|
|
Post by DavidR on Jul 7, 2016 10:04:17 GMT -5
What you're talking about would be a "higher end XSP-1"..... Which means that you're sort of asking the same question that this whole thread started about.... so... short answer.... Yes, there probably will eventually be an XSP-1 Gen3, which will be "an evolutionary improvement" (similar but a little bit better) over the current model. We're probably NOT going to remove a lot of features - because many of the people who buy the XSP-1 LIKE the features it has. And we're probably NOT going to come out with a much more expensive version - because we probably wouldn't sell enough of them to justify the development and production costs. About the only "feature" we would probably add would be more balanced inputs (or possibly make the entire signal path balanced). (We might add one or two digital inputs - but that would be going in the opposite direction than what you're asking.) Odds are pretty strong that we won't be coming out with a very expensive "statement preamp" - because we wouldn't sell enough of them to justify the development costs... As for the phono stage, the current one is actually quite good.... and is "technically" equal to many separate phono preamps costing quite a lot. The way vinyl "should sound" is very subjective. No cartridge is perfect, and many phono preamps sound especially good with a given cartridge or turntable because their imperfections happen to "have good synergy" - which is a nice way of saying that their flaws cancel each other out. Therefore, there is never going to be "a perfect phono preamp for everyone", or one that sounds perfect with every combination of equipment. We feel that the technical performance of the phono preamp in the XSP-1 is pretty close to the limitations of vinyl itself, and we've designed it to be as neutral as possible (with RIAA eq as accurate as possible). And, if we were to add this or that sort of coloration, it would sound better with one cartridge, and worse with another. (So, while it isn't perfect, and we may someday offer one with slightly better technical performance, I'm not quite sure what would constitute "a killer phono preamp" far above our current one.) @keithl : Do you think Emotiva will ever come out with a strictly 2-channel (i.e no HT circuitry) Pre with great SQ and killer Phono ? An XSP-1 with some refinements sans HT. Should I hold my breath or move on. Thank you for your detailed answer. Yes, the Phono in the XSP-1 is very good. I just wonder what else could be upgraded for the cost should the HT be left out. If you want a strictly 2-channel Pre why pay for HT when you'll never use it. I'd just rather see that cost go towards some other improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 7, 2016 10:21:40 GMT -5
LOL - DavidR - You're making the SAME comments I made at the start of the thread! Everyone wants something left off, added, or improved - and we don't all want the same things. To sell the volume of XSP-1s that Emotiva needs to sell, you'll have to accept some features you don't need or use. If you want a different priority set, you'll have to go to another manufacturer (and pay LOTS more money).  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 10:34:01 GMT -5
Indeed..... but I was trying to make a specific distinction.... In the setup you're talking about, the computer attached to the drive is SENDING a STREAM to the Oppo. This process uses some standard streaming protocol (probably DLNA). And, while streaming protocols are somewhat robust, they are apparently not good enough - as evidenced by the fact that people still experience dropouts. The virtues of doing it this way are that the protocol is standardized - and many audio devices already support it - including many portable or hardware based clients. (To be clear, the file sits on a hard drive connected to the computer; the computer sends a stream to the Oppo, which receives and "plays" the stream. The control resides at the sending device.) However, the other way of doing it is to have the player retrieve the audio - as a file - from a standard file server. Rather than the sending device playing the file, and then "beaming" the music to the other device, the player retrieves a file from a file server, and then plays the music itself. The difference is in how things like errors and delays are handled. For example, most streaming systems can tolerate a loss of connection for a few seconds - by buffering some data; any longer disconnect and you have a dropout. However, If my local client is running FooBar2000, I can have FooBar fetch the entire song, or even an entire album. If I set it to fetch the entire album before starting to play it, I can unplug my client and walk away with it, and it will play the whole album without a dropout. In fact, functionally, it's pretty much the same as if each computer had a hard drive connected directly to it. There's none of the "vagueness" about how long the buffer will run for, of if the streaming server will stream at full quality, or whether it might reduce the quality if my connection is weak. You're placing the control and the "responsibility" at the client instead of at the server. You're playing actual audio files, on your own computer player, using your favorite player program, and a method you trust not to resample the audio without telling you... the only difference is that your music files are being STORED somewhere else on the network. Instead of "trying to maintain a stream" you're "copying a file and then playing it".... and, if you set things up to copy each song before playing it, you'll NEVER get a dropout during a song.... if something goes wrong you'll get a "file copy error", and, otherwise, it will play perfectly. All of the "grey areas" and weird things that can go wrong with streams don't happen.