|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 3, 2018 18:48:49 GMT -5
Neutral isn't always a good thing. I would think that depends on what you like. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Sept 3, 2018 19:01:59 GMT -5
I would think that depends on what you like. Agreed. I think it also could depend on the amp and/or speakers. I had a Rotel RC-1082 that I characterized as 'bright'. It was OK (but only OK) with my AR90s using an XPA-2 G2 (which I found to be a tad bright on the top end) but only because I had attenuation switches on the speakers and had to tame the tweeter and upper mid. It was better using an SA250 amp. When I put the Rotel and XPA-2 on some Bose 901 series 6 it was a good match. No other pre/amp combo worked well with those speakers; and there were many iterations. (I found this out too late. I hooked this gear up for a sales demo. But I like my series_II 901s better)
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 4, 2018 10:59:26 GMT -5
Good point.... and it leads to an interesting question:
When you listen to a recording of your favorite band: Do you want it to sound like you're sitting in in the studio or concert hall where they originally performed it? Or do you want it so sound like the band is playing in your living room?
Or, third option, do you want it to sound like the studio where the recording was mixed and mastered? And note that, in some cases, especially with modern multi-track recordings, the third option may be the only one you get.
(With some multi-track recordings, the different tracks may have been recorded at different times, in different places, or even created electronically, or so altered that there is no putative "original".)
However, the answer to your second question is easy....... If the final mix has gone through tube equipment along the way, then I want my system to reproduce THAT sound as accurately as possible. And, for that matter, if the recording engineer is a vinyl fan, then he or she should record it to vinyl, play it back using their favorite vinyl playback equipment, and then give me an accurate recording of THAT.
Everything that happens before the master is created is part of the music PRODUCTION.
Therefore, by definition, if the artist, producer, and recording engineer like the way it sounds, then it's "right". But, when I play it back, the job of my system is to REPRODUCE it exactly as they intended it to sound. Therefore, rather than add any sort of sound of its own, I want it to be as neutral as possible.
I tend to WANT to hear the recording as the performer, the recording engineer, and the mix engineer... Wouldn't that require a trip to the specific mastering room with it's electronics and acoustics? What if the final version the artist and engineers love had tube amps in the chain? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 4, 2018 11:21:17 GMT -5
It also depends on your philosophical outlook.
Do you see yourself as part of the PRODUCTION process, or as a passive observer?
When I listen to music, I generally consider myself to be an observer, listening to music that has been produced by others. I am not one of the musicians, nor am I the mixing engineer... I am one of the audience.
Therefore, I would no more be inclined to change the way the music sounds than I would be to whip out my paintbrush and adjust a Rembrandt to match the colors I happen to like. (I'm not fond of Rembrandt.... so I tend not to spend much time looking at them. And, likewise, I tend to spend very little time listening to bands whose albums I don't like the sound of.)
On the rare occasions when I decide to actively participate - and actively alter the way a certain piece of music sounds... I have a wide array of post-production tools I can use to do so... With a really remarkable range of choices and options... For example, for altering dynamics, and adding some second harmonics, I very much like the Izotope Ozone mastering suite... (you can try it yourself; they have a free trial).
Therefore, it's most unlikely I'm going to find a single specific piece of hardware that "makes everything I run through it sound better to me"...
Neutral isn't always a good thing. I would think that depends on what you like. |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Sept 4, 2018 11:21:27 GMT -5
@keithl
The only problem with your assumption that I should want to hear exactly what the recording studio put down, is that some very enjoyable music is mastered like crap in the studio (I’m talking to you 80s music when CDs were new).
I have many CDs from my weekly trips to the record store when I was in high school and college that sounded great and fun on my crappy gear back then. When I use good modern equipment (Usp-1, Upa-200 at one time) it is not enjoyable because the fidelity of the equipment exposes what my meager sears system never did.
