|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 6, 2016 0:42:14 GMT -5
Back to preamps that sound better than the XSP-1. It would be interesting if Emotiva could do something as great sounding like the HE-1 at around $1600. That would be a nice price point imo. A reference preamp. Maybe dual mono in some way. I'm okay with it not being a XSP-1 but a reference series preamp.
Emotiva always overbuilds their amps when they make them. The XPA-1 is a great example. So was the RPA-2. How about something like that for preamps?
I think I heard a rumor that Schiit may be jumping in to the preamp market too. Things are slowly getting better in the preamp market for new products.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 6, 2016 0:49:41 GMT -5
Back to preamps that sound better than the XSP-1. It would be interesting if Emotiva could do something as great sounding like the HE-1 at around $1600. That would be a nice price point imo. A reference preamp. Maybe dual mono in some way. I'm okay with it not being a XSP-1 but a reference series preamp. Emotiva always overbuilds their amps when they make them. The XPA-1 is a great example. So was the RPA-2. How about something like that for preamps? I think I heard a rumor that Schiit may be jumping in to the preamp market too. Things are slowly getting better in the preamp market for new products. What if the HE-1 doesn't sound as good as the current XSP-1? Wouldn't that be a step down? |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jul 6, 2016 0:49:54 GMT -5
I don't really need one, so..."whatevah..." Mark Yes, you do.....................  |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jul 6, 2016 0:52:52 GMT -5
Back to preamps that sound better than the XSP-1. It would be interesting if Emotiva could do something as great sounding like the HE-1 at around $1600. That would be a nice price point imo. A reference preamp. Maybe dual mono in some way. I'm okay with it not being a XSP-1 but a reference series preamp. Emotiva always overbuilds their amps when they make them. The XPA-1 is a great example. So was the RPA-2. How about something like that for preamps? I think I heard a rumor that Schiit may be jumping in to the preamp market too. Things are slowly getting better in the preamp market for new products. What if the HE-1 doesn't sound as good as the current XSP-1? Wouldn't that be a step down? Oh yeah, I forgot. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Jul 6, 2016 6:04:42 GMT -5
Back to preamps that sound better than the XSP-1. It would be interesting if Emotiva could do something as great sounding like the HE-1 at around $1600. That would be a nice price point imo. A reference preamp. Maybe dual mono in some way. I'm okay with it not being a XSP-1 but a reference series preamp. Emotiva always overbuilds their amps when they make them. The XPA-1 is a great example. So was the RPA-2. How about something like that for preamps? I think I heard a rumor that Schiit may be jumping in to the preamp market too. Things are slowly getting better in the preamp market for new products. What if the HE-1 doesn't sound as good as the current XSP-1? Wouldn't that be a step down? I own the He-1 and is in another level. The xsp-1 is a good preamp but it is a weak link in a high resolving system, period. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 6:46:51 GMT -5
It's entirely possible that Emotiva would not need a new design to sound significantly better. As has been pointed out, the XSP-1's features can be bypassed in Reference mode for a clean, balanced signal path. That being the case, perhaps the existing design could be hot-rodded for better sound (a "Special Edition" issue)?
To do this - focus on the Reference mode only. Use better parts, run the gain stages in Class A mode, beef up the power supply accordingly, and use closer tolerance parts where critical. The "feature" sections (tone controls, HT bypass, bass management, etc.) could be left alone since they're out of the loop in Reference mode anyway.
