|
|
Post by sanjaygolf on Apr 14, 2010 11:11:46 GMT -5
The XDA external DAC will be better than what's in the UMC and most likely better than what's in the XMC.
|
|
|
|
Post by UT-Driven on Apr 14, 2010 12:11:03 GMT -5
So, if I were happy with the UMC or future XMC DAC, then I wouldn't need to buy this new upcoming DAC since my computer has a digital out? Yes. If you are happy with the UMC-1 or XMC-1, you can use the digital inputs and won't need the DAC. Doug |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 15, 2010 0:36:00 GMT -5
So, if I were happy with the UMC or future XMC DAC, then I wouldn't need to buy this new upcoming DAC since my computer has a digital out? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by funboy on Apr 15, 2010 9:57:32 GMT -5
Thanks for your straightforward answer guys - I was afraid the digital out on the computer wouldn't be audiophile approved and a USB connection to the DAC was a must. I suppose now I have time to save up for the XMC...
|
|
|
|
Post by frankv on Apr 15, 2010 13:41:01 GMT -5
Lonnie,
Aside from a release guesstimate, I'd like to find out more re: the implementation of the headphone amp. I'm not really expecting too much in terms of sound quality, I'm more concerned about potential degradation of the analog output signal (as the headphone circuitry may be adding interference).
Regards,
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by orangeLollies on Apr 17, 2010 2:56:34 GMT -5
"Theoretically" optical should be superior for digital signals, as it is a true digital medium. Light is either on or off.... there's no in between. So yeah, optical is the way to go ....theoretically  Optical and coax can both send one's and zeros. If you want to argue which is better, it depends on the quality of the transceivers. In consumer audio, I would argue fewer 1's or 0's are wrong with coax digital because the vast majority of optical implementations are done with the cheapest transceivers and optical cables possible, and the business of data transfer over wires has many more years of refinement and much lower total cost for a decent quality implementation. Hi Bill, fair call ...I guess my statement was based on the actual method used to pass the 1s and 0s over a medium. To my knowledge I thought if you were to view the optical and coax on a scope, the optical would show a perect square wave, whereas the coax (electircal signal) will show ramps and slight distortions in the wave pattern. Hense my 'true digital medium' statement. If what I'm saying is incorrect, please let me know, as I will have to do some more study to clear up my mis-information  In saying that, I guess computers move one's and zero's around all over the shop using electrical signals, so in hindsight, the 'normalsation' (if that's the correct term) of a electrical digital signal is obviously very well developed, as you have stated... Although I do believe, with optical you can carry a digital signal much further, as it is not as prone to degredation and interferance as an electrical signal... Keen to hear more of your thoughts... ;D cheers Shane |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Ben on Apr 17, 2010 8:14:26 GMT -5
Optical and coax can both send one's and zeros. If you want to argue which is better, it depends on the quality of the transceivers. In consumer audio, I would argue fewer 1's or 0's are wrong with coax digital because the vast majority of optical implementations are done with the cheapest transceivers and optical cables possible, and the business of data transfer over wires has many more years of refinement and much lower total cost for a decent quality implementation. Hi Bill, fair call ...I guess my statement was based on the actual method used to pass the 1s and 0s over a medium. To my knowledge I thought if you were to view the optical and coax on a scope, the optical would show a perect square wave, whereas the coax (electircal signal) will show ramps and slight distortions in the wave pattern. Hense my 'true digital medium' statement. If what I'm saying is incorrect, please let me know, as I will have to do some more study to clear up my mis-information In saying that, I guess computers move one's and zero's around all over the shop using electrical signals, so in hindsight, the 'normalsation' (if that's the correct term) of a electrical digital signal is obviously very well developed, as you have stated... Although I do believe, with optical you can carry a digital signal much further, as it is not as prone to degredation and interferance as an electrical signal... Keen to hear more of your thoughts... ;D cheers Shane Optical cables require additional circuitry to convert the electrical signal into optical, and back, which the coax signal doesn't have to go through. The signal in a long optical cable can degrade like in coax too. Assuming both are implemented correctly, there's probably not any difference, but I prefer to use coax when it's available. |
|
|
|
Post by RuggSkins on Apr 17, 2010 12:56:25 GMT -5
The XDA external DAC will be better than what's in the UMC and most likely better than what's in the XMC. Says who? |
|
|
|
Post by Glenee on Apr 19, 2010 15:17:11 GMT -5
Any early info on the Guts of this thing ? What type Dac ? Is it going to be 24/192 VIA USB ?
