|
|
Post by wildgoose on Apr 8, 2016 15:31:33 GMT -5
Greetings! I got an xpa-2 gen2 recently from Amazon. Wasn't sure how much improvement I will get out of it on my aging system, but after setting it up (damn it's heavy, almost couldn't take it out of the box myself lol), I was pleasantly surprised it actually made a noticeable improvement on my setup! Everything sounded nicer, warmer, and smoother. It made music more enjoyable and I find myself wanting to listen to it more! I have a HT setup with PSB speakers (psb 500 for front, c for center, and alpha as surround) that I put together many years ago. I am currently driving it with a Denon 3310ci receiver. Since I wasn't sure how much improvements I will get with a dedicated Amp, I went with the xpa-2 for the fronts. My thinking was, if I don't like it, I can return it. If I like it, great, I get better music, and improved home theater experience. If I want more, I can get a second amp and finish the remaining channels. But after setting it up and experienced the difference, I now want it on the remaining channels!  But I realized how big of a beast this thing is, and running 2 of these amps seems a bit too much for my space. Now I have a real dilemma on my hands! 1) Is it generally a concern that the front 2 channels, running off xpa-2, will over power the remaining channels, running off my AVR? I have re-run audyssey calibration and it seems ok, but wanted to know if this will be an issue. 2) I am not well versed in this high end audio stuff, as my experience is limited to receivers. Now that I have an AMP, would there be much difference between using the Denon 3310 as preamp, vs using a dedicated preamp such as the Marantz 7702 (~$1000)? I suspect there might be some differences, but how would the difference compare to the amp/receiver difference? (ie, if Emotiva amp improved the sound compare to the denon by 30%, would a better preamp improve the sound equally, or to a lesser degree?). I am just trying to see if it's worth my while to upgrade the denon sometimes down the road. 3) What exactly contributed to this improvements in audio that I am hearing? Does this mean the Denon receiver that I am using is not up to spec? (ie, it's not doing something correctly, a weakness that can be measured and quantified scientifically), or, both equipment is performing to spec, and this improvement comes from the "color of the amplifier" (which cannot be measured or tested easily). (Having a debate with an 'audiophile' friend about this and want more info from the experts... 4) how many of you are running multiple amps? Knowing what I know now, I probably should've gotten the xpa-5, as I am more of a HT person than music person. But the xpa-2 is so nice I am really hesitant to just return it (and the xpa-5 gen2 does not seem to be available on amazon/emotive site anyway). But running 2 amps just seems to be a lot of work (and space . I would probably need to find some server rack and rearrange my systems... So while still in the return period, should I just return the xpa-2 and wait to get the xpa-5 ? one amp would be easier to manage. If I do get a second xpa-5, for the price of 2 amps, should I've just gotten something like an outlaw or parasound 5 channel amplifier? As you can see, I probably did not do enough research before getting the amp. Now that I am kind of hooked on this amp SQ, I am rethinking all my options |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 8, 2016 15:40:59 GMT -5
Hi wildgoose: 1. Your XPA-2 will NOT "overpower the remaining channels." The Audissey calibration listens to the sound of the speakers - not the electronic signal in the processor / amp. 2. Honestly, an AV processor (whether part of a receiver or a stand-alone) is an AV processor. You might get a noticeable improvement in stereo sound by using an all-analog stereo preamp, but I wouldn't bother replacing the preamp section of your AVR with a processor. 3. Your Denon is perfectly fine for movie use. But its internal amplifiers are probably a bit wimpy for stereo. That's why the Emotiva made the stereo sound better. 4. I'm running multiple amps, but keep in mind that unless you want true THX levels, the amps in your AVR are probably fine for movies. After all, the center channel (dialogue) and the sub (self-powered) are the main channels for movies - everything else is just effects. 5. Don't berate yourself for what you bought. If you LIKE the sound of the Denon driving the PSB speakers (and some VERY good speakers, they are) through your XPA-2, then just enjoy the ride. If you're not happy, then listen around for something better. Don't change just because you think that "different" means "better" - it doesn't. 6. I give this last suggestion from personal experience - Don't overthink it. Ask yourself, is this "upgrade" really, really worth my hard-earned money? Sometimes, it's best to enjoy what you've got. Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by stustan on Apr 8, 2016 17:19:48 GMT -5
Wild goose, I am not sure how difficult a load your PSB presents to your Denon . My Maggies are a bit of a bear on amps, hence I am running two Emotiva Amps to drive my home theater. An XPA-5 drives my center channel (CC5 and DWM) and LR surrounds. MY XPA-2 drives my LR's. There's no going back for me!! You could purchase an XPA-5 for your center and surrounds and return it if your not happy. Think ahead and just maybe a nice separate Processor might be in the stars ...... and now you already have substantial amplification