Buyers would pay a premium for the SE model, and the re-engineering costs would be minimal. If it provided a significant improvement in sound quality, it would be worth the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 8:17:45 GMT -5
...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... The market itself disproves your assertion. McIntosh components have FEATURES. In your language, they "wash the deck for you." Audio Research components don't. They both sound good, AND they're similarly priced. Per you, the Audio Research brand should have long ago failed, yet they thrive. So let me summarize - You're absolutely incorrect when you contend that features make or break a product. Period. Some consumers want features, others don't; the market is obviously big enough to support both. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 6, 2016 8:52:50 GMT -5
It's entirely possible that Emotiva would not need a new design to sound significantly better. As has been pointed out, the XSP-1's features can be bypassed in Reference mode for a clean, balanced signal path. That being the case, perhaps the existing design could be hot-rodded for better sound (a "Special Edition" issue)? To do this - focus on the Reference mode only. Use better parts, run the gain stages in Class A mode, beef up the power supply accordingly, and use closer tolerance parts where critical. The "feature" sections (tone controls, HT bypass, bass management, etc.) could be left alone since they're out of the loop in Reference mode anyway. Buyers would pay a premium for the SE model, and the re-engineering costs would be minimal. If it provided a significant improvement in sound quality, it would be worth the money. I doubt that there would be enough buyers that would pay that premium to make it profitable. But it's so easy to spend others' money... |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jul 6, 2016 9:14:03 GMT -5
...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... The market itself disproves your assertion. McIntosh components have FEATURES. In your language, they "wash the deck for you." Audio Research components don't. They both sound good, AND they're similarly priced. Per you, the Audio Research brand should have long ago failed, yet they thrive. So let me summarize - You're absolutely incorrect when you contend that features make or break a product. Period. Some consumers want features, others don't; the market is obviously big enough to support both. Audio Research would be considered niche brand with a very limited market share and certainly not representative of the market as a whole. Anyway, while I'm more of a purist when it comes to audio gear features (I don't need tone controls, phono stage, headphone amp, balanced connectors, etc.), features DO sell audio products. People like their built in DACs, bass management, phono stage, balanced connections, etc. and that's where the market is going in general. I would bet my last dollar that the XSP-1 Gen.2 with all of it's features would far outsell the same preamp without it's bass management if Emotiva offered it. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 9:18:56 GMT -5
Well, defend the XSP-1, Gen. 2 to your heart's content. It's time is limited. Emotiva WILL replace it eventually with either a newer Generation or an updated model. When that happens, I'll certainly consider it. But if the newer model has more features, but the same sound quality, then I won't buy it. And it's just that simple.
And that refers to spending MY money.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 6, 2016 9:20:28 GMT -5
I see that the XSP-1's features have value. Maybe a different product and keep both?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 6, 2016 9:33:52 GMT -5
Well, defend the XSP-1, Gen. 2 to your heart's content. It's time is limited. Emotiva WILL replace it eventually with either a newer Generation or an updated model. When that happens, I'll certainly consider it. But if the newer model has more features, but the same sound quality, then I won't buy it. And it's just that simple. And that refers to spending MY money. I'm not defending anything. Where did you come up with that? I sold my XSP when I got an XMC. I'm questioning the profitability of what you are suggesting. But how many people are willing to do that. One won't cut it. And before you can buy one, Emotiva must put much more of that money into design, engineering, material and production costs. I'm guessing that's not your money. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 6, 2016 9:37:10 GMT -5