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by UT-Driven on Apr 19, 2010 15:28:51 GMT -5
Any early info on the Guts of this thing ? What type Dac ? Is it going to be 24/192 VIA USB ? Just curious. There is a great deal of information on this product here: emonatics.com/XDA-1.shtmlThe site is ran by forum user BillBauman and the information is gleaned from the forums and news, etc... from the emotiva.com site. Doug |
|
|
|
Post by Glenee on Apr 19, 2010 17:02:57 GMT -5
Thanks Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on Apr 19, 2010 19:35:51 GMT -5
Bill Bauman,
I plan to add a XDA -1 using my existing ERC-1 as a transport.
As this will be the only source for this system, should I remove the pre-amp and use the DAC's volume control in it's place ?
( I never use any of my pre- amp's controls other than volume )
Thanks, Maurice
|
|
|
|
Post by jlafrenz on Apr 19, 2010 22:12:46 GMT -5
Bill Bauman, I plan to add a XDA -1 using my existing ERC-1 as a transport. As this will be the only source for this system, should I remove the pre-amp and use the DAC's volume control in it's place ? ( I never use any of my pre- amp's controls other than volume ) Thanks, Maurice If this is the only gear you will have then there wouldn't be a real need for a pre/pro in this situation. So removing it wouldn't be a bad idea. One less piece in the signal path. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 20, 2010 3:48:56 GMT -5
Bill Bauman, I plan to add a XDA -1 using my existing ERC-1 as a transport. As this will be the only source for this system, should I remove the pre-amp and use the DAC's volume control in it's place ? ( I never use any of my pre- amp's controls other than volume ) Thanks, Maurice If this is the only gear you will have then there wouldn't be a real need for a pre/pro in this situation. So removing it wouldn't be a bad idea. One less piece in the signal path. But on the other hand, analogue volume control is supposed to be superior over digital control. This is why the Benchmark DAC1 HDR (DAC with remote and motorized volume control) is known to be a very good solution, though more expensive than Emotiva's XDA-1. Here's the link: www.benchmarkmedia.com/system1/digital-analog-converter/dac1-hdrI thought about buying it, but decided to wait for the XDA-1, which I will try as a standalone DAC-PRE, but I will probably add the XSP-1 later anyway. Will stiil be cheaper together than the Benchmark, look neater with the rest of the gear and gives more possibilities (I may want to add my turntable). All we need after this, would be a 1RU DAB/FM/internet radio tuner! presuming the XSP will be 2RU. |
|
|
|
Post by jlafrenz on Apr 20, 2010 8:57:08 GMT -5
If this is the only gear you will have then there wouldn't be a real need for a pre/pro in this situation. So removing it wouldn't be a bad idea. One less piece in the signal path. But on the other hand, analogue volume control is supposed to be superior over digital control. This is why the Benchmark DAC1 HDR (DAC with remote and motorized volume control) is known to be a very good solution, though more expensive than Emotiva's XDA-1. Here's the link: www.benchmarkmedia.com/system1/digital-analog-converter/dac1-hdrI thought about buying it, but decided to wait for the XDA-1, which I will try as a standalone DAC-PRE, but I will probably add the XSP-1 later anyway. Will stiil be cheaper together than the Benchmark, look neater with the rest of the gear and gives more possibilities (I may want to add my turntable). All we need after this, would be a 1RU DAB/FM/internet radio tuner! presuming the XSP will be 2RU. Well in that case, let your ears decide. Hook it up both ways and see what you prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 20, 2010 15:51:19 GMT -5
...But on the other hand, analogue volume control is supposed to be superior over digital control.... FYI, for the Emotiva XDA-1, the digital volume control modifies the attenuator on the analog side of the DAC, so you should get the full dynamic range at low volumes using the built-in volume control. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 20, 2010 18:48:39 GMT -5
Optical and coax can both send one's and zeros. If you want to argue which is better, it depends on the quality of the transceivers. In consumer audio, I would argue fewer 1's or 0's are wrong with coax digital because the vast majority of optical implementations are done with the cheapest transceivers and optical cables possible, and the business of data transfer over wires has many more years of refinement and much lower total cost for a decent quality implementation. Hi Bill, fair call ...I guess my statement was based on the actual method used to pass the 1s and 0s over a medium. To my knowledge I thought if you were to view the optical and coax on a scope, the optical would show a perect square wave, whereas the coax (electircal signal) will show ramps and slight distortions in the wave pattern. Hense my 'true digital medium' statement. If what I'm saying is incorrect, please let me know, as I will have to do some more study to clear up my mis-information In saying that, I guess computers move one's and zero's around all over the shop using electrical signals, so in hindsight, the 'normalsation' (if that's the correct term) of a electrical digital signal is obviously very well developed, as you have stated... Although I do believe, with optical you can carry a digital signal much further, as it is not as prone to degredation and interferance as an electrical signal... Keen to hear more of your thoughts... ;D cheers Shane Wow, Shane, you've really gotten into this!  