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 9, 2016 1:47:41 GMT -5
2. Honestly, an AV processor (whether part of a receiver or a stand-alone) is an AV processor. You might get a noticeable improvement in stereo sound by using an all-analog stereo preamp, but I wouldn't bother replacing the preamp section of your AVR with a processor. This is where I'll have to disagree. The preamp section of even the expensive AVRs will usually muddy the sound. Whereas the preamp section of the Emotiva UMC-200 is like having a high quality jumper between your source and power amp. That's what the Audioholics review of the UMC-200 says, and that's what I say. In fact, I still remember like it was yesterday when Big Dan himself assured me *personally* right here on the Lounge that the preamp section of the UMC-200 that I had on order was not going to disappoint me. It wasn't a lie. I can tell you THAT much. It is important things like these that keeps me coming back to Emotiva. I spoke to Damon Steele on the phone once, for 11 minutes or so. To say that Emotiva customer service is exemplary would be a *huge* understatement TBH. So as far as replacing a typical AVR with an Emotiva processor goes, personally, I, would bother. I would bother, and I would bother a lot, too. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 9, 2016 2:10:30 GMT -5
something like an outlaw or parasound 5 channel amplifier Forget those.  |
|
|
|
Post by smarties on Apr 9, 2016 2:10:52 GMT -5
1) No it won't over power it. However you may want to have XPA amps for some, or all of the remaining channels. Ie add a XPA-5 for centre, sides & rears.
2) There is a difference between a AVR and a dedicated av pre-amp. But that will cost you. Cheapest AV pre that is quite upto date is probably Marantz AV7702 Mk I <$1000
3) I've found preamps in avr's a bit lacking. Also you may find the pre-outs aren't that stable either, some don't have much voltage output.
More amps is better. If you're just listening to 2 channel, just have the XPA-2 on. For movies, but them both on. That's why I went for a 3 & 4, for stereo just have the 3 on, for older movies as well as I use a mono mode (either center only, L/R mono, 5.1 movies that have a crap sound mix so I drop it down to 2ch, or front three mono for old movies) and the 4 on for modern movies.
4) I've had five, two channel power amplifiers. Front three speakers bi-amped. I've stepped back a bit, with a 3 channel for fronts, and a 4 channel for side and rears
|
|
|
|
Post by smarties on Apr 9, 2016 2:12:27 GMT -5
something like an outlaw or parasound 5 channel amplifier Forget those. I'd rather have the bigger outlaws (>200W model) than a Emotiva, since they're made by ATI. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 9, 2016 3:47:47 GMT -5
Forget those. I'd rather have the bigger outlaws (>200W model) than a Emotiva, since they're made by ATI. It doesn't matter to me that they're made by ATI because ATI amps are a little different than the ones they make for Outlaw. Between the Outlaw 7900 and the Emotiva XPA-7 Gen3, there's still a $1,600 price gap to consider, while on top of that, the XPA Gen3 is modular so you don't have to pay for extra channels that you aren't going to use, and then I haven't even mentioned the fact Emotiva are going to release a dual-slot amp module for the XPA Gen3 soonish. IMO you are jumping to a conclusion without even thinking about listening to the sound first.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildgoose on Apr 9, 2016 13:49:39 GMT -5
Thanks everyone for your feedback! Very helpful information.
I've came across UMC-200 in my research, but it looks like this is no longer available from Emotiva. What is the replacement? The XMC-1 seems way expensive. I am a little confused about the XSP-1. It only have analog input. So I need to add another piece of equipment to split the sound from HDMI audio to this?
How much was the UMC-200?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildgoose on Apr 9, 2016 13:54:29 GMT -5
2. Honestly, an AV processor (whether part of a receiver or a stand-alone) is an AV processor. You might get a noticeable improvement in stereo sound by using an all-analog stereo preamp, but I wouldn't bother replacing the preamp section of your AVR with a processor. Can you elaborate on why an "all-analog" preamp would produce better sound? Since the source (CD, etc) are digital to begin with, won't it be better to do any volume setting in the digital domain (there by eliminating any loss of data since everything is digital), and only produce the analog signal at the very end to sending to the amp? Once the signal is in the analog domain, it seems there are just too many variables that can affect the sound. I guess that's why I am still a little confused about these analog preamps, and why it would be better... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 9, 2016 14:15:10 GMT -5
Digital volume control works (generally) by truncating the signal. It throws away the bits that provide detail. The more the digital signal is attenuated, the greater the bit loss.
