stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 5, 2016 18:09:12 GMT -5
See that's something I don't want. I don't want an all in one unit. I want a purist unit with two functions - produce the sound and change the volume really well. But I see the need for a high quality balanced subwoofer setup. And I can also understand the value of HT bypass integration - though I could live without it. But for instance a high quality DAC - Already they have the PT-1000. That uses a single DAC. To get higher quality than that they would be looking at DC-1 territory with its two DACs. I'd rather all that money go towards just having an amazingly good preamp. Also a DAC preamp unit that is very good is already out there - it's the XMC-1. Also an EMERSA processor will be out soon at a lower price point. What I am thinking about is a nice preamp. No digital circuitry. Just do the sound amazingly well. Overbuilt. Dual mono, class A circuitry. A competitor to this: www.audio-gd.com/HE/HE-1/HE-1EN.htm Or maybe that may be looking at too much with its regenerative power suppy. Maybe the one step down version of that the Audio GD Master one. Is this something you've heard? Or just something you found? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 18:18:50 GMT -5
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 5, 2016 18:20:03 GMT -5
garbulky: then how do you know it sounds better than the current XSP-1? Why would you recommend something that you haven't heard (something you do often)?
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 5, 2016 18:33:52 GMT -5
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, which ones of these have you heard? Or do they just look interesting? What pre-amps have you listened to head-to-head that, in your opinion, sound better than the XSP-1 and what are their price points? Don't get me wrong here; I agree that there are better sounding pre-amps, but at significantly higher price points. Also, what is the highest price point that you think will an Emotiva customer be willing to pay for a stereo pre-amp, $1,500? Maybe $2,000? Considering that Emotiva can't (and won't) copy someone else's design, there'll have to be R&D cost amortized into that additional $500-$1,000. Add to it that the XSP-1 (Gen2) is still (I believe) made in China, and that they are wanting to move all manufacturing in-house, there will likely be a (small) price bump to making the "XSP-x" in the States. And, finally, At $2,000 a "XSP-x" will be within a few hundred dollars of the XMC-1 which several have said sounds as good or better than a XSP-1 (Gen 1 or Gen 2) with higher functionality. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 18:41:04 GMT -5
garbulky: then how do you know it sounds better than the current XSP-1? Why would you recommend something that you haven't heard (something you do often)? You are right, I don't know that it's better. But it is on my upgrade list. If you look at it and read the description (don't mind the english), you will see why I think this will do better. Also if this helps, there is an Emo member that has both the HE-1 and the master one and the XSP-1. And he felt tha the master one was better than the XSP-1 and that the HE-1 is on another level. He feels the HE-1 is designed to compete at the 10k preamp level. So this is what the HE-1 has -Full class A everything. -Humungous power supplies (as much as a power amp) in dual mono. - Large capacitance (as much as a power amp. - Fully balanced path. - Hand matched resistors. - A regenerative power supply to provide power to the dual power supplies. Basically the whole thing is dual mono and balanced. - It has Krells ACSS/CAST tech (which I can't use). It also has a resistor ladder for the volume control. It also had something like a ten year development time. If you are a specs guy 130 db snr (!!!!!!!!) THD <0.0005 % 20 to 20 khz frequency response +/- 0db. Literally 0 db. Not 0.1 db 1 hz to 300 khz + 0 db - 3db So it's pretty extreme. I can only hope it sounds as good as it looks to me! So think of a preamp on steroids with all the stops pulled out. Only catch? Change the volume and put out sound - that's all it does. No features. No tone controls, no bass management. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 5, 2016 19:23:44 GMT -5
garbulky : then how do you know it sounds better than the current XSP-1? Why would you recommend something that you haven't heard (something you do often)? You are right, I don't know that it's better. But it is on my upgrade list. If you look at it and read the description (don't mind the english), you will see why I think this will do better. Also if this helps, there is an Emo member that has both the HE-1 and the master one and the XSP-1. And he felt tha the master one was better than the XSP-1 and that the HE-1 is on another level. He feels the HE-1 is designed to compete at the 10k preamp level. So this is what the HE-1 has -Full class A everything. -Humungous power supplies (as much as a power amp) in dual mono. - Large capacitance (as much as a power amp. - Fully balanced path. - Hand matched resistors. - A regenerative power supply to provide power to the dual power supplies. Basically the whole thing is dual mono and balanced. - It has Krells ACSS/CAST tech (which I can't use). It also has a resistor ladder for the volume control. It also had something like a ten year