(Does your favorite DLNA server deliver bit-perfect data? Even at 24/192k? How can you tell?) I sort of resent the current tendency to ask "Do you want bit-perfect playback of every file you own OR do you want convenience?" I maintain that, with a little work, you can in fact have both. And, now, I'll follow my own advice and drop this subject..... Although it might be worthwhile to open a serious thread about it if anyone is interested enough. I think you've brought up an interesting point...... Which is: "Who uses what type of streaming?" Streaming from the Internet (like Hulu or Spotify) is very different than streaming over your own network - and has very different requirements. Personally, I have a small home, so I have one computer, directly connected to a USB hard drive - which works very well. I also don't do much music streaming, but that same computer is connected to the Internet for when I do - which also works well. You can also have a network attached drive, or a drive connected to one computer, which is then SHARED across the network. In both of those cases, while you may access that drive from multiple computers on your network, no streaming is required. Each computer accesses the drive separately; the drive acts as a FILE SERVER but doesn't stream audio TO anywhere. A player program on each computer grabs the files and plays them; you can even use different players on different computers. And, on this sort of setup, the client program controls playback - so you can set it to use a large buffer, or even to get the entire song before starting to play it. The only real "downside" to this setup is that each computer is separate - you cannot synch music playing in multiple rooms. And, if you wanted to use a streaming service with this setup, you might need multiple licenses - because the client would be running on EACH computer. But, if you set it up right, it should never have dropout issues. It's only when you want to have a central streaming server that is SENDING music to client devices (usually using DLNA) that you usually have network and dropout problems. (But, if anyone wants to continue this, let's start another thread.... nobody would find this from the Thread title.) I promise this is my last post on streaming.... Regarding what you said about a network hard drive which is accessed from a computer. In a way that's what B'zilla has. He has a hard drive attached to a computer. A second computer in this case the Oppo receives the stream from the first computer using J-river. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 10:49:00 GMT -5
I just want to clarify one point - especially for those who aren't familiar with the XSP-1....... There really isn't much of anything in the way of "home theater circuitry" in the XSP-1. The "Home Theater Bypass" is simply a way of switching the inputs directly to the outputs - and so bypassing the XSP-1 - if you want to share your main speakers with your home theater setup (so it's a switch and a couple of relays). The bass management is a set of electronic crossover filters which provide the separate high-pass and low-pass outputs you need for bass management (which some people use for stereo music). (For home theater, you wouldn't be using the bass management in the XSP-1 anyway, because you'd be using the bass management in your pre/pro.) Neither adds a lot of parts cost to the XSP-1, and neither has any affect whatsoever on the sound quality of the rest of the XSP-1, if you DON'T use it. So, the only real "benefit" to removing either or both would be aesthetic: removing the "clutter" of controls, connectors, and features that a purist might not use. What you're talking about would be a "higher end XSP-1"..... Which means that you're sort of asking the same question that this whole thread started about.... so... short answer.... Yes, there probably will eventually be an XSP-1 Gen3, which will be "an evolutionary improvement" (similar but a little bit better) over the current model. We're probably NOT going to remove a lot of features - because many of the people who buy the XSP-1 LIKE the features it has. And we're probably NOT going to come out with a much more expensive version - because we probably wouldn't sell enough of them to justify the development and production costs. About the only "feature" we would probably add would be more balanced inputs (or possibly make the entire signal path balanced). (We might add one or two digital inputs - but that would be going in the opposite direction than what you're asking.) Odds are pretty strong that we won't be coming out with a very expensive "statement preamp" - because we wouldn't sell enough of them to justify the development costs... As for the phono stage, the current one is actually quite good.... and is "technically" equal to many separate phono preamps costing quite a lot. The way vinyl "should sound" is very subjective. No cartridge is perfect, and many phono preamps sound especially good with a given cartridge or turntable because their imperfections happen to "have good synergy" - which is a nice way of saying that their flaws cancel each other out. Therefore, there is never going to be "a perfect phono preamp for everyone", or one that sounds perfect with every combination of equipment. We feel that the technical performance of the phono preamp in the XSP-1 is pretty close to the limitations of vinyl itself, and we've designed it to be as neutral as possible (with RIAA eq as accurate as possible). And, if we were to add this or that sort of coloration, it would sound better with one cartridge, and worse with another. (So, while it isn't perfect, and we may someday offer one with slightly better technical performance, I'm not quite sure what would constitute "a killer phono preamp" far above our current one.) Thank you for your detailed answer. Yes, the Phono in the XSP-1 is very good. I just wonder what else could be upgraded for the cost should the HT be left out. If you want a strictly 2-channel Pre why pay for HT when you'll never use it. I'd just rather see that cost go towards some other improvement. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 7, 2016 10:59:43 GMT -5