In these cases I find a little (tube) distortion makes these old recording sound much better then straight wire with gain. They round off the glare and make the music more enjoyable not more accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Sept 4, 2018 11:26:48 GMT -5
@keithl The only problem with your assumption that I should want to hear exactly what the recording studio put down, is that some very enjoyable music is mastered like crap in the studio (I’m talking to you 80s music when CDs were new). I have many CDs from my weekly trips to the record store when I was in high school and college that sounded great and fun on my crappy gear back then. When I use good modern equipment (Usp-1, Upa-200 at one time) it is not enjoyable because the fidelity of the equipment exposes what my meager sears system never did. In these cases I find a little (tube) distortion makes these old recording sound much better then straight wire with gain. They round off the glare and make the music more enjoyable not more accurate. I know exactly the CDs you speak of and I find them unlistenable so I run those CDs thru a modded tube buffer and it takes the 'edge' off. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 4, 2018 11:36:13 GMT -5
Good point.... and it leads to an interesting question: When you listen to a recording of your favorite band: Do you want it to sound like you're sitting in in the studio or concert hall where they originally performed it? Or do you want it so sound like the band is playing in your living room?
Or, third option, do you want it to sound like the studio where the recording was mixed and mastered? For me it would be option 1 - me sitting in the concert hall/venue it was originally performed. Barring that, I would want option 2 - playing in my living room. For most of my time listening I've been mainly hearing option 2 - band in the living room option. But now with the addition of the XPA-1 gen 2, I can get closer to option 1. Transport the venue itself into the living room, or more ideally make the living room into the venue which is a bit tougher but sometimes when the moon was right, I find myself in another place aurally. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 4, 2018 11:50:36 GMT -5
So can we agreed that boxless speakers are more accurate than boxed speakers? Which one has the potential to greatly colour the sound? 🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Sept 4, 2018 12:46:30 GMT -5
keith Many of the orchestral recordings I love are brittle sounding so I don't fit into any of the three categories you posed. I tend to like a system that smooths things out and has an easy going upper midrange. So, I guess I fit into the category of those who like some color or manipulation but I still come back to my points that "accurate" and "reference" are unachievable unless sitting at the mixing or master board.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 4, 2018 13:42:46 GMT -5
I would tend to disagree there.
Both have the ability to color the sound but, with both, it will depend on how well they're designed, and the intent of the designer. Boxless speakers are also more heavily influenced by the sound of your particular room. To many people this makes them sound "more open and less box-like"..... however, that's not the same as saying that they won't color the sound at all. (And it also makes them more sensitive to room placement.)
I would say that boxless speakers are far less prone to certain types of coloration that are typical of some box-type speakers. However, they are also prone to imparting their own form of coloration. Small mini-monitors rarely deliver the open spacious sound of a panel speaker; but panel speakers rarely deliver the detailed pin-point imaging I get from a mini-monitor either.
(Boxless speakers tend to make everything sound open and airy - even when the original DIDN'T sound that way.) Therefore, I would say that each is better suited to certain types of music, and certain styles of recordings, and less well suited to others.
So can we agreed that boxless speakers are more accurate than boxed speakers? Which one has the potential to greatly colour the sound? 🤔 |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 4, 2018 13:49:08 GMT -5
Not at all unreasonable. However, in that situation, I would rather edit the digital file, using software that gives me very precise control, then play it on equipment that delivers my carefully edited version accurately. To me, running everything through a tube buffer that smooths it out would make about as much sense as using an equalizer with all the knobs glued into a single position.
It would have little chance of making exactly the correction I would like more than a small percentage of the time. I'd rather be able to adjust things to my exact liking for each individual track.
If I want to play recording engineer, it isn't that difficult, or that expensive, to do it properly.