development time. If you are a specs guy 130 db snr THD <0.0005 % 20 to 20 khz frequency response +/- 0db. Literally 0 db. Not 0.1 db 1 hz to 300 khz + 0 db - 3db So it's pretty extreme. I can only hope it sounds as good as it looks to me! So think of a preamp on steroids with all the stops pulled out. Well, I know a guy... what is this, high school? So, lets talk about stuff you know nothing about: I'm looking over the XSP-1's spec sheet and I'm not seeing that it's not "class A" or that it's "class A/B" or whatever. Considering I know the difference between what class A and A/B is and how it pertains to a signal, I'm trying to figure out why the XSP-1 wouldn't be class A? -Humungous power supplies (as much as a power amp) in dual mono Why in the wide, wide, world of sports would I need a power supply that large to power a 2V signal? Are you really going to send a signal to your power amp as powerful as a power amp?- Large capacitance (as much as a power amp Again, why would I need a power amp's worth of capacitance in a pre-amp? The point of capacitance in a power amp is so that it has additional power when needed that can't be supplied by the power supply. Are you really going to be sending so much power to your amp that your power supply won't be able to keep up?!? And this does what, exactly? I'd like to hear your explanation. What are they matching to; visual? (Resistance) value? If resistance value, what is the max allowable deviation? Want to hear my explanation? Marking fluff to get people that don't know jack to want to buy their product. The remaining Krell functionality, resistance ladder volume control, and 10 year development time are nice, but relatively meaningless. Speaking of meaningless: 130 db snr versus >117 db: what this means is that they tested to 130 and the XSP-1 exceeds 117. Can you tell a difference between the noise ratios? I didn't think so. THD <0.0005 % versus < 0.0004%: Wow!!! $2,100+shipping to get an additional 0.0001%! OMG what a bargain!!! 20 to 20 khz frequency response +/- 0db. Literally 0 db. Not 0.1 db versus Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0 dB (See what I did there? I rounded up; simple marketing ploy). If it was really 0db they would have posted 0.0db or 0.00db or 0.000db. Besides, wouldn't it be just that more impressive to have a few decimal places in there? 1 hz to 300 khz + 0 db - 3db: name me something recorded with this range or a speaker that can play it and I'll actually bother to tell you why it's meaningless (hint: look at the other measurements it lists in the same category) While I'm absolutely over the moon that the forum member that has this loves it so much (everyone should be happy with their gear), what you've listed is only "extreme" in the fact that it's extremely meaningless when trying to prove (or disprove) how good a pre-amp will sound. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 5, 2016 19:25:34 GMT -5
Only catch? Change the volume and put out sound - that's all it does. No features. No tone controls, no bass management. And that is as it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 5, 2016 19:52:49 GMT -5
Keeping in mind that I had a USP-1 (my first ever Emotiva product) up until recently, following are my 20 cents worth on the XSP-1
HT Bypass, it’s a necessity in my set up, if it didn't have it I would choose another stereo pre amp.
Trigger in (as well as trigger out), a feature that the USP-1 didn't have and one that has simplfied my system and start up process.
Balanced, XLR interconnects and differential circuitry has made a small (tiny) difference to my listening experience in that it has removed any and all external noise. Not that it was big deal previously, rare and hardly noticeable even when it was present.
The uncalibrated cross over is a total non issue for me as I set the cross over by sound and confirm by measuring.
Tone controls, I don't use them, maybe it's just habit as the USP-1 didn't have them and the 10+ pre amps I had previously didn't either.
The vinyl sound is just amazing, I put it down to the phono pre amp quality and tuning plus its intergration with the other circuitry in the XSP-1. There is a whole lot of the XSP-1 appeal that you are missing if you don't play some vinyl.
When "listening" to music (not "playing" music in the background while I do something else) it's vinyl or CD's, for background music I use iTunes via an ATV4 to the UMC-200. That way I can use the Zones available. I play CD's and Hybrid SACD's on an ERC-3 using it's internal DAC.
The only external; DAC I own these days is the BigEgo in my home office.
On DAC's, as a result of the above, I don't really need a pre amp with a DAC inbuilt. But I can see it being an advantage for others.
For stereo music I run 2.1 and have for decades, way before subs became de rigueur. Back then I copped a lot of flack for it from my hifi compatriates, but one by one they all got with the program.
The 2.1 stereo music listening quite likely makes my experience with the XSP-1 different to others who run 2.0. There is not the slightest chance that the XSP-1 is producing "muddy or blurred" bass in my system. To my ears ity sounds crisp, fast, hard, rock solid, and reaches down as low as any music I have contains. This wasn't the case until I moved to the XPA-100 as the sub amp, it made more difference/improvement than any pre amp ever did.
