|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 6:50:12 GMT -5
...I have to ask - what is the XSP-1 not doing right? I love this thing. It just works. And that's all I'm ever looking for... This is a most excellent question, and I wanted to sleep on it before I gave an answer. The XSP-1 is a preamp with few weaknesses. But, that doesn't mean that it has outstanding strengths, either. The ultimate answer to your question is that I've heard better sounding preamps. Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble Preamps with deeper sounding bass Preamps with more voluptuous-sounding soundstaging Preamps with more transparency that allow the listener to hear further into the recording Now don't get me wrong - the XSP-1 isn't BAD at any of these things, but I've heard better (and in every one of those categories). I've owned the XSP-1 repeatedly, and I always end up selling it. Why? Because I hear something I like better. So the XSP-1 is a good preamp, but the good is the enemy of the great. I want a GREAT preamp. After all, the preamp IS the center of the whole system. And I believe that Emotiva is easily capable of making a GREAT preamp. The XSP-1, Ver. 2 just isn't it. Why? I don't know for sure. Maybe it's the parts quality that was used to meet the price point? Maybe it's the preamp's peripheral functions (tone controls, bass management) that throw away the fully-differential advantages of the circuitry when engaged? Maybe it's the focus on meeting the (excellent) specifications without enough emphasis on voicing? I don't know. So ultimately, I want an Emotiva preamp that exceeds the standard of "great for the money," and achieves a world-class status. Can Emotiva do it? Will Emotiva do it? I'm hoping so. Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jul 5, 2016 8:53:38 GMT -5
...I have to ask - what is the XSP-1 not doing right? I love this thing. It just works. And that's all I'm ever looking for... This is a most excellent question, and I wanted to sleep on it before I gave an answer. The XSP-1 is a preamp with few weaknesses. But, that doesn't mean that it has outstanding strengths, either. The ultimate answer to your question is that I've heard better sounding preamps. Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble Preamps with deeper sounding bass Preamps with more voluptuous-sounding soundstaging Preamps with more transparency that allow the listener to hear further into the recording Now don't get me wrong - the XSP-1 isn't BAD at any of these things, but I've heard better (and in every one of those categories). I've owned the XSP-1 repeatedly, and I always end up selling it. Why? Because I hear something I like better. So the XSP-1 is a good preamp, but the good is the enemy of the great. I want a GREAT preamp. After all, the preamp IS the center of the whole system. And I believe that Emotiva is easily capable of making a GREAT preamp. The XSP-1, Ver. 2 just isn't it. Why? I don't know for sure. Maybe it's the parts quality that was used to meet the price point? Maybe it's the preamp's peripheral functions (tone controls, bass management) that throw away the fully-differential advantages of the circuitry when engaged? Maybe it's the focus on meeting the (excellent) specifications without enough emphasis on voicing? I don't know. So ultimately, I want an Emotiva preamp that exceeds the standard of "great for the money," and achieves a world-class status. Can Emotiva do it? Will Emotiva do it? I'm hoping so. Boomzilla You've owned the XSP-1 repeatedly? Really? Maybe the fault lies with the listener, not the gear? |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 5, 2016 9:02:39 GMT -5
From what you've said in you're posts Boomzilla, I think this thread shouldn't include updating the XSP-1, but is rather about the possibility of a reference series preamp. The XSP-1 is popular because it sounds good and has features people like, it might need a few refinements that have been mentioned, but not the wholesale redesign you describe. Possibly a two channel companion to the RMC/XMR '16 channel monster', with possibly a companion reference DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 9:20:50 GMT -5
The XSP-1 for me was strange. On lower spec'd amps, it sounded perfectly fine. No issues. But when I got the XPA-1 its sound issues came to light (compared to going direct from the DC-1).
The bass I felt was nice and strong and also got plenty low. But the problem was that it was slightly muddy and blurred.
The treble also had a strange "ceiling" to it that caused just a bit of eletronic sounding senanigans to it. That extended airy treble that was natural sounding wasn't quite there compared to the DC-1 direct.
Now the DC-1 itself has issues mainly that though it's bass is very clear and tight it is more mid ranged focused and the bass isn't quite as balanced top to bottom as the mid range and treble. A slight issue. But it sounds very natural. And it is clearer sounding than the XSP-1. It's the best sound I have heard or at least right there at the top.
But it's also not "perfect".
And I guess that's what I'm looking for. Something that can satisfy me soundwise.
