|
|
Post by nickwin on Sept 3, 2015 21:53:09 GMT -5
Yes, objectively these two chips are very very similar performers.
|
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2015 5:40:17 GMT -5
Of course, you can get poor performance out of any chip, no matter how good it is, if you implement it poorly; and there are some DAC chips which themselves perform poorly enough that no amount of implementation is going to help them. There is a tendency these days for a manufacturer to brag about using such and such a DAC chip - as if that proved how good their finished product would sound; sadly, it doesn't always ring true. Our DC-1 and our XMC-1 owe their great performance more to excellent design and proper testing than to a brilliant choice of DAC chips.  And the analog part is only part of the game. As XMC-1 does DSP as well those exactly can be said about the digital part of the chain. And here XMC-1 falls not so well into the 'excellent design and proper testing' category. And currently it's analog performance is spoiled by digital bugs... So, we are all waiting until all those well audible sudden popping/clicking/cutting noises and distortions are fixed (thanks the software can be easily upgraded contrary to the hardware). |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Sept 4, 2015 6:38:24 GMT -5
Hmm, interesting no chirping here except for the crickets outside. The XMC-1 for me works great.
|
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2015 6:47:25 GMT -5
А lot of people are not as lucky as you are and find it quite worrisome. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,033
|
Post by cawgijoe on Sept 4, 2015 7:09:32 GMT -5
XMC-1 works great for me in both 2-channel and multi-channel. Happy as a pig in you know what.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Sept 4, 2015 7:13:33 GMT -5
Of course, you can get poor performance out of any chip, no matter how good it is, if you implement it poorly; and there are some DAC chips which themselves perform poorly enough that no amount of implementation is going to help them. There is a tendency these days for a manufacturer to brag about using such and such a DAC chip - as if that proved how good their finished product would sound; sadly, it doesn't always ring true. Our DC-1 and our XMC-1 owe their great performance more to excellent design and proper testing than to a brilliant choice of DAC chips. And the analog part is only part of the game. As XMC-1 does DSP as well those exactly can be said about the digital part of the chain. And here XMC-1 falls not so well into the 'excellent design and proper testing' category. And currently it's analog performance is spoiled by digital bugs... So, we are all waiting until all those well audible sudden popping/clicking/cutting noises and distortions are fixed (thanks the software can be easily upgraded contrary to the hardware). Under what circumstances are the problems you are experiencing with the XMC-1 occurring? I am fortunate not to have experienced any of the digital issues you describe with music or movies. |
|
tknice
Sensei
Movies!
Posts: 358
|
Post by tknice on Sept 4, 2015 7:37:54 GMT -5
And the analog part is only part of the game. As XMC-1 does DSP as well those exactly can be said about the digital part of the chain. And here XMC-1 falls not so well into the 'excellent design and proper testing' category. And currently it's analog performance is spoiled by digital bugs... So, we are all waiting until all those well audible sudden popping/clicking/cutting noises and distortions are fixed (thanks the software can be easily upgraded contrary to the hardware). Under what circumstances are the problems you are experiencing with the XMC-1 occurring? I am fortunate not to have experienced any of the digital issues you describe with music or movies. Same here. Couldn't be better. |
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2015 7:41:38 GMT -5
Under what circumstances are the problems you are experiencing with the XMC-1 occurring? Described it here |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 4, 2015 9:10:29 GMT -5
Basically - and in practical terms - yes. You need to put it all in perspective - in terms of which specs count, how, why, and how much. Excluding "low end" DAC chips and some "portable versions", most DACs have really excellent specifications. Do you really expect to hear the difference between a S/N of 123 dB and one of "only" 115 dB (remember that CDs top out a little over 90 dB there)? How about the difference between the THD of 0.003% you get from a really top end DAC chip and the "lousy" 0.01% THD you get from one at the middle of the product line? Or the extra 3 dB of S/N that the Big Ego gets over the Little Ego (at the DAC chip itself) - because it uses the DAC chip that's the next number up? With DACs, THE WAY the chip is implemented, and the quality of the power supplies it runs off of, and the analog circuitry around it, are all more important in most cases than the chip itself. Our DC-1 does sound noticeably better than our XDA-2, and they both use the SAME DAC chip. However, the DC-1 has better power supplies, and uses the chip in a better performing MODE (dual mono). There are a few exceptions to this. One is Sabre DACs, which have a somewhat distinctive sound due to the way the chip works (which is a little differently than most others). Some people love 'em, others don't, and you'll hear more or less of that distinctive coloration depending on how they're implemented, but most people agree that they have a distinctly audible "accent". Another exception has to be made for chips, like the Wolfson 8741, which has multiple select-able digital filters, some of which sound distinctly different from each other. (Although, if you pick the "normal" filter on a Wolfie, it sounds pretty much like most other "neutral" DACs.) I wouldn't go as far as to say that "all DAC chips all sound the same" - but I would say that the difference in sound between an AD1955 in dual mono mode, and the same chip in regular differential