It's entirely possible that Emotiva would not need a new design to sound significantly better. As has been pointed out, the XSP-1's features can be bypassed in Reference mode for a clean, balanced signal path. That being the case, perhaps the existing design could be hot-rodded for better sound (a "Special Edition" issue)? To do this - focus on the Reference mode only. Use better parts, run the gain stages in Class A mode, beef up the power supply accordingly, and use closer tolerance parts where critical. The "feature" sections (tone controls, HT bypass, bass management, etc.) could be left alone since they're out of the loop in Reference mode anyway. Buyers would pay a premium for the SE model, and the re-engineering costs would be minimal. If it provided a significant improvement in sound quality, it would be worth the money. Just some more penny thoughts here, but we discuss, argue and pontificate endlessly about coming up with "better sounding" gear. Just what exactly does "better" mean? Sound in terms of how our ears/brains perceive it or in terms of specs or graphs? Or both or what... what exactly is "better" sound? The terms people use when they say A is better than B are things like wider soundstage, better imaging, more "air" around the instruments (whatever that means), more organic (whatever that means).. a number of terms. Despite our fondness for Emotiva, many of us still think price is the true indication of how good something is. We say Emo gear is great, but add that qualifier, "for the price" or, "it plays way above its price." Nevertheless, while it may play way above its price, it still can't compete with the grandly priced stuff even though we really have no idea how the grandly priced stuff got priced. I say in many cases, that grandly priced stuff was priced based on what the market will bear, same as my example in another thread about wine and audio, in which new wineries assign outrageous prices to their wines simply because there are folks out there willing to pay it. And that automatically makes them think the wine is fantastic. Do these new, unproven but incredibly expensive wines really taste good? Some will say yes, some will say no, but it boils down to what do they mean by a wine tasting "good?" Same as audiophiles arguing about sound being "better." Just what does "better" mean? Some will tell you a "good" wine has balance, reflects the character of the grape, and even further, reflects the terroir or character of the land on which it was grown. But two excellent winemakers can take the same grapes from the same land and make two different-tasting wines. Which is "better?" The grapes have gone through various processes so you really don't know which is a better reflection of the original environment. Maybe one guy let his have a bit more residual sugar than the other, which some people would find pleasing and declare that was the better wine. Others prefer more dryness so they would like the other one better. Is the "better" wine the more authentic? Then you have to define "authentic." What does "authentic" mean? Same with audio. Some folks prefer more bass. Some like the high end. Some say the best audio is a straight wire with gain so what they seek is the most "authentic" reproduction of sound. But like with wine, what does "authentic" in audio mean? That recording you are listening to has gone through various processes and influenced by so many things, who knows how closely it resembles the original? People can argue endlessly over what is "better" but I think it is unfortunate if that interferes with whatever it is you're supposed to be enjoying, be it wine, audio or whatever. Unless what you really enjoy is arguing about what is "better."  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 6, 2016 9:48:34 GMT -5
This is a good question monku.
What is better? Well for me - it's subjective. But before you say everybody hears differently.
First if something sounds better going direct .... then right there is an improvement that may hopefully be made.
In the end if it doesn't sound better and has no redeeming features, then there is no point.
If we are looking at just features for an upgrade for hte gen 3, I think an obvious stand out would be the headphone amp - put more power in to it. Also dual subs and a more sophisticated bass management (remote controlled or better notches).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jul 6, 2016 10:14:00 GMT -5
It's entirely possible that Emotiva would not need a new design to sound significantly better. As has been pointed out, the XSP-1's features can be bypassed in Reference mode for a clean, balanced signal path. That being the case, perhaps the existing design could be hot-rodded for better sound (a "Special Edition" issue)? To do this - focus on the Reference mode only. Use better parts, run the gain stages in Class A mode, beef up the power supply accordingly, and use closer tolerance parts where critical. The "feature" sections (tone controls, HT bypass, bass management, etc.) could be left alone since they're out of the loop in Reference mode anyway. Buyers would pay a premium for the SE model, and the re-engineering costs would be minimal. If it provided a significant improvement in sound quality, it would be worth the money. Just some more penny thoughts here, but we discuss, argue and pontificate endlessly about coming up with "better sounding" gear. Just what exactly does "better" mean? Sound in terms of how our ears/brains perceive it or in terms of specs or graphs? Or both or what... what exactly is "better" sound? The terms people use when they say A is better than B are things like wider soundstage, better imaging, more "air" around the instruments (whatever that means), more organic (whatever that