Volume is best attenuated in the analog domain, after the digital to analog conversion is complete. This way, no digits are dropped.
Some analog volume controls, like the one in Emotiva's XSP-1 attenuate in the analog domain, but use digital level matching to ensure channel-to-channel balance (something that "conventional log-taper wiper mechanisms are poor at). In other words, with a single stereo potentiometer (what most analog preamps use), the right channel may be a little louder at low volumes, the left channel may be a little louder at medium volumes, and both channels will be equal at very loud volumes. Using analog attenuation, but digital channel-matching is the best of both worlds.
For casual listening, digital volume control may be OK, but it'll likely make your CD quality audio sound more like MP3.
Most AVRs anymore DO offer a bypass mode that keeps most of the digital conversions & attenuations out of the signal path. it's called "direct mode" or something similar on most processors. In that mode, processors should offer 90% of the sound quality of a fully analog preamp. Why not 100%? Because the processor is still stuffed with computer, video, and digital processing circuitry that all emits radio frequency noise inside the processor. Inevitably, some bleeds into the analog signal & affects the sound quality.
At this point, Mr. Levkof and Mr. Yohn will certainly jump in and point out that the RF noise is sufficiently attenuated that it shouldn't affect the analog sound. In theory, they're right. And I've heard some processors (the two that come to mind are the XPR-1 and a McIntosh) where I thought the unprocessed stereo sound WAS as good as a fully analog preamp. But those processors are the exceptions, not the rule. Most AV processors (and AV receivers) sound excessively bright and edgy to my ears. Am I just sensitive, or is it a generic flaw. I really don't know. The fact that ANY processor can be indistinguishable from an all-analog preamp is a definite proof of concept...
So don't consider analog preamps in any way "inferior" to combination processors. They aren't. A good processor can keep up with an analog preamp, but not all are "good."
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Apr 9, 2016 14:32:03 GMT -5
Digital volume control works (generally) by truncating the signal. It throws away the bits that provide detail. The more the digital signal is attenuated, the greater the bit loss. Volume is best attenuated in the analog domain, after the digital to analog conversion is complete. This way, no digits are dropped. Some analog volume controls, like the one in Emotiva's XSP-1 attenuate in the analog domain, but use digital level matching to ensure channel-to-channel balance (something that "conventional log-taper wiper mechanisms are poor at). In other words, with a single stereo potentiometer (what most analog preamps use), the right channel may be a little louder at low volumes, the left channel may be a little louder at medium volumes, and both channels will be equal at very loud volumes. Using analog attenuation, but digital channel-matching is the best of both worlds. For casual listening, digital volume control may be OK, but it'll likely make your CD quality audio sound more like MP3. Most AVRs anymore DO offer a bypass mode that keeps most of the digital conversions & attenuations out of the signal path. it's called "direct mode" or something similar on most processors. In that mode, processors should offer 90% of the sound quality of a fully analog preamp. Why not 100%? Because the processor is still stuffed with computer, video, and digital processing circuitry that all emits radio frequency noise inside the processor. Inevitably, some bleeds into the analog signal & affects the sound quality. At this point, Mr. Levkof and Mr. Yohn will certainly jump in and point out that the RF noise is sufficiently attenuated that it shouldn't affect the analog sound. In theory, they're right. And I've heard some processors (the two that come to mind are the XPR-1 and a McIntosh) where I thought the unprocessed stereo sound WAS as good as a fully analog preamp. But those processors are the exceptions, not the rule. Most AV processors (and AV receivers) sound excessively bright and edgy to my ears. Am I just sensitive, or is it a generic flaw. I really don't know. The fact that ANY processor can be indistinguishable from an all-analog preamp is a definite proof of concept... So don't consider analog preamps in any way "inferior" to combination processors. They aren't. A good processor can keep up with an analog preamp, but not all are "good." Boom Once again boom, thanks for the education!! I love getting some learn on!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by smarties on Apr 9, 2016 14:51:59 GMT -5
The XMC-1 is a "home cinema av pre-amp"
The XSP-1 is a stereo analogue pre-amp. It's cheaper because it doesn't have room EQ, bass management (digital) HDMI, video switching, and DSP like Pro-Logic, Dolby Digital/DTS (standard and HD) Basically it's just for stereo.