The XSP-1 pushes out a sound stage that is as wide, high and deep as my room will allow. There are other pre amps that have matched the XSP-1 in one or two dimensions but none have the 3 dimensions covered.
Lastly, I have no love for tubes, in pre amps, power amps or anywhere else for that matter, I have had plenty of exposure to and experience with many brands and quite frankly I just don't like the "artificialness" of the sound.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 5, 2016 20:32:24 GMT -5
So, which ones of these have you heard? Or do they just look interesting? I've heard none of them - as I said, they looked interesting. ...What pre-amps have you listened to head-to-head that, in your opinion, sound better than the XSP-1 and what are their price points?... Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble = Conrad Johnson ET3 tube preamp, for one = ~ $2K Preamps with deeper sounding bass = Yamaha RX-A3050, for one - ~ $2K Preamps with more voluptuous-sounding sound staging = McIntosh C200 tube preamp, for one = ~ $3K Preamps with more transparency that allow the listener to hear further into the recording = Oppo BDP-105 direct to power amp, for one + $1.3K ...Don't get me wrong here; I agree that there are better sounding pre-amps, but at significantly higher price points. Also, what is the highest price point that you think will an Emotiva customer be willing to pay for a stereo pre-amp, $1,500? Maybe $2,000? Considering that Emotiva can't (and won't) copy someone else's design, there'll have to be R&D cost amortized into that additional $500-$1,000. Add to it that the XSP-1 (Gen2) is still (I believe) made in China, and that they are wanting to move all manufacturing in-house, there will likely be a (small) price bump to making the "XSP-x" in the States. And, finally, At $2,000 a "XSP-x" will be within a few hundred dollars of the XMC-1 which several have said sounds as good or better than a XSP-1 (Gen 1 or Gen 2) with higher functionality. I think Emo customers would be willing to pay between $1K and $2.5K for a world-class stereo line stage. Those who want high performance consider the existing XSP-1 low on the "high end" totem pole - and NOT because of its price. It just doesn't sound as good as it could. Whether or not the XMC-1 is or isn't an incremental improvement over the XSP-1 is academic. It still doesn't compete. Period. "Functionality" isn't the goal of a high-end component - better sound IS. Emotiva knows they can do better. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a "Generation Two" XSP-1. There WILL be a "Generation Three" XSP-1 somewhere down the line. You know it; I know it; Emotiva knows it. But to break out of the "good for the money" category, some of this sound-quality-robbing "functionality" needs to go by the wayside, and the remainder of the design needs to be improved. |
|
|
|
Post by deltadube on Jul 5, 2016 20:46:05 GMT -5
So, which ones of these have you heard? Or do they just look interesting? I've heard none of them - as I said, they looked interesting. ...What pre-amps have you listened to head-to-head that, in your opinion, sound better than the XSP-1 and what are their price points?... Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble = Conrad Johnson ET3 tube preamp, for one = ~ $2K Preamps with deeper sounding bass = Yamaha RX-A3050, for one - ~ $2K Preamps with more voluptuous-sounding sound staging = McIntosh C200 tube preamp, for one = ~ $3K Preamps with more transparency that allow the listener to hear further into the recording = Oppo BDP-105 direct to power amp, for one + $1.3K ...Don't get me wrong here; I agree that there are better sounding pre-amps, but at significantly higher price points. Also, what is the highest price point that you think will an Emotiva customer be willing to pay for a stereo pre-amp, $1,500? Maybe $2,000? Considering that Emotiva can't (and won't) copy someone else's design, there'll have to be R&D cost amortized into that additional $500-$1,000. Add to it that the XSP-1 (Gen2) is still (I believe) made in China, and that they are wanting to move all manufacturing in-house, there will likely be a (small) price bump to making the "XSP-x" in the States. And, finally, At $2,000 a "XSP-x" will be within a few hundred dollars of the XMC-1 which several have said sounds as good or better than a XSP-1 (Gen 1 or Gen 2) with higher functionality. I think Emo customers would be willing to pay between $1K and $2.5K for a world-class stereo line stage. Those who want high performance consider the existing XSP-1 low on the "high end" totem pole - and NOT because of its price. It just doesn't sound as good as it could. Whether or not the XMC-1 is or isn't an incremental improvement over the XSP-1 is academic. It still doesn't compete. Period. "Functionality" isn't the goal of a high-end component - better sound IS. Emotiva knows they can do better. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a "Generation Two" XSP-1. There WILL be a "Generation Three" XSP-1 somewhere down the line. You know it; I know it; Emotiva knows it. But to break out of the "good for the money" category, some of this sound-quality-robbing "functionality" needs to go by the wayside, and the remainder of the design needs to be improved. WHAT about a tube pre amp....? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 21:32:57 GMT -5