So, here's the thing, as with all things, I can prove it to you either way with math, and the answer is, it depends. It mostly depends on the quality of your equipment. Essentially, optical is going to have the greater range of bad to good. The best optical is the best there is, and the worst optical is far worse than the worst copper. If you copper isn't up to snuff, it can still get things right mostly. If your optical is subpar, you're probably dead. So, when you put it in terms of scoping it, if you're using a high quality optical receiver and medium, then it will look quite crisp, perfect on, perfect off. But, what if you have a low-cost laser that isn't quick on the switch? You could end up bleeding light when it's supposed to be off because the laser is still cooling its jets from the last time it was on. Or, if you have a low quality cable, or connector, you could have light spilling all over the place or bouncing back at you or just bouncing up and down between two small segments of the optical cable. In terms of coax/copper, it's much more rugged. Of course, it can't possibly achieve the distances that high-quality optical ultimately can, but are you seriously interconnecting your DAC over 10,000 kilometers? I mean, I'd love to see the setup and all, but... ;D So, back to your scope, yes, you could see softness to the rigidity of the ones and zeroes. Copper isn't on/off, it's high/low. High is 1, low is 0. But, most of the time, we can tell if the signal should have been high or low, even if it wasn't perfectly peaked or valleyed (look, I made up a new adjectival form of valley!). Back to the actual implementation, the question is, what are you doing with it? For our purposes, consumer electronics, the coax/copper solution works, in general, better than the optical. The optical is going to use the cheapest plastic-based optical cable the industry standards body can find along with the cheapest light sources they can ratify. It's all about cost. Rising and falling that coaxial digital signal is pretty easy now, even on plane old copper wire pairs getting stomped on in the living room by the kids playing McTendo's latest Sonic adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Apr 20, 2010 18:51:32 GMT -5
Bill Bauman, I plan to add a XDA -1 using my existing ERC-1 as a transport. As this will be the only source for this system, should I remove the pre-amp and use the DAC's volume control in it's place ? ( I never use any of my pre- amp's controls other than volume ) Thanks, Maurice Maurice, I think a few others have given some good answers to this already. But, yes, I would remove the preamps. I'm planning to add a little piece on this to the Emonatics page, but I consider the XDA-1 to be a "Digital Preamp". It has 4 digital inputs, volume attenuation, and apparently, a killer analog output stage. From that perspective, if a secondary, analog preamp can be avoided, then it should. If the thing had an HT bypass, it would be the perfect Digital Pre. Well, nothing's perfect, but you get the idea. According to Lonnie, this thing sounds incredible direct-connected to an amp, and I can't wait to test that out myself. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Apr 21, 2010 4:04:55 GMT -5
...But on the other hand, analogue volume control is supposed to be superior over digital control.... FYI, for the Emotiva XDA-1, the digital volume control modifies the attenuator on the analog side of the DAC, so you should get the full dynamic range at low volumes using the built-in volume control. Really want XDA-1 soon! |
|
|
|
Post by phyzar on Apr 21, 2010 4:59:36 GMT -5
Hi together, a quick question to Lonnie: In the webcast you mentioned, there will be "Burr Brown buffers coming out of the DAC" with a dual differential layout. So my question: Do you use OPA1632 for the I/V stage, followed by VAS and Output Darlington stages? To the digital volume attenuator: I will not use it, if you attenuate a signal in the beginning of the chain (in that case in the DAC) you will most likely not get the best results. I will buy a balanced stepped attenuator (~60$ at ebay) cut and solder a balanced cable to it and connect the DAC directly to my UPA-1´s. IMHO that will be a nice solution, even if it´s not that convenient. But it´s all about sound, isn´t it Thanks in advace, Wieland |
|
So, here's the thing, as with all things, I can prove it to you either way with math, and the answer is, it depends. It mostly depends on the quality of your equipment.
