Any hope of a XSP-1. Gen 3 or RSP in the near future?

[DavidR]

Capacitor Myths

[Cogito]

Jul 6, 2016 10:32:02 GMT -5 KeithL said:

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...

Double blind tests are the bane of those who claim "Golden Ear" capabilities. It also DESTROYS unsubstantiated marketing claims that demand huge price premiums. As such, it's naturally unpopular with a lot of folks despite its general validity.

[geebo]

Jul 6, 2016 10:22:31 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Jul 6, 2016 9:33:52 GMT -5 geebo said:

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.

Emotiva is all about spending money. On things that will perform AND sell well. And I don't think what you propose would sell well.

[Boomzilla]

You may be right, geebo. But I wanted to express my preferences. Having done that, I'll let the thread flow where it will.

[Boomzilla]

Jul 6, 2016 10:44:35 GMT -5 DavidR said:

Capacitor Myths

My personal experience is that "the lower the signal level, the more audible the difference in capacitor construction." When working with phono-stage RIAA equalizing caps, I could readily tell by ear the differences between a NP electrolytic, a polyester film, and a silver mica.

Since preamplifiers are still low-level signals, I'd think that capacitor differences would be audible there too.

[geebo]

Jul 6, 2016 10:58:45 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

You may be right, geebo. But I wanted to express my preferences. Having done that, I'll let the thread flow where it will.

What matters is not what you or I think. It's what Dan and company think and how well they understand their market which is extremely well.

[brutiarti]

I always do blind test before keeping a piece of equipment. The Xpr-1's won against 9K Bryntons, so i saved the difference. But unfortunately the xsp-1 couldn't match the sound of the parasound JC2. It did sound better than cary audio and the parasound p3. The audio gd is a serious contender, at least in my preamp search, against really expensive preamps 5 or 10 times the price.

[garbulky]

Hi Keith! Good to hear from ya! If a perfect linestage preamp is available for $10, then please build it!
I've listened to at least one line stage preamp that only did volume control function. Didn't sound as good as the XSP-1. So I am dubious that it's so simple. I have listened to preamps that only do volume nothing else, no features. They weren't as good as the XSP-1. This is by a well known designer. So it doesn't make sense to me that it's so easy. In theory, it might be easy. But couple that to a decently resolving setup and maybe it's not so cut and dry? Just a suggestion.

I have not done a double blind listneing test. I lack the desire or training to do one in a meaningful fashion. But I can tell you with regards to electronics, I have done simple A/B tests and I doubt I could tell any difference. These are with electronics where I did hear a difference.

[stiehl11]

Jul 6, 2016 11:48:23 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Hi Keith! Good to hear from ya! If a perfect linestage preamp is available for $10, then please build it!

They did. It was called the Control Freak. It was available with XLR or RCA style connections.

[KeithL]

Well, yes - and no... that's true for certain components....

1) The reason I limited my claim to "a simple preamp gain stage" is that a simple preamp gain stage consists of a single integrated circuit and two resistors, or a small handful of discrete transistors and resistors. In a minimalist design there should be no capacitors in the signal path (we and other designers often include them to protect you from faults in other components - but they aren't strictly necessary). Power supply decoupling capacitors, which usually include a set of electrolytics, and probably a pair of micas or equivalent, should not be anywhere near the signal path.

2) Metal film resistors are now the norm (and the cheapest ones you can buy). You can't even get the old carbon comp ones that sometimes sounded odd any more - unless you buy NOS on eBay. I've never heard a modern metal film resistor that sounded noticeably "bad" - or that had any noticeable sound at all (at least not within the realm of "ordinary" values). And, since a preamp isn't required to output any significant power, even very low-powered resistors generally have plenty of dissipation.

I would be inclined to agree with you in your conclusion..... If another component (device) ACTUALLY SOUNDS BETTER, TO YOU, FOR THE PRICE, then you should buy it. However, I would just caution everyone to be very careful to make sure it really does sound better, and that you haven't simply been biased by your expectations to believe that it does. Many people seem unable to differentiate between "better" and "just a tiny bit different" and "with all those cool parts inside it must sound better". The problem with "better parts" is that they often are only better in a specific application. Certain types of electrolytic capacitors may sound bad in the signal path, and micas are known to, but neither has any effect on the sound if you use them in the power supply. Likewise, a certain "high quality" resistor may work better in a microwave transceiver, but that doesn't mean it will sound better in an audio circuit. And a hugely oversized power supply usually offers no benefits for a preamp, and may actually be less well regulated, and generate more noise, than one of the appropriate size. The tricky part is to separate the situations where using a more expensive component will actually improve the sound, where it will actually make it different (but not necessarily better), and where it won't make any difference. For example, in certain types of circuitry, hand matching parts makes a difference - but, in many others, it doesn't. (And, spending an extra $100 to match a pair of resistors to reduce distortion in a particular circuit from 0.005% to 0.0005% is not a bargain either - because you can't hear either one. It may make you "feel" better, but you can't hear it.)