You are right, I don't know that it's better. But it is on my upgrade list. If you look at it and read the description (don't mind the english), you will see why I think this will do better. Also if this helps, there is an Emo member that has both the HE-1 and the master one and the XSP-1. And he felt tha the master one was better than the XSP-1 and that the HE-1 is on another level. He feels the HE-1 is designed to compete at the 10k preamp level. So this is what the HE-1 has -Full class A everything. -Humungous power supplies (as much as a power amp) in dual mono. - Large capacitance (as much as a power amp. - Fully balanced path. - Hand matched resistors. - A regenerative power supply to provide power to the dual power supplies. Basically the whole thing is dual mono and balanced. - It has Krells ACSS/CAST tech (which I can't use). It also has a resistor ladder for the volume control. It also had something like a ten year development time. If you are a specs guy 130 db snr THD <0.0005 % 20 to 20 khz frequency response +/- 0db. Literally 0 db. Not 0.1 db 1 hz to 300 khz + 0 db - 3db So it's pretty extreme. I can only hope it sounds as good as it looks to me! So think of a preamp on steroids with all the stops pulled out. Well, I know a guy... what is this, high school? So, lets talk about stuff you know nothing about: I'm looking over the XSP-1's spec sheet and I'm not seeing that it's not "class A" or that it's "class A/B" or whatever. Considering I know the difference between what class A and A/B is and how it pertains to a signal, I'm trying to figure out why the XSP-1 wouldn't be class A? -Humungous power supplies (as much as a power amp) in dual mono Why in the wide, wide, world of sports would I need a power supply that large to power a 2V signal? Are you really going to send a signal to your power amp as powerful as a power amp?- Large capacitance (as much as a power amp Again, why would I need a power amp's worth of capacitance in a pre-amp? The point of capacitance in a power amp is so that it has additional power when needed that can't be supplied by the power supply. Are you really going to be sending so much power to your amp that your power supply won't be able to keep up?!? And this does what, exactly? I'd like to hear your explanation. What are they matching to; visual? (Resistance) value? If resistance value, what is the max allowable deviation? Want to hear my explanation? Marking fluff to get people that don't know jack to want to buy their product. The remaining Krell functionality, resistance ladder volume control, and 10 year development time are nice, but relatively meaningless. Speaking of meaningless: 130 db snr versus >117 db: what this means is that they tested to 130 and the XSP-1 exceeds 117. Can you tell a difference between the noise ratios? I didn't think so. THD <0.0005 % versus < 0.0004%: Wow!!! $1,100+shipping to get an additional 0.0001%! OMG what a bargain!!! 20 to 20 khz frequency response +/- 0db. Literally 0 db. Not 0.1 db versus Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0 dB (See what I did there? I rounded up; simple marketing ploy). If it was really 0db they would have posted 0.0db or 0.00db or 0.000db. Besides, wouldn't it be just that more impressive to have a few decimal places in there? 1 hz to 300 khz + 0 db - 3db: name me something recorded with this range or a speaker that can play it and I'll actually bother to tell you why it's meaningless (hint: look at the other measurements it lists in the same category) While I'm absolutely over the moon that the forum member that has this loves it so much (everyone should be happy with their gear), what you've listed is only "extreme" in the fact that it's extremely meaningless when trying to prove (or disprove) how good a pre-amp will sound. Jeez go easy on a guy will ya? I was just trying to answer you with my reasons. They don't have to make sense to you  The measurements - well they are simply better than the XSP-1 by quite a bit. They don't necessarily MEAN it sounds better. Imo only subjective listening can say that for sure. So let's ake sure we've established that. Everything else is conjecture. I agree with you. If it sounds better can be judged really by the only person that matters - you or at least by people that you can relate to. Since I can't hear it, then I have to go to the next best thing which is reviews, design, and specs. Anyway...having establised that. You are dismissing the spec as meanignless but 130 db is a ridiculous value. You can't just arrive at that by accident. It points to everything they are doing. It's arrived by very tight regulation of the power supply and all the other good stuff they've got in that bad boy. It is a ridiculous value for a preamp. Do you know how many other preamps do 130 db snr? Go ahead and find out! Then I'll ask you how much they cost! (It's a lot!) Seriously... show me a few. I haven't found them and I looked around a bit. The reason why preamps don't usually do that is ...... it's very difficult. The XSP-1 can't do that. Because it doesn't have the design and parts to do so. Here is what they mean by 0 db.  