|
|
Post by novisnick on Jul 6, 2016 14:34:24 GMT -5
I voted no, not any, maybe a few but not just any preamp/proccessor.
But again, at what price?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 14:35:52 GMT -5
Hi AudioHTIT - Perhaps you're right. I agree that the XSP-1 (as it currently exists) is a FANTASTIC bargain that easily competes (in features AND performance) with ANY other preamp I know of at up to twice the price. I don't knock its value at all. And with its performance to price ratio, I can certainly see how it sells in volume. That said, I predict that there will be changes in Emotiva's lineup. In my first post, I suggested some changes I'd like to see, but I clearly understand that I'm probably not Emotiva's "average" customer. If we're going down the road of hoping for things in the next XSP-1, I'd even add streaming capability and an onboard DAC. As to why I've not found my ideal preamp, I'd say it's because I haven't had the chance to hear as many as I'd like. Rather than buying & selling, it is probably money well spent to attend a large audio show (AXPONA 2017?) and survey the field. Yes, some preamps are too expensive for my budget. Yes, I am a cheapskate at heart. Yes, I like tube bloom in the midrange but solid state control in the bass and solid state extension in the treble. I like solid state reliability too. In fact, I have heard solid state preamplifiers that had tube-sounding midrange bloom. The last one I heard was a Mark Levinson. Is Emotiva likely to make the preamp I want? No. Probably too far outside their target market envelope. But it doesn't keep me from hoping!  |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 6, 2016 14:43:30 GMT -5
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. So now we have the dreaded fanboy moniker rearing it's head I see. Is that some kind of insult or were you using the complimentary form? Emotiva has been doing this a long time. They know their market and have probably thought of hundreds if not thousands of things to build. With all due respect, I don't think they read what you think they should make and slap the forehead and say "Whoa, why didn't we think of that?" And who said better sound is not available at any cost? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 15:01:31 GMT -5
Now you're misquoting me - just a tiny bit.... I didn't say that (although it just might be true). What I said was that adding more expensive parts might not serve any purpose or make any difference. (And that I disagree with the idea that "adding better parts" will automatically improve any design.) By my definition of "best" - which is "being the most accurate" or "having the least coloration" - both the XSP-1 and the XMC-1 are pretty good. I might go as far as to say that I personally haven't heard any competing products which I found to be "obviously audibly better" - but that's just me. I most certainly would say that I wouldn't assume that another product was better simply because it cost twice, or even ten times, as much. (Sadly, there are some very expensive products out there that are poorly designed, and that don't work especially well - so I wouldn't assume either way.) Of course, if someone finds another product that they find "more accurate" or "less colored" than ours, we always want to hear about it. Also, if you prefer the subjective definition of "best" as "whatever the listener prefers", then "all bets are off" - because I have no idea what other people might like. And, again, we're always interested in hearing what people think...
HOWEVER, from the various comments I'm seeing - ABOUT PRODUCTS WHICH THE PERSON MAKING THE COMMENTS HASN'T ACTUALLY HEARD..... I do feel safe in claiming that people do in fact seem to be overly impressed by the marketing and advertising... and do seem to have a significant burden of expectation bias. The Audio G*D preamp has lots of parts and a regenerative power supply... neither of which in any way suggest whether it sounds good or bad. (As one of the few people in this discussion who actually owns a few Audio G*D products, I suspect it probably sounds good - but not necessarily for those reasons.) So, yes, I am indeed interested to hear how people who have actually compared our XSP-1 to competitors' products rate them. (Especially if they include the information about whether they personally favor "neutral and accurate" or whether they rate components on "what they like" - or both.) And we're always interested in hearing how many people believe our products could be improved - and how. 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 what do you attribute that to: 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 have been 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. |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Jul 6, 2016 15:06:00 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... 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. Absolutely true! There are a few people (not going to name names) that post reviews regularly around here that I'd love to DBX their ass. If they really believe they can clearly hear the differences between a couple of amps then the DBX will bear these claims out. I'm betting against them... Edit: Thought I'd insert the McGurk effect video below - make of it what you will - hearing and sight WILL bias what we see/hear. Then there's these low end vs high end demo. Then there is the Richard Clark $10000 challenge. Make what you will of these examples. I quit 'chasing my tail' when it comes to audio many years ago. Now I'm just happy trying out different gear. I'm getting close to what I'm looking for - just got to 'chase that tail' a little here and there to find the features that will work for me. I am getting closer... I think... |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 15:09:41 GMT -5
OK.... I'll stop teasing if everyone else will stop calling names.....  Obviously we design our products to offer excellent performance at a reasonable price - which is what the majority of our customers want. However, and as always, I would always caution you NOT to assume that more expensive means better... (because, especially in the audio world, that often simply isn't true). Could we deliver a preamp that sounds a tiny bit better than the XSP-1 for twice the price? I honestly don't know... because, since that isn't what most of our customers are looking for, we aren't going to try. Now, if we manage to eventually design an XSP-1 Gen3, that sounds a tiny bit better for the same price (or even close), then that will be something worthwhile  And, if you really find a $3000 (or $30,000) preamp that you think sounds significantly better, and you can afford it.... Then.... enjoy it.... No hard feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 6, 2016 15:15:28 GMT -5
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. Absolutely true! There are a few people (not going to name names) that post reviews regularly around here that I'd love to DBX their ass. If they really believe they can clearly hear the differences between a couple of amps then the DBX will bear these claims out. I'm betting against them... Oh ye of little faith!  But seriously, I'd bet with you. But then after the results came out, so would the usual arguments about how the testing methodology was flawed. I understand that.. there are all sorts of things flying and crawling and swarming around out there that can potentially corrupt a blind test. But just making it very simple, you blindfold the participants, switch back and forth between amps that are level matched and you don't tell them which is which or what they are, and see if they hear a difference and can identify which is which better than random chance would dictate. When the participants couldn't reliably distinguish between amps and then cried foul because of some supposed flaw, the bottom line would be just suck it up, don't be going all academic on me because going academic is for eggheads, just face it you didn't and can't hear a difference!!! That said, I DO believe that there can be differences, albeit subtle, and that people can hear those differences. But I also believe that the golden ear claims made by some in this Lounge of being able to discern stuff which relatively speaking is as minute as whether the speaker cone has two versus three specks of dust on it, are GROSSLY EXAGGERATED. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 6, 2016 15:16:15 GMT -5
Regarding this poll question:
Define "better."