The XMC-1 can be used as stereo as well, but if you're just connecting stereo sources (especially analogue only sources) it's bit of a waste. If you have digital sources it may be worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildgoose on Apr 9, 2016 16:09:11 GMT -5
Thank you Boom. Great explanation! Now it makes more sense!
For stereo preamp, is volume control the main function of the pre-amp? (aside from input switching...)? This is converting line level input (which is what exactly?) to a signal suitable for amplifier? (how does the 2 signal differ?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 9, 2016 17:38:37 GMT -5
In the "old days," the functions of the "stereo preamp" could be manifold. Depending on the model they offered:
Included AM/FM tuner
Included phono stage
Included tone controls
Generous switching capabilities
Occasional sound processing (not digital)
Hiss & Rumble filters (useful for phono inputs)
Output buffer amplifiers that could handle any variation in power amp input impedance.
Any more, Emotiva and a few other companies offer bass management to allow the use of subwoofers. Another popular feature, of recent origin, is the "home theater bypass" that allows the sub, right, and left outputs from the disc player or AVR to bypass the preamp entirely. This last makes the preamp significantly more versatile.
Inputs to the preamp are of two types - Phono signals at the millivolt level and CD player / tuner / tape / other outputs typically at "line level." A "line level" input typically runs from one to two volts. The preamp typically amplifies the phono input (adding RIAA equalization) up to line level and then allows switching between all of the other inputs. After that, the signal is typically attenuated (because a "line level" signal, unattenuated, would drive most amplifiers to full-volume output). In the better preamps, a "buffer stage" is used between the attenuation and the preamp outputs. This allows the preamp to be (mostly) immune to interconnect capacitance, long interconnect wires, and the power amp input impedance (that can run from less than 10,000 ohms for modern solid-state amplifiers to more than 150,000 ohms for older tube amps).
Probably more information than you really wanted... Sorry.
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 10, 2016 0:31:17 GMT -5
My advice is a little different. For instance, if I have an AV reciever. I would not get an XSP-1 JUST for the preamp capabilities. I think that's spending too much money for the improvement. The source is what matters and then the preamp. Garbage in, garbage out that kind of idea. Not calling your source garbage of course. Just didn't know how else to commuincate a point. If all you care about is multi channel movies a standalone processor like a UMC-200 or an XMC-1 may elevate your listening experience nicely. Now I said may because there have been people that haven't ever heard a difference in source. If you are one of them ....all the electronics in the world will likely not make a difference. This is good news! As you've now saved lots of money in the long run that can be applied towards speakers. Get some cheap lightweight class D amps. Maybe use the headphone output from your TV...you are in business...for a song I may add! But I do hear differences in source electronics and upstream components so that's where my advice comes from. So a standalone processor would soudn better. But you know what sounds better? A dedicated two channel DAC. This unit is ONLY meant for stereo sound - like music. It doesn't do any kind of surround sound. It doesn't have subwoofer outputs. No apps. Etc. It usually has a preamp on board or is used with a dedicated two channel preamp like the XSP-1 to produce a clean pure path to the music. A good example of that is the Emotiva DC-1. But the kicker is that if you want all the features of receivers like surroudn sound you are out of luck. The XSP-1 - it's real advantage is that it allows you to use a dedicated two channel DAC for your high quality stereo needs. But with a click of a button (HT Bypass mode) it switches to the receiever or standalone processor. And keeps the two things separate. So the two channel DAC never has to go through the processor or get bogged down in analog to digital conversions and the digital volume control of hte reciever. The receiver works just like normal and goes through the XSP-1. So basically it has two separate signal paths and integrates things together while keeping the signal path of each simple, reasonably pure, and non complicated. So I would get an XSP-1 IF my plan was to use a two channel DAC for music. This way you can use your two channel dac for music and when you want to listen to movies IN SURROUND SOUND on the receiever, just press the HT bypass button and you are hearing your reciever. It's as simple as that. Also the XSP-1 has bass management so your subs will work with both your DAC and receiever seamlessly. Otherwise, if you are not considering a DAC I would consider a standalone processor. These usually don't rival the best DACs at the same price. But they usually do better than a reciever. But be warned...now the timing becomes more important than ever before. HDMI 2 is out right now! Most standalone processors DO NOT HAVE HDMI 2. This