The notches are 0.5 db. You have to zoom in to the full size pic to see them if your browser allows that. Class A: Audio GD mentions it's in class A because it is in class A. The XDA-1 had a class A stage on it. I believe they advertised it. But the following units did not. The XSP-1 does not advertise class A. Power supply: the power supply is overkill. And that's the whole point. If there's dynamics, control etc, well you can be assured it's not the power supply giving it the short end of the stick. Preamps have to drive the load of the power amp. That does take effort. No not a gazillian watts of power obviously but it's also not a given that any preamp can simply drive a power amp with ease. Hand matched resistors: This is actually important. Keith mentioned it too. In balanced drive, the resistors need to be matched with tight tolerances (in the sections it counts) otherwise you can lose the advantage of balanced drive and make it sound worse than single ended. I believe the hand matched resistors are for the volume control section. The wide frequency response spec was to show you that it still manages performance well past its intended operating range. Basically the whole unit is an overbuilt high performance preamp. The dual mono architecture keeps cross talk separated and well monoblocks!  If I am looking for an XSP-1 upgrade - the XSP-1 is a pretty good unit - then it makes sense to me that this is the type of preamp I need to look for. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 5, 2016 21:33:49 GMT -5
Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble = Conrad Johnson ET3 tube preamp, for one = ~ $2K But it has that typical tube, muddy, slow, lazy bass. Oh, but the screechy treble that limits my listening to short periods. There's that mushy bass again, but even more so in typical McIntosh style. Like many I can't stand their Sabre DAC implementation trade off in the high frequency etching, the strident edge that it imparts on violins for example. Maybe it's not technically possible to have all of the above features in one circuit, perhaps "airier sounding treble" doesn't live together with "deeper sounding bass", as they require different components in a different circuit lay out. Or maybe it's philosophical, the engineers design their equipment to have the "family" sound, to appeal to their customer base. As a result none of them are in the same "family" as the listener who wants all of the various artifacts in the one package. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jul 5, 2016 21:45:52 GMT -5
So, which ones of these have you heard? Or do they just look interesting? I've heard none of them - as I said, they looked interesting. ...What pre-amps have you listened to head-to-head that, in your opinion, sound better than the XSP-1 and what are their price points?... Preamps with a more-extended, airer-sounding treble = Conrad Johnson ET3 tube preamp, for one = ~ $2K Preamps with deeper sounding bass = Yamaha RX-A3050, for one - ~ $2K Preamps with more voluptuous-sounding sound staging = McIntosh C200 tube preamp, for one = ~ $3K Preamps with more transparency that allow the listener to hear further into the recording = Oppo BDP-105 direct to power amp, for one + $1.3K ...Don't get me wrong here; I agree that there are better sounding pre-amps, but at significantly higher price points. Also, what is the highest price point that you think will an Emotiva customer be willing to pay for a stereo pre-amp, $1,500? Maybe $2,000? Considering that Emotiva can't (and won't) copy someone else's design, there'll have to be R&D cost amortized into that additional $500-$1,000. Add to it that the XSP-1 (Gen2) is still (I believe) made in China, and that they are wanting to move all manufacturing in-house, there will likely be a (small) price bump to making the "XSP-x" in the States. And, finally, At $2,000 a "XSP-x" will be within a few hundred dollars of the XMC-1 which several have said sounds as good or better than a XSP-1 (Gen 1 or Gen 2) with higher functionality. I think Emo customers would be willing to pay between $1K and $2.5K for a world-class stereo line stage. Those who want high performance consider the existing XSP-1 low on the "high end" totem pole - and NOT because of its price. It just doesn't sound as good as it could. Whether or not the XMC-1 is or isn't an incremental improvement over the XSP-1 is academic. It still doesn't compete. Period. "Functionality" isn't the goal of a high-end component - better sound IS. Emotiva knows they can do better. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a "Generation Two" XSP-1. There WILL be a "Generation Three" XSP-1 somewhere down the line. You know it; I know it; Emotiva knows it. But to break out of the "good for the money" category, some of this sound-quality-robbing "functionality" needs to go by the wayside, and the remainder of the design needs to be improved. There is plenty of merit in boomzillas post here, let me try to voice my opinion. First let me state that I am NOT an eloquent writer by any stretch but ill try to convey my experiences and ideas on this subject matter. First, what ive listened to and experianced for background. Preamps, Sherbourn Pre 1, Emotiva, XSP-1 gen one and two and the XMC-1 each an improvement on the prior. Lets add the DC-1 as a preamp as well Onward to Yamaha, RX V1050, RX A 3040 McIntosh C220 Oppo BDP 105 & 103 All of these have been paired with the same XPR-1's and Paradigm Studio 100 V5 im having trouble I have more but need to reboot Part 1 |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jul 5, 2016 22:30:22 GMT -5
Part 2
i had some issues I couldnt resolve so Ill continue here,
I personally think Emotiva is at a crossroad, a good one I think, we shall see.