means).. a number of terms. Despite our fondness for Emotiva, many of us still think price is the true indication of how good something is. We say Emo gear is great, but add that qualifier, "for the price" or, "it plays way above its price." Nevertheless, while it may play way above its price, it still can't compete with the grandly priced stuff even though we really have no idea how the grandly priced stuff got priced. I say in many cases, that grandly priced stuff was priced based on what the market will bear, same as my example in another thread about wine and audio, in which new wineries assign outrageous prices to their wines simply because there are folks out there willing to pay it. And that automatically makes them think the wine is fantastic. Do these new, unproven but incredibly expensive wines really taste good? Some will say yes, some will say no, but it boils down to what do they mean by a wine tasting "good?" Same as audiophiles arguing about sound being "better." Just what does "better" mean? Some will tell you a "good" wine has balance, reflects the character of the grape, and even further, reflects the terroir or character of the land on which it was grown. But two excellent winemakers can take the same grapes from the same land and make two different-tasting wines. Which is "better?" The grapes have gone through various processes so you really don't know which is a better reflection of the original environment. Maybe one guy let his have a bit more residual sugar than the other, which some people would find pleasing and declare that was the better wine. Others prefer more dryness so they would like the other one better. Is the "better" wine the more authentic? Then you have to define "authentic." What does "authentic" mean? Same with audio. Some folks prefer more bass. Some like the high end. Some say the best audio is a straight wire with gain so what they seek is the most "authentic" reproduction of sound. But like with wine, what does "authentic" in audio mean? That recording you are listening to has gone through various processes and influenced by so many things, who knows how closely it resembles the original? People can argue endlessly over what is "better" but I think it is unfortunate if that interferes with whatever it is you're supposed to be enjoying, be it wine, audio or whatever. Unless what you really enjoy is arguing about what is "better." When it comes to electronics, I am NOT looking for anything that "sounds" good. I want gear that has no sound at all! I don't want fuzzy warm bass from tubes or scintillating highs from solid state. I want my gear to be as neutral as possible, changing as little of the original waveform as physically possible. So I guess the best sounding gear has no sound at all! As far as my senses can determine, Emotiva has accomplished this ideal as well as anything I have heard to date. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 10:22:03 GMT -5
I think stiehl11 beat me to most of what I was going to say.... but I'm going to add my two cents anyway..... Whenever I hear someone expound on the amazing technological virtues of this or that preamp I have an interesting reaction.... I start to giggle... and I really have to work to control myself (well, laughing is supposed to be good for the soul, so I don't try that hard)... and, I suspect, anyone who actually graduated engineering school probably has a very similar reaction. Let me tell you why. A preamp is a very simple device, and a basic preamp (simple gain stage with volume control) is NOT complicated or expensive to make. If you've ever considered spending $10k for a "simple preamp, without tone controls, or fancy features", I strongly advise you to save your money - and spend it on some Electrical Engineering courses. Unless you're specifically looking for some type of coloration to distort (err.... improve) the sound of your signal, a near perfect preamp is simple and cheap to design. It's sort of like pure water.... Wine is quite impure water, with all sorts of subtle colorations, and variations, and you can spend, well, as much as you like for a bottle of wine. But you can get a gallon of darn-near-perfect, filtered, deionized, double distilled, lab grade water for about $20 (probably less). And, if what you're looking for is pure water, I guarantee that it will be purer water than anything you can buy in the wine shop - at any price. If I exclude the cabinet, and the power supply, and eliminate all the features that we added to the XSP-1 (like a nice cabinet, and tone controls, and filters, and nice connectors, and a display, and switching relays, and microprocessor control), and looked at ONLY the actual "gain stage" that makes up "the line level preamp", you'd be left with about $10 worth of parts. An actual "basic line level preamp" is a very simple device, the parts don't cost much, and the design is trivial. (We could go to your favorite restaurant, and I could sketch it on a napkin for you - before the food arrives, or you can get it out of any decent engineering book, and it's so trivial you can't even patent it.) To put it bluntly, what you're paying for when you buy the XSP-1 is the nice