There is a bit of a learning curve, but I think the results are worth it. (And, to put it bluntly, a copy of Izotope Ozone mastering suite, and a cheap host DAW, still costs less than most tube preamps - and is FAR more versatile.)
keith Many of the orchestral recordings I love are brittle sounding so I don't fit into any of the three categories you posed. I tend to like a system that smooths things out and has an easy going upper midrange. So, I guess I fit into the category of those who like some color or manipulation but I still come back to my points that "accurate" and "reference" are unachievable unless sitting at the mixing or master board. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 5, 2018 14:35:16 GMT -5
Those of us fortunate enough to have been AT THE RECORDING VENUE when the recording was actually made have great advantage over those who are limited to commercial recordings. garbulky has this advantage with his home recordings made in his own living room. I have a few recordings of my daughter and her string quartet playing in the living room of our previous house. And I'm also fortunate enough to have heard multiple recitals live in the LSU School of Music Auditorium, and then to have recordings of those recitals on the Centaur label. My "references" aren't as good as Garbulky's, but since I was there at the time of the recording, I can hear the (familiar) acoustics of the LSU Auditorium in many of my Centaur recordings. Could someone not familiar with that auditorium be able to hear what I do? Probably not - they'd just hear a really clean recording of a soloist in a warm acoustic space. But I couldn't possibly tell you what venue even a live recording was made in without being familiar with the source location. |
|
|
|
Post by supernova on Oct 1, 2018 17:21:51 GMT -5
This thread very interesting and I have been considering the XSP 1 Gen 2 and Freya for a while. With regards to coloration of sound, for my personal preference I want the equipment to get out of the way as much as possible and hear what the speakers transducers have to offer because, to me, that's what will make the biggest difference. I also want the noise floor to very low as any sort of hum will bother me to no end.
I am getting ready to build a pair of Jim Holtz and Curt Campbell Statment II's. Once I get the design figured out in my CAD software (I am learning it) I'll be closer to making a decision.
Whatever I decide on, I'll be using it with a Benchmark AHB2. However the pre amplifier is a difficult thing for me to decide on as I have no way to audition one because of where I live, so I have to read the experiences of others and look at measurements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 1, 2018 18:22:25 GMT -5
This thread very interesting and I have been considering the XSP 1 Gen 2 and Freya for a while. With regards to coloration of sound, for my personal preference I want the equipment to get out of the way as much as possible and hear what the speakers transducers have to offer because, to me, that's what will make the biggest difference. I also want the noise floor to very low as any sort of hum will bother me to no end. I am getting ready to build a pair of Jim Holtz and Curt Campbell Statment II's. Once I get the design figured out in my CAD software (I am learning it) I'll be closer to making a decision. Whatever I decide on, I'll be using it with a Benchmark AHB2. However the pre amplifier is a difficult thing for me to decide on as I have no way to audition one because of where I live, so I have to read the experiences of others and look at measurements. Noise floor wise the XSP-1 in my system has no audible noise floor, it's silent, absolutely silent. Keeping in mind that it runs fully balanced, discrete, with XLR interconnects to maintain the internal noise rejection of the differential circuitry (ERC-3, XSP-1 and XPA-1L's). The XPA-1L monoblocks are located close by their respective speaker with long XLR balanced interconnects and very short speaker cables. I run my FL & FR full range (which also maintains the discrete circuitry through the XSP-1) and blend in the sub as they roll off (around 60 hz works for me). My view, and it’s only my view, is that XSP-1’s really shine when the rest of the system is there to support their advantages. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Apr 20, 2019 21:47:43 GMT -5
I’ve had both of these, and neither comes close to my VTA SP14. But does the VTA SP14 have a phono section (in the same enclosure)? |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Apr 21, 2019 0:07:08 GMT -5
I've just got to comment.... because of the way that you worded your thoughts. ("The Schiit Freya has the advantage of using tubes.... to color the listening a bit.......") Why would coloring the audio, rather than presenting it accurately, just the way it was recorded, be "an advantage"?
More to the point, have you actually heard the sort of coloration tubes make, and decided that you actually like it.... or are you simply assuming, for some other less obvious reason, that it's a good thing?
With a few notable exceptions, most audiophiles strive to minimize coloration, rather than the other way around  And, yes, I would expect the XSP-1 to sound a lot better... including the phono section.