I have written a review of the XSP-1 and truth be told all that is true. It's still a fantastic value. BUT....with a slightly less resolving setup. Strange sounding, I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 5, 2016 9:40:39 GMT -5
...I have to ask - what is the XSP-1 not doing right? I love this thing. It just works. And that's all I'm ever looking for... This is a most excellent question, and I wanted to sleep on it before I gave an answer. The XSP-1 is a preamp with few weaknesses. But, that doesn't mean that it has outstanding strengths, either. The ultimate answer to your question is that I've heard better sounding preamps. Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble Preamps with deeper sounding bass Preamps with more voluptuous-sounding soundstaging Preamps with more transparency that allow the listener to hear further into the recording Now don't get me wrong - the XSP-1 isn't BAD at any of these things, but I've heard better (and in every one of those categories). I've owned the XSP-1 repeatedly, and I always end up selling it. Why? Because I hear something I like better. So the XSP-1 is a good preamp, but the good is the enemy of the great. I want a GREAT preamp. After all, the preamp IS the center of the whole system. And I believe that Emotiva is easily capable of making a GREAT preamp. The XSP-1, Ver. 2 just isn't it. Why? I don't know for sure. Maybe it's the parts quality that was used to meet the price point? Maybe it's the preamp's peripheral functions (tone controls, bass management) that throw away the fully-differential advantages of the circuitry when engaged? Maybe it's the focus on meeting the (excellent) specifications without enough emphasis on voicing? I don't know. So ultimately, I want an Emotiva preamp that exceeds the standard of "great for the money," and achieves a world-class status. Can Emotiva do it? Will Emotiva do it? I'm hoping so. Boomzilla If you've sold the XSP-1 because you heard something better, then why do you keep buying the XSP-1 again? That doesn't make any sense. Is that like Proverbs 26:11?  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 9:54:17 GMT -5
I owned the XSP-1 gen. 1 and gen. 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Jul 5, 2016 10:30:03 GMT -5
The XSP-1 for me was strange. On lower spec'd amps, it sounded perfectly fine. No issues. But when I got the XPA-1 its sound issues came to light (compared to going direct from the DC-1). The bass I felt was nice and strong and also got plenty low. But the problem was that it was slightly muddy and blurred. The treble also had a strange "ceiling" to it that caused just a bit of eletronic sounding senanigans to it. That extended airy treble that was natural sounding wasn't quite there compared to the DC-1 direct. Now the DC-1 itself has issues mainly that though it's bass is very clear and tight it is more mid ranged focused and the bass isn't quite as balanced top to bottom as the mid range and treble. A slight issue. But it sounds very natural. And it is clearer sounding than the XSP-1. It's the best sound I have heard or at least right there at the top. But it's also not "perfect". And I guess that's what I'm looking for. Something that can satisfy me soundwise. I have written a review of the XSP-1 and truth be told all that is true. It's still a fantastic value. BUT....with a slightly less resolving setup. Strange sounding, I know. Yes - it does sound strange... |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 10:34:47 GMT -5
The XSP-1 for me was strange. On lower spec'd amps, it sounded perfectly fine. No issues. But when I got the XPA-1 its sound issues came to light (compared to going direct from the DC-1). The bass I felt was nice and strong and also got plenty low. But the problem was that it was slightly muddy and blurred. The treble also had a strange "ceiling" to it that caused just a bit of eletronic sounding senanigans to it. That extended airy treble that was natural sounding wasn't quite there compared to the DC-1 direct. Now the DC-1 itself has issues mainly that though it's bass is very clear and tight it is more mid ranged focused and the bass isn't quite as balanced top to bottom as the mid range and treble. A slight issue. But it sounds very natural. And it is clearer sounding than the XSP-1. It's the best sound I have heard or at least right there at the top. But it's also not "perfect". And I guess that's what I'm looking for. Something that can satisfy me soundwise. I have written a review of the XSP-1 and truth be told all that is true. It's still a fantastic value. BUT....with a slightly less resolving setup. Strange sounding, I know. Yes - it does sound strange... Yes. On the UPA-2 it did fine. I thought it represented an improvement on the sound. The XPA-1 not so much. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 5, 2016 10:57:10 GMT -5