The simple reality is that, as a few people have already suggested, it's a moot point.... If we were to offer a "new and improved XSP-X", with all premium parts, and a higher price tag, and most of the features present in the current XSP-1 omitted, very few of our customers would buy it..... which would make it a "custom small volume item"..... so we'd have to charge even more. And, if you'll notice, there are already plenty of companies selling very small quantities of very expensive products, some of them made with very expensive parts, and some of them with elegant and novel circuit designs... and some of them actually sounding quite good. (And, of course, some of them are just over-complicated products, with obsolete or faulty designs, but being sold by companies who have impressive marketing budgets ).

All we can do is to offer products that we think sound very good, at good prices, to our customers.....

Jul 6, 2016 10:41:39 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Jul 6, 2016 10:22:03 GMT -5 KeithL said:

...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...

[garbulky]

Let's say a really good $10 linestage preamp would market for $150. I think that would sell very well if it was great sounding! People spend a lot of money on preamps and I've heard some linestage units that weren't good. Some that were okay. And some that were great but had little flaws that detracted from perfection. I've heard some good relatively cheap units as well that did better than more expensive units. So it's not necessarily the most expensive unit that's the best.
That said my money is still on the amazing Audio GD He-1! Drool.

[novisnick]

Jul 6, 2016 12:09:06 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Jul 6, 2016 11:48:23 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Hi Keith! Good to hear from ya! If a perfect linestage preamp is available for $10, then please build it!

They did. It was called the Control Freak. It was available with XLR or RCA style connections.

Where did you buy it for $10. ? Hope I asked that question slow enough for you. 

[stiehl11]

Jul 6, 2016 12:44:26 GMT -5 novisnick said:

Jul 6, 2016 12:09:06 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

They did. It was called the Control Freak. It was available with XLR or RCA style connections.

Where did you buy it for $10. ? Hope I asked that question slow enough for you. 

Didn't buy it, had no need for it. But, it was for about that cost at their garage sale last year. Normally, it was about $40 if I remember correctly.

And, don't type slow for me; I can handle it.

[KeithL]

To actually answer the original question.....

Assuming that the market for purely analog stereo preamps continues to be viable, there will almost certainly be a "next generation" of XSP-1.....
However, I suspect that it will continue to be a full featured preamp, and remain affordable.
(The current model seems to appeal to a wide audience - so we probably wouldn't change it a lot.)

(The only question in my mind is whether the market for "preamps" with both analog and digital inputs will entirely replace the market for purely analog preamps sometime soon..... )

[Boomzilla]

So, as I understand your comments, @keithl the existing Emotivas (XSP-1 & XMC-1) are already "the best a man can get." And regardless of price! I've added a poll to this thread to test that theory.

And if a significant number of responders (doesn't even have to be half, since this IS Emotiva's Lounge) think that better sounding gear is available out there, then to what do you attribute that?

1. They're all fooled by marketing & advertising
2. They can't really hear any difference and are fooling themselves with expectation bias
3. The competitors actually have a better-sounding product

And if (Heaven forbid) it turns out to be number three, then if not for better parts or better engineering, WHY do other products sound better?

I'm getting tired of all the knee-jerk Emotiva Fanboys telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that Emotiva is already taking care of us (no further need to worry my empty little head about it), and that if better sound quality were possible, Emotiva would have already provided it. If that were the case, we'd still have the UMC products in production and the current ones would be just bells & whistles to shill the rubes out of their money.

Parts quality and engineering DO improve over time. Period. I don't expect Emotiva to be at the cutting edge of the performance envelope (and particularly not at Emotiva's prices), but to claim that better sound isn't available at any cost is just plain incorrect.

And I'm not typing slowly for ANYONE - You're all intelligent enough to keep up, so quit with the insults, already.

[hemster]

Obviously one can always state that anything can be improved. I work in the "continuous improvement" world. Everything can be bested, given enough time, resources and technical advancement, and to be sold at any price. Is that what Emotiva's target market needs? I doubt that. Manufacturers must make a cost/benefit assessment on anything they produce. Sure a select few customers may be willing to spend more for small incremental gains but the largest market is the middle of the bell curve.

I for one do not wish for Emotiva to relentlessly pursue perfection (which is not attainable, is transitory as it just satisfies a whim at a given point in time). I'd rather they keep producing gear that is excellent and affordable. They are squarely in that space IMHO. But there is a market for esoteric gear as stratospheric prices, and there are products to fulfill that need. Some folks may be happier there, not me.

Now Emotiva needs to get that streaming device, toaster and clock done!

[Boomzilla]

+1 for the streamer!!