(Although, in all fairness, I have not heard the Freya.)
Hi everyone - this is my first post! Does anyone have thoughts on the XSP-1 v. the Schiit Freya pre-amp? I have a great 7.2.4 home theater setup now, but am attempting to go to two channel, stereo listening only using my two front channels. Eventually, my two channel system would be: A Phono - Cambridge Audio CXN Streamer - Reference CD player (Source) Either Schiit Preamp or XSP-1 (Preamp) to Anthem P2 w/ balanced inputs (Amplifier) to the Def Tech 8080ST in stereo. (Speakers - which I might upgrade to something better down the road) The emotiva has the advantage of dedicated HT passthrough, plus dual sub control, and finally a phono input, but it costs $500 more. The schiit has the advantage of using tubes in the preamp stage to color the listening a bit and have that tube/ analog sound to it and costs less. Does anyone have a recommendation on which Preamp might be a better option, or has anyone used both products to say which one might be the better option? Wow you guys all make me laugh. Way much to do about nothing frankly. Way easier than all the monkey motion here. The 2 Preamplifiers have 2 different missions. Anyones bias is plain silly. Vanilla Ice Cream and Chocolate. Mustang vs. Camaro. Solid State vs. Tube. Tubes are far from linear beasts so they color sound, part of their charm. Solid State is very linear in comparison. Both will please millions. If accuracy of response is key to you Solid State wins hands down. Not going to talk about personal bias quite yet. Do you think a Rock Guitar will be the same on Solid State? Hell no. Well both have their purposes in life and the conquest of sound has little to do with what you will like anyway no matter what anyone here says. Tubes by their nature perform some audio F--ckery to the sound. People fight for that by rolling tubes to get the sound they want. Solid State for the most part is flat response Sammy like my old Astronomy Teacher Mr. Prescott. Ruler flat response and no f--ckery of the sound much usually. You have to be the one to dig either. Trying them out is outright fun. You can't hurt anything. The XSP-1 is an awesome Preamplifier. Honest for days. But for some, "soulless". Tubes will bring that to them. Will cats and dogs rain in your cornflakes if you love either? Nope! You will select the one you like the best. The Freya is real good in its mission of life. Punches in way above its weight class. Just don't expect it to kill the finest in "Tubery". To have someone tell you what to do and tell you what you to expect only goes so far. Now Schiit does have a 5% transaction if you don't think it is the life of the party and want to send it back. So that is what it will cost to try it. We all tend to go with our gut what we like beyond all the data. You will too. Don't get wrapped up too much in this. Audio is like trying new foods. You will know what tastes great and what won't. I wish you a great listen either way you go. Cheers! P.s. Please let us know how you get along. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 21, 2019 6:42:18 GMT -5
Just fyi -
Schiit's restocking fee is 15%, not 5%.
|
|
|
|
Post by pmctexas on Apr 21, 2019 8:11:51 GMT -5
I had Gen 1 XSP and now Freya. I found both sounded excellent in my system. If it matters ergo is much better on the XSP (remote, power switch, displays, etc). Overall easier to live with on a daily basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Apr 21, 2019 8:16:43 GMT -5
Tubes vs Solid State : Some tubes are very linear, more so than solid state, especially in preamps that use low power devices. Tube amps typically have more distortion products than SS. This is true for two reasons. 1) Tubes are hard to compensate with feedback. 2)Many tube amps are single ended designs whereas single ended SS amps are almost non existent. Single ended designs, whether tube or SS have higher even order harmonic distortion than push pull designs which cancel out even harmonics as a result of the circuit architecture. Feedback is responsible for the low distortion and flat measurement of SS amplifiers and it is also responsible for a certain perceived deadness or lack of liveliness to the sound. There are of course exceptions to these generalities, but great expense is usually required to get performance beyond the ordinary with either SS or tube products.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 22, 2019 5:57:58 GMT -5
mgbpuff, with all those failures, why keep returning to Emotiva? Was it bad capacitors?
|
|