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 15:27:14 GMT -5
I fear you're right - that we'll never produce a solid state preamp "with a little soupcon of tube sound in the midrange". In general, solid state designs lend themselves to low coloration, which is what most customers want (myself included). It's also true that, while keeping coloration to very low levels in solid state circuitry is relatively easy, adding specific tube-like coloration to solid state circuits is rather more difficult. This, coupled with the fact that it's not what most of our customers are looking for, makes it unlikely that we'll ever head in that direction. (Most people who want "tube sound" go all the way and buy tubes.) However, and partly for that reason, while it's definitely on a back burner for the immediate future, it's still possible that we may eventually come out with a tube preamp. Streaming is actually more complicated to add in an existing product than you might think - and much easier for us to implement using an external device (like a ChromeCast or a Roku). However, you will notice that several of our new product lines (at least BasX and Emersa) will be including preamps with both analog and digital inputs. Hi AudioHTIT - Perhaps you're right. I agree that the XSP-1 (as it currently exists) is a FANTASTIC bargain that easily competes (in features AND performance) with ANY other preamp I know of at up to twice the price. I don't knock its value at all. And with its performance to price ratio, I can certainly see how it sells in volume. That said, I predict that there will be changes in Emotiva's lineup. In my first post, I suggested some changes I'd like to see, but I clearly understand that I'm probably not Emotiva's "average" customer. If we're going down the road of hoping for things in the next XSP-1, I'd even add streaming capability and an onboard DAC. As to why I've not found my ideal preamp, I'd say it's because I haven't had the chance to hear as many as I'd like. Rather than buying & selling, it is probably money well spent to attend a large audio show (AXPONA 2017?) and survey the field. Yes, some preamps are too expensive for my budget. Yes, I am a cheapskate at heart. Yes, I like tube bloom in the midrange but solid state control in the bass and solid state extension in the treble. I like solid state reliability too. In fact, I have heard solid state preamplifiers that had tube-sounding midrange bloom. The last one I heard was a Mark Levinson. Is Emotiva likely to make the preamp I want? No. Probably too far outside their target market envelope. But it doesn't keep me from hoping! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 15:28:04 GMT -5
Better sounding TO YOU and regardless of cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 15:30:07 GMT -5
Streaming is HUGELY difficult to implement. Nobody's done it well yet, that I know of. Lots of requirements (and some even possibly contradictory) for a good music server...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 15:30:31 GMT -5
I voted no, not any, maybe a few but not just any preamp/proccessor. But again, at what price? At ANY price. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 15:36:16 GMT -5
So now we have the dreaded fanboy moniker rearing it's head I see. Is that some kind of insult or were you using the complimentary form? Emotiva has been doing this a long time. They know their market and have probably thought of hundreds if not thousands of things to build. With all due respect, I don't think they read what you think they should make and slap the forehead and say "Whoa, why didn't we think of that?" And who said better sound is not available at any cost? No fanboy accusations. If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, feel free to ignore it. I don't argue at all that Emotiva knows their market and is highly successful in the consumer-segment that they target. For some products, I'm in that segment, others not. I don't expect Emotiva to take any of my ideas to heart, nor do I suspect that I'm saying anything new. It is a free country, and I do sometimes like to state my opinions. But they're only that - MY opinions. Feel free to ignore them if you disagree (or to express your own). Mr. Levkof says I've misquoted him in saying that better sound is not possible at higher cost. So be it.  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 6, 2016 15:45:25 GMT -5
A nice streamer external solution would be nice. But to be honest I don't see it selling for this reason. How much of Emotiva's audience have a network solution with a hard drive? I'm sure a good many of us do. But that's those on this forum, just a tiny fraction of the market that Emotiva deals with. I think it will sell and will be very useful for a lot of people but will it sell well enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 6, 2016 15:47:32 GMT -5
So now we have the dreaded fanboy moniker rearing it's head I see. Is that some kind of insult or were you using the complimentary form? Emotiva has been doing this a long time. They know their market and have probably thought of hundreds if not thousands of things to build. With all due respect, I don't think they read what you think they should make and slap the forehead and say "Whoa, why didn't we think of that?" And who said better sound is not available at any cost? No fanboy accusations. If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, feel free to ignore it. I don't argue at all that Emotiva knows their market and is highly successful in the consumer-segment that they target. For some products, I'm in that segment, others not. I don't expect Emotiva to take any of my ideas to heart, nor do I suspect that I'm saying anything new. It is a free country, and I do sometimes like to state my opinions. But they're only that - MY opinions. Feel free to ignore them if you disagree (or to express your own). Mr. Levkof says I've misquoted him in saying that better sound is not possible at higher cost. So be it. You're the one that threw the fanboy label out there. You must have been referring to someone here... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 15:48:05 GMT -5