mode, may be bigger than the difference between the AD1955 and the DSD1796, at least the way they're run, and surrounded by the analog stages and power supplies they are, in our equipment. And, yes, part of the reason for that is that we here at Emotiva always do our best to design equipment that's neutral sounding (so both the DC-1 and the XMC-1 were intended to sound the same - simply neutral and correct). I will say that I've personally never done a "close up ABX comparison" between the XMC-1 and the DC-1 to see if there's some tiny little audible difference between them (and, if there is, I wouldn't bet that it's because they use different chips). However, what I will say is that they both sound pretty much equally good. I tend to think of DAC chips like spark plugs, or maybe like motor oil.... the DAC chip is a small (but important) part of the entire product. But not all units that use the same DAC chip sound the same, and not all units that use different ones sound different, so it's not something I worry about when I look at the overall product. If you get into the habit of assuming that an entire product is good "because it uses a good DAC chip", then you're likely to be disappointed. (I will concede that a really low-end DAC chip can set an upper limit on the performance of the unit you put it in, but we wouldn't use any of those.... and both the AD1955 and the DSD1796 are very nice DACs.) Exactly. There are quite a few really excellent DAC chips available today, any one of which can give you really good performance, and superb sound quality - as long as you implement it well. Of course, you can get poor performance out of any chip, no matter how good it is, if you implement it poorly; and there are some DAC chips which themselves perform poorly enough that no amount of implementation is going to help them. There is a tendency these days for a manufacturer to brag about using such and such a DAC chip - as if that proved how good their finished product would sound; sadly, it doesn't always ring true. Our DC-1 and our XMC-1 owe their great performance more to excellent design and proper testing than to a brilliant choice of DAC chips. Are you saying the AD1955 and the DSD1796 are equal performers for stereo music? |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Sept 4, 2015 9:41:00 GMT -5
Of course, you can get poor performance out of any chip, no matter how good it is, if you implement it poorly; and there are some DAC chips which themselves perform poorly enough that no amount of implementation is going to help them. There is a tendency these days for a manufacturer to brag about using such and such a DAC chip - as if that proved how good their finished product would sound; sadly, it doesn't always ring true. Our DC-1 and our XMC-1 owe their great performance more to excellent design and proper testing than to a brilliant choice of DAC chips. And the analog part is only part of the game. As XMC-1 does DSP as well those exactly can be said about the digital part of the chain. And here XMC-1 falls not so well into the 'excellent design and proper testing' category. And currently it's analog performance is spoiled by digital bugs... So, we are all waiting until all those well audible sudden popping/clicking/cutting noises and distortions are fixed (thanks the software can be easily upgraded contrary to the hardware). The xmc is the best, most powerful DSP I've ever used. No problems on the digital side here. Edit: I have measured some irradic behavior with Dirac and the XMCs bass management, but those were rare, pretty much inaudible, and wee cured with a full power down and/or Dirac reload. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 4, 2015 9:53:42 GMT -5
So, we are all waiting until all those well audible sudden popping/clicking/cutting noises and distortions are fixed (thanks the software can be easily upgraded contrary to the hardware). "We?" Speak for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Sept 4, 2015 9:59:35 GMT -5
Hmm, interesting no chirping here except for the crickets outside. The XMC-1 for me works great. Zero chirping here as well... |
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2015 11:53:10 GMT -5
"We?" Speak for yourself. Honestly... Emotiva fanboy sect is the most annoying one I had ever met in my life. Trying to collectively-aggressively convince me there are no problems by stating they do not exists serves nothing except irritating me (and A LOT of other people who HAVE problems using the XMC-1, the survey shows there are many, and the reality is that every XMC-1 is affected by those problems, just some users evangelists prefer to be blind and ignorant of them and disdainful of those who experience the problem when they themselves were just lucky not to meet the problem (probably just yet). I find all those denying comments rude and disrespectful. All those people who find those XMC-1 problems (and they are well reproducible and known by Emotiva) annoying get exactly nothing useful from your denying response. If you do not want the problems of the XMC-1 be fixed - better be silent than rude. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Sept 4, 2015 12:06:33 GMT -5
Can't help it if I get no chirping. I am truly sorry for that. Maybe it's because I find test files so boring. I waste my time with movies and music. Old fashioned I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 4, 2015 12:12:31 GMT -5