cabinet, and the power supply, and the relays, and the microprocessor control, and someone to program it, and all the work that went into ADDING all those cool features without actually messing up the performance of that $10 worth of basic circuitry - which is really the tricky part (and, yes, that part really can be tricky). The difference between running a preamp circuit in Class A or Class A/B is the choice of a few parts values - and maybe an extra $1 heat sink here or there. And the choice is based on which one will work better in a particular application (sometimes Class A isn't as good as Class A/B). (So nobody saves any money by operating a preamp in Class A/B.... although some are done that way for other - good - reasons.) And using a massively oversized power supply usually is WORSE than using one that's well regulated, and quiet, and reasonably sized. OK, a preamp really needs a watt or two, but I'd probably oversize it a bit and go with ten watts or so; it's still not too difficult to make a good 10 watt supply. (The power supply in our XSP-1 is several times that size; it needs the extra power to run the cool extra features without compromising its basic performance.) So, when you start looking at ridiculously expensive preamps, without lots of useful features, what you're looking at is actually a reasonably impressive feat of engineering...... After all, they've actually managed to use a huge number of extra parts, and (presumably) a super sophisticated and complex design, to duplicate the functionality of $10 worth of parts - without messing it up (hopefully). (Or, if I were being cynical, I might suggest that they've used $20 wort of really good parts.... and have a truly awesome marketing department.) Please note that I'm NOT specifically picking on any of the particular products mentioned. I haven't heard most of them (but I do have several of Audio G*D's DACs, and the work quite well, and sound just fine). But I urge you to judge any individual product on HOW IT SOUNDS rather than on how impressive the marketing material sounds. (And that goes double - at least - if you don't understand the presumed "engineering rationale" behind any specific claims you find "impressive".) 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 10:22:31 GMT -5
Well, defend the XSP-1, Gen. 2 to your heart's content. It's time is limited. Emotiva WILL replace it eventually with either a newer Generation or an updated model. When that happens, I'll certainly consider it. But if the newer model has more features, but the same sound quality, then I won't buy it. And it's just that simple. And that refers to spending MY money. I'm not defending anything. Where did you come up with that? I sold my XSP when I got an XMC. I'm questioning the profitability of what you are suggesting. But how many people are willing to do that. One won't cut it. And before you can buy one, Emotiva must put much more of that money into design, engineering, material and production costs. I'm guessing that's not your money. If Emotiva didn't think that they could make better stuff than they currently make, then we'd never have gotten the XSP-1, Gen. 2, the XPA amp series (now Gen. 3), or the XMC-1. The threshold of what is possible at a given price is CONSTANTLY shifting, and Emotiva's products shift to keep up. How much design, engineering, or production cost is required to remain commercially viable IS my money - because those costs are amortized into each and every Emotiva product that I buy. So Emotiva will spend the money anyway. Whether they spend it on additional features or better sound quality is a marketing decision that I have no control over. All I'm saying is that, given my druthers, I'd rather have sound quality instead of more features. As to the question of what is "good sound," I agree totally with garbulky. It's subjective. But I know it when I hear it (to paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice's famous comment on pornography). I know the XSP-1 could sound better, as does Emotiva. The question is "Is that better sound a big enough priority for enough potential customers to justify changing the design to achieve that?" Now that's a question that only Emotiva can answer. But I'm suspecting that with the introduction of the BASX line to fill the "lots of features" market, the X series may be migrating toward the "better sound" end of the spectrum. At least I'm hoping so. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 10:32:02 GMT -5
I'm also forced to ask a potentially embarrassing question or two......
which always come up when people talk about comparing the admittedly small differences in how preamps sound.
How many of you have done an actual DOUBLE BLIND comparison between the XSP-1 and any other preamp?
Or between the XSP-1, or any other preamp, and a piece of wire (with the preamp's gain set to 1.0)?
(We all know how our "sonic memory" only really lasts a few minutes - right?)
And, before anybody complains....
Yes, I have occasionally spent extra money to get a component whose styling I like, or that has other features I like, or even "more elegant design"...
Even if I couldn't hear any difference whatsoever....