I could particularly go for a streamer with direct external HDD access & analog volume control with an output buffer. Replaces three components: The source computer, the DAC, and the preamp.

[AudioHTIT]

Jul 6, 2016 13:43:50 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

So, as I understand your comments, @keithl the existing Emotivas (XSP-1 & XMC-1) are already "the best a man can get." And regardless of price! I've added a poll to this thread to test that theory.

And if a significant number of responders (doesn't even have to be half, since this IS Emotiva's Lounge) think that better sounding gear is available out there, then to what do you attribute that?

1. They're all fooled by marketing & advertising
2. They can't really hear any difference and are fooling themselves with expectation bias
3. The competitors actually have a better-sounding product

And if (Heaven forbid) it turns out to be number three, then if not for better parts or better engineering, WHY do other products sound better?

I'm getting tired of all the knee-jerk Emotiva Fanboys telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that Emotiva is already taking care of us (no further need to worry my empty little head about it), and that if better sound quality were possible, Emotiva would have already provided it. If that were the case, we'd still have the UMC products in production and the current ones would be just bells & whistles to shill the rubes out of their money.

Parts quality and engineering DO improve over time. Period. I don't expect Emotiva to be at the cutting edge of the performance envelope (and particularly not at Emotiva's prices), but to claim that better sound isn't available at any cost is just plain incorrect.

And I'm not typing slowly for ANYONE - You're all intelligent enough to keep up, so quit with the insults, already.

I don't think Keith said that at all, I heard that the existing XSP-1 is popular because it has good sound and features at a fair price, not that it was the best they could make.

I don't begrudge you wanting a better preamp (or anything else), my question would be – why should Emotiva make it? There are many preamps on the market that fit the description you've layed out, and you've owned some of them. Are none of them good enough? or are they too expensive? (or you too ... frugal?). I think there might be some Emo customers for what you describe, but they already have other options.

I think the reason you've gotten so much kick back is because the XSP-1 is popular, and you suggested changing it (this of course got people interested in your thread, but didn't forward your position). If you had instead only suggested a new 'elite' product and pitched how you would build a reference system around it, you might have garnered more support. In the end however, Emotiva would still have to decide if it would sell.

[stiehl11]

Well, we've already seen that marketing and advertising can fool some people in this thread into believing certain products are better than others without hearing the product. We all know that most people are going to think a $2 lollipop tastes better than a $0.50 lollipop. And if it doesn't, they're sure as heck not going to say it doesn't and look like a fool for getting 1 lollipop when they could have got 4 for the same price. It's simple psychology. And, as I've said from my first post in this thread, there's better sounding gear out there.

Every example you've given of a better sounding piece of equipment has cost at least twice as much as the XSP-1 (with one exception, which was still higher in cost). As to why they sound better, well that's on you. While others may agree with you, not everyone thinks the examples you gave sound better or if they do, not so much as to warrant double the price. As you and I both know, engineers can tailor the sound of a piece of gear to make it sound any way they want. What you're saying when you say this pre-amp sounds better than that pre-amp is you like the way that particular engineer has tailored the sound of that gear. You make it sound like Emotiva is somehow holding out on you. You equate that, to your ears, Brand X sounds better and cost more (option 2?) that it's because Emotiva is using substandard parts in their product. Why not rationalize that this is the sound Emotiva wants to present (and if that changes, they'll change it), at the price point they feel they can sell enough product to remain profitable? To change their "sound" to fit Boomzillia (or even me) is a bit egocentric. And, to change their sound to copy another OEM is a bit disingenuous at best.

And, no, not necessarily a fan boy nor am I knee-jerking to defend them. Emotiva offers several products; not all of which I care for. If I find something I like at a price I want to pay for it, I buy it. If I don't, I won't.

[novisnick]

Jul 6, 2016 14:16:58 GMT -5 hemster said:

Obviously one can always state that anything can be improved. I work in the "continuous improvement" world. Everything can be bested, given enough time, resources and technical advancement, and to be sold at any price. Is that what Emotiva's target market needs? I doubt that. Manufacturers must make a cost/benefit assessment on anything they produce. Sure a select few customers may be willing to spend more for small incremental gains but the largest market is the middle of the bell curve.

I for one do not wish for Emotiva to relentlessly pursue perfection (which is not attainable, is transitory as it just satisfies a whim at a given point in time). I'd rather they keep producing gear that is excellent and affordable. They are squarely in that space IMHO. But there is a market for esoteric gear as stratospheric prices, and there are products to fulfill that need. Some folks may be happier there, not me.

Now Emotiva needs to get that streaming device, toaster and clock done!

Ive already found a better and more chocolaty clock then the one proposed by Emotiva, its fully balanced and has a defeatable     blue light on it!    I've given up hope of a much better more acurate clock produced by Lonnie and team. They just lost that market share,,,,,,,Geezzzzzzz!!