There are two very different - but related - reasons why the Tone Controls (and bass management) cause the overall signal path to no longer be fully balanced. In order to implement tone controls, and bass management, in a single signal path, with acceptable matching between channels, requires several precisely matched components. (If the channels aren't quite precisely matched, your imaging will be flawed when the tone controls are enabled, and will shift when you operate them.) However, to then implement those tone controls in a fully balanced architecture, even tighter component tolerances are required. (Unless the two signal paths in each channel are very precisely matched you lose the benefits of a fully balanced architecture.) So "balanced tone controls" require twice as many precision parts, and tighter tolerances on those parts, which adds a significant amount to the cost. The other way of looking at it is that "absolute purists don't use tone controls"...... They use Reference Stereo mode - without tone controls or anything else that might alter the sound - and with a fully balanced signal path. And so "the sort of people who use tone controls to alter the sound shouldn't be worried about the slight - and probably inaudible - amount of difference balanced would make". (This sort of logic is why most "really high end" preamps don't offer tone controls at all.... ) (So the question becomes one of how many people who care enough to want a fully balanced signal path actually want and will use tone controls..... ) And correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that if you actually USED the high-pass crossover of the XPA-1, you lost the advantages of a fully-balanced signal path. Yes, your XLR outputs were still live, but they were no longer fully balanced. Correct, mentioned in garbulky's first post, bass management or tone controls, either made the signal unbalanced. That should be corrected in an updated unit. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jul 5, 2016 11:10:50 GMT -5
I will vote for a reference preamp instead of a gen3 xsp-1. I also owned gen 1 and 2 and eventough the xsp-1 is a giant killer it has several things that can be improved like Boomzilla mentioned. IMO the xsp-1 needed to get more out the way for the 3d presentation, especially noticeable when i upgraded speakers to the reference line of Dalis. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 12:46:13 GMT -5
...However, to then implement those tone controls in a fully balanced architecture, even tighter component tolerances are required...So "balanced tone controls" require twice as many precision parts, and tighter tolerances on those parts, which adds a significant amount to the cost. So the question becomes one of how many people who care enough to want a fully balanced signal path actually want and will use tone controls..... Mr. L. is absolutely right. Tone controls are EXPENSIVE to implement in fully-balanced architecture, and the majority of people who want fully-balanced don't use tone controls. The XSP-1, if you want to look at it that way, offers the best of both worlds - a fully-balanced bypass and an unbalanced tone control set for those who want it. I don't argue with the implementation as it is on the XSP-1. But this dodges the question of ultimate sound quality in balanced mode. The current XSP-1 design is a "Swiss-Army knife" of features that I'm unlikely to use (tone controls, phono preamp, bass management, HT bypass, etc.). I'd MUCH rather have the preamp design budget spent on ultimate sound quality. So what I'd like from Emotiva is a fully-balanced line-stage without all the bells & whistles. Give me sound quality uber-alles. How much better can the REFERENCE-QUALITY Emotiva preamplifier be? Enquiring ears want to know! |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jul 5, 2016 13:06:24 GMT -5
Boom when I read all this my thoughts are that your preamp has not been made yet. Boom when I was young I went thru a lot preamps and amps just like you are doing. This may sound like bull crap to you Boom but my USP-1 is the best preamp I have ever had. That volume control stuff that everyone talks about on the USP-1 is just empty complaining to me. When everyone said the XSP was better it did not even phase me. If it is better cool ! I have no problem with that. When I pop in a CD into my ERC-1 and feed it to my USP-1 and then my little watts UPA-2, the sound that comes out is absolutely gorgeous ! That is all you have to do Boom. Just get a good clean sound and then relax. You will find your preamp Boom. It will look like you want and sound like you want. When you do all will be right. I will be reading you when that day comes and will toast to it ! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 13:22:27 GMT -5
Hi Axis - I'm not sure you're right. I'll agree that EMOTIVA hasn't yet built my perfect preamp, but I see a variety of others on the market that intrigue: The Audio GD HE-1 The Parasound HALO JC 2 BP The Classé CP-800 The Audio Research Reference 5 and others... So my question becomes, "Do I wait for a reference-quality Emotiva preamp, or do I buy elsewhere?" I'll let you know when I find out! But this brings up some other issues - If Emotiva DOES opt to do a reference line stage, then the following should also (maybe) follow to fill the needs of those who need them: The Emotiva outboard electronic crossover The Emotiva stereo room correction device The Emotiva reference phono stage The Emotiva outboard graphic equalizer Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Jul 5, 2016 13:39:15 GMT -5
Boom,
Keep searching. What I am hearing you say is that the performance of the XPA-1 which is a true reference/flagship product for Emotiva does not have a matching Reference/Flagship Pre-Amp available from Emotiva and you hope they make it.
Said another way the current XSP-1 Gen 2 holds back the XPA-1.
Axis- There is something to be said for having "lower spec" gear that just sounds good. I say this in a not insulting way. I recently listened to a pair of $8k ProAc D30R speakers (Very Accurate, Very Tight Bass) and then a pair of Sonus Faber Venere 3.0 speakers. It was obvious in every way that the ProAc was a "better" speakers, the only problem was that it wasn't as fun to listen to as the Sonus Faber.
Good Luck Boom.