High End Audio:
They obviously have the talent to produce some serious hi end gear! But that requires a higher pricepoint in my opinion, with better parts and more specific application of components. Task specific vs can do all. Compromise happens when you try to make everyone happy with one box.
Near term gear:
Emotiva has applied themselves to conquer the general population that may or may not be looking for hi end gear but home application that the whole family will be at ease with using. Their new line(s) of gear show their ability to do so. Grab some mass market coin and fund/grow Emotiva and the RR for engineering.design and marketing,,,,,moreso for engineering and higher end as I believe this is there passion. A passion that needs funding and a growing market base.
Being able to appeal to more potential buyer will expand the profitability as well as the passion for what they live for. Not an "also ran" company but one that stands out as a solution to costumers needs with great sound and growing both resources to create better gear for all the target markets.
We are the value target, few of us want and are willing to pay for better gear but dont want to be robbed or (€\^6$4!€\% ) , yall know what Im saying here.
We also desire lesser gear for other solutions, by lesser I dont mean cheap but a good product that is not our signature system.
Some markets are for,
Headphone users,
Computer/Desk station users,
Bedrooms,
other alternative uses.,,,,,,and then there are TUBES!!! There are tubes,,,,,right? Maybe someday
This is but a small possibility of what can or may be, someday.
Stick around long enough, you never know.
What do I want? I want great sounding solutions to my audio needs.
Many of use love having great sounding HT but want a seperation between it and a dedicated Two channel.
Just wish we could use the same amps (need an automated solution) and speakers with both systems.
Most of us do not want or need a seperate rooms for both systems, we can dedicate more money to gear that can be shared but still ne seperate.
Maybe someday we will have an Emofeast where those interested can have a purpose driven diolog about our wants and needs with executives at Emotiva. An organized discussion?
organized chaos where many minds banter ideas around have been very productive.
Always goal driven.
Sorry if I've board y'all to death.
Nick
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 5, 2016 22:34:43 GMT -5
...Don't get me wrong here; I agree that there are better sounding pre-amps, but at significantly higher price points. Also, what is the highest price point that you think will an Emotiva customer be willing to pay for a stereo pre-amp, $1,500? Maybe $2,000? Considering that Emotiva can't (and won't) copy someone else's design, there'll have to be R&D cost amortized into that additional $500-$1,000. Add to it that the XSP-1 (Gen2) is still (I believe) made in China, and that they are wanting to move all manufacturing in-house, there will likely be a (small) price bump to making the "XSP-x" in the States. And, finally, At $2,000 a "XSP-x" will be within a few hundred dollars of the XMC-1 which several have said sounds as good or better than a XSP-1 (Gen 1 or Gen 2) with higher functionality. I think Emo customers would be willing to pay between $1K and $2.5K for a world-class stereo line stage. At $1K you get what you have now; like/dislike is immaterial. Unless Emotiva can come up with a way to make it cheaper or decide to reduce their margin. At $2.5K you have the price of the current XMC-1 which more than one person has decried was too much for a I.D. OEM regardless how it sounds. Can you imagine the howling if they came up with a product that cost as much as their flagship/halo product that has less functionality? I'm not saying that they'll never make such a product. But, Dan is a very astute person who understands the market. And right now, in my opinion, it would be a losing proposition for Emotiva to make a 2-channel pre-amp at $2.5K. The current XSP-1 is every bit as good as their "reference" pre-am the RSP-2 ever was. If they were to put out a new version of the "RSP" (say a XSR to keep with the current naming convention like XMR) I could totally see it at a price point of $1.5K. Those who want high performance consider the existing XSP-1 low on the "high end" totem pole - and NOT because of its price. It just doesn't sound as good as it could. Whether or not the XMC-1 is or isn't an incremental improvement over the XSP-1 is academic. It still doesn't compete. Period. Most of the people considering $4K to $9K pre-amps aren't looking at Emotiva. The XSP-1 sounds as good as any $1K pre-amp on the market. I'm glad you think that the Oppo at $1.3K sounds better, but that's the only one that is relatively close to the XSP-1 price point. And, at $2.5K it would have to not only sound better than the current model, it would have to significantly improve upon the sound from the XMC-1. It's not "academic" it's market placement. "Functionality" isn't the goal of a high-end component - better sound IS. Emotiva knows they can do better. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a "Generation Two" XSP-1. There WILL be a "Generation Three" XSP-1 somewhere down the line. You know it; I know it; Emotiva knows it. Of course I know it; I'm not as slow as some of your friends. Again, and I will type this slowly, if you have 2 different components that sound the same for the same price and one washes your deck for you while you're listening to it, the one that doesn't wash your deck will not survive in the market. And, the major changes between the Gen 1 and Gen 2 were cosmetic and they used a different, more economical, means of assembling the boards. I'm aware of no significant changes to the components that would have had a sizable impact on sound quality. If you've heard differences, good on you! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 5, 2016 23:00:04 GMT -5