"We?" Speak for yourself. Honestly... Emotiva fanboy sect is the most annoying one I had ever met in my life. Trying to collectively-aggressively convince me there are no problems by stating they do not exists serves nothing except irritating me (and A LOT of other people who HAVE problems using the XMC-1, the survey shows there are many, and the reality is that every XMC-1 is affected by those problems, just some users evangelists prefer to be blind and ignorant of them and disdainful of those who experience the problem when they themselves were just lucky not to meet the problem (probably just yet). I find all those denying comments rude and disrespectful. All those people who find those XMC-1 problems (and they are well reproducible and known by Emotiva) annoying get exactly nothing useful from your denying response. If you do not want the problems of the XMC-1 be fixed - better be silent than rude. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying don't use "we" as if you're speaking for everyone, as though this problem exists for everyone. It doesn't. If it does for you, I hope it is able to be resolved. But you make it sound like it is a problem for every XMC-1 owner, which it isn't. Much of your harping is also when using test files and in the real world most folks don't sit around listening to test files. |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Sept 4, 2015 12:13:02 GMT -5
"We?" Speak for yourself. Honestly... Emotiva fanboy sect is the most annoying one I had ever met in my life. Trying to collectively-aggressively convince me there are no problems by stating they do not exists serves nothing except irritating me (and A LOT of other people who HAVE problems using the XMC-1, the survey shows there are many, and the reality is that every XMC-1 is affected by those problems, just some users evangelists prefer to be blind and ignorant of them and disdainful of those who experience the problem when they themselves were just lucky not to meet the problem (probably just yet). I find all those denying comments rude and disrespectful. All those people who find those XMC-1 problems (and they are well reproducible and known by Emotiva) annoying get exactly nothing useful from your denying response. If you do not want the problems of the XMC-1 be fixed - better be silent than rude. I've been in your position before and I get that it's frustrating when people tell you the problem your getting isn't really a problem. That said, Just as people shouldn't tell you your problem isn't real you shouldn't tell people they have a problem and are just ignorant to it. I can say with 100% certainty my XMC doesn't do what your talking about. I've spent as much time tweaking, listening and measuring my xmc as anyone and I can say with certainty that my XMC doesn't do this. Maybe it would under the right circumstances but it never has. I have literally hundreds of REW graphs to prove that I've put the time in. No fan boy here, I've pointed out more than my fair share of bugs and issues in Emotiva products over the years. And yes most of the time people told me those problems weren't real and in the end they were. I try to remain impartial. I find it amazing how emotionally attached and defensive people can be about this company! It goes both ways though for sure. Remember that. |
|
|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Sept 4, 2015 12:49:17 GMT -5
Try the oppo direct with variable volume set first and turn it down to 1 to start with.
My only gripe with the xmc-1 (I have 2 of them) is only a single XLR in where the xsp-1(g1) has 2 xlr's. I have an external phono (Sutherland 20/20) and on my other xmc I use an xsp-1. Also have a DC-1 and sp-1 which is also a great combo
If you want tuner and dac options plus USB streaming in one box then xmc is a winner, bugs and all.
But do try the oppo direct with variable volume...you might just like it...just remember to check the variable setting when you do firmware updates in case it defaults to 100%
|
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2015 13:05:24 GMT -5
Can't help it if I get no chirping. I am truly sorry for that. Maybe it's because I find test files so boring. I waste my time with movies and music. Old fashioned I guess. One more example of how rude Emotiva evangelists can be. So. For everyone. If you buy Emotiva product, find a problem with it, then dare to mention it... This is what you will get in response... Lies and tries to humiliate you. As in this case. For you, geebo. You know very well that I want to waste my time with movies and music and enjoy clean undistorted sound... but instead of that I am presented with a device that suddenly distorts the sound with clicks, skips... I have to present test files (most of those ARE MUSIC, you should know this too)... And I worked on a software product company and know how good test is important - no way to test - no problem fixed, once there is good test - problem is fixed. As simple as that. We were really thankful to those customers that sent us good test. Here I get instead ugly dirty jokes and disrespect. For hard work that NOBODY ELSE have done. All this to make YOUR unit better. You like to live in sh** and tell how good it smells? You deserve it! |
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2015 13:09:16 GMT -5
I'm saying don't use "we" as if you're speaking for everyone, as though this problem exists for everyone. It doesn't. The problem exists with every XMC-1 unit. KeithL knows about it and confirmed it. 37 people voted that all kinds of those clicking/popping problems are disturbing for them! And this is only those who know about this forum and bothered to find the topic and vote. So I have all right to use "WE". |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on Sept 4, 2015 13:15:35 GMT -5
I'm saying don't use "we" as if you're speaking for everyone, as though this problem exists for everyone. It doesn't. The problem exists with every XMC-1 unit. KeithL knows about it and confirmed it. 37 people voted that all kinds of those clicking/popping problems are disturbing for them! And this is only those who know about this forum and bothered to find the topic and vote. So I have all right to use "WE". 37 people said yes, but how many said no? Unless it's zero I don't know how you can say with any certainty that this plagues every XMC. Is this a compatibility issue with a certain device? Or are you getting this with all of your sources? It's just weird. I listen to a lot of different sources in a lot of different formats and I've never witnessed anything like this. I use all digital sources, including an oppo. |
|