All cables have capacitance, which will interact with the output impedance of the source device, and so introduce some slight high-frequency roll off. Since different devices have different output impedances, this effect will be different with each preamp or other source device. And, since each type of cable has a different amount of capacitance, it will be different with different cables. As a general guideline, cable capacitance is expressed as "per foot", so, all else being equal, a longer length of a given type of cable will have proportionally higher capacitance.... Under normal circumstances, this roll off is easily measured or calculated, but should be negligible - and usually inaudible - at audio frequencies. It can be noticeable with certain sources, like "passive preamps", which have a relatively high source impedance - especially if you use long cables. A lot of vintage tube equipment (and some modern tube equipment) also has a high output impedance, and so tends to interact in this way with various cables. Note that this effect is mostly related to the electrical characteristics of the SOURCE device (preamp or DAC) rather than to the power amp. Look, I'm not disagreeing with the notion of a direct path. But when people change their stance completely, I'm sure you agree that it calls into question their credibility. I didn't change my stance completely based on some literature hemster . I had a new stance with regards to the XPA-1 and the DC-1 because the XPA-1 was the latest addition. When I added the XPA-1 it sounded quite a bit better than my UPA-2. More resolving capability. The DC-1 with the UPA-2 (and other preamp less systems which had less power) sounded better with the preamp. Quite a bit. I'm just honest with what I hear. If that sounds like it lacks credibility, I guess I could lie and say I didn't hear what I did with this new setup?! My best guess for this is that 1. The DC-1 preamp section is quite good. 2. The other preamps I tried didn't sound as good because they weren't as resolving. If the preamp was better at this, maybe this would not be the case. Doc mentioned something about the legnth of the cables. This could be. I don't know because I am not knowledgeable in that stuff. However I did have issue with cable legnth for the XPA-1. The longer XLR cables for some weird reason dulled the sound (subjective). At least in my specific setup. I don't know if that has something to do with it. It goes against what I feel is correct ( a preamp) but if I heard it, then I heard it. I won't be surprised if the Audio GD HE-1 sounds better with the DC-1 but I haven't heard it. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jul 7, 2016 10:59:57 GMT -5
I just want to clarify one point - especially for those who aren't familiar with the XSP-1....... There really isn't much of anything in the way of "home theater circuitry" in the XSP-1. The "Home Theater Bypass" is simply a way of switching the inputs directly to the outputs - and so bypassing the XSP-1 - if you want to share your main speakers with your home theater setup (so it's a switch and a couple of relays). The bass management is a set of electronic crossover filters which provide the separate high-pass and low-pass outputs you need for bass management (which some people use for stereo music). (For home theater, you wouldn't be using the bass management in the XSP-1 anyway, because you'd be using the bass management in your pre/pro.) Neither adds a lot of parts cost to the XSP-1, and neither has any affect whatsoever on the sound quality of the rest of the XSP-1, if you DON'T use it. So, the only real "benefit" to removing either or both would be aesthetic: removing the "clutter" of controls, connectors, and features that a purist might not use. Thank you for your detailed answer. Yes, the Phono in the XSP-1 is very good. I just wonder what else could be upgraded for the cost should the HT be left out. If you want a strictly 2-channel Pre why pay for HT when you'll never use it. I'd just rather see that cost go towards some other improvement. Thank you so much for that clarification KiethL. For those of us without an engineering background it was most enlightening. So the credo here was, do no harm, and I see none. Money well spent to include the low cost extras of HT bypass and bass management. |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jul 7, 2016 11:04:50 GMT -5
LOL - DavidR - You're making the SAME comments I made at the start of the thread! Everyone wants something left off, added, or improved - and we don't all want the same things. To sell the volume of XSP-1s that Emotiva needs to sell, you'll have to accept some features you don't need or use. If you want a different priority set, you'll have to go to another manufacturer (and pay LOTS more money). So are we 2 peas in a pod? LOL After reading your post and Keith's post I realize I will have to accept having a useless (to me) HT bypass in a Pre. The XSP-1 IS a very nice Preamp. I don't need subs as my speakers go low. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 7, 2016 11:34:38 GMT -5
We may be!