I think the majority of listeners under the age of 30 probably have HDD based audio sources. But, as always, I could be wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 6, 2016 15:51:13 GMT -5
Whom I think of as a fanboy and whom others might (or might not) isn't a topic that will be productive. Rather than incite rancor for no good reason, I'll withdraw the comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 6, 2016 15:52:28 GMT -5
I think the majority of listeners under the age of 30 probably have HDD based audio sources. But, as always, I could be wrong... I think the majority of listeners in that age group have smartphone sources. Hence the rise in popularity of units that plug directly in to smartphones or play from bluetooth (Eww! But it works though! ). The ones that do have an HDD based source may likely be listening to it directly off their computer not a network enabled external hard drive setup. Now what would make some sense is if they offered a network streamer that also did everything else like hulu, netflix spotify, tidal. Then they also offered a large internal storage space for music. This is similar to the workings of a playstation three - except the playstation tended to not rip lossless. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 16:16:15 GMT -5
I think you've brought up an interesting point...... Which is: "Who uses what type of streaming?" Streaming from the Internet (like Hulu or Spotify) is very different than streaming over your own network - and has very different requirements. Personally, I have a small home, so I have one computer, directly connected to a USB hard drive - which works very well. I also don't do much music streaming, but that same computer is connected to the Internet for when I do - which also works well. You can also have a network attached drive, or a drive connected to one computer, which is then SHARED across the network. In both of those cases, while you may access that drive from multiple computers on your network, no streaming is required. Each computer accesses the drive separately; the drive acts as a FILE SERVER but doesn't stream audio TO anywhere. A player program on each computer grabs the files and plays them; you can even use different players on different computers. And, on this sort of setup, the client program controls playback - so you can set it to use a large buffer, or even to get the entire song before starting to play it. The only real "downside" to this setup is that each computer is separate - you cannot synch music playing in multiple rooms. And, if you wanted to use a streaming service with this setup, you might need multiple licenses - because the client would be running on EACH computer. But, if you set it up right, it should never have dropout issues. It's only when you want to have a central streaming server that is SENDING music to client devices (usually using DLNA) that you usually have network and dropout problems. (But, if anyone wants to continue this, let's start another thread.... nobody would find this from the Thread title.) I think the majority of listeners under the age of 30 probably have HDD based audio sources. But, as always, I could be wrong... I think the majority of listeners in that age group have smartphone sources. Hence the rise in popularity of units that plug directly in to smartphones or play from bluetooth (Eww! But it works though! ). The ones that do have an HDD based source may likely be listening to it directly off their computer not a network enabled external hard drive setup. Now what would make some sense is if they offered a network streamer that also did everything else like hulu, netflix spotify, tidal. Then they also offered a large internal storage space for music. This is similar to the workings of a playstation three - except the playstation tended to not rip lossless. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 6, 2016 16:19:25 GMT -5
I agree - that's what most people want in a streamer - and there are quite a few out there. However, that sort of product is not a great fit for Emotiva. It's very software intensive, with multiple clients, each of which has to be kept updated, and which can have compatibility issues. And, on top of that, the device itself is really a computer - which isn't really our specialty. You're looking at something more like a Raspberry Pi running XBMC or something like that. (And I'll bet someone has a Bluetooth adapter for it.) I think the majority of listeners under the age of 30 probably have HDD based audio sources. But, as always, I could be wrong... I think the majority of listeners in that age group have smartphone sources. Hence the rise in popularity of units that plug directly in to smartphones or play from bluetooth (Eww! But it works though! ). The ones that do have an HDD based source may likely be listening to it directly off their computer not a network enabled external hard drive setup. Now what would make some sense is if they offered a network streamer that also did everything else like hulu, netflix spotify, tidal. Then they also offered a large internal storage space for music. This is similar to the workings of a playstation three - except the playstation tended to not rip lossless. |
|