But I DO like to know what I'm paying for...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 10:38:47 GMT -5
I have to agree there. I'm inclined to agree with the "old school" definition of "high fidelity" - which was "a straight wire with gain". While there are a zillion possible colorations, and which one anyone prefers is obviously a matter of opinion, there is only one perfect. And, if anyone insists on the subjective claim: "I prefer my components to let me hear the recording exactly as it is - without adding any coloration at all". (I leave the choice of how it sounds to the artists, the venue, and the mixing engineer.) Just some more penny thoughts here, but we discuss, argue and pontificate endlessly about coming up with "better sounding" gear. Just what exactly does "better" mean? Sound in terms of how our ears/brains perceive it or in terms of specs or graphs? Or both or what... what exactly is "better" sound? The terms people use when they say A is better than B are things like wider soundstage, better imaging, more "air" around the instruments (whatever that means), more organic (whatever that means).. a number of terms. Despite our fondness for Emotiva, many of us still think price is the true indication of how good something is. We say Emo gear is great, but add that qualifier, "for the price" or, "it plays way above its price." Nevertheless, while it may play way above its price, it still can't compete with the grandly priced stuff even though we really have no idea how the grandly priced stuff got priced. I say in many cases, that grandly priced stuff was priced based on what the market will bear, same as my example in another thread about wine and audio, in which new wineries assign outrageous prices to their wines simply because there are folks out there willing to pay it. And that automatically makes them think the wine is fantastic. Do these new, unproven but incredibly expensive wines really taste good? Some will say yes, some will say no, but it boils down to what do they mean by a wine tasting "good?" Same as audiophiles arguing about sound being "better." Just what does "better" mean? Some will tell you a "good" wine has balance, reflects the character of the grape, and even further, reflects the terroir or character of the land on which it was grown. But two excellent winemakers can take the same grapes from the same land and make two different-tasting wines. Which is "better?" The grapes have gone through various processes so you really don't know which is a better reflection of the original environment. Maybe one guy let his have a bit more residual sugar than the other, which some people would find pleasing and declare that was the better wine. Others prefer more dryness so they would like the other one better. Is the "better" wine the more authentic? Then you have to define "authentic." What does "authentic" mean? Same with audio. Some folks prefer more bass. Some like the high end. Some say the best audio is a straight wire with gain so what they seek is the most "authentic" reproduction of sound. But like with wine, what does "authentic" in audio mean? That recording you are listening to has gone through various processes and influenced by so many things, who knows how closely it resembles the original? People can argue endlessly over what is "better" but I think it is unfortunate if that interferes with whatever it is you're supposed to be enjoying, be it wine, audio or whatever. Unless what you really enjoy is arguing about what is "better." When it comes to electronics, I am NOT looking for anything that "sounds" good. I want gear that has no sound at all! I don't want fuzzy warm bass from tubes or scintillating highs from solid state. I want my gear to be as neutral as possible, changing as little of the original waveform as physically possible. So I guess the best sounding gear has no sound at all! As far as my senses can determine, Emotiva has accomplished this ideal as well as anything I have heard to date. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 10:41:39 GMT -5
...If you've ever considered spending $10k for a "simple preamp, without tone controls, or fancy features", I strongly advise you to save your money - and spend it on some Electrical Engineering courses.... Yes, a preamp circuit can be built for $10, but by using inexpensive parts whose contribution to the sound IS audible. A non-polarized electrolytic cap in the signal chain sounds differently from a silver-mica one that sounds differently from a polypropylene one that sounds differently from a Teflon one. Different functions are better served by different technologies. Not necessarily the most expensive, either, but the one best suited to the function. Mismatched components in a fully-balanced design make a huge difference in the overall sound. A resistor that is barely sufficient to dissipate the wattage required by the design will drift more and fail sooner than a resistor that is overrated for heat dissipation. I could go on. And I don't need Electrical Engineering courses to know the truth of these statements. Having repaired enough equipment & having listened to enough equipment has proven the factuality of these statements. Further, the market price of the component has a huge effect on the selection of parts. It drives the selection to "the best we can get for the budget" instead of "the best sounding for this application that we can find." Even if you strip away features and economize on the cosmetics, the cost of those peripherals will almost always exceed the cost of the actual circuit components. That being the case, using the best components available (and the best-matched) makes economic sense. Do all Emotiva components use the very best components? I'm doubting it. How much more would it cost to buy the best? I'd guess somewhere between 10 and 100%. But since the components are so small a part of the overall cost, wouldn't it make sense to spend more there? In any case, the performance of a component is where the rubber meets the road. If other components sound better than do Emotiva components (sometimes the case, sometimes not), then where's the difference? Do competitors spend more on parts? Some do. Do competitors have better engineered designs? Maybe. Do competitors spend less on features, using that money for better parts? Probably. So where's the beef? Do I want to spend my $$ on a component with a fancy case & lots of features, or do I want the best sound quality I can get for the price? You know the answer to that one... |
|