means that when HDMI 2 becomes the standard....like with blu ray 4k .... on your new HDMI 2 4k TV, you will see a blank screen if you use that processor. No picture, no sound. This likely is the case with your current reciever. There are ways around it but these work arounds are not ideal. Soon especially when blu ray 4k and 4k programming becomes the norm, anything that doesn't support HDMI 2 will be obsolete. It sounds fanciful but it will be similar to DVD vs blu ray. The old receivers that were built for DVD with composite inputs did not have HDMI. They are obsolete and cannot play Blu ray. So I would suggest to wait and purchase a standalone processor with HDMI 2 support. This is different from 4k support. It has to be 4k AND HDMI 2 if you want to not have your new expensive processor not be obsoleted. Emotiva plans to release new electronics soon. Hard to say when but it looks like you may not have long to wait. You may want to wait to see if there are any standalone HDMI 2 processors at a more reasonable price level for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildgoose on Apr 10, 2016 0:56:32 GMT -5
Probably more information than you really wanted... Sorry. Not at all! I very much enjoyed reading your post, and learning all this stuff is very exciting! |
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on Apr 10, 2016 2:20:01 GMT -5
Awesome thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 10, 2016 5:25:48 GMT -5
...Also the XSP-1 has bass management so your subs will work with both your DAC and receiever seamlessly. If you actually USE the bass management of the XMC-1 (or any other typical processor or AVR), you lose the advantages of direct mode. The bass management of the XMC-1 is digital, not analog. To do bass management, the processor has to convert the music from analog to digital, then do bass management, and then convert again from digital back to analog. Every conversion causes quality loss. The all-analog XSP-1 stereo preamplifier, however, does bass management in the analog domain with NO digital conversions, just as you say. ...Soon especially when blu ray 4k and 4k programming becomes the norm, anything that doesn't support HDMI 2 will be obsolete... And for this reason, I recommend NEVER running one's video through an AVR or a processor. Not only do video circuits become quickly obsolete as standards change, but also the RF noise from the video circuitry is likely to contaminate the audio signals. These days, with inexpensive disc players (that contain the latest video circuitry) and with "smart" TVs (that are often upgradable to the latest video circuitry), it makes no sense to put an expensive, quickly-obsolete processor or AVR in the middle of the two. Run video directly from the player to the TV or projector and run audio ONLY through the processor or AVR. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 10, 2016 8:09:46 GMT -5
Thanks everyone for your feedback! Very helpful information. I've came across UMC-200 in my research, but it looks like this is no longer available from Emotiva. What is the replacement? The XMC-1 seems way expensive. I am a little confused about the XSP-1. It only have analog input. So I need to add another piece of equipment to split the sound from HDMI audio to this? How much was the UMC-200? The UMC-200 was $599 (new). I agree the XMC-1 is expensive, but for surround sound, in the same price range, I very much doubt you will be able to find a better product if you can live without Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro 3D. Early this year at CES 2016 in Las Vegas, the Emotiva Emersa EMP-1 (MSRP: $899) was officially announced so maybe you could wait for its final release. That said, the volume control in the UMC-200 is analog. Digitally controlled, but analog, so the analog audio signal that comes out of my separate stereo DAC (the Eastern Electric MiniMax Supreme) remains in the analog domain as it passes through my UMC-200. To make absolutely perfectly sure that my UMC-200 can *never* convert this analog signal to a *digital* signal, I have my separate stereo DAC hooked up to the analog Ext. 7.1 Front + Right inputs of my UMC-200 because, as the user manual of the UMC-200 clearly states, the analog Ext. 7.1 inputs are *always* in Direct Mode. As others have noted, the quality of a built-in preamp section / standalone preamp (and the volume control thereof) can have a noticeable effect on sound quality. I should probably add that this effect can be for better or worse. (If there exists and audible improvement, then IMO it is due to there being an impedance mismatch between the analog outputs of the source component and the analog inputs of the power amp, such that this impedance mismatch gets corrected by the preamp or preamp section in question). In my own system, to my own ears, at reference volume levels this effect is not audible. I really depend on it to be not audible because I do not want the sound quality of my separate stereo DAC to be deteriorated in any way that I can hear; neither my separate stereo DAC, nor the XPA-2 power amp have any built-in volume control, so... |
|
But I realized how big of a beast this thing is, and running 2 of these amps seems a bit too much for my space. Now I have a real dilemma on my hands!
