WOAH. I just saw the report. It measures better than the XSP-1!!!
Originally Posted by kbarnes701
I applaud Emotiva for publishing that 90 page Audio Precision report. I hope someone with a technical background will be able to comment on the most important parts of it. I have had a quick look and as far as I am able to understand, all the relevant parameters seem to be covered. I have already seen one comment elsewhere along the lines of "Wow! Look at that SNR rating" when indeed the SNR was very good, but as it was also well beyond the threshold of human audibility, in reality it is no better than any other unit which has a decent SNR.
How is this possible? Did they screw up the XSP-1 or is their (new?) AP unit now less of a bottleneck?
How can a digital processor beat a device that only has 2-channels in pure analog? How can they ADD stuff to the signal path and get BETTER RESULTS? Something isn't right here...
They are either lying about the XMC-1's performance or the AP unit is broken or they fixed a (IMO) MAJOR defect of the XSP-1 inside the XMC-1 analog path!
The scaling on the charts are different so it makes it hard to compare, but the XSP-1 has a better impulse and frequency response profile but 10db more noise and 20degrees worse phase than the XMC-1 in their analog modes; and in the digital mode of the XMC-1 they measure nearly the same.
That said, I am happy
to see that they are only -0.1db @ 5hz, that's awesome.
If these AP charts are true, then I can now replace my CleanBoxes and get to a proper 3hz on the LFE and surround channels!!!
Not only that but I don't think ANYONE will be complaining of it's lack of SQ, and I can replace my XSP-1 altogether with this thing!
That said, I'm a bit disheartened to see that the XSP-1 (their most PURE direct feed device, for which I bought it for) is not so 100% PURE after all!