Did you really type that slowly? |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 6, 2016 0:03:01 GMT -5
Here's the problem as I see it, broken down simplistically in three layers;
So called "high end" gear tends to almost always have a "family" sound, they tailor, spec, design and engineer their products to comply with that sound signature. It's mostly quite deliberate, they know what their market expects, wants and demands and they aim to meet that. Sometimes it's because they use the same engineer/designer and the gear ends up sounding like what he likes and/or thinks it should sound. It has to be that way otherwise their customers won't buy the new gear. An example, my uncle was a Halcro buyer, he bought many pieces of their gear, upgrades as well as additions. If the new piece didn't sound "like" the old piece he would send it back. Another example, a good friend of mine, no longer with us unfortunately, was a long/big time McIntosh buyer, I think he had more of their gear than the distributor. Same deal, it just had to have that McIntosh "family" sound. That's how they role, the selling price is not based on how much it costs plus a mark up, it's all about how much the market will bear. Hence sometimes stratospheric prices that are also designed to keep their gear "exclusive", it lessens their prestige if the great unwashed buys it.
The next step, which really isn't "a step down" more a different step. Is the manufacturers that live in the market where they don't have to have a "family" sound to justify their prices. They tend to aim for sound accuracy and in doing so some of their gear may have a distinctive/similar sound, but in general they look to the "straight wire with gain" philosophy.
The two steps above do sound different (family versus accuracy) but not necessarily better or worse. My friend with the McIntosh gear would never have ever liked my Emotiva gear, it just would sound too "different" to him. This is where we run into the debate about which sounds "better" and frequently there is no real winner, just personal sound preferences. Which we can talk about till the cows come home, and can be fun at the same time.
The next step which really is "down" is the mass market gear that is strictly made to a price versus features formula. It must cost X and have this list of features, hence the sound quality is a secondary consideration. It's not going to ever sound really bad, very little gear does these days, but pretty much anyone with experience can hear which is better and which is worse.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 6, 2016 0:12:26 GMT -5
Jeez go easy on a guy will ya? I was just trying to answer you with my reasons. They don't have to make sense to you They make perfect sense to me; you simply don't understand what any of that means other than you feel that it makes it good/better. The measurements - well they are simply better than the XSP-1 by quite a bit. They don't necessarily MEAN it sounds better. Imo only subjective listening can say that for sure. So let's ake sure we've established that. Everything else is conjecture. I agree with you. If it sounds better can be judged really by the only person that matters - you or at least by people that you can relate to. No, they're not "better... by quite a bit". They're better, not by much, and the variance in the specs you quoted would be like arguing that you're taller than someone by a millimeter. Are you taller, yes. Is it perceivable without a measurement device? No. Since I can't hear it, then I have to go to the next best thing which is reviews, design, and specs. Anyway...having establised that. So, now you're a designer as well? What circuit designs have you made? To be able to review a design you must first be able to understand the design. You are dismissing the spec as meanignless but 130 db is a ridiculous value. You can't just arrive at that by accident. It points to everything they are doing. It's arrived by very tight regulation of the power supply and all the other good stuff they've got in that bad boy. It is a ridiculous value for a preamp. Do you know how many other preamps do 130 db snr? Go ahead and find out! Then I'll ask you how much they cost! (It's a lot!) Seriously... show me a few. I haven't found them and I looked around a bit. The reason why preamps don't usually do that is ...... it's very difficult. The XSP-1 can't do that. Because it doesn't have the design and parts to do so. And this is why I say you don't understand the specifications you quote. First, they quote SNR at 130db. The XSP-1 is quoted