|
|
|
|
Post by doc1963 on Jul 7, 2016 12:17:48 GMT -5
I didn't change my stance completely based on some literature hemster . I had a new stance with regards to the XPA-1 and the DC-1 because the XPA-1 was the latest addition. When I added the XPA-1 it sounded quite a bit better than my UPA-2. More resolving capability. The DC-1 with the UPA-2 (and other preamp less systems which had less power) sounded better with the preamp. Quite a bit. I'm just honest with what I hear. If that sounds like it lacks credibility, I guess I could lie and say I didn't hear what I did with this new setup?! My best guess for this is that 1. The DC-1 preamp section is quite good. 2. The other preamps I tried didn't sound as good because they weren't as resolving. If the preamp was better at this, maybe this would not be the case. Doc mentioned something about the legnth of the cables. This could be. I don't know because I am not knowledgeable in that stuff. However I did have issue with cable legnth for the XPA-1. The longer XLR cables for some weird reason dulled the sound (subjective). At least in my specific setup. I don't know if that has something to do with it. It goes against what I feel is correct ( a preamp) but if I heard it, then I heard it. I won't be surprised if the Audio GD HE-1 sounds better with the DC-1 but I haven't heard it. Just to clarify... When you re-read my post, I wasn't referring to just the interconnects (or the length thereof), but rather the influence of having the XSP-1 (or any other device) in the chain as a whole. Every component plays its own part and "can" have an influence. In most cases, it's inaudible, but I'm giving you the benefit of having a system (or ears) that "could" be able to resolve the difference. In your current scenario, it's the DC-1 (DAC) > Gain (variable) > Amp. The path cannot be any more "direct" than that. Your previous scenario was DC-1 (DAC) > Gain (fixed) > XSP-1 (internal components) > Gain (variable) > Amp. A bit more complex and subject to additional inductance. Removing the unnecessary components "could" have lead to a more refined signal and "could" be the difference (however minute) you've experienced. |
|
|
|
Post by doc1963 on Jul 7, 2016 12:22:02 GMT -5
LOL - DavidR - You're making the SAME comments I made at the start of the thread! Everyone wants something left off, added, or improved - and we don't all want the same things. To sell the volume of XSP-1s that Emotiva needs to sell, you'll have to accept some features you don't need or use. If you want a different priority set, you'll have to go to another manufacturer (and pay LOTS more money). So are we 2 peas in a pod? LOL After reading your post and Keith's post I realize I will have to accept having a useless (to me) HT bypass in a Pre. The XSP-1 IS a very nice Preamp. I don't need subs as my speakers go low. And on the flip-side, David, any analog preamp that didn't have HT Bypass would never make its way into "my" system. So, yes, they're always two sides to a coin...  |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jul 7, 2016 13:27:15 GMT -5
So are we 2 peas in a pod? LOL After reading your post and Keith's post I realize I will have to accept having a useless (to me) HT bypass in a Pre. The XSP-1 IS a very nice Preamp. I don't need subs as my speakers go low. And on the flip-side, David, any analog preamp that didn't have HT Bypass would never make its way into "my" system. So, yes, they're always two sides to a coin... I understand Emotiva's stance now and accept it. It's a wonderful Pre. Eventually it will be the Preamp in my HT system but I doubt I will use the bass management or HT bypass even then. I think the value you get with an XSP-1 is superb and a newer version may be the next Preamp in my office system. I will look at others but I think I will have a difficult time finding all the other features offered for even close to the same price and price is a big consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jul 8, 2016 6:19:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Jul 8, 2016 13:45:09 GMT -5
sounds good..  the poll is missing an important factor .. for what price... don't think you can beat emo for the price... Define "sounds good." its like sounds very good! |
|
the poll is missing an important factor .. for what price... 