith to find out the logistics of doing so, But I think that might be the only way to dial it in to exact levels without the proper equipment.
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 7, 2014 15:06:20 GMT -5
OK - May I kindly ask for some forum assistance? Since Emotiva refuses to be forthcoming, could I ask one of the forum members who has not only an interface device but also the proper software to do the following: Using your XSP-1 (generation 2) - Put the low and high pass pots at each of the "reference marks" and note the frequency at which the signal is 12 dB down from the reference level. The turnover point for that reference mark is 1/2 the frequency where the signal is 12 dB down (for low pass) and 2x the frequency from where the the signal is 12 dB down (for high pass). Once these frequencies are measured and posted (a one-time effort), this whole thread is settled. We'll now have enough info to make practical use of the Emotiva bass management scheme. I'd do it myself, but I lack the equipment. Emotiva should have done it themselves, but they're choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Thanks - Boomzilla But wouldn't that be his subwoofer in his room? My subwoofer in my room might show a quite different result. In fact I'd be very surprised in they were even close, if they were it would be a fluke, coincidence or just plain luck. For example, my uncle's and my set ups are different, especially speakers and room. He has a real bloom in frequency around 85 to 95 hz (opera window effect I suspect) that would disguise any slope through that frequency. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 7, 2014 15:09:42 GMT -5
Making an accusation of fraud is serious business. In this case you are accusing Emotiva of deliberately intending to misrepresent their product for the purpose of financial gain, which resulted in harm being done to those who purchased the product. In other words, this is a criminal offense if what you say is true. You are going to continue to insist that what Emotiva did was in fact fraudulent? Those are some mighty strong words and that's a mighty strong accusation to be making. Personally I think you are grandstanding and are speaking irresponsibly. An AVR manufacturer who lists their product as putting out 100 watts per channel when in fact with all channels driven it is unable to do so in my book is more guilty of fraud than is Emotiva. Points taken, thank you. I am exaggerating. It is not fraud. Emotiva does not deliberately misrepresent the product. They just don't give enough information for the average consumer to use it. Again, the question arises - WHY? Emotiva has the equipment to measure the frequencies of their "reference points" and to (easily) provide that information. Why, then, do they withhold it? Give me any rational explanation, please. "They just don't give enough information for the average consumer to use it. " Uhh, because the average consumer needs to know precisely where the crossover frequency is? Define average consumer? I hate to say it, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's not a big conspiracy against consumers to deceive them. It would have taken less time to test, document and post the results than you've spent posting about how Emotiva is deceiving people by omitting little numbers on a dial. The average consumer is going to turn the little dial and go "Hmmm, maybe a little higher", and turn it higher. It doesn't matter if the crossover is at 68hz or 91hz. If you feel that strongly about it, contact Keith directly..... or Dan. I don't think that publicly criticizing Emotiva is going to motivate them to give the data that you want. |
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Oct 7, 2014 15:23:30 GMT -5
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I would think that the use of the bass management filters would be for protecting your speakers from getting to much lower frequencies they can not handle and intergrating your sub into your speakers low frequency capability. I would think that tring to get a flat response in room would be done by different methods. I feel that with this in mind it should be very clear want frequency corresponse to each markings.
Tring to get this thread back on track. Please let's lose the drama.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Oct 7, 2014 15:44:53 GMT -5
There is positive criticism as well as negative criticism. There are satisfied customers and unsatisfied customers. Some agreed and some disagreed. If I like something I will tell you and if I don't like it I will tell you as well. If you like it, fine and if you don't like it, it is also fine. Obviously, this product needs some improvements and if you don't point out its "flaws" you can't open the doors for innovations.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Oct 7, 2014 16:09:51 GMT -5
Making an accusation of fraud is serious business. In this case you are accusing Emotiva of deliberately intending to misrepresent their product for the purpose of financial gain, which resulted in harm being done to those who purchased the product. In other words, this is a criminal offense if what you say is true. You are going to continue to insist that what Emotiva did was in fact fraudulent? Those are some mighty strong words and that's a mighty strong accusation to be making. Personally I think you are grandstanding and are speaking irresponsibly. An AVR manufacturer who lists their product as putting out 100 watts per channel when in fact with all channels driven it is unable to do so in my book is more guilty of fraud than is Emotiva. Points taken, thank you. I am exaggerating. It is not fraud. Emotiva does not deliberately misrepresent the product. They just don't give enough information for the average consumer to use it. Again, the question arises - WHY? Emotiva has the equipment to measure the frequencies of their "reference points" and to (easily) provide that information. Why, then, do they withhold it? Give me any rational explanation, please. not much of an apology to emotiva novisboomer! you really degrading yourself here.. cheers |
|