at >117db. This means that they stopped testing the XSP-1 at 117 with no noise. The ">" symbol is "greater than". If they would have tested to 118db would there have been noise? We'll never know because they stopped at 117db. Why did they stop at 117db? Could it be that unperceivable is unperceivable and doesn't warrant testing to 118db? Should they test to 131db just so they can best the marketing claim of GD audio? Would GD then test theirs to 132db? And, would any of that matter to anyone that understands the specification? Nope. Only people that don't understand that the difference between 117db and 130db cannot be perceived and people that don't understand that because the XSP-1 was only tested to 117db with no noise does not mean that it can't do 117.1db or 125db or 130db without noise would consider this to be a worthy specification. Here is what they mean by 0 db. The notches are 0.5 db. You have to zoom in to the full size pic to see them if your browser allows that. Not only do you not understand specifications, you don't understand graphs. I can see why you pride yourself that you can make a browser window zoom. I've attached a screen cap of the (zoomed... and cropped) screen cap that is on their website that you also provided.  Notice those circles that I added? That is where the result is not +/- 0db. Each one of those "notches" is, as you mentioned, 0.5db. Divide that space between 0 and 0.5 by 5 and you get 0.1. Divide that small sliver of screen by 10 and you get 0.01. If there was no deviation then those blips that I circled wouldn't be there. They simply rounded up their db to 0; not 0.0 and not 0.00. At this point, if you understood the specifications that you're quoting, you'd start to see that they are misrepresenting their data. Are they falsifying their data? No. But they're misrepresenting it. How much of a deviation from 0 does that look like to you? 0.01? 0.02? Sorta about the same as the XSP-1 data? Class A: Audio GD mentions it's in class A because it is in class A. The XDA-1 had a class A stage on it. I believe they advertised it. But the following units did not. The XSP-1 does not advertise class A. Why would Emotiva advertise the XSP-1 is class A when most pre-amps are class A? What pre-amps aren't class A? You do know that class A is a function of amplifiers and how they reproduce a wave, right? GD advertises it's a class A pre-amp because people that don't understand what class A is, other than it can have a better sonic quality than class a/b in amplifiers, automatically think (incorrectly) that it means their pre-amp is better than another pre-amp that doesn't bother to put in its marketing material that it's class A. Power supply: the power supply is overkill. And that's the whole point. If there's dynamics, control etc, well you can be assured it's not the power supply giving it the short end of the stick. Preamps have to drive the load of the power amp. That does take effort. No not a gazillian watts of power obviously but it's also not a given that any preamp can simply drive a power amp with ease. You should really stop with this. There is no way that you can back peddle what you said previously. No pre-amp needs the power supply of an amp to drive an amp. No pre-amp needs the capacitance of an amp to drive an amp. Hand matched resistors: This is actually important. Keith mentioned it too. In balanced drive, the resistors need to be matched with tight tolerances (in the sections it counts) otherwise you can lose the advantage of balanced drive and make it sound worse than single ended. I believe the hand matched resistors are for the volume control section. Oh, this? 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. Yeah, tone controls; he's talking about adding tone controls to a pre-amp like this. And, as you said before... this pre-amp doesn't have tone controls. Your point is invalid. The wide frequency response spec was to show you that it still manages performance well past its intended operating range. Basically the whole unit is an overbuilt high performance preamp. And what makes you think that the XSP-1 can't do this? Because they didn't bother to needlessly test their product to amaze people that don't understand specifications, maybe? The dual mono architecture keeps cross talk separated and well monoblocks! How much cross talk is there on the XSP-1? If I am looking for an XSP-1 upgrade - the XSP-1 is a pretty good unit - then it makes sense to me that this is the type of preamp I need to look for. Good for you! Let me know what it sounds like when you get your $2,300 (after shipping from China) pre-amp! I'm sure it will sound amazing! |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 6, 2016 0:14:21 GMT -5
Did you really type that slowly? I typed it apparently at just the right speed. |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jul 6, 2016 0:40:12 GMT -5
I've stated my preference before but you asked so I'll state it again: STRICTLY 2-channel Pre. NO HT - nothing. I'd rather see them put money towards better SQ than anything to do with home theater. Reference quality with an absolutely superb Phone section. I don't need/use tone controls but would tolerate them for those who do. I like the idea of back-light on the remote.  |
|