How about a Emotiva Reference Pre-Amp with Tubes in the front? How cool would that be. A remote controlled, balanced, tubed front end reference pre with a quality Burr Brown DAC. I am saving up the dollars now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 13:42:02 GMT -5
...But when I got the XPA-1 its sound issues came to light (compared to going direct from the DC-1)... Ah - but the chicken or the egg! Did the XPA-1 amplifiers reveal XSP-1 flaws that were always there, or did the XSP-1 reveal flaws in the amps (flaws that just happen to null out with the Stealth DC-1)? As I've said before, the XPA-1s seem to be voiced somewhat differently than the other Emotiva amps I've owned... |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jul 5, 2016 13:42:08 GMT -5
Boom we are old enough that we can let our thoughts guide us on these things. I got silly money because I was smart and do not hardly spend it. I feel for those that are young and just breaking even in life. I was there at one time. You know what you can afford and I have yet to see you not spend on what you wanted. Try different gear but my advise is always not to spend more than something is actually worth. Boom scroll down this page and read this latest chapter from Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio. 2016, Chapter 9: The Elephant in the Room www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/11145#post_12656609 |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 13:48:17 GMT -5
...But when I got the XPA-1 its sound issues came to light (compared to going direct from the DC-1)... Ah - but the chicken or the egg! Did the XPA-1 amplifiers reveal XSP-1 flaws that were always there, or did the XSP-1 reveal flaws in the amps (flaws that just happen to null out with the Stealth DC-1)? As I've said before, the XPA-1s seem to be voiced somewhat differently than the other Emotiva amps I've owned... Good question. If it revealed a flaw it could be with the need for a preamp that can drive the amps fine. Paul McGowan of PS audio also talked about preamps and them not being quite as robust. For instance I didn't find the DC-1 particularly AMAZING with the UPA-2. But I found it to sound really good with the XPA-1. I think that's because the XPA-1 had more headroom and resolution so the sound of it appearing "strained" wasn't there. So why does the DC-1 sound worse with the UPA-2, really good with the XPA-1 while the XSP-1 sounds great with the UPA-2 but not so much with the XPA-1? Now one thing I do know is that when it's doing its best job....and btw, that is in class A mode....and being driven by a preamp that can match its resolving capabilities, the XPA-1 sounds amazing! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 14:35:05 GMT -5
How curious. My experience is the opposite. In my room, & with my speakers, the XPA-1s sound better in AB mode than in A.
I think that it highlights the fact that at this level of performance, synergy between two components may be more critical than how either of the components performs on a test bench.
I wonder what your Stealth DC-1 would sound line with my XPA-1s?
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 15:05:31 GMT -5
How curious. My experience is the opposite. In my room, & with my speakers, the XPA-1s sound better in AB mode than in A. I think that it highlights the fact that at this level of performance, synergy between two components may be more critical than how either of the components performs on a test bench. I wonder what your Stealth DC-1 would sound line with my XPA-1s? Try it again. The class A mode takes about 45 minutes to start coming in to its own and then starts getting a bit better as time passes. Also the amp may have been breaking in at the beginning. I don't know how the DC-1 would sound with the XPA-1s. I don't know if it would do any better than last time. It may have the vocals more recessed. I would be willing to bring it over sometime to try if you like . I think right now, you should wait on the Tektons and see if there's any change with them. For some reason I don't know if the M100's are gelling perfectly with your room. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jul 5, 2016 15:31:43 GMT -5
There are two very different - but related - reasons why the Tone Controls (and bass management) cause the overall signal path to no longer be fully balanced. In order to implement tone controls, and bass management, in a single signal path, with acceptable matching between channels, requires several precisely matched components. (If the channels aren't quite precisely matched, your imaging will be flawed when the tone controls are enabled, and will shift when you operate them.) However, to then implement those tone controls in a fully balanced architecture, even tighter component tolerances are required. (Unless the two signal paths in each channel are very precisely matched you lose the benefits of a fully balanced architecture.) So "balanced tone controls" require twice as many precision parts, and tighter tolerances on those parts, which adds a significant amount to the cost. The other way of looking at it is that "absolute purists don't use tone controls"...... They use Reference Stereo mode - without tone controls or anything else that might alter the sound - and with a fully balanced signal path. And so "the sort of people who use tone controls to alter the sound shouldn't be worried about the slight - and probably inaudible - amount of difference balanced would make". (This sort of logic is why most "really high end" preamps don't offer tone controls at all.... ) (So the question becomes one of how many people who care enough to want a fully balanced signal path actually want and will use tone controls..... ) Correct, mentioned in garbulky's first post, bass management or tone controls, either made the signal unbalanced. That should be corrected in an updated unit. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'corrected' as it implies a flaw. I understand that a decision was made to build a high quality unit, with a specific feature set, at a specific price, I think the XSP-1 succeeded very well. I replaced a more 'reference' style preamp – no tones, no bass management, but unbalanced – with the XSP-1. I preferred the XSP-1 because of how it let me hook up and adjust my system, and how it sounded (it was less expensive too). I think we understand that enhancements will be more expensive, we have to voice our thoughts and you guys have to decide if it will make the product better